I refer to the on-going tussle between supporters of Ong Tee Keat and Dr Chua Soi Lek for the control of MCA leadership. It is amply clear that both camps have come to a head-on collision, by the time the disciplinary board (DB) met on Aug 4. There is no doubt about it, come Aug 4, 2009, MCA will plunge into deep crisis when the board is expected to punish Chua on his "sex DVD".

Most expect the board to hand down at least a three-year suspension on Chua, thereby effectively ending his political career. According to party constitution (Art 123 & 123A), the board works under the instruction of the presidential council and all disciplinary complaints must be filtered by the council before submission to the board for investigation and further action.

When asked by reporters on the notification letter issued to his deputy, Tee Keat conveniently denied any knowledge. It was also widely reported that BN chairman and PM Najib hit the roof upon hearing such answers from Tee Keat.

There is no way the president of a party could just say “I don’t know about what the board is doing.” It is clear that Tee Keat has planned to finish off Soi Lek, through disciplinary dismissal or suspension. Relation between the two has never been good since the day party election ended on Oct 18, 2008. In all party appointments immediately after the party elections, Tee Keat has sidelined Soi Lek and his supporters to the utmost extreme. Not only Soi Lek was not made the chairman of any state committee, the post of powerful disciplinary board chairman was also given to Ng Cheng Kiat, an ex-minister long forgotten by party grassroots. Looking back, it is amply clear that Tee Keat has planned in advance to finish off Soi Lek, sooner or later.

The sex DVD first surfaced in early 2008, after which he stepped down from all party and government posts. The then disciplinary board chairperson Chan Kong Choy decided to close the case. However, by end of May 2008, Simpang Renggam MCA divisional chairman wrote in to complain again, on the same count of allegation involving Soi Lek. The board took no action at that time and Soi Lek went on to defeat Ong Ka Chuan in the race for deputy president.

Far back in the year 2001, Tee Keat was suspended as Youth Chief by the board for his role in the Aug 3 fracas at the Flamingo Hotel. There are quite a number of VCD versions of this notorious incident available for viewing. No doubt about it, this incident of chair-throwing and fist-fights among youth delegates has tarnished the image of MCA. The relevant question to be asked is, would the board take up the case and start another around of investigation if someone formally lodge a complaint now? If Soi Lek can be investigated twice on the same allegation, why should Tee Keat be an exception ? Members of the board under Ng Cheng Kiat must come forward and answer this poser.

This is where the whole issue rests; how can a complaint be re-allowed to make its way to the board, when the board closed its case in early January 2008. How can the same charge be prosecuted on the accused twice? Moreover, the Simpang Renggam chairman complaint letter was addressed to Chan Kong Choy, not the current chairman of the board Ng Cheng Kiat. The letter has lapsed and become null and void.

For someone who has already paid the price for his own doings, Soi Lek should be given a second chance to redeem himself. Moreover, when delegates met last Oct 18, they have collectively forgiven Soi Lek. This is the spirit of comradeship. This is also the spirit of the law.

Otherwise, all criminal, drug addicts or whatsoever should just be terminated upon arrest. Why keep them in prison, why waste time prosecuting them? Because we believe that they should be given the second chance to redeem themselves.