Tee Keat did not sack Chua

Jackson Ng
3:40PM Oct 11   

I read with interest the two letters posted by Malaysiakini recently.

One was headlined ‘Ong Tee Keat's flagging fortunes his own doing' (Oct 4, 2011, by Tan SA) and the other ‘A case of blind loyalty for present MCA leaders' (Oct 7, 2011, by Sebastian Loon).

Tan SA wrote: "Had Tee Keat not sacked Chua, MCA politics would be totally different now. It was Tee Keat's own doing to start a full-fledged campaign to sack Chua, the then-deputy president ..."

It was not Tee Keat who sacked Chua. It was the party disciplinary board (DB) that recommended Chua's sacking which was endorsed by both the presidential council (PC) and central committee (CC).

To accuse Tee Keat of sacking Chua, just because he was the president, is grossly unfair as it was a democratic decision taken by the PC and CC.

The ultimate ouster of Tee Keat as president is testimony to the fact that he was not in full control of the PC and CC.

Also, the disciplinary matter was left unresolved by former president Ong Ka Ting. It was not an issue created or raised by Tee Keat.

Tan SA also wrote: "During Tee Keat's tenure as MCA chief many unprecedented records were set. He was the first-ever president to lose a vote of confidence in an EGM. He was also the first president to lose a re-election before his term expired. Furthermore, he set a record by holding two EGMs in a span of six months between October 2009 and March 2010. All in all, he left behind a trail of misfortune and misery for MCA."

Tan SA blames Tee Keat for everything that went wrong in MCA. He does not ask who are stirred up the problems in the party.

The facts:

    It was not Tee Keat who initiated or called for the EGMs; The first EGM on Aug 10, 2009, was requisitioned by the delegates spearheaded by Chua to salvage him from being sacked. Ong Ka Ting left the mess behind and he and his lieutenants wanted to give Chua the boot;
    The second EGM on Nov 28, 2009, was aborted by Ong Ka Ting's loyalists who initially wanted to give Tee Keat the boot; and
    The third EGM on March 28, 2010, was engineered by Chua who secured ‘support' from Liow Tiong Lai to betray Tee Keat and to stage a coup d'etat via mass resignations to force fresh party elections sanctioned by Umno cronies looking after their own interests and agenda, especially the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) multi-billion-ringgit financial scandal.

Reading Tan SA's letter, the aim of the story seems to imply that when a person has lost a contest, in this case the presidency of the MCA, he has no right to speak but to opt out of MCA or politics.

Chua has also accused Tee Keat of sacking him. As the current president, he should check the facts or is it more politically convenient for him and his cronies to malign Tee Keat?

I agree with Sebastian Loon that both Chua and Tee Keat are, after all, human and they are therefore capable of many mistakes and wrong decisions.

However, it is the gravity of mistakes that matter. Is there any leader in the world that can claim that he or she did not make mistakes?

Regarding Chua's adulterous scandal, it is only his own doing. If his wife and family approve of his extra marital affairs, it is also their right. It only shows Chua and his family's level of morals.

Just because he has admitted to cheating on his wife does not give him the right to force us to accept him as a community leader.

The Chinese community do have higher moral values than Chua and his family. We have every right to condemn him and not trust him as a community leader. That is different from forgiving him.

I am sure the majority of women disapprove such behaviour. Perhaps not MCA vice-president Ng Yen Yen who would support an adulterer for political position and power.

As far as I am concerned, Tee Keat has been shown to be consistent in the fight against corruption. He was prepared to jeopardise his position in the cabinet to expose the PKFZ scandal.

Already, you can see how Chua's crony MCA secretary-general Kong Cho Ha is treating the PKFZ issue as transport minister.

And while on cronyism, why are MCA central leaders keeping mum on Chua appointing his son to key positions in MCA and its assets?

Why are they dumb on curbing press freedom by seizing total control of The Star? Cronyism was such a big issue during the Ong Ka Ting-Ong Ka Chuan era. Why not now?

As long as Chua keeps his crony supporters happy, the president can do no wrong. That's the way of warlords.



ORIGINAL POSTING MalaysiaKini