By Kee Thuan Chye
SURE, “politics is the art of the possible” – especially if it involves politicians who can change their tune overnight. That’s why it has been possible for Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek to suddenly become friends again after a year of fierce animosity between them.
The art of the possible also works with politicians who can forget about scruples and put on a show. Nothing exhibits this more clearly than the outwardly awkward reconciliation between these enemies last Thursday. For added value, the would-be usurper of the presidency, Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, was also dragged into the act, a seemingly reluctant performer at that. So too was Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha, who had until now kept a dignified low profile.
It was a show that could easily have given the Goons of that famous British TV comedy a run for their asininity. I laughed so much, I had to call it the Most Laughable Farce of the Year, and nominate Ong, Chua and the supporting players for Best Comic Ensemble.
Who in their right mind would give much credence to this quick-glue patch-up that is aimed at reunifying the MCA? From reports, Ong had to leave the press conference room for 10 minutes to bring Liow and Kong in. Scriptwriters would have their imagination fired up by what transpired in those 10 minutes. They would be wondering, too, about what might be simmering behind those counterfeit smiles flashed for the media cameras. The tears of a clown? The resentment of facing a checkmate?
Scriptwriters would also be wondering if there was an unseen hand behind this sudden volte-face on the part of Ong and Chua since both have said that the prime minister gave them his blessing to get back together. Was this an example of deus ex machina, a la Aristotle? Who is the deus (“god” in Latin)? Are these four men in actuality wayang kulit characters putting on a show at the command of their puppet-master?
Sorry, I got carried away with the dramatic possibilities. I actually meant to ask: Where is the concern for integrity in this latest episode of the MCA saga? At what level is the moral quotient of these men who purport to lead the MCA? How is the MCA going to be credible in the eyes of the Chinese community – let’s not even consider the wider Malaysian public – when what its leaders have done must force us to suspend our disbelief?
Besides, how workable is this hasty marriage of inconvenience between Ong and Chua likely to be?
Chua was the duly elected deputy president. Then he got sacked from the party because Ong looked hell-bent on getting him out. That riled Chua up and he fought back with a vengeance. At the Oct 10 EGM, the delegates sent both a message – they registered a vote of no-confidence against Ong as president, and reinstated Chua as an ordinary member but not as deputy president. In short, both should bow out.
Ong had promised to step down if the no-confidence motion was carried by only one vote, but he broke his promise. After the EGM, 20 Central Committee members urged him to resign. Ong said he felt betrayed by his friends and so he turned the tables on them. A deal was struck between him and his former foe. And now they’re back, shaking hands. How does one perceive all that? Can one view these two men as being other than desperadoes who want to cling on to their positions?
Chua now seems to question the outcome of the EGM. Although the delegates voted against his reinstatement as deputy president, he has applied to the Registrar of Societies to clarify whether he should be reinstated in spite of that – since his sacking from the party has been overturned. This doesn’t show good faith. It shows that he is willing to respect only the resolution that is in his favour and to dispute the one that is not. Surely, this will infuriate some of the delegates. How then can his new pact with Ong help to reunify the party?
There is still a chance that the registrar or the home minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, will decide to have Chua restored to his number two post in the party. If that should happen, what would become of Liow, who has meanwhile been elected deputy president, after the EGM, by the Central Committee? Is he going to be eventually played out and left in the cold? What then might be the consequences?
Chua has said rather glibly, “Then I become deputy president lah.” That’s easy to say, but there may be other ramifications. Right after the EGM, Liow was not thinking of only becoming number two; he had ambitions of becoming the chief. Is he likely to quietly go back to being vice-president and be a model MCA man?
On the other hand, what if Chua does not get reinstated? Would his followers be happy that Liow remain in what was Chua’s domain since the latter was the duly elected one whereas Liow was merely elected by the CC? Is everyone going to take it lying down for the sake of reconciliation and unity? Are warring factions likely to become peaceniks overnight?
Ong says the leaders can now “re-focus on strengthening the party to regain the confidence and trust of the Chinese community and Malaysians in general”. Of course he would say that. What else is there? It’s a platitude he needs to hang on to since he didn’t do the honourable thing of stepping down like he said he would. Who can believe what he says now?
Chua, too, has his own platitude. In justifying the reconciliation, he said, “In politics, they say it is an art to make the impossible possible and the possible impossible.” He might have thought he was adding a new twist with the second clause of that statement, but it could even turn out to be a prophecy. What might have been possible for the MCA – the chance of renewal with the departure of the two “tigers” Ong and Chua – could eventually become impossible.
Kee Thuan Chye is the man behind the book, March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up

#1 by Godfather on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 11:56 am
“No leader or public figure should, for public or rakyat interest, be shielded from the winds of fair criticisms if he were wrong just because the opposite side that he fights against is as or more wrong!
If Anwar veers away from the inclusivist ideals based on which all have supported him; if out of expedience he acts inconsistent to the larger cause of all who support him, and that of PR, he should be taken to task.”
I have no problems with these sentiments. It’s the lopsidedness which which people take Anwar to task vs taking the den of thieves to task that I have an issue with. We have been systematically raped by BN for 53 years, and we now want to throw the baby out with the bath water after less than 2 years ?
#2 by OrangRojak on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 11:59 am
taiking: hidup
Let’s not get excited. It was only recently that the ability to disagree and criticise was cited as one of Pakatan Rakyat’s superior features over BN. It has to be remembered too, that RPK’s job is sensational reporting, for which he is rewarded with advertising money and threats of incarceration. If I’ve over-simplified the RPK case, someone please clear that up for me, and I’ll happily apologise for any error I’ve made. His motivation, if not entirely aligned with that of another critic, has a financial element. Erring on the side of dispassionate neutral reporting is not an option for him. If he says ‘wobble’, it’s going to come with spin – that’s his job. I’m not a fan, but I think his role in Malaysia’s critical development is positive, on balance.
When I suggest something could be better, I’m not seeking to overthrow anybody, only to actually improve things. The ‘if you don’t like it, go back to BN’ argument doesn’t serve anybody’s purpose well. Doesn’t it remind you of anything? PR currently has a huge problem with not being substantially different from the very thing we hope they will replace.
Rather than cementing the impression, perhaps you could suggest something that would improve matters?
#3 by OrangRojak on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 12:05 pm
lopsidedness
It’s not lopsided. If you have a disruptive and hopeless student who is ruining it for everybody else, you expel them. If you have one that’s trying, but could do better, you point out where they’ve gone wrong. Expulsion opportunities for the abject failure are few and far between, criticism opportunities for the trying student could be less frequent!
There is no point in pointing out where BN goes wrong. They are hopeless. They obviously cannot promise any of the things we really, really want, because most of the things we really, really want are mutually incompatible with [I've censored myself again]
#4 by taiking on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 2:14 pm
A crossroad with no signs or signals. Where and when does one turn are pretty much left to how one reads the situation then prevailing; and how cleverly one does so. In other words it is all a matter of politics and politicking. We are all there, at the moment. And more so, anwar. Could the grumbling noise in the background (i.e. voters’ voice) be relied upon as guide? One must not forget that the view ahead will appear different to those who are in the front from those who are in the back. The leader in the fore will almost certainly be laboured by issues that are not felt by, or for that matter imaginable to, his followers in the aft.
Peninsular malays have in the last general election spoken out quite clearly. To the majority of them, NEP/malay special rights is no longer an important or pressing issue. Umno misread their changed stance and sentiments and have suffered badly. Umno is still suffering now for refusing to adapt to the new scenario. In fact umno will not change and is incapable of change. You are right Rojakman to point out the futility in all the umno-whacking exercises. For want of a better analogy, that would be like kicking a dead horse.
But umno is no dead horse. Not yet anyway. More importantly, umno, in any form or shape, is no longer wanted by many. 50 yrs of abysmal track record is more than enough for them to bear. Therefore, the whacking efforts were not aimed at resurrecting umno. Rather, they were expanded for the purpose of piling pressure upon umno so that it buckles then collapses like a dead horse.
#5 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 3:04 pm
“But umno is no dead horse. Not yet anyway. More importantly, umno, in any form or shape, is no longer wanted by many.” (taiking)
True, Umno is no dead horse. Umno is just an ill horse, terminally ill. However, if Najib is able to find some kind of enzyme which can help heal the ill horse, then the ill horse may also be turned into a strong and prowess horse.
Likewise, Pakatan Rakyat is also an ill horse. Whether Pakatan Rakyat can stand up as a runner up in the political race between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional will all depend on whether Barisan Nasional is able to recover much faster than Pakatan Rakyat or not and on whether Pakatan Rakyat is able to give the voters an impression that PR is indeed a reliable healthy horse!
Anyone who is the concerned voter of Malaysia shall feel free to whip whichever horse he/she wants in LimKitSiang Blog (whether PR or BN) if YB Kit is to maintain a favourable political image of liberal and democratical openness in his blog.
#6 by Hugos on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 8:43 am
Malaysia sleeping mah?? When Malaysia sleeping??