I refer to the Malaysiakini report Youth chief tells Ong to respect EGM decisions .

MCA Youth chief Wee Ka Siong is far from satisfied with the situation in MCA, despite the truce declared between the party’s feuding leaders.

There appears to be different interpretations as to the authority of an EGM. One considers that an EGM’s decision supersedes the constitution under which the EGM was called whereby a majority decision at the EGM rules. The other argues that the EGM provides the results to be read together with the constitution.

The latter should prevail since there are provisions in the constitution that some issues need confirmation by a two-third vote of the members of the assembly. Otherwise, an EGM could be called to negate the constitution with a simple majority vote.

Looking in that light, one should now examine whether the MCA central committee had, in fact, carried out the decision of the EGM. The EGM did not return a two-third majority to relieve Ong Tee Keat of his presidency. Those eager for an opening for upward mobility are grumbling that he did not resign, but he could not be accused of not respecting the decision of the EGM when read with the constitution.

The EGM returned a majority vote for Chua Soi Lek to remain as a member of the MCA. There were doubts whether the president would be able to to work with Chua and to have a peaceful coexistence with him. The show of unity on Oct 22 at the MCA headquarters confirms that the two warring factions respect the decision of the EGM and declared that for greater unity, they would serve MCA together.

The third resolution returned a majority vote to deny Chua Soi Lek his position as party deputy president. There are no provision in the constitution to determine the condition under which a person suspended from performing his official duty could be returned to his post. There was, however, a definite requirement that a person can only be removed from his position when the assembly returns a two-thirds majority.

When a position is vacant on account of the incumbent being suspended for whatever reason, that vacancy exists on a temporary basis of indefinite duration. For a vacancy to be filled, the incumbent - though suspended - has to be removed first.

Thus, the provisions of the MCA constitution have to be respected. Semantics aside, the EGM’s Resolution 3 should be interpreted as to whether Chua should be removed form his position as deputy president. The EGM voted ‘yes’ but was short of a two-thirds majority to remove Chua.

Thus Chua still retains his position as MCA deputy president if the decision of the EGM and the constitution are to be respected.

Wee Ka Siong must have said that the central committee of the MCA did not respect the EGM’s decisions by allowing Liow Tiong Lai to be voted in as deputy president on Oct 22. Liow Tiong Lai, too, claimed that the result of the EGM should be respected. He should announce now that he has vacated the seat so that the implementation of the EGM’s decisions is complete.

Ong Tee Keat together with Chua Soi Lek announced that they have agreed to work together. That has curiously led some members of the central committee to declare that their agreement is subject to approval by the central committee. It would imply that Ong and Chua cannot respect the EGM’s decisions on their own to cooperate without the approval of the central committee.

Since when has the constitution of MCA allowed its central committee to form subgroups to endorse ‘unity of members’ of the party? The statement demanding that the agreement of Chua and Ong be subject to review by the central committee confirms the suspicion of what went through their minds.

They were not happy that the president and his deputy were cooperating, like what they had declared they would do after the EGM. They wanted to do their ‘horse trading’ by instigating for Chua’s removal which resulted in the EGM. That was the basis why they expressed unhappiness that Chua and Ong had agreed to work together without them (the CC) participating in the discussions.

When two parties cooperate, is it any business of a third party? That would be only logical if they were negotiating for sharing the spoils. But are the MCA members there to share spoils too? The MCA leaders have taken it as natural to be in political party for personal gain though when they are now more leaders, their shares are lessened. Yet the Chinese community thinks that the MCA is there to guard their interests.