The curse in the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA)

‘COMBAT stress’ may be referred to the psychological fallout of war suffered by veterans reporting psychotic nightmares, depression or even suicidal thoughts. But for the 60-year old Chinese-based political party and second largest component in the Barisan Nasional coalition after Umno, the curse of leadership crisis continues to haunt generation after generation of MCA’s succession of party leaders.

The latest political combat between Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, the eighth in line of the party’s leadership lineage and his deputy Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has lent weight to the consensus that the institution founded in 1949, renowned for its welfare activities is now cursed with a trail of vicious internal leadership warfare.

MCA’s history presents a tale of leadership power tussle, thwarted political careers, the intractability of infighting, horse-trading, money politics and battlefields which can only in part earn it a nickname, among others, as the ‘Most Crises Association’.

The first historical crisis of the party happened when Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu took over the presidency from party founder Tan Cheng Lock in 1958.

Dr Lim’s faction clashed with another faction led by Tun Tan Siew Sin over demands to Umno president Tunku Abdul Rahman.

The outcome of the crisis drove Dr Lim and his major supporters from the party. Although Tan Siew Sin was not the preferred presidential candidate in 1958, he became president in 1961 after regaining control of the party assisted by Tunku Abdul Rahman’s patronage.

Inevitably, after the 1959 internal crisis the party was  unable to regain the same level of support it had earlier commanded. The party was severely weakened by the resignations of several top ranking leaders including Dr Lim Chong Eu.

The curse of party leadership intra-fighting recurred during the 1970-1986 period. The 1973 power struggle within the party between the young turks led by Dr Lim Keng Yaik against Tan Siew Sin saw the latter throwing his weight behind Tan Sri Lee San Choon. In 1973, the young turks were either expelled or had resigned from the party with Tun Dr Lim Keng Yaik and his supporters joining Gerakan.

When Tan Siew Sin resigned his position as party president in April 1974 following a major surgery, Lee San Choon took over the leadership.

American author Patrick once said that “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. It should give people, institutions and politicians the necessary courage to implement change.”

Lust for political power can be, to some, the most flagrant of all passions. Or perhaps, to others, power is like a woman you want to stay in bed with forever.

In 1983, another infamous MCA  crisis  broke  out  when Lee San Choon unexpectedly  resigned.  The  Tan  Koon   Swan  versus Tan Sri Dr Neo Yee Pan (acting president) leadership saga only ended in 1985 after a two year acrimonious spectacle involving legal battles in court. Tan Koon Swan was elected as the new president in late 1985 but his short stint ended when he was arrested and convicted of criminal breach of trust related to business practices in Pan-Electric Industries.

Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik then took over and many thought perhaps, the golden days were ahead but how wrong they were. During Ling’s tenure, as the sixth MCA president, two more leadership crises erupted and disfigured the party with ugly sectarianism. The first crisis saw Lee Kim Sai backing out from the presidential fight but the second battle against Datuk Seri Lim Ah Lek proved fatal to Ling when under a peace plan brokered by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, both Ling and Lim were asked to step down from active politics.

Under the peace plan, Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting succeeded Ling and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy was made deputy. For some reasons, Ong and Chan stepped down following the ‘308’ political tsunami.

In the October 2008 party elections, the central delegates planted a ‘karmic seed’ when they voted in lone ranger Ong Tee Keat and inevitably tied him up with his deputy Dr Chua Soi Lek.

The ‘karmic seed’ bloomed into a full groomed internal crisis when Ong shot himself in the foot several times. The year-long political drama culminated in his marginalised target by endorsing a sacking of Chua through a presidential council decision.

Ong shot himself again when the Oct 10 EGM passed a no-confidence vote against him for his poor leadership. If that script was not exciting enough, Ong refused to step down unless the central committee retired with him.

Adding to the messy and quagmire of uncertainty following the EGM, 16 of the central committee members led by newly elected deputy president cum Health Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai sought Ong’s response to the no-confidence motion against him at a central committee meeting held after the EGM.

Facing mounting pressure from the Umno top leadership and from within his own rank, Ong fast-tracked his pre-emptive move with a so-called ‘Greater Unity Plan’. According to rumours, the final negotiation with his chief arch rival Chua Soi Lek took placed in Singapore while Tiong Lai and his core supporters were completely taken by surprise.

A couple of hours before the recent central committee meeting under the pretext of announcing the ‘peace plan’, Ong sacked three of his appointed central committee members in key party posts who are aligned to Liow’s camp including the National Organising Secretary.

But the greatest ‘gift’ from the Registrar of Societies was the reinstatement of Chua as deputy president, knocking out Liow who in MCA’s history has become the shortest serving deputy in the party.

Tellingly, the party is still under the spell of this curse. Liow and his core faction members are pushing for another EGM seeking fresh party elections and seeking another legal recourse to his deputy president’s post.

A year has passed since the Ong-Chua squabble erupted soon after they were elected to their posts. Whether Ong has fulfilled his promises to the party and Chinese community through reforms within remains a fierce debate.

Ong has found himself sharing the same political bed with Chua again. Will their dreams be any different from the very beginning which had ended in a temporary divorce? Will this second opportunity of marriage turn out to be harmonious and cooperative despite Ong’s combative character?

Known for his combative nature, Ong constantly creates public attention for which his critics accused him of putting on a ‘hero’ image.

In 1989, as a member of the National Economic Consultative Council, the Ampang Umno (Selangor) division threatened Ong who was MP for Ampang with a no-confidence motion for questioning the quota system in the local universities.

In 1991, Ong accepted an open debate with DAP Youth chief Lim Guan Eng. In 2001, Ong was reprimanded by the Cabinet for questioning high achievers being denied entry into local varsities. Two years later, Ong was reported to have stood in front of a bulldozer at a stand-off over a demolition exercise of about 100 squatters in the Ampang New Village in his parliamentary constituency.

Perhaps, the more notable ones was when Ong exchanged heated remarks with former Education Minister Hishammuddin Hussein over the repair costs of a Chinese school in Johor and was reprimanded by the Cabinet again.

Interpretatively, Ong’s combative nature is perhaps courage if it is not misplaced. But whether Ong can succeed to bring unity to a party so essentially needed to move forward since its devastating electoral results in March 2008 has yet to be seen.

The challenge is: Should Ong step down if he failed before the next general election? Perhaps, the most pressing question of all might well be: Does the Chinese community really care?

(Comments can reach the writer at paulsir99@hotmail.com)