Many questions are swirling in the minds of Malaysians over the corruption charges against former MCA President, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and former MCA Deputy President, Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy in connection with the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal which do not enhance public confidence in the independence, professionalism and integrity of the Attorney-General, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the judiciary.
Firstly, why the MCA President Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek endorsed the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s prosecution of Ling and Chan as Chua had publicly said after Chan was charged in court on Monday that “anyone who had committed an offence in the eyes of the Attorney-General’s Chamber should face the music”.
It is no secret that there is considerable questioning, not only among the general public but particularly at all levels of the MCA leadership and membership, why the two former Transport Ministers who were MCA No. 1 and 2 had been singled out for corruption charges for the PKFZ scandal when there has not been a single prosecution against any Umno personality.
This is one reason why I had posed several questions to Chua in the past three days for everyone, particularly in the MCA, are entitled to know why the MCA President endorsed the singling out and prosecution of the two former MCA leaders as borne out by Chua’s comment after Chan was charged on Monday.
Why is there no protest by Chua and the top MCA leadership at Ling and Chan’s being singled out for corruption charges in connection with RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal without any Umno personality being charged?
Would this be selective prosecution by the Attorney-General? Is this the result of selective investigation by the MACC?
These are valid and pertinent questions, but have they been addressed by Chua as the MCA President and the entire MCA leadership?