Sajakkini

James Wong Wing On

A keen observer of Chinese Malaysian politics Phoon Weng Keong continues his analysis on the rise and fall of MCA’s presidents since the 1980s, and compares and contrasts the party’s turbulent history with the seeming stability of Gerakan and MIC. Phoon, however, opines that MCA, despite its many problems, is still relatively more democratic than Umno.

JAMES WONG WING ON is chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia. He is a former DAP member of Parliament for Kampar (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily (now Sin Chew Daily). He read political science and economics at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

Malaysiakini: In a recent public seminar held by Oriental Daily, Yap Pian Hon publicly insinuated that money politics is still widespread in MCA? Is it true? How serious is money politics in MCA?

Phoon: Certainly, money politics exists in MCA but it is not as serious or widespread as in Umno. In this year’s party elections, MCA’s central committee issued a guideline banning candidates from hosting meals for party members and presenting gifts. This shows that money politics has reached a stage where such guidelines are needed. However, if party discipline is still lax, the guidelines are not sufficient to stem the tide of money politics. At the divisional elections this year, money politics is believed to be serious because of keen competition.

Money politics is not always about cash. There are also political promises such as recommendations for royal decorations or appointments as local government officials, hospital inspectors and village chiefs, etc as well as offers for local government construction contracts and other commercial contracts. These promises are used as quid pro quo for votes.

The allegation of phantom members has always been a feature of MCA’s party elections. How true and how serious is this?

Before the commencement of this year’s divisional elections, some members of the Bukit Mertajam division took a legal action in the Penang High Court asking the Registrar of Societies to check the membership list and expunge the ‘names’ of phantom members but the case was rejected on technical grounds.

According to one committee member, the division found, in the first batch of 500 registered names in 2001, 80 percent of the named persons never applied to join MCA. The list contained 6,000 names.

As a matter of fact, (MCA deputy president) Chan Kong Choy was quoted by the New Straits Times on Dec 21, 2001, as questioning the membership list released by the MCA headquarters. Chan revealed that from June to December 2001, MCA’s new members on the list increased by 138,000 or 15 percent of the original number.

According to the list released by the MCA headquarters for the 2005 party elections, there are 1,070,000 names and those who are eligible for voting number 880,4832. These figures probably cannot stand closer scrutiny.

Let us calculate: according to the 2000 population statistics of Malaysia released officially by the government, Chinese Malaysian citizens number 5,692,000. The figure increased to 6,100,000 in 2004. Because there is no MCA in Sarawak, we have to deduct the state’s 600,000 Chinese from the calculation. We have to also deduct about 2,000,000 Chinese Malaysians who are below the age of 18 who are not allowed to join any political parties. So, all those Chinese Malaysians who are eligible to become MCA members only number 3,500,000. It follows that in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah, there is an MCA member in every 3.3 Chinese Malaysians who are 18 and above. This is shocking!

Triads and secret societies are always believed to be power bases for certain individual leaders in MCA. What are your observations?

The belief that MCA has been infiltrated by secret societies and triads is no more a secret. For example, in 2003, MCA Youth chief Ong Tee Keat said he had a list of the personalities of secret societies and triads who are involved in MCA politics and he had also handed the list to the then deputy prime minister (and home minister) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. There were also speculations that President Ong Ka Teng had connections with (local hoodlum) ‘Jacky Chan’. The Malay Mail even published a photograph showing Ong Ka Teng and Jacky Chan posing together. After that, it was Dr Mahathir Mohamad who helped to clear Ong.

MCA is a large and complex organisation. To seek political protection or to whitewash their backgrounds, many local leaders and members of triads or secret societies think it is a good idea to join MCA. Through MCA, they may even obtain business interests.

MCA leaders at all levels may also need the support of these people in raising political funds, campaigning and mobilising. Some of them befriend secret societies or triads to solve local problems for their constituents.

Some MCA members often claim in Chinese-speaking functions that, whatever the faults and shortcomings of MCA, it is still more open and democratic than Umno which has never had proper elections for top posts for many years even until now. What is your opinion?

Indeed, in the past, MCA had a very good mechanism for internal party elections, except for the last few years of Dr Ling Liong Sik’s presidency when the electoral procedure was suspended to extend the terms of incumbents automatically for three years. Also, MCA’s party elections have always been more open than Umno’s. At least, at the divisional level, MCA’s system does not have nomination quotas.

