Editor's note: This is the last of a 12-part series from former health minister and MCA president Chua Soi Lek's book, ‘Like Me or Hate Me: Rising from the Political Ashes’.

BOOK EXCERPT | Hypocrisy is defined as the pretence of having a virtuous character (usually derived from moral or religious beliefs) that one does not really possess. In short, it can be described as a form of moral self-contradiction.

Hypocrisy has various levels of sophistication. Over time, the hypocrite may become so good at practising his art that only the very discerning can detect it. By then, of course, the practitioner would generally have achieved his or her goals.

Everyone wears a mask to work. But while most people may pretend to enjoy their jobs or feign concern for the organisation for which they work, hypocrites cover themselves with self-righteousness.

In politics, they take on the mantle of humility, attempting to convince all and sundry that they have dedicated their lives to serve the public.

Such politicians project themselves as paragons of virtue. Their only calling in life, they say, is to serve mankind. So when they offer themselves for election, voters should embrace them for the common good.

And when they offer themselves as candidates in internal party polls, they are there to save the party. Failing to support them, they argue, would be a serious error.

I have spent 30 years in MCA and have seen a lot of hypocrites. But I lament the fact that God can sometimes seem to be unfair.

If you stand in the general elections and are rejected, you have to accept the fact that the voters do not support you and your party. In the name of democracy, you have to bow to the voters' choice. There are no two ways about it.

Entering the cabinet through the back door

In the rough-and-tumble world of politics, there is nothing hypocritical about having double standards. It is sometimes necessary to deal with uncomfortable discrepancies.

However, when would-be MPs are rejected by voters and proclaim to the world that they accept the verdict, but then allow themselves to be appointed to a higher political office (e.g., as a deputy minister), the move calls into question their allegiance and the high moral principles they claim to support.

Consider the situation carefully: a small group of voters has rejected you, but despite that, you are able to represent 30 million people by virtue of your new position as an appointed senator and deputy minister. What form of morality are such people talking about?

Such politicians are not just frustrating the wishes of the small community of voters that rejected them. They are also demonstrating their lack of political ethics.

They therefore respond by using the prestige of their new office to camouflage the hypocrisy. There is much truth in the saying that if you are a hypocrite, you ultimately have to be self-righteous to hide it.

This explains why such politicians are so hostile to their critics. They become so intoxicated with the power associated with the newly acquired position that they become blind to the fact that they have shown contempt for a very basic principle of democracy.

In one case, this contempt for democracy was displayed for a second time when the would-be MP concerned failed in a subsequent attempt to secure a state seat.

Rejected this time by a smaller group of voters, this person nevertheless accepted reappointment as a deputy minister. This was a display of hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the highest order.

Now there is talk in the MCA that hypocrites like this are being groomed as candidates in different states for the coming general elections.

In the case of the individual referred to above, the next election will be the hypocrite's third attempt, having previously failed in both state and parliamentary elections. Not surprisingly, this master hypocrite is now reported to be moving to a safer parliamentary seat.

In a party such as the MCA that seems to wander aimlessly without strong leadership, it pays to be a hypocrite.

Fortunately, there are still many good men who are not hypocritical. They will not cast the first stone. These are the people who have sustained the party for the last 60 years.

Habitual hypocrites are so self-absorbed that they become blindly hostile to those they think are wrong. I am not a Christian, but I would like to quote here from the teachings of Jesus.

He condemned those who "trusted in themselves, that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt" (Luke 18:9). He also harshly criticised hypocrites, saying, "Woe to you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean (Matt 23:27)."

Hence, if the hypocrite I referred to previously has an iota of decency standing for election for a third time should not be an option. The voters know that even if they reject such a person he or she will still be appointed through the back door to higher office.

There is no need to waste the seat. Give it to another more talented candidate! The hypocrite should retreat and repent for past sins committed. It will be a long time before it will be possible to wash away such a sin and face the voters with a clean slate.

Voters are not easily hoodwinked. Why should I vote for someone whom I know will enter the cabinet via the back door regardless of the election result? No!

MCA leaders have been given many opportunities to serve the party and the people. But hypocrites squander such these opportunities in order to pursue personal self-interest.

Factional politics

The long-running battle for control of the MCA between Neo Yee Pan and Tan Koon Swan in the early 1980s left an indelible mark on me.

So too did the changing relationship between former deputy prime minister turned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim and his nemesis, Prime Minister Tun Mahathir (Mahathir).

