Q&A: Tell me straight to my face, not at the back

In Part 2 of the interview, the MCA president counters allegations that he was trying to create an ‘Ong dynasty’ and that his strategy of ‘rejuvenation’ was to be blamed for the poor electoral outing.

Malaysiakini: Do you consider the pressure on MCA to reform in the past one month after the general election as a blessing in disguise for you and the party?

Ong: We have to be strong and constructive in our thinking, we cannot be too pessimistic, we can’t take things lightly or be complacent. Summarising all this, yes, I can say to a certain extent, there are some blessings in disguise but it’s a big price paid by the MCA and Barisan Nasional. However, we have to face reality, the whole political (scenario followed) from the election results, the impact that it brought about, we have to face it with honest thinking.

The results really made everyone in the party suddenly feel that it’s no longer true that there is such thing as safe seats, (because) even mixed seats are not safe now if you are not doing the right thing. People’s awareness is very high now. We have to go down to the ground and face reality

What are the top three factors for the MCA which caused the dismal electoral results?

There are a combination of factors, it’s more than three. Top three could be people are unhappy with what happened in the country - this could be due to some politicians, the frustrations they face in their day-to-day livelihood and (have) accumulated towards that (outrage shown in the elections). Again, I can’t prioritise three reasons because there are several like why prices are going up so much? Why the (public) security is not safe?

What were said and done by some politicians really made people very angry. A number of things which (people) want to see being improved but didn’t (take place). The information they got were very fast and they were talking about things which are not in favour of the government.

Within the party, a lot of people are of the view that you need to be personally responsible for this electoral disaster. Some in the party were demoralised because of your ‘election strategy’ in dropping a number of incumbents in favour of new faces.

I don’t want to be too defensive if I start to say ‘no’. If I say ‘yes’, I can’t go on with my responsibility and what have been planned by the party leadership. Of course, no single person can cause everything. Since the media have been talking about so many external factors which contributed to the defeat, how can one person cause everything? Other parties faced the same defeat, some even worse (than the MCA).

Isn’t it true that there were a lot of backstabbing and sabotage within the MCA during the elections?

It happened in a lot of parties, it happened in previous elections. I am not condoning by saying that you have to encourage this act but this is also one factor. We can’t pinpoint one or two persons from the whole party to be responsible for everything.

Do you think that your decision to drop a number of former president Dr Ling Liong Sik’s loyalists has somehow caused discontent on the ground.

I don’t think it’s fair to say I dropped anyone seen to be loyalists of Tun Ling. The party has to go on. Of course, not everybody like the word ‘rejuvenation’ but every party has to rejuvenate itself at some point. When it comes to rejuvenation, it is no longer a factor who is close to who anymore, we should talk about their suitability (as a candidate), how long you have been there and whether they are potential winners or not.

It’s not true that I ‘chop’ (get rid of) all the old guards and everyone (fielded in the elections) were new and fresh. A lot of them have been three-term state assemblypersons and slated to go up from state assembly to Parliament. If you look at the total name list, most of them are not freshies.

Let us cite this example in the case of (first-time Kluang MP) Dr Hou Kok Chung where the Kluang division has openly said they don’t want a ‘parachute’ candidate there.

Not true. The division chief is Hoo Seong Chang. The division has discussed about it but they didn’t come to tell me they totally rejected the (parachute) candidate chosen.

It was reported that the division had passed a resolution to reject a ‘parachute’ candidate.

No, no, not true. I read some unofficial reporting (on the matter) and I have asked the division chief directly, no, it’s not true. It’s not necessary all media reports are true. Let me ask you - is Hou Kok Chung qualified as a candidate?

Some said you have abused your discretion as the president in deciding on certain controversial candidates and that you only seek the presidential council’s consent after deciding on them?

I am the first president, who after appointing a candidate, go to explain the reasons why I am doing so in the central committee. It has never been the practice. It was all done in accordance with the party constitution. You can get this testified by party veteran like Wong Mook Leong. He told the central committee that is the first time he sees a president used his power and then explained his action later.

Look at Taiwan, former president Chen Shui-bian and defeated presidential candidate Frank Hsieh - they resigned from party posts - not government positions - when they were defeated. There are views that you should have quit the party post, not government post, as all four MCA ministers now are new to the cabinet. The MCA was not even granted seats at the front row in the Parliament’s seating arrangement for ministers.

These are very superficial arguments. If I join the cabinet, they will also criticised ‘Wah, Ong Ka Ting lost so badly but still can sit at the front row happily’. When we have performed badly in the elections, people will criticise you whatever you are doing. There are many other examples (apart from Chen and Hsieh). There is no point crying over spilt milk or pointing fingers just for the sake of argument.

You said you were de-centralising your power but another viewpoint is that although you gave up your ministerial post, you were actually delegating the power to (elder brother and MCA secretary-general) Ka Chuan by nominating him as the minister, or indirectly seen as creating the ‘Ong dynasty’.

Frankly, I don’t want to talk about this ‘Ong dynasty’ issue any further because it has been explained so many times. If I talk any more, we are just putting too much focus on it.

To respond it briefly however, Ka Chuan - regardless of his background - indeed is a very senior and capable leader in the party, judging from his track record, experience and capability. Nei ju bu bi qin, wai ju bu bi chou (A leader must be fair to the enemy and those related to him too). It shouldn’t be the case that I have to sacrifice him (as I’m now the president) - if he is a real potential successor as president, no matter who is at the helm of the party today.

