MCA's lone ranger: Pacts ain't my style

In an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini yesterday, MCA vice- president Ong Tee Keat shared some of his views on the coming party elections.

The transport minister also touched on some of the broader issues related to his campaign since his announcement last Friday indicating his candidacy for the president’s post.

Will Ong's past experience a Youth chief have any bearing on his future campaigning activities? What does he think of the latest development, such as the Umno-PAS talks?

These were some of the questions posed to the MCA leader.

Malaysiakini: Many have been asking the same question, why are you announcing your candidacy so early?

Ong: Even before my announcement, certain quarters when they have nothing much to say… they said that there must be some grand design. What grand design? I don't think I need to dance to the tune of any individual or any quarter. These people just want to see that whatever things I do or more like other politicians must fall within their scope of anticipation. So why should I?

So, there is no any specific reason (for your early announcement)?

When I think that it is good for me to say something, I will say something.

Some quarters are saying that your early announcement will enable you to create a momentum (in the campaign) and enable other candidates to withdraw (from the contest for the top post).

I don't think being a "lone ranger" in the eyes of these people or certain quarters, that they would ever take my announcement that seriously. A lone ranger is just one individual. If ever, such "bad imaging" were to defeat me then there should not be any set-up at all, what more if you want to talk about momentum…

You have repeated a few times that you would not fight (the party elections) under an alliance either for the deputy or president’s posts. However, we have seen in the news that Liow Tiong Lai (MCA Youth chief and health minister) has openly supported you to contest for the top post. Do you view Liow as a good partner (running mate)?

When I said that I will not forge any alliance, even no running mate for that matter, it doesn't mean that I'm all alone. But in the broader perspective, I can work with anybody who shares the same vision.

I pity that certain quarters have developed such a narrow perspective. Thinking that when you don't choose or pick a running mate, you don't forge an alliance… then they will say, "There you're, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, you are a lone ranger."

Actually what I meant was, I can work with anybody who shares the same vision. And of course, at the same time, anybody in his right frame of mind, if you were to contest for certain positions, you welcome support from all others. And Liow being one of the leaders who has worked with me in the Youth (wing)… he voiced his support, and of course I must thank him.

It doesn't mean I'm going to form any electoral pact (with him). Likewise, the same group of so-called 'political pundits' could say that "if you were to team up with so-and-so," then they will say that's factionalism and this (accusation) will be used or attached to me.

Working with someone should not be taken to mean that a "pact, clique or cartel" will be formed.

Is there a difference between "factionalism" and "working together"?

Factionalism to me, after so many years of being involved in partisan politics, drawing from my own experiences as well as the experiences of friends affiliated to other political parties including opposition (parties)… you form factions definitely with the intention of elbowing others.

In this part of the world, in our country, the word, 'factionalism' appears to be a taboo. But partisans from both sides of the political divide have been practicing that... it's almost part and parcel of the (political) game. Whereas in Japan, factionalism is institutionalised without any apologies.

Basically, what I merely said was that I can work with anybody who shares the same vision. I really mean what I have said. In fact, I've never formed any electoral pact discreetly or openly.

When you talk about "sharing the same vision", do you think there are any individual leaders (not factions or alliances) who do share the same vision as you?

There are but we must bear in mind that there are certain individuals who may share the same vision as me (on some issues) but differ on other issues. It doesn't mean that we should share the same views, the same psyche on all issues.

Unfortunately, in the Malaysian psyche including individuals in MCA, they may anticipate 'homogeneity' in all aspects. That's to say, everything must be homogeneous. Anything not within their (narrow) definition is considered 'off-tangent'.

How do you describe your relationship with Liow (Tiong Lai)? To what extent do the two of you share the same vision?

I think it's not fair to pick on any individuals. But Liow ( left ), we have been working together for some years. Likewise, there are few others too, but I don't think it's fair to mention their names. There are many others.

Being comrades, friends and working partners, there must always be room for difference of opinions. This also applies to our close friends and blood brothers.

During your campaign will you be openly supporting any particular individual or any particular post?

Let's say when we campaign in this party election, all contenders are from the same party. Of course, some might be close to you simply because of the working relationship, just like within the family… (for example) among the siblings in a family. You might be close to certain siblings, you might be seen as close to him or her. We must take this as a hard fact of life.

I might be seen to be talking to certain individuals either openly or in private. It doesn't mean I'm going to have a secret talk or (strike) a secret pact (with them). Why must certain people have that shallow psyche… people like rumour-mongers and lobbyists.

Let's say, I met up with (Ong) Ka Ting, Dr Chua Soi Lek or even Donald Lim… does it mean that I have entered into some pact with these leaders? Then at the end of the day, I end up with so many pacts.

