Final reckoning for Ong
Tomorrow is "D-day" for the MCA's central committee. It will decide on the next course of action in the leadership succession of the party following a no-confidence motion against its president Ong Tee Keat and the rejection of Chua Soi Lek as his deputy by central delegates at last Saturday's EGM.
Stanley Koh (right) talks to Malaysiakini on several critical issues and goings-on surrounding this power tussle and the leadership succession problem currently facing the party.
Malaysiakini: What is likely to take place tomorrow at the central committee meeting?
stanley koh interview 150108 seriousKoh (right): Ong Tee Keat's stepping down is a foregone conclusion and the first order of the day will be the formal tendering of his resignation letter to the central committee. As is the norm, he is likely to address the committee and spell out his reasons for resigning, thanking everyone for the past short year of cooperation and leave the meeting.
The meeting will elect a chairman and the session will continue. They will discuss whether to accept or reject the resignation letter. You may say it's all "wayang kulit" but that is the likely scenario.
There may be a marathon discussion and a fierce debate after the resignation is accepted. Then the next course of action will be consideration of the options available which is must be acceptable on a consensus level.
There were initial doubts that he would resign soon after the results were known?
With hindsight, they were wrong. Knowing his character, Ong could have well requested a resignation letter be drafted on the same day.
NONEHe has too much pride and, of course impulsiveness. It is emotionally devastating to be rejected at the assembly and more importantly, he knew he had to uphold his image as a man of principles.
In the run up to the EGM, Ong mentioned repeatedly he was prepared to quit but not before having given his utmost to fight the causes he wanted.
He may have had afterthoughts (about his resignation) and took the drafted resignation letter along with him (without signing) and went overseas soon after the EGM.
What made the party HQ release a statement the day after the EGM expressing concerns over speculations and interpretations by so-called different quarters?
I feel that was an unnecessary move but on the other hand, certain leaders were already making claims they were qualified and ready to take over, jumping the gun even before the president has sent in his resignation letter.
Perhaps, the prime minister's advice to the party to take heed of the EGM's decisions as the basis to resolve its internal problems served as a catalyst among many to scramble for opportunities again.
The first thing that came to my mind was MCA is a like a big family; akin to an analogy of a very wealthy landlord lying in bed awaiting his imminent death while surrounded by many of his grown up children, scheming and squabbling with each other over the inheritance.
Do you think the central committee should resign along with the president to pave for new party elections?
If at the end of the day, the central committee decides on the option to elect someone from among their own rank, those previously appointed by Ong will have to resign. This includes the appointed central committee members, secretary general, treasurer general...etc.
Does it mean those elected can remain? What about collective accountability and responsibility?
You have raised a very important question. What you have mentioned is the second option. This debate over options has been raging over the past two days and according to news reports, the voices are gathering momentum calling for a new round of party elections particularly among those who wanted to return to active party politics through this democratic process. They included particularly those defeated at the 2008 MCA elections and had been marginalised.
Now coming to your question, I think they should. Look at the facts and the Oct 11 press release by the secretary general. I have a copy with me. One paragraph reads: "The central committee as well as the MCA presidential council holds that the decision (referring to Chua Soi Lek's disciplinary action) was made collectively as a team, and as such we should be accountable as a team."
It will be a paradox and hypocritical if the central committee relegates its collective responsibility and accountability at this juncture. Another point, the EGM overturned the decision of the central committee which meant that whatever decision the central committee had previously taken was wrong and not representative of the interests of the central delegates which is about 50 per cent of the 2,304 central delegates who voted.NONE
Remember, when the disciplinary action against Chua (right) was announced, the central committee claimed it was in the best interests of the party and took in the "views of the central delegates". As it turned out 50 per cent of the delegates voted against it.
So, do you think the call for fresh party election will make any headway?
This is a bit more complicated in the sense that there is a frenzied attempt to create new political alignments of support, forming teams and of course, more horse trading. Naturally, the pro-Ong camp is against holding new party polls.
It is all about posts and positions now. As I have said earlier, those with ministerial posts and enjoying perks will probably not be in favour of fresh party elections. They may risk losing everything.
Does the MCA constitution provide any options to resolve the current predicament?
Whatever provisions provided for in the constitution only indicates a means or a way but there are also other things not mentioned but of paramount importance. Like party reforms and the necessity for greater democratisation and how the public perceives the party leadership. These are more important. Voters are not going to vote for your party based on your constitution, do they?
They look towards the leadership and how those in power tackle problems or resolve a crisis. That is really what the community is interested in. They want to know how their interests are being looked after.
