The 2,000 plus delegates to the recently-concluded MCA general assembly have made a poor, and indeed wrong choice, in electing its deputy president, the Number 2 position in the party.

Between two candidates who apparently commanded more brickbats than bouquets, they opted for Dr Chua Soi Lek, apparently the lesser of the two evils.

The former health minister's leadership qualities are not in doubt, but the fact is he is morally tainted by a much publicised recent scandal where he was filmed having sex with another woman who is not his wife.

In any society, the delegates would have given him the boot as a person seeking political office must have acceptable morals which Chua clearly does not. Chua seems to have successfully sold the line in his campaign to the delegates that since he has owned up, they should discount this and vote for him, which they duly did.

But in doing so, the MCA delegates have sent the wrong signal in that they are encouraging aspiring leaders to be morally corrupt so long as they own up, and they will be elected.

But on the other side of the coin, Chua's opponent, Ong Ka Chuan committed the crime of advocating dynastic politics which was equally unacceptable. There were two other candidates, Donald Lim Siang Chai and Lee Hack Teik, but both were deemed more of a liability than asset.

So in a sense, Chua's election as the deputy president of the MCA, reflected a very poor choice of the MCA delegates, who could have cast blank votes or rejected of all four candidates as a sign of protest. That move would have signalled that the MCA still has its dignity.

But sadly, this did not take place and any move to win back the confidence of the Chinese by the MCA must be now futile in the coming months ahead, particularly when the MCA's rivals, the DAP and PKR still continue to be in the good books of the Chinese.

A high premium is placed on morality in Chinese culture such that no Chinese worth his salt would want a ‘pornography actor’ like Chua to be a leader of his community, never mind what he had done in the past or would do for them in the present.