So you won't openly support anyone in your campaign?

You may think this is something weird but to me it is very normal. In the past 20 years or even before when I was rank and file (in MCA), I've been doing that (not openly supporting candidates), even my closest friends. That's me.

When I cast a vote… of course, it's not likely to be a spoilt or blank vote. I need to make a choice. I'm not a man of no decision but why must there be people out there who are so obsessed with 'secret pacts'.

Are you in the process of preparing an election manifesto? When do you expect it to be ready?

A manifesto should not be just a piece of paper meant for meeting the needs of an election. But rather, it should be used seriously or be a solemn commitment to your cause and at the same time, complemented with a road map... for achieving one's goal.

There must be a road map. But unfortunately even during the general election, politicians from both sides of the political divide... are they being held responsible to fulfil their pledges? No, never. Some of these pledges are simply so unrealistic.

I want something not for just winning the race. The blueprint (manifesto) is not going to be for a single-purpose but rather it should be a road map for me to work on. It is not going to be an 'ad hoc' type of draft.

All these will be summed up in what I believe in, what I've been doing so far and also the experience of failures and successes in the past so that I can fine-tune my initiatives of my roadmap.

Will you include some of the commitments drawn from your past experience as the party's Youth chief?

Yes, certain visions, certain pledges when I was Youth chief. But it should not be viewed from the narrow perspective of so-called days of Team A versus B factional interests.

Do you support any open debate among candidates contesting for the president’s post?

Yes, I have supported this idea since 1991.

How do you expect your contest in the coming party elections? Will it be a tough fight?

For me, every fight is considered tough since day one of my political career. I have been defeated before. I have been humiliated before. But I have never won uncontested.

Do you expect to see more than two candidates going for the top post?

It is too early to predict. What I wish to see is a clean contest. Also, it is going to be an acid test for the MCA political culture.

This political culture of " cai dan "- list of preferred candidates - in the previous elections of which you had always been a "victim." Your comment?

Now, it is more than that, not just " cai dan ". I still say the same thing what I believe in. Just to cite an example. Remember 2005, the previous party elections: I stepped down as Youth chief.

Have I ever endorsed or initiated any " cai dan " for the in-coming Youth leadership (on succession)? Not even that. At that point of time, people were saying (to me), is Liow Tiong Lai your heir apparent? I said ‘no’.

I chose to step down and went for the vice-president’s post. I said I would not lay my hands (take sides) in the Youth elections. None of the candidates, including friends and non-friends, were propped up by me. None.

What about other "unhealthy or dirty" tactics employed in the previous party elections? Any comment?

What had happened to me in the past, I would not like that to happen to others (candidates).

How do you as a MCA leader view the latest development pertaining to Umno holding talks with PAS leaders?

Normally we don't make conclusive remarks based on certain phenomena (referring to the Umno-PAS talks) only. We must understand till today, both Umno and PAS, their leaders through their respective statements have been portraying the scenario of their talks confining to issues on Islam and Malay unity.

It won't be fair for anybody to act on hearsay. But having said that, to me, why can't we think out of the box. Any party from different sides of the political divide, to touch base or engage in positive engagement on issues relevant to them can also be applicable to other political parties. What is so wrong about it?

We must not jump to the conclusion that there will be merger talks or (suspect) a conspiracy (between the parties).

Some readers of Malaysiakini have expressed the view that MCA should voice out its stand now on the Umno-PAS talks because of the stand of PAS towards an Islamic state.

Same issue. We should look at this development from different angles rather than from one angle. Firstly, let us scrutinise this issue from the viewpoint involving two parties from the political divide. Can they talk to each other. My answer is 'yes'.

I have said before, this is also applicable to MCA. If MCA talks to opposition parties, is it going to be on the offensive? No, I don't think so. All these are legitimate parties.

Whether this is going to hurt certain parties or individuals, that is a different matter altogether. Definitely the Chinese view this (development) with suspicion, likewise if MCA holds talks with DAP, certain Malay quarters will also raise their concerns. This is an anticipated response in a highly polarised society.

As far as MCA is concerned, how I see it from my point of view as vice-president, when a party is committed to objecting to a 'theocratic statehood', it shouldn't be dictated or promulgated by PAS or any other parties.

Any parties if at all, if they were to set their sights on enhancing internal cohesiveness within the same religious faith or community must not be at the expense of others (communities). There should be latitude for such talks but should not be at the expense of others.

Our memories are still fresh, in the run-up to the general election, certain non-Muslim communities were made to understand that PAS has undergone its internal re-invention by projecting its aspiration for a welfare state. Many non-Malays bought the idea.

Why now? Why are these non-Malays who voted for them, fearful of the Umno-PAS talks?