If these leaders are perceived to be focusing on selfishly grabbing power and positions for themselves, as in electing the president and deputy from among themselves, the backlash will inevitably bring down the party and pave way for another crisis in the near future.
Of course, those arguing against another party election will be singing the same old tune, that the party cannot afford another split during a campaign. This is a weak argument.
Has another round of horse trading and lobbying for support started?
Tomorrow, those who had negotiated to back each other up for whatever party posts right down to the secretary general's post would hope to present a strong argument at the meeting against holding another party election. These hopefuls would prefer the central committee elect, from among themselves, the president and deputy president.
What will be the consequences and implications if the central committee rejects the option to hold new elections?
Public opinion of the leadership will be further adversely affected. I have said many times that ordinary Malaysians do not have much respect for the party and how irrelevant it has become. It will once again show talk of reform and the changing of mindset is just empty rhetoric.
I mean, you can argue till the cows come home that the party constitution provides this and that to justify your actions.
One must remember the constitution is cold print in black and white. But how it is used in the spirit and intention with which it was formulated depends very much on political wisdom and foresight.
NONEA participatory democratic process takes place when for example, about 2,307 representatives of central delegates can choose a president and all other party officials.
Whoever loses should have no complaints and the winners are selected by votes, not by a few dozen of partisan leaders looking after their own vested interests and political alignments.
At the moment, the pro-Chua camp does not have the numbers in the central committee. The problem between Ong and Chua will likely continue to prevail like viruses going through another metamorphosis at the grassroots level.
I also don't discount more MCA members defecting to the opposition parties after the dust of this messy situation has settled down. I don't think this will be in the interest of Umno and the BN coalition.
Has Umno's top leadership any influence in the changes in the MCA leadership?
Except several reported open advice from some top Umno leaders, including the prime minister and his deputy, there is much sensitivity against any direct interference. I said, interference but I'm not sure about influence. There are bound to be some hidden hands around.
Who is likely to be the successor to Ong, regardless of the two options mentioned?
It is said that Ong has indicated his preference for Liow Tiong Lai and current speculation is for the Liow-Kong Cho Ha (partnership). Who is going to be president and deputy depends on last minute negotiations.
But again, the reality is that whoever becomes president is subservient to the Barisan Nasional. In short, Umno will prefer MCA to choose its party president through the democratic process rather than a handful of closeted central committee members aligned to factional camps with vested interests.
Source: MalaysiaKini
Tomorrow is "D-day" for the MCA's central committee. It will decide on the next course of action in the leadership succession of the party following a no-confidence motion against its president Ong Tee Keat and the rejection of Chua Soi Lek as his deputy by central delegates at last Saturday's EGM.
Stanley Koh (right) talks to Malaysiakini on several critical issues and goings-on surrounding this power tussle and the leadership succession problem currently facing the party.
Malaysiakini: What is likely to take place tomorrow at the central committee meeting?
stanley koh interview 150108 seriousKoh (right): Ong Tee Keat's stepping down is a foregone conclusion and the first order of the day will be the formal tendering of his resignation letter to the central committee. As is the norm, he is likely to address the committee and spell out his reasons for resigning, thanking everyone for the past short year of cooperation and leave the meeting.
The meeting will elect a chairman and the session will continue. They will discuss whether to accept or reject the resignation letter. You may say it's all "wayang kulit" but that is the likely scenario.
There may be a marathon discussion and a fierce debate after the resignation is accepted. Then the next course of action will be consideration of the options available which is must be acceptable on a consensus level.
There were initial doubts that he would resign soon after the results were known?
With hindsight, they were wrong. Knowing his character, Ong could have well requested a resignation letter be drafted on the same day.
NONEHe has too much pride and, of course impulsiveness. It is emotionally devastating to be rejected at the assembly and more importantly, he knew he had to uphold his image as a man of principles.
In the run up to the EGM, Ong mentioned repeatedly he was prepared to quit but not before having given his utmost to fight the causes he wanted.
He may have had afterthoughts (about his resignation) and took the drafted resignation letter along with him (without signing) and went overseas soon after the EGM.
What made the party HQ release a statement the day after the EGM expressing concerns over speculations and interpretations by so-called different quarters?
I feel that was an unnecessary move but on the other hand, certain leaders were already making claims they were qualified and ready to take over, jumping the gun even before the president has sent in his resignation letter.
Perhaps, the prime minister's advice to the party to take heed of the EGM's decisions as the basis to resolve its internal problems served as a catalyst among many to scramble for opportunities again.
The first thing that came to my mind was MCA is a like a big family; akin to an analogy of a very wealthy landlord lying in bed awaiting his imminent death while surrounded by many of his grown up children, scheming and squabbling with each other over the inheritance.
