I refer to the Malaysiakini report 'MCA leaderless, idea-less and impotent' .

Now that the MCA EGM is over; the vultures are flying above and waiting for a chance to swoop down and catch the victims by the neck! Ong Tee Keat , who was cock-sure that he would win hands-down, played for high stakes and lost.

Now, he may have to eat humble pie and step down honourably as MCA president. He said it but would he do it? The rule is very simple - you lose the vote of confidence, you resign; no ‘ifs’ and no ‘buts’.

Why did he put his head on the chopping block in the first place? Well, he probably wanted to prove to all and sundry (BN and Pakatan Rakyat and all the rest of the Malaysians; and perhaps even leaders in Myanmar and Zimbabwe, too) that he was and is a man of principle. If that is what he wanted to prove, then he should now prove it; no question about that. Just step down.

But would stepping down solve the problems in MCA? So long as leaders have the lust for power, the problem will still persist in MCA; and in any other political party. Do voters think for a moment that most (with few exceptions of course) politicians sweat it out in the people's interests? Or do they always have a personal agenda?

To promote themselves and fool all of us? There is no such thing as a free lunch (or free dinner as was the case the night before the MCA showdown). Nobody nowadays gives a free dinner; the invited guest has to vomit it out at the next opportunity!

Back to the ‘wayang’ in MCA. Horse -trading is probably in full swing, for time is short and 'horses' are running wildly. Who knows a dark 'horse' may eventually emerge. Remember the time just before the general election on March 8 last year when three Gerakan horses were running for the prize of the Penang chief minister-ship?

Suddenly the dark horse (Lim Guan Eng) romped home! So, hopes run high and some horses are having their own dreams of grandeur; but sadly, there can only be one jockey.

Ong made a blunder of vast proportions. He should have accepted the fact that the delegates last year voted in Chua Soi Lek as deputy president. So he should play by the rules and give his second man the space. But he did not, thereby creating the problem.

Now, with both out, the central committee should pick leaders for president and deputy president based on the votes they obtained last year. Since Kong Cho Ha scored the highest number of votes, he should be the chosen one and Liow Tiong Lai should fill the second slot as the second highest vote-getter. That is if they wish to follow the democratic principles .

I remember vividly the tussle between MCA’s ‘Team A’ led by Dr Ling Liong Sik and ‘Team B’ led by Lim Ah Lek. Since they both agreed to give up their posts, the CC then should have chosen Fong, being the leader who scored the highest votes, as president and Chua Jui Meng as deputy president as he got the second highest number of votes.

Regrettably, the CC then did not follow simple democratic principles and picked Ong Ka Ting and Chan Kong Choy as president and deputy president respectively. By that selection process, they went against the grain of democracy. If the CC were to defy simple rules, then Ong might as well stay put though he lost the vote of ‘no confidence’

All these problems would not have fallen upon MCA had they followed rules. The president should have respected the wishes of the delegates who voted in Chua Choi Lek as deputy president.

In the same vein, the prime minister had broken all rules of democratic principles by picking ministers who had either lost their party seats or lost their parliamentary seats or even both. No matter who it is who wins, he should respect the wishes of the party delegates and/or voters and act accordingly.

A leader who does not strictly stick to the rules of the game will eventually be overhwelmed by the delegates and the voters at the party and general elections. Bad or wrong choices of candidates will eventually have an impact on the thinking of the voters.

There is a price to pay for arrogance and defiance of the rules of the political game. The referee will blow the whistle and give a yellow or red card.