The Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) was established on Feb 27 in the year 1947. It would be considered a uni-racial political party. It purports to represent the Malaysian ethnic Chinese. Therefore it can be considered as an association of Chinese persons who have organised themselves with the main aim, objective and idea of companioning issues premised on the fact that the party would want to achieve a certain set goals for the ethnic Chinese community’s benefit.

In collaboration with the United Malay National Organisation (Umno) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), Independence was achieved from the colonial masters on Aug 31, 1957. Over time, these three uni-racial political parties got together with a mosaic of other political parties and established the Barisan Nasional(BN) which is the umbrella body under which the current government has been established after the March 8, 2008 general election.

Since 1957, this is the first time the government has been elected without a two-thirds majority in Parliament. The BN’s dismal performance had led to the MIC and Gerakan being moribund. Ong Ka Ting, the former president of the MCA, whilst being elected as a member of Parliament did not accept a cabinet appointment and had mooted the idea that the MCA should re-invent itself or, from his dismayed standpoint, it would have to be resurrected.

During the period from August 1957 to March 2008, the MCA leaders endeavoured to clamour through the BN that they are involved in a system of progressive government. But yet its popularity ebbed and many of its leaders lost their parliament and the state assembly seats on March 8, 2008.

This was owing to the fact that the Democratic Action Party (DAP) was its biggest rival in championing the cause of the ethnic Chinese apart from championing the cause of all Malaysians with its multi-racial policies which put the MCA leaders in a political quagmire.

As much as we know it, political parties will only survive in the intermediate when there is popular will of the people in its favour which in turn supports the government and its various institutions. The writing had been on the wall since 1998 after the unceremonious sacking of Anwar Ibrahim by Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

It showed that the masses were not willing to accept the regressive politics played out by BN. Over a period of time, Parti Kadilan Rakyat (PKR), the Pan-Islamic Party (PAS) and the DAP got their act together to work as a coalition and it resulted in the creation of a new political landscape.

The question that arises against this backdrop is, does the leadership of the MCA represent the interest of its members? Further do these MCA leaders have any sense of civic-mindedness or for that matter, any sense of a civic community?

It is imperative that the leaders of the MCA should be put on notice that for the better half of the past one and a half years, the whole nation has had to endure almost on a daily basis nothing but the leadership squabbles between Ong Tee Keat, Chua Soi Lek and recently Liow Tiong Lai.

As much as this comical drama for the struggle has been played out in the main stream print media and the alternate media, we, the voting masses, have observed that March 2008 was the Waterloo for the MCA. The Chinese voted with their feet against the MCA. This is clearly apparent when a majority of the leaders like Chew Mei Fun and Tan Chai Ho and many others lost their seats.

Apart from the above facts, it is a known fact of political life that it is the business community that contributes to the financial sustenance and support of any political party. But March 8, 2008 draws a different parallel. As they say there is no fraternal relations in politics and that one should put one’s money where the mouth is.

Under the prevailing scenarios that is being played out, it should not be to conclude that the purported contemporary interest which the MCA ‘progressively’ represented prior to March 2008 has drawn to a close.

Based on the general observation of the urban Chinese and even those in the villages, they have no respect whatsoever for the leaders of the MCA. Ong Ka Ting had real foresight when he stated that the MCA should re-invent or resurrect itself.

With the above scenario in mind, we do not need any political scientist to flood us with advice on how democracy should be installed. We have taken our first step in March 2008. The voting populace will follow it through. The MCA membership has dwindled and as an ethnic-based party, it has joined the ranks of the MIC and is moribund. The MCA may in the process of time be only a party with a leadership but no sustainable membership.

We have now come to the cross-roads where the voting populace are aware of the particular conception of power and are now able to raise questions through the alternate media as to who would benefit and how to suggest and influence decisions made by the party leaders.

As Abraham Lincoln said: ‘Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.’ And consequently the voting populace who put the politicians into office should not be put into the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications by any government, lest they be voted out of office.