Do you think the central committee should resign along with the president to pave for new party elections?
If at the end of the day, the central committee decides on the option to elect someone from among their own rank, those previously appointed by Ong will have to resign. This includes the appointed central committee members, secretary general, treasurer general...etc.
Does it mean those elected can remain? What about collective accountability and responsibility?
You have raised a very important question. What you have mentioned is the second option. This debate over options has been raging over the past two days and according to news reports, the voices are gathering momentum calling for a new round of party elections particularly among those who wanted to return to active party politics through this democratic process. They included particularly those defeated at the 2008 MCA elections and had been marginalised.
Now coming to your question, I think they should. Look at the facts and the Oct 11 press release by the secretary general. I have a copy with me. One paragraph reads: "The central committee as well as the MCA presidential council holds that the decision (referring to Chua Soi Lek's disciplinary action) was made collectively as a team, and as such we should be accountable as a team."
It will be a paradox and hypocritical if the central committee relegates its collective responsibility and accountability at this juncture. Another point, the EGM overturned the decision of the central committee which meant that whatever decision the central committee had previously taken was wrong and not representative of the interests of the central delegates which is about 50 per cent of the 2,304 central delegates who voted.NONE
Remember, when the disciplinary action against Chua (right) was announced, the central committee claimed it was in the best interests of the party and took in the "views of the central delegates". As it turned out 50 per cent of the delegates voted against it.
So, do you think the call for fresh party election will make any headway?
This is a bit more complicated in the sense that there is a frenzied attempt to create new political alignments of support, forming teams and of course, more horse trading. Naturally, the pro-Ong camp is against holding new party polls.
It is all about posts and positions now. As I have said earlier, those with ministerial posts and enjoying perks will probably not be in favour of fresh party elections. They may risk losing everything.
Does the MCA constitution provide any options to resolve the current predicament?
Whatever provisions provided for in the constitution only indicates a means or a way but there are also other things not mentioned but of paramount importance. Like party reforms and the necessity for greater democratisation and how the public perceives the party leadership. These are more important. Voters are not going to vote for your party based on your constitution, do they?
They look towards the leadership and how those in power tackle problems or resolve a crisis. That is really what the community is interested in. They want to know how their interests are being looked after.
If these leaders are perceived to be focusing on selfishly grabbing power and positions for themselves, as in electing the president and deputy from among themselves, the backlash will inevitably bring down the party and pave way for another crisis in the near future.
Of course, those arguing against another party election will be singing the same old tune, that the party cannot afford another split during a campaign. This is a weak argument.
Has another round of horse trading and lobbying for support started?
Tomorrow, those who had negotiated to back each other up for whatever party posts right down to the secretary general's post would hope to present a strong argument at the meeting against holding another party election. These hopefuls would prefer the central committee elect, from among themselves, the president and deputy president.
What will be the consequences and implications if the central committee rejects the option to hold new elections?
Public opinion of the leadership will be further adversely affected. I have said many times that ordinary Malaysians do not have much respect for the party and how irrelevant it has become. It will once again show talk of reform and the changing of mindset is just empty rhetoric.
I mean, you can argue till the cows come home that the party constitution provides this and that to justify your actions.
One must remember the constitution is cold print in black and white. But how it is used in the spirit and intention with which it was formulated depends very much on political wisdom and foresight.
NONEA participatory democratic process takes place when for example, about 2,307 representatives of central delegates can choose a president and all other party officials.
Whoever loses should have no complaints and the winners are selected by votes, not by a few dozen of partisan leaders looking after their own vested interests and political alignments.
At the moment, the pro-Chua camp does not have the numbers in the central committee. The problem between Ong and Chua will likely continue to prevail like viruses going through another metamorphosis at the grassroots level.
I also don't discount more MCA members defecting to the opposition parties after the dust of this messy situation has settled down. I don't think this will be in the interest of Umno and the BN coalition.
Has Umno's top leadership any influence in the changes in the MCA leadership?
Except several reported open advice from some top Umno leaders, including the prime minister and his deputy, there is much sensitivity against any direct interference. I said, interference but I'm not sure about influence. There are bound to be some hidden hands around.
Who is likely to be the successor to Ong, regardless of the two options mentioned?
It is said that Ong has indicated his preference for Liow Tiong Lai and current speculation is for the Liow-Kong Cho Ha (partnership). Who is going to be president and deputy depends on last minute negotiations.
But again, the reality is that whoever becomes president is subservient to the Barisan Nasional. In short, Umno will prefer MCA to choose its party president through the democratic process rather than a handful of closeted central committee members aligned to factional camps with vested interests.
Source: MalaysiaKini
Comments
Post a Comment