I refer to the Malaysiakini report 'There is no honour in MCA' .

It is not a question of whether a particular person makes a great leader. It is not a question of whether a person is daring enough to speak out.

It is also not a question of legality or adherence to a party’s constitution. Rather, it is a question of credibility and honour.

‘Even if I lose by one vote, I’ll resign’. This has no other meaning!

The person may be a good leader in many ways but to renege on a pledge made publicly is simply not acceptable. If a person can renege on a pledge made, by the same token, he can renege on any future pledge.

This question of credibility and honour is an all-important tenet of Chinese culture. Hence, is such a person fit to represent and lead the Chinese?

Does this person deserve the respect and support to be a leader? Why didn’t he call for an EGM when the very same delegates elected him as the president at the AGM? Why the hesitation now?

Clinging on to power based on the constitution and saying that he has ‘unfinished business’ to complete is very lame and all too familiar. Someone used this same excuse to stay on recently, and what happened? I need not elaborate further.

The two-thirds majority as provided by the MCA constitution is more an academic than anything else when he has pledged to resign even if he loses by one vote.

Whatever the reason, he has to pay for his overconfidence and arrogance. You don’t just shift the goal post as you see fit.

Honouring one’s pledge will salvage much respect and honour, and you may even win more support by doing so. The decision to renege on one’s pledge may not only jeopardise the MCA.

Being a component party of the BN, this might have negative effects on the BN. One can’t blame voters when they start to wonder which pledge would be reneged on and which would not, and this reluctance to trust election candidates may be applied to others within the BN.