KUALA LUMPUR: Wong Nai Chee, the MCA central committee member who has joined the party for 11 years, was among the initiators of a second EGM to "restore the party's integrity."

He said he was doing things according to the spirit of Tun Tan Cheng Lock, the party's founder, and would fear no evil to fight for democracy.

"If we can't even do this, the party anthem that we sing will also go out of tune."

During an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily, he kept stressing that the party was currently facing the problem of principle, and that now was the time to do the right things, not to hold high offices.

Existing system destroyed

Q: The Chinese community has grown sick of the infighting within MCA. Have you heard this kind of voice?

A: Indeed, we all have. But, some of the things need to be handled, and if we're not talking about this now, it will be useless even if we talk about it next time. The MCA system has been destroyed and if goes on this way, the party's lifeline will slowly lose its shine and we will have no vitality speaking out in the future. I love my leaders, but I love my party more.

This is a question of principle. If the party leaders selectively execute the resolutions of the EGM, picking only those favourable to them and avoid the unfavourable ones, then I would like to ask where the democratic values lie. Shouldn't the General Assembly the supreme institution of the party?

Everyone knows that I support Ong Tee Keat, but after we have found out that our leaders have gone against the principles of democracy, we cannot afford to continue supporting them.

What we are supporting should be a healthy system, MCA's values for existence, before we can gain the respect of other people. This is a matter of integrity.

Many party members as well as outsiders are very much concerned about the problems of MCA. They have told me: I'm not an MCA member; nor did I vote for the party in elections, but what you are facing now is a question of principles.

Now that even outsiders are aware of the source of our problems, party members should be even more resolved to tell their leaders: Please bring back the intact system!

We need to make the right decision, not because you will lose your government posts if you choose to do so. If we do not even have a respectable character, then we shouldn't talk about party or government posts.

The leadership elected last year was alright, but the leaders have chosen not to cooperate with one another. The October 10 EGM was also alright, and the central delegates have decided that both Ong Tee Keat and Chua Soi Lek should be out.

The Greater Unity Plan they are having now is just the wish of two individuals.

All the issues arise from the reluctance of party leaders to respect the EGM resolutions.

Fresh polls the only way to win back trust

This is a kind of democratic campaign within the party, not a question of who wants to be the party president. What we want is fresh polls to allow party delegates to re-evaluate the behaviours of their leaders, including the central committee members. If your solution goes against the will of party delegates in the last EGM, should we all go back to EGM to get it verified?

Only fresh polls to re-establish the party order and restore the democratic mechanism within MCA will ensure that we can once again win the trust of the public.

Q: Some have said Ong and Chua have a combined support rate of 97%...

A: This is a sad interpretation. Can Obama and McCain also claim in a combined statement that they have won the support of all Americans?

You've got to see the contents of the issue. Perhaps I'm not good at mathematics and am unable to come up with this kind of deduction, but all I know is that the EGM has decided that both Ong and Chua should go.

Far fetching effects

MCA's democratic system has been destroyed. Perhaps you have not sensed it, or seen it with your naked eyes, yet the effects on MCA's democracy are far fetching.

Other than serving the public, MCA should also take care of the integrity of democratic proceedings as well as the existing system.

I agree to power distribution, which is part and parcel of politics, but if such a distribution is going against the principles of democracy, that I'll beg to differ.

Power distribution has to be rational

The existing power distribution has been established on an irrational foundation against the principles of democracy. It alls started from the disrespect for the EGM resolutions.

Q: Can the resolutions achieved in the EGM be vetoed by the majority of central committee members as executors of the resolutions?

A: This is a number game, and the blind spot of democratic process. Take the latest CC meeting for example, four members were removed and three appointed prior to the meeting.

What I'm concerned about is the insistence of democratic beliefs and not the liking of some party leaders.

Shouldn't follow the leader blindly

I was appointed by the party president to be a member of the presidential council, and would play my role as a council member, not the agent for the president. What I must do is fulfill the promises towards MCA, the presidential council as well as the central delegates, until a time when the person who appointed me finds me untrustworthy and removes me. I won't bother, as I only need to be responsible for MCA in the end.

At that time I did not agree to remove Chua, as it was not good to MCA and could arouse a serious backlash within the party. Suspension of party post should have been a more appropriate option.

A decision that is more rational will have a better chance of convincing the central delegates. I believe this is that kind of attitude those appointed with party posts should possess.

Q: Will you mind that other people will accuse you of being ungrateful?

A: We have to be grateful for your trust in me and appoint me, but that does not mean I have to repay you with that. Now that you have appointed me, I have to do things according to my conscience.

That was why I did not agree to remove Chua, but still support him (Ong), as I felt he was a better leader. However, after the October 10 EGM, I felt that some of the leaders had deviated from the principles of democracy, and I really couldn't agree with them anymore.

I must continue to fight for the integrity of the MCA system instead of following my leader blindly.

Chua should be penalised but not sacked

Q: What are the reasons you did not agree to sack Chua Soi Lek?

A: He should be penalised, but there are many kinds of penalties. I personally feel that he was a responsible person for not causing more harms to the party soon after the incident had taken place.

From this perspective, I feel that he should not have been sacked, and suspension of his party membership should come as a more convincing solution.

New problems arising from appointment of deputy president

Q: Did you also object to the appointment of another deputy president in the October 15 CC meeting?

A: Indeed. That was because I felt it wouldn't help appointing a new deputy. It would only create new problems appointing a new Number Two before the first EGM resolution had yet to be implemented, causing Chua's supporters to attack us.

I wasn't so much concerned about the vacancy of Number Two post. I was more worried about whether Ong would leave in response to the delegates' resolution.

I disagreed to their proposal to hold a second EGM simply because it was to be about the "confirmation of the leadership of the party president as well as the central committee, and fresh polls would be held only if this is not achieved."

We felt that the purpose of the second EGM was to overthrow the unfavourable resolutions achieved in the first EGM. I was thinking if the other side was unhappy with the outcome of the second EGM, were they going to hold a third EGM just to overthrow the second?

The EGM that we want does not have any factor of overthrowing any EGM resolution. The objective of fresh polls is different from that of party president and Chua Soi Lek. We want to ensure the democratic order within the party.

Unity not at the expense of democracy

Q: Does not supporting the Greater Unity Plan (GUP) mean dividing MCA?

A: It is not right to say that it is unity simply because you put the word "Unity" in the plan. Unity should be achieved from internal integration and not tramping the democratic order. Shouldn't it be more convincing if the GUP was proposed before the October 10 EGM? (By KOK SU CHIN/Translated by DOMINIC LOH/Sin Chew Daily)