There will be another kind of accusation then like I am a selfish brother and only think about myself - ensuring that I stay in power. So there can be another issue too and more gossips on that. It will not end.

Do you have a preferred choice of successor?

I don’t and I won’t have a preferred choice of successor. I will not dictate my influence or even tell my wish who should be the president, deputy president, vice-president or what. To be fair, the party grassroots should have the say, let them decide. I won’t name anyone as successor, I am very sure I won’t name Ka Chuan as the successor.

There is this opinion that you let go of your ministership because it is an inevitable choice.

Why?

Half of the four ministerial posts allocated to the MCA will go to you and your brother then.

Not necessarily true. In fact, a lot of people came and told me, I can always go in (to the cabinet) and continue with the present line-up but I’ve made up my mind. I don’t think I should go in purely because of the election results. I have to take responsibility and be accountable in that sense. At the same time, I don’t run away from the responsibility of running the party.

If I just put aside everything and go, that is irresponsible because it is the grassroots who elected me and my term is not up yet. I have to be with the leaders and grassroots at this very difficult time to rebuild the party.

The detractors’ theory is that if you let go your presidency, Ka Chuan may not necessarily secure the party post but by giving him the ministerial post, which comes under your discretion as the president, it’s a win-win formula for both of you.

This is again their own imagination. I am being frank, I have never thought of the issue on who should be the next president, I seriously don’t.

My consideration is as a party president, what responsibility do I need to bear in the aftermath of the elections?

In politics, the reality has always been that you want to climb up to the top post as it is the most attractive position but I have given that up - because I want to be responsible and rebuild the party.

When I am doing this, I can see myself as not being greedy to stay in power - it’s not easy to do so, but I have done it. The accusations are really not corresponding with what I am doing, call it political courage or whatever.

It is a non-issue if the two ministerial posts were to go to me and my brother. If you have that capability and the party agreed, that can be done. If the party had won big (in the elections) with many leaders elected, this will not be questioned.

But when we have this result and if I continue to be a government minister, not being able to spend time on the party, this will be a problem. The person who have to pay the price (of this poor election results) should be the president. And I am shouldering that responsibility.

What about this perception of the creation of an ‘Ong dynasty’ in the MCA?

This is not true at all. Time will tell and prove that this is not true. Party election is coming, you can see whether there is any sign that I want to pass my post to him or I want him to succeed me. It’s still six more months away but I am saying it here first that it won’t happen. You can wait for six, seven months to see whether that is true or not.

The accusation is definitely a lie, I have no intention of paving the way for Ka Chuan and neither has he this ambition to be like that. It would not take very long (to prove this), the next party election will show. Take my word for it.

Then, there is no clear direction for members on the party’s succession plan?

Or you are trying to say there is no clear direction about my political future? (Laughs) There is a very clear direction and my priority is to rebuild the party. We want to see the party bounce back, only then we can talk about what (party) posts one should go for.

Assuming that you will be defending the presidency, you would have three more years to go and what is the legacy that you would like to leave behind for MCA and the Chinese community?

For the last few years, people who really understand what happened in the MCA saw the real effort to reform the party but all that has been overtaken by this (March 8) result. The biggest challenge ahead for us now is how to bring the party up again after this big defeat. If we can overcome this challenge, this will be the legacy.

Why do you think party leaders dare not bring up many issues in front of you in the presidential council but instead, they made insinuations outside?

The presidential council is very open. (Every time we meet,) it is no less than four hours. For this short time you have with me (in the interview), do you think I am that fierce? It’s very easy to talk to me.

Is it because you have discretionary powers as president and therefore the rest are afraid to go against you?

This is not a healthy political culture. If you are not bold enough to speak up in the party, how could you go and talk to the Umno leaders and fight for the rights of the Chinese community?

You prefer party leaders and members to tell you straight in your face then?

Of course, all the things they told me I take it with an open mind and I appreciate it very much. If they tell me certain thing which I don’t know, I’ll appreciate it. In all the presidential council and central committee meetings, we spend hours talking about issues - major issues - to the end and only then we decide what to do.

Do you foresee a lot of defections among MCA members to take place?

The report given to me today by the headquarters showed that after the March 8 election, there were only 38 people across the country who had left the party, excluding the Pandamaran’s case.

But (Klang division chief) Teh Kim Poo has said the Pandamaran branch never had 400 members. Only about 10 members quit the branch. [He shows a computer printout of the list of 38 names who had quit the party - photo ]

Are you worried of party members jumping ship?

I am confident that our members who really believe in the MCA’s cause, their loyalty and commitment to the party, will not jump ship. If they jump ship because they think there are better opportunities elsewhere, we can’t stop them.

The majority of MCA members are very genuine, they work for the party for years (and yet) they didn’t get anything. There are only a handful of people yet to stand in the elections and 99.9 percent don’t, not even getting (honorary titles) PJN or PJK. They joined the party because they believe this party can represent the community, can provide the service to the people and it’s their political hope.

Ka Ting: My brother is not my successor

Part one

Ka Ting: I didn’t plot Chua’s downfall

Q&A: I know I’m doing the right thing

Tomorrow: Final part