I refer to the letter titled ‘ Ong Tee Keat’s flagging fortunes his own doing’ on Oct 4.

The article is obviously written by someone who has blind loyalty to the current MCA leadership led by the immoral president Chua Soi Lek. As the title suggests, of course one’s fortunes is determined by one’s own doing. It applies to everyone, so what is the issue?

Both Chua and Ong are, after all humans. They are prone to making mistakes but the question is the gravity of those mistakes. The writer has chosen to ignore the seriousness of Chua’s practice of adultery.

Ask any woman, save for MCA vice-president Ng Yen Yen, and the majority will not approve the actions of an adulterer.

Likewise, Ong is also no saint. But the writer only chooses to focus on his leadership “mistakes or weaknesses” (all these are debatable, depending on one’s political lean), ignoring his efforts to reform.

If not for Ong, would the multi-billion-ringgit Port Klang Free Zone’s (PKFZ) can of worms ever have surfaced? Now, under Chua and his crony secretary-general Kong Cho Ha as transport minister, the PKFZ is under wraps, save for the charging of former MCA president Ling Liong Sik and former MCA deputy president Chan Kong Choy. Charging is one thing, conviction is another.

Both have disgraced the Transport Ministry with their inept performance in public office. Is the writer saying both of them are good leaders, like Chua, and that Ong is a pariah?

The writer brands Ong as a sore loser. Is it a sin for anyone to try and win political power or attempt to make a comeback in politics? The most important questions are whether that person has the moral right to lead, the credibility to hold public office and the honesty to fight corruption, an ill that Malaysians are paying a high price for. We can all see how public funds (taxpayers’ money) are being siphoned off by corrupt leaders.

The writer claims that last March 28 central delegates decidedly voted that enough was enough; Ong was said to be unfit to lead any more even though he kept accusing others of being incompetent.

Yes. Ong lost the presidency and he is no more the MCA president. But has Ong ever claimed that he is still the MCA president? However, as an active politician, not a retired one, he has every right to present his views. There is no sin in this.

The writer also branded Ong as a lone ranger and trouble-maker. The allegations are arguable and most debatable. It is best left to the party members, and I stress, party members. Not just the 1,000 plus central delegates whose support can be easily ‘bought’ to provide blind support to a loaded leader.

The writer also faulted Ong for being active in his Pandan parliamentary constituency. That is Ong’s obligation to the Pandan folk who have, despite the 2008 political tsumani, returned him as their MP since 1989 (in the Ampang Jaya by-election). Is the writer implying that the thousands of Pandan voters are stupid?

Clearly, in the 2008 elections, the Pandan voters had used their brains and not emotions or blind loyalty to elect their representatives. The two state seats in Pandan went to Pakatan Rakyat but Ong was returned as their MP under the BN ticket. That displays the Pandan folk’s political maturity.