At the outset, let me state that i do not belong to any political party. I am just a law graduate doing my Bar finals.

The ongoing MCA debacle makes interesting reading - how a simple issue is made out to be much more complicated than it really is.

Allow me to give my two cents' worth in simple legal terms.

The high drama started in a Batu Pahat hotel room. Unknown to the indulgent couple, their lust was filmed. The DVD was widely circulated in cyberspace. It created a political storm.

Unable to contain this deluge of criticism and public outcry, that MCA leader came out into the open and admitted that he was the one in that DVD video. He resigned as health minister and MCA vice-president but retained his membership in MCA.

Let us take a bit of time to look at this purported confusion. As a MCA member, he is duty bound to subscribe to the MCA constitution. He was hauled up by the MCA disciplinary board and charged for conduct injurious or adversely affecting the image and interest of the party.

To me, this is a legitimate exercise intra vires the MCA constitution. As a political party, MCA cannot stand in the way of justice. Neither should it choose to keep mum. Justice must not only be done but seen to be done.

On Aug 4, Dr Chua Soi Lek was given, in accordance to the rules of natural justice, a fair and reasonable chance to present his case to the disciplinary board. He stood up and said what he wanted to say.

Subsequently the disciplinary board reported in writing its findings and advice to the presidential council. After considering the findings and advice of the board, the presidential council unanimously decided to sack Chua. He was duly informed of his expulsion by registered post.

The MCA constitution provides that Chua may in writing appeal to the central committee within 14 days from the date of receipt of the registered notice. From what is reported in the newspapers, the notice would expire on the Sept 16.

Truth hurts and there may be a need for public rebuttal. Even before Chua has exhausted his avenues as provided by the MCA constitution, he has decided to seek sympathy from his supporters to convene an EGM to oust the MCA president.

Legally the decision of the presidential council was a collective decision. The president has only one vote. As to why the president was singled out for censure is admittedly beyond me. The reasonable and correct course of action, if I may suggest, is for the aggrieved party to have a vote of no confidence on the whole presidential council.

The MCA constitution provides that the extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the General Assembly may be held at any time, inter alia, if directed by the president or as in this particular case, if requisition by at least one-third of the central delegates and stating its reasons.

From the discourse in the newspapers, I find it baffling the statements by the EGM action committee chief coordinator Tan Chai Ho. He claimed to have the support of one-third of the central delegates.

From a legal perspective, the central delegates had offered their names to the list of requisitionists for the EGM on a specific resolution or resolutions. This to my mind is a contractual relationship. The chief coordinator cannot compromise with any other party or vary the resolutions to his whims and fancies. If there is a variation to the resolutions, that contractual relationship is revoked and of no legal effect.

I am certain that the requisitionists did not give a blank cheque to the EGM coordinators to do whatever they like. If indeed the central delegates gave them a blank cheque it is not only legally wrong, but this is a laughable trait of small minds with a self-serving wish list.

In this respect, the MCA secretary-general should call up all requistionists to verify and confirm not only their signatures but also the original contents of the resolutions of the EGM.

I hope this short discourse would cause people to stop and think before they join in the perpetrators relentless march down the road of self-destruction.