However, MCA’s good electoral system has not produced good electoral culture. This has impeded the perfection of democracy within MCA. For example, in 1983-1984 and 2000-2003, the system failed to prevent fierce power struggle and led Umno strongmen to intervene. This shows that MCA is still far from being a modern political party that is sufficiently institutionalised.

That the two top posts in MCA have always been open for contest is attributable to the fact that MCA leaders are not as powerful as those in Umno who can control the entire situation and purge dissidents. If MCA has become as powerful as Umno, it could also limit the contests for top post. MCA is more democratic not because it wants to be democratic but because it still cannot afford to be as autocratic as Umno yet.

It is also often claimed with pride by some MCA members in private that since 1980, MCA has changed four presidents while Gerakan and MIC are still helmed by the same - Lim Keng Yaik and S Samy Vellu - since the time of Lee San Choon in the early 1980s. What is your opinion?

There are two dimensions to this question. One, we have to see how Lim Keng Yaik and Samy Vellu have been successful in preserving their powers. Two, we have to see how successive MCA presidents lost their positions.

Both Keng Yaik and Samy share four features, namely (1) they have succeeded in eliminating all potential challengers to their position, (2) they enjoy the trust and backing of Umno leaders, (3) their administrative capability in the government is appreciated and (4) they enjoy the freedom of action in settling intra-party crises.

As far as MCA is concerned, successive presidents like Neo Yee Pan, Tan Khoon Swan and Ling Liong Sik were very unlike Keng Yaik and Samy because they do not share the above-mentioned features.

Lee San Choon resigned because he had problems with Mahathir. Lee’s successor Neo Yee Pan, who was unable to eliminate potential challengers and was distrusted by Umno. Tan Khoon Swan ended his brief presidency because of court convictions for criminal breach of trust and the jail term imposed by the Singapore government. Ling Liong Sik, despite the support given to him by Umno for 17 years, left because of personal weaknesses like business conflicts of interest and prolonged factional politicking. Umno thought he had lost support in the Chinese community and the backing for him was withdrawn.

So, the frequent change of MCA’s presidents have nothing to do with democracy. The causes are their personal characteristics and capabilities as well as whether they enjoy the support and trust of Umno. MCA is not necessarily more democratic than Gerakan or MIC.

A rather widespread criticism against MCA is that it has functionally ceased to be a political party and become a kind of de-politicised welfare club and profit-oriented business concern that runs newspapers and privatised higher education institutions. What is your opinion?

Under the 30 years of the implementation of the New Economic Policy, the Umno-dominated government had formulated all the major policies for the country. MCA has since been marginalised and lost its decision-making influence within the government. It can only do something administrative or to coordinate some bureaucratic departments. From the 1970s onward, MCA has also been further made impotent by the bumiputera policy and the Islamisation process. For example, MCA has chosen not to discuss or intervene in the making or implementation of the Islamisation policy. MCA also has not articulated any policy positions on defence, foreign policy, economic and financial policies and national security. MCA does not even have people who have knowledge and understanding of these fields.

Although MCA is increasingly being marginalised from mainstream politics and it has also no will to return to the core of political power, it cannot be seen doing nothing by the Chinese community it claims to represents. So, it has decided on a strategy of doing something that is not offensive to Umno. That ‘something’ is de-politicised socio-economic works. It hopes to rebuild its legitimacy in the absence of it ability to deliver. Its activities in Chinese clan associations are meant to shown its presence which is also harmless to Umno interests.

The problem is, under the increasing pressure of Umno’s regime, Chinese Malaysians’ expectations are decreasing. Moreover, because racial and religious issues are often exploited by the ruling parties to divide and rule, many Chinese Malaysians find no alternative to MCA hoping that there are at least some Chinese represented in the government. That the opposition has still not given confidence to Chinese voters is another factor that contributes to MCA’s continuing survival and prosperity.

You once publicly said that despite the media hype about MCA’s party elections, MCA is actually not important or critical in public debates and the making of national policies. Can you elaborate?

Besides MCA, Gerakan is also conducting its party elections at the moment. But, both the MCA and Gerakan elections are not really that important. What is more important should be PAS’s party elections which involve questions of generational shift after the party’s loss in the last general elections.

MCA’s party elections are not important either in terms of the future direction of Malaysian politics and even the political trends within the Chinese community.

The MCA party elections have been blown out of proportion by the mainstream media. This shows that some Chinese, being unable to participate meaningfully in the power centres, have decided to enjoy the electoral farces performed by some irrelevant opportunists at the fringes. Chinese Malaysians are increasingly being lead away from the mainstream political system.

Yesterday: Dissecting MCA politics

Malaysiakini: Does MCA politics really matter?