Although power struggles are not new or novel in the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), the upcoming party polls will be unique in the sense that it will be almost a free-for-all contest from top to bottom.

For those whose hearts and minds are still with the MCA, the contests are a sign that democracy and freedom of speech are alive and kicking in the second largest ruling party in the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.

They probably take pride in what they see as a fact that MCA is more democratic and tolerant of divergent views than its three other major allies, namely the United Malay National Organisation (Umno), Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) and Gerakan, as well as its traditional nemesis Democratic Action Party (DAP).

Seen from one perspective, it is true that the contestants and their supporters are much energetic and passionate in expressing their views now than their fellow politicians in the other parties.

However, there is another influential school of thought out there among Chinese civil society which opines that the public views as expressed by MCA contenders for party posts and their supporters are mere noises, but not voices.

According to this school of thought, what is happenening in the MCA is not a sign of democracy but evidence of the collapse of the legitimacy of the Ong Ka Ting-Chan Kong Choy ruling faction both inside and outside the party.

In other words, the noises emitted in the run-up to the MCA elections are not the result of any voluntary or altruistic design on the part of the ruling faction to foster democracy, but a helplessly uncontrollable slide into an anarchic situation where self-help is the only commonly accepted or acceptable principle.

Issues left out

There seems to be little or no coherent and intelligent debate among the contestants and their supporters on national policies that affect all Malaysians such as widespread public perception of rampant corruption, nepotism and cronyism in the public services, economic competitiveness of the nation, the quality of education of all levels and public works, root causes of the recent rise of crimes and other forms of social disorder, performance of the national service, urban-rural disparities of wealth, income and socio-economic opportunity, unemployment or underemployment among graduates, the true history of the nation or the impact of globalisation on nation-building.

The issues of national democratisation, human rights and freedom of the media, which are of great interest among a younger generation of non-partisan Chinese Malaysians, have also been left out of the MCA debates.

In this regard, MCA's public image as a national party lags far behind that of Umno, Gerakan, PAS, Keadilan and even DAP.

One reason that may explain MCA's lack of interest in articulating and debating all-inclusive national issues is that it always sees itself as merely the Chinese public relations unit of Umno, which makes all the crucial policies in the critical sphere of national life.

For scholars who are familiar with the history of colonial Malaya, today's MCA seems to be still in the mould of the advisory not policy-making - 'Chinese protectorate' which was tasked by the ruling power to only take care of Chinese 'welfare' and 'charity' and to ensure that they do not engage in political ideas or activities considered to be challenging the real powers-that-be.

Even then, there is also no noticeable public discussion by contestants and their supporters on issues that affect the legitimate rights of the Chinese Malaysian community such as the shortage of teachers in Chinese primary schools, or national budget allocations for the Chinese-language educational system and new villages.

In other words, even if one accepts that MCA is, or should only be, Umno's 'Chinese protectorate', its efficacy is still questionable.

Does it mean that if the MCA does not debate or discuss the real issues of the nation and the Chinese Malaysian community, the issues can be swept under the carpet? The answer is 'No'.

Politically vibrant community

It is obvious that other political parties are debating and discussing the real issues that MCA is avoiding or for which it disclaims any political responsibility.

The Chinese Malaysian civil society, for example, has always been highly organised at all levels. It has remained intellectually and politically vibrant even after MCA took over Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press and even without wide access to the Internet.

Besides the clan associations, there are also chambers of commerce, headmasters' and teachers' unions, alumni societies, graduate and cultural clubs, publishing houses, writers' networks and war memorial committees.

With or without MCA, public debate, discourse and discussion of national policies and community issues have been going on effectively, and affecting public opinion and attitudes in a quiet manner.

Of course, there is now the Internet.

So far, all the so-called debates in the MCA polls have been nothing but mere moralising polemics or airy-fairy rhetoric about who is good or bad vis--vis another person within the party.

In the absence of public debate among the contestants and their supporters on the real issues affecting the nation and community, the MCA elections can only be watched as a moribund version of an opera of intrigues, and of naked power struggles for personal, familial and factional gain.