Last updated on 21/01/2014 - 20:34
Posted on 21/01/2014 - 19:59
KUALA LUMPUR: MCA president Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai and immediate past president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek have shamed their party at its Dec 21 elections.
The Chinese community is now questioning the integrity of the party leadership for using factionalism to “manipulate” the voting trend of the central delegates.
The pre-MCA election power-sharing agreement or peace plan signed between Liow and Chua was conducted in secrecy. How can Liow now claim that everything was above board and transparent?
The three-cornered MCA presidential race saw Liow beating former vice-president Gan Ping Sieu and former MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat.
Liow polled 1,186 votes to win the presidency with the support of 26 more delegates. Gan garnered 1,000 votes and Ong 160 ballots.
Gan, in a press conference on Jan 21, demanded that Liow come clean on his “electoral conspiracy” with Chua.
“Reveal the details and contents of the agreement. Why are you still keeping it a secret?” he asked.
Chua had on Jan 16, in a media conference, accused Liow of reneging on two “party electoral contracts”, adding that Liow had no credibility.
The first was signed in March 2010 when Chua and Liow agreed to form a pact to topple Ong. Liow had agreed to back Chua in the presidential race.
However, Chua said Liow reneged on the first contract by backing former president Tan Sri Ong Ka Ting.
He said the second contract was signed last November to support Liow’s bid for the MCA presidency.
In return, Chua claimed Liow promised to appoint the former’s supporters as secretary-general, MCA chiefs in three states and co-opt three individuals into the central committee.
Chua then reminded MCA members to be wary of Liow as “a leader who can make promises, but it is all lip service”.
Gan said the Liow-Chua “peace deal” would be detrimental to MCA’s integrity in the long run.
“It places more hurdles for the party to conduct any reform or transformation plans to regain public trust and confidence, especially among the Chinese community.
“The secret deal also cast doubts on whether the party election process was fairly conducted. Many central delegates and candidates now feel they have been fooled,” he added.
Gan urged Liow and Chua to come clean on the details of the peace deal and to reveal the identity of the corporate figure who witnessed the secret signing of the peace deal.
The witness is believed to be close to the Barisan Nasional leadership.
“We also want to know whether there was outside interference in the deal that resulted in central delegates making uninformed judgment and decisions,” Gan said.
MCA leaders are known to have brokered peace deals to forge party unity but this is the first time leaders have conspired and carried it out in secrecy.
In 2005, following a five-year leadership tussle between then president Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik (Team A) and his deputy Tan Sri Lim Ah Lek (Team B), both openly agreed to a peace plan by stepping down to make way for young blood – Tan Sri Ong Ka Ting and Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy.
Again, after MCA’s dismal 12th “tsunami” general election performance in 2008, Ka Ting and Chan agreed to step down to make way for a new leadership.
Gan argued that those peace plans were conducted openly and did not hinder the democratic process of the party elections.
“Even if there was a peace plan, it was done openly, not shrouded in conspiracy and secrecy. Party elections are supposed to be accountable, transparent, clean and fair.
“I accepted the election results and even
congratulated my opponents but the leadership’s legitimacy is now being
questioned ... it is a crisis of integrity for MCA,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment