The moment MCA's leadership line-up was made public, many people's mouths were instantly changed to a wide "O" shape. Sighs of "wow... wow..." saturated the air.

Coming next were a string of question marks plus exclamation marks:

"What kind of line-up was that?!"

"Where on earth have these few people come from?!"

"Where's Chua Soi Lek?!"

"How about Ong Ka Chuan?!"

"Why abandon Selangor for Johor?!"

"Will MCA become chaotic?!"

Absolutely interesting. That is Ong Tee Keat's first shock bomb, which has rocked the party and beyond to the utmost.

But after we have collected our wits again, we will see that it is by no means a surprise, nor beyond our expectations.

I was thinking, if everybody could have guessed accurately what's in store for his line-up, then he wouldn't have been called Ong Tee Keat.

Tee Keat has his own ways of doing things. It is not his style to do things the conventional way in conformity to the rules and norms.

MCA's past leaderships have placed a lot of emphasis on power equilibrium, and have resorted to equitable allocation of party posts to please leaders from various factions within the party.

The Ling Liong Sik-Lim Ah Lek pair, the Ong Ka Ting-Chan Kong Choy duo were all matched under the same principle. Through the sharing of power, party integration and stability have somewhat been achieved (never mind the duration such stability would last).

But Ong Tee Keat's line-up has been dominated by him alone. There is no Ong-Chua, or Ong-Ong (Ka Chuan). Only the Ong.

This Ong's line-up basically comprises three pro-Ong camps: the Youth camp he used to lead; the residual forces of Chan Kong Choy which have now been annexed by Tee Keat; and fringe leaders with no apparent factional attachments.

During the Ling-Lim or Ong-Chan era, intraparty relationship was the priority, so that all factions could compromise and an image of unity could be moulded. As for what would happen next, that was no one's concern.

But Tee Keat's style is to first consolidate his own leadership and establish his own team in order to lead effectively.

There are pros and cons for each of the two leadership styles, and none could be said to be more superior than the other. No leadership books have offered an ultimate answer as to how to form a leadership team.

We can only say, the best way is one that fits into all the three criteria: personal qualifications, intraparty power structure, and needs of the current situation.

Of course, this definition does not carry much significance at all, for everyone has his or her own ways of interpreting personal qualifications, power structure, and current needs.

If Tee Keat feels that such an arrangement can strengthen his leadership team, help materialise the party's reform agenda and revitalise MCA, then that is his choice, or rather his stake.

Anyway, the chips are in his hands. It is up to him how he wants to use them, not to be swayed by people around him.

Finally, what he has said is right: That is the president's power!

But how about future developments?

Well, many people have predicted that MCA will step into a turbulent age earlier than expected. By marginalising opposing factions, Tee Keat is bound to trigger powerful reactions. More foul play and power struggle should be anticipated.

But if this has been anticipated by other people, Tee Keat must have also expected it.

Perhaps he has his own ways of resolving this matter. (By TAY TIAN YAN/Translated by DOMINIC LOH/Sin Chew Daily)