I realised that there is much truth in the saying that in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies. Politics is dominated by self-serving politicians bound together by personal interests.

Thus, long-term friends can become enemies almost overnight, while formerly bitter rivals can reconcile and share the same political agenda.

Of course, many politicians will attempt to claim the moral high ground, insisting that their actions are motivated purely by the need to defend the interests of the rakyat or the members of the political party that they represent. In most cases, however, this is little more than a smokescreen.

The MCA is no exception, with self-serving politicians surviving one crisis after another as they bend according to the way the political winds are blowing.

The many crises that I witnessed in my 30 years of MCA politics were rarely based on important ideological differences. They had nothing to do with the community or party members whom they were purportedly trying to serve either.

The toxic struggles and crises only served to divide and weaken the party – self-inflicted wounds that produced almost irreparable damage.

Many among the younger generation of MCA leaders carry the scars of these past crises, usually the result of an incumbent trying to perpetuate his grip on the party while a challenger tries to unseat him.

Logic, love for party and comrades, and even the ultimate purpose for which the party was established, are all disregarded. It is all about securing victory. It is about the means justifying the end.

In MCA politics, it is common for the winner to take all. In other words, the influential positions at the central, state and division levels are all filled by the president's men.

The reward for loyalty could be small or it could be big. Even the prospect of a relatively insignificant appointment such a ketua masyarakat (community head), or councillor can be sufficient to excite some MCA grassroots leaders.

It does not matter that the appointees are unfit for the job, either academically or linguistically.

Hence, it is common to see some MCA grassroots leaders appointed to responsible positions in local, state or federal positions who never seem to do anything other than officiating at functions.

The list also includes senators and even cabinet ministers.

For the latter group especially, silence is golden. They practise a policy of only speaking when spoken to.

Many have a poor command of Bahasa Malaysia and English. Answering questions in the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives) or the Dewan Negara (Senate) is therefore an enormous challenge.

Any soalan tambahan (additional questions) raised by MPs are therefore met with a promise that a written reply will be provided at a later date.

The real reason, of course, is that these ministers either don't know the subject matter, or have difficulty expressing themselves in Bahasa Malaysia, or even English for that matter.

Hence, their reliance on written replies prepared for them by ministry officials. The amazing thing is that such leaders can survive for years.

And who wouldn't want to stay? The job pays well, particularly when you consider all the available perks and allowances.

It can take years before grassroots supporters realise that they have been voting for the wrong person in party or general elections.

By then, of course, these incompetent leaders can announce a glorious retirement, all in the name of making way for a younger generation.

Such leaders survive politically because their lack of competency, intelligence and even integrity is outweighed by their blind loyalty to the president.

As for the president, he may seek to justify his choices by referring to the need to ensure unity and stability in the party.

Thus, even today we have ministers, deputy ministers, exco members and senators who lack substance and soft skills. Some even have difficulty chairing meetings, and will often freeze when confronted by the press.

Factionalism is slowly but surely causing the MCA to shrink

Truly talented people are unwilling to join. Some disillusioned young leaders have also left.

Typically, the losing faction becomes indifferent to the cause of the party and withdraws completely. What is truly saddening is that the leadership is more than happy to see these erstwhile challengers leave.

Those in the latter category include disgusted members who sabotage MCA candidates or vote for the party's opponents in general elections.

The situation becomes particularly obvious when the total number votes obtained by an MCA candidate in a particular constituency is lower than the number of registered MCA members in the area.

The MCA has experienced many crises in its history:

1.  Lee San Choon vs his deputy, Lee Siok You (late 1970s)

2.  Neo Yee Pan vs Tan Koon Swan (in the mid-1980s)

3.  Ling Liong Sik vs Lim Kim Sai (in the early 1990s)

4.  Ling Liong Sik vs Lim Ah Lek (from 2001 to 2003)

5.  Ong Tee Keat and Ong Ka Ting vs Chua Soi Lek(from 2008 to 2010)

6.  Liow Tiong Lai vs Chua Soi Lek (from 2012 to 2013)

Even after the 2008 and 2013 general elections, factionalism continued unabated. After I defeated Ong Ka Ting and Ong Tee Keat in the party presidential elections in 2010, I tried to reach out to the factions not aligned to me.

For example, I recommended Donald Lim as a senator and deputy minister (he had contested against me in 2008 party election).

I also nominated Chor Chee Heung as ninister (he was never aligned to me, either).

