By Stanley Koh
Free Malaysia Today

COMMENT Yesterday’s announcement of a Cabinet reshuffle tells us much about what went on in MCA President Dr Chua Soi Lek’s mind as he juggled with the names of party leaders to recommend for ministerial positions. The public can now judge whether he has been following the “philosophy of the humble ant” in leading the MCA, as he promised in his campaign for the presidency.

His political rivals are putting on a sober and subdued face while frantically sending out cryptic messages to their supporters, no doubt commenting on the Cabinet changes.

Has Chua been true to his election pledge to follow the doctrine of “no more yes men” and no more favouritism in party and government appointments? To put it another way, has he wisely picked credible and capable leaders?

Some of his more vocal critics are asking whether the MCA ministerial line-up reflects “credible and capable leadership that combines the right mix of experience, attitude and talent to reflect the aspirations of the grassroots” as he promised last March during his campaign for the party presidency.

“This is the worse line-up since the days of former president Lee San Choon,” the chairman of an MCA division in the Klang Valley told FMT on condition of anonymity.

Chua’s detractors are claiming that he has not departed from the old practice of rewarding staunch key supporters with a jolly good pat on the back as well as with position.

Some, of course, have shrugged it all off as part of the political game. Chua, in playing the victor, is no different from his predecessors, although he used to accuse them of favouritism.

Kong Cho Ha stands out like a sore thumb. Defeated by Liow Tiong Lai for the deputy president’s post, he was given the job of party secretary-general in order to justify recommending him for a senior Cabinet position. Kong, formerly Housing and Local Government Minister, is now Transport Minister, the post vacated by the removal of Ong Tee Keat, one of Chua’s opponents in the MCA presidential race, the other being Ong Ka Ting.

Chua’s supporters rebut that the adjustments made to the Cabinet reflect the changes in MCA following the March polls.

Ong Tee Keat, MP for Ampang, was dropped in spite of the popularity he has acquired with the general public for his role in exposing corruption in PKFZ.

Wee Jeck Seng, former political secretary to Ong Ka Ting, was dropped from his position as Deputy Youth and Sports Minister.

Chua is also being criticised for nominating his son, Chua Tee Yong, who is now Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Agro-based Industries.

The backdoor route

Before yesterday’s announcement, the MCA president was reported to have avoided answering a student who asked about rumours that the junior Chua would be made a deputy minister.

“You seem to know more than me about who should be nominated,” he was quoted as saying. “I would like to appoint you as my adviser.”

Chua has publicly defended his son’s capabilities and qualifications. Tee Yong, MP for Labis, has professional experience as a former chief financial officer in a firm. He graduated from the Mt Eliza Business School and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia.

Nepotism and political patronage seem always to get in the way of election promises.

Najib’s minor reshuffle involves the appointment of 11 senators as deputy ministers. Three of them are from MCA.

Chua appears to have found himself stuck in the politics of the old school. Obviously, he has not fully comprehended the new thinking among a more politically aware public.

He publicly declared he would not endorse himself for a Cabinet posting “through the backdoor” by seeking to be appointed as a senator. Was he being aboveboard or are his detractors speaking the truth when they say he privately lobbied for support to be appointed to the Cabinet.

The new Cabinet line-up shows that he did use the backdoor for his men to join the Cabinet by the senator’s route.

Was it politically wise in the context of enhancing the esteem of his party? Did Chua, in making his recommendations, consider the following: first, the prevailing argument that the Dewan Rakyat—the House of Representatives—should be filled only by elected representatives; second, are those MCA leaders appointed to the Cabinet either academically or professionally matched to their respective portfolios?

“Malaysians have been promised transformation, but the latest appointments fail to point to this direction, especially in MCA,” a party critic said.

“Shouldn’t we learn from Singapore in the appointment of the best professionals to the government ministries?”

Chua recommended senators Heng Seai Kie, Donald Lim Siang Chai and Gan Ping Sieu for deputy minister’s posts.

Heng, who is Wanita Vice Chairman, replaces former Wanita Chief Chew Mei Fun as Deputy Minister for Women, Family and Community Development. Chew recently resigned, fulfilling her pledge to do so if Chua, tainted by a sex scandal, became party president.

Donald Lim, who is Selangor MCA chairman and one of the losers in the 2008 general election, is now Deputy Finance Minister.

A silent mutiny

A MCA insider, defending Chua’s decisions, argues that it is the norm for party vice presidents to be given government postings. It is on this ground that the vice presidents and those elected central committee members are recommended for government posts.

Deputy ministers Lee Chee Leong (Home), Dr Hou Kok Chung (Higher Education) and Heng Seai Kie (Women, Family and Community Development) obtained the highest votes respectively in the recent party elections.

Critics of Chua’s choices for the Cabinet are not likely to make their voices heard, but SMS messages are certainly making the rounds.

The president’s detractors and potential challengers are said to be patiently waiting for yet another “Save MCA” campaign. The undercurrents of a silent mutiny are allegedly gathering momentum.

Chua won the MCA presidency by merely 68 votes. That less-than-impressive win, together with his tainted background, may make it tough for him in the next electoral battle.

Will his tenure as president last until the next general election, considering that there is a hidden agenda to oust him?