I refer to the letter MCA’s never-ending story .

The writer has provided a fair synopsis of the continuing feud in MCA. The reason the fighting started might be traced to comments made by Umno leaders immediately after the Oct 10 EGM was announced.

Umno leaders gleefully commented and hinted that they were awaiting the departure of Ong Tee Keat on account that he lost the confidence vote, but without realising that a simple majority would not be able to throw out an elected official from the MCA central committee. That was just as well to allow the elected officer to serve out a three-year term.

Indeed, had the party constitution been worded any differently, there could be more attempts at removing incumbent officials.

If the over-ambitious Liow Tiong Lai had cared about the predicaments faced by his boss, Ong Tee Keat, which was brought about by Liow’s group wanting to remove Chua Soi Lek, and had they practised Confucius’ teaching of ‘do not do unto others what one does not want others to do unto him’, there would not have been the in-fighting we witness now.

Ong Tee Keat could have been spared the embarrassment if his erstwhile supporters had declared they continued support for Ong’s leadership. The fact that Ong and Chua were able to accept working with each other after the EGM shows that MCA could have been able to work as a party again adhering to the decision of the Oct 10 EGM.

Unfortunately Liow and his group took the EGM as a God-sent opportunity to overtake his fellow vice-residents to be the heir-apparent, to have himself appointed as deputy president and worse, forcing the president to resign when he could be removed by the provision of the party constitution.

Liow should have read carefully Article 45.25 which provides that elected official of the MCA central committee cannot be suspended or sacked without the sanction of two-thirds of the central delegates in voting.

The plain language says that even though Chua was recommended sacked by the Disciplinary Committee and approved by the Presidential Council and later commuted to suspension by the Central Committee, this disciplinary action cannot be confirmed without the approval of two-thirds of the central delegates voting in the assembly.

Thus Chua held his position as deputy resident at all times during the EGM and remains deputy president after the EGM. Liow’s group was wrong to have forced an issue of the vacancy at the CC meeting on Oct 15 and have himself illegally elected as deputy president. He had to be told by the Registrar of Society that Chua never ceased to be the MCA deputy president.

What happened next were his antics to save face. Had Liow not been wrongly manipulated by his own supporters seeking advancement in the party hierarchy, and not least led up the garden path by the Legal Adviser of the party to wrest the deputy president’s position, there would be no turmoil in the party now.

The appearance of Ong and Chua together on Oct 22 to announce their agreement to a ‘Greater Unity Plan’ could have paved over the failed attempt of Liow’s power grab. He should have realised that his game was up by then and returned as a team player. But his demeanour at the press conference gave the impression that he had to account to his puppet masters.

That was confirmed one week later when his comrades-in-arm, the MCA Youth Chief Wee Ka Siong, and MCA Women’s Wing Chief Chew Mei Fun returned from Geneva and declared an all- out war against the party to have a fresh elections which would be held without the two proponents being affected.

The two, together with the rebels in the central committee, demanded a second EGM which was scheduled for Nov 28. The only basis for the EGM was that Ong did not honour the boastful declaration that he would quit and the confidence of that boast was blown up by his erstwhile supporters including Wee and Chew who now wanted Ong to fall into the trap they helped to set.

Yet, Wee and gang called the re-election a ‘return to integrity’ as if what they have done to bring the party to the present turmoil was act of integrity.

Ong was criticised for removing four central committee members he appointed previously to the committee which he had the authority to do so. Curiously, why should the party accord such authority if that was not to be utilised? Those who level criticism at that action would also be advised - ‘what would one have acted in Ong’s shoes?

Wee and Chew bettered Oscar winners when they ‘cried on demand’ at the press conference after enjoying the pleasure of being removed from the MCA Presidential council which was charged with the implementation of decisions of the Central Committee.

The excellent show moved Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to declare Umno’s intention to ‘advise’ MCA; much like the British Resident Advisers to the sultans in pre-independent Malaya. The statement by Najib allowed the Liow group to strike back, and it now raises the spectre whether Wee and Chew were acting on cue from Umno.

The intervention by Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yasinon behalf of Najib allowed, or even encouraged Liow’s group to insist on their unreasonable and unconstitutional demand to convene the Nov 28 EGM. They further confused the issue further by insisting that a re-election should be held before the end of the year. The Nov 28 EGM, however, was converted to become a group briefing which ended with a declaration without constitutional foundation.

The Liow group declared that 1,193 central delegates and 407 other members totalling 1,600 persons attended the briefing while Senator Heng announced that 547 central delegates were in attendance.

Had there been 1,193 delegates who attended against the advice of the party secretary-general, it is certain that they would have declared that Nov 28 EGM in order and would have sent to the Central Committee their resolution and demand adherence to it. Obviously, Wee lied about the figure, and Liow group called off the meeting knowing that there was no quorum for an EGM. Are they qualified to talk about trust and integrity?

Of the 16 central committee members who requisitioned the Nov 28 EGM, only 12 persons remain in their seats. They are a minority in the central committee of 42 persons. Of the 2,380 central delegates, only 547 bothered to attend the EGM turned ‘group briefing’ to support the rebels to continue sustaining havoc in the party. Clearly they belong to the minority group.

In any election, a simple majority wins, and those who disagree, those who are not in the driver’s seat, have to wait for the next election. The Liow group has no basis to argue for a fresh election. Their continued defiance to the party discipline has been backed by Umno leaders. One wonders whether this has to do with PKFZ.