I also nominated Gan Ping Sieu (photo) as a senator and deputy minister (during Ong Tee Keat's presidency, Ping Sieu was one of those who insisted that I should be sacked after the disciplinary board hearing).

In addition, I allowed Hou Kok Chung to continue to be a deputy minister, although I knew that he was a hardcore supporter of Ka Ting. Donald Lim and Ping Sieu subsequently became close comrades.

However, for many in the MCA, the realignment of party leaders after the 2013 party elections simply reflected the fact that MCA factionalism continued to be alive and well.

But what the party really needed was to be reunited in the wake of the political tsunami in the general elections of that year.

Until and unless we remove factional politics in MCA, it will be impossible to transform the MCA. When there are no government posts up for grabs there will be less infighting and factionalism within the party.

When I became president I pushed for a resolution, which was accepted in the AGM, that the MCA should not accept any cabinet appointment after the 2013 elections.

I strongly felt that the MCA was rejected in 2008, and if we faced the same situation in the coming 2013 general elections, then MCA had no locus standi to represent the Chinese community in government.

But the moment I retired in November 2013, that decision was quickly reversed.

The reason given was that the MCA, with government representation, could represent the Chinese community more effectively.

What an irony! It is a cruel joke that the MCA has always been part of the government since independence and it was rejected by Chinese voters in 2008 and 2013.

I hate to predict the outcome of the next general elections. I hope it will not be the storm that wrecks the rudderless MCA ship.

In public, current MCA president Liow Tiong Lai lauds the unity and the lack of factionalism in MCA. Behind the scenes, however, he and his cronies behave as if exactly the opposite were the case.

You don't have to be a specialist in MCA politics to see the way the appointment of ministers, deputy ministers, senators, and even the appointed posts on the MCA central committee, reflect the continued existence of factional politics.

Some of the appointments made by the president can become the butt of jokes even among the MCA grassroots.

In 2016, Matang (the Johor investment arm) was listed in the ACE market, formerly known as MESDAQ (Malaysian Exchange of Securities Dealing and Automated Quotation) market.

It was pointed out to me by many senior Johor MCA leaders that among the board of directors of Matang, there are those who are not tutored in English or Bahasa Malaysia.

I wonder how they could understand the proceedings at board meetings! But they had one common qualification: they were all hardcore supporters of the president!

The majority of MCA grassroots members feel neglected while the top leadership talks endlessly about unity and "one road, one belt" in China.

They smell money and opportunities in China with Malaysia becoming dependent on China for investment and purportedly as the saviour of 1MDB debts.

Ask MCA members, or even Malaysian Chinese in general, and you will find that the majority are clueless about the "one road, one belt" project.

Today, unity is confined to a small group of members who are well taken care of by the leadership. We see the same group of leaders featured in the press almost every day.

One leader has been occupying important posts in the government and the party since the 1980s. This is the same leader who often emphasises in public speeches that the MCA should attract and groom young leaders.

This is the same leader who says he is serving as a minister for the sake of the party. He was even spared the axe after then-president Ong Ka Ting imposed the three-term limits on elected representatives.

Leaders such as these constitute the privileged few who continue to walk in the corridors of power as a result of factional politics.

This factionalism is like a cancer that is slowly but surely destroying the party. The MCA does not need to fear defeat from the DAP in the coming general elections. The most dangerous enemy lies within.

Although I have retired, I am still confronted with the problems of factionalism in the party.

Outsiders may not believe it, but many MCA leaders do not acknowledge each other in private functions. They are worried that they might be labelled as turncoats.

Part 1: My resignation and its aftermath

Part 2: The sex DVD - who were the culprits?

Part 3: Finding my replacement for GE13 and the PKFZ scandal

Part 4: Opponents’ attempt to bury me made me work harder

Part 5: How MCA came to own The Star

Part 6: I ensured transparency in MCA's purchase of office tower

Part 7: ‘Avoid factionalism, embrace unity’ - Soi Lek’s parting words to MCA

Part 8: Setting aside personal feelings in 2013 MCA elections

Part 9: 'Muhyiddin told MCA to make a stand on 1MDB'

Part 10: The eclipse of Najib's achievements by 1MDB scandal

Part 11: Broken trust: The Chinese community’s frustration with MCA

Part 12: The hypocrites in the MCA

CHUA SOI LEK is a former health minister and MCA president. Like Me or Hate Me: Rising from the Political Ashes is now available in all good bookstores at RM59 (paperback, English and Chinese) and RM99 (hardcover, English only). It is also available at MPH Online.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.