KUALA LUMPUR: Many may have thought former MCA president Ong Tee Keat would remain low key after he lost his top post to Dr Chua Soi Lek in the March party elections after the leadership crisis, but that could not be further from the truth.
Despite also being stripped of his ministerial position in June, Ong's presence is still very much felt -- if not feared.
But while talk is rife that he is set to challenge Chua in next year's party elections, Ong has so far decided not to commit on the possibility of himself making a great comeback.
Instead, according to Ong, he never left the political scene. In fact, the Pandan MP of late has been busying himself with community work and focusing on serving his constituents.
In a recent interview with FMT, Ong subtly lambasted Chua for stirring up the recent debate on Bumiputera equity, saying Chua is "21 years too late" in bringing this up as these were nothing new.
Ong, who said the current political discourses are just a repeat of the past, said the MCA already had long deliberated over the necessity of meritocracy and needs in place of a quota system.
Below are excerpts of the interview:
FMT: If ex-president Ong Ka Ting could attempt a comeback, couldn't you make a comeback as well?
Ong Tee Keat: People ask me whether I can come back or not; my answer is that I never left politics in the first place, notwithstanding that I was defeated in the MCA party elections on March 28 this year. So the question of whether I am coming back or not never arises. If a guy has never left the scene, then what do you mean by returning?
Hypothetically, if you really were to come back, would you do things differently from what you have done before?
This is hypothetical, but in all fairness, a person would certainly need to take stock of the past events. I think, given the advantage of hindsight, I do admit to a few things (that I could have done differently). Firstly, when we talk about party transformation, I think such transformation should not be confined to ideals that you propose but you must allow it sufficient time to be propagated and accepted by the grassroots. At the same time, we need to make allowance because 'transformational pain' might hurt certain people or quarters.
On top of that, one should not have too many battle fronts at the same time. When I took over the presidency, I kickstarted the PWC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) audit, and for the first time, the PKFZ (Port Klang Free Zone) came into the limelight and became a high-profile case. I underestimated the extent of involvement, implicating some party heavyweights. So all these actually were things I needed to give some thoughts to.
What about the party transformation within the party? Did you succeed in anything then?
(When I was party president) I did push for the proactive engagement of NGOs as dialogue partners. Not just some stereotyped meetings or fellowship sessions, but rather I was then trying to establish a mechanism to engage the NGOs. The various NGOs and not just the Chinese guilds and associations but also social interest NGOs and at the same times professional and religious bodies. I believe in soliciting their views, which would facilitate in our policy making. I also did attempt to push for direct presidential election, but unfortunately that did not gain sufficient inroads. Some of them (party members) did not buy into the idea.
Many people see Chua Soi Lek only as a transitional leader, what do you think of that statement?
I don't know. After the MCA party election made such a decision, I made no comments about the election itself, nothing on the outcome, nor have I ever commented on his (Chua's) leadership. Certainly, we need to abide by the outcome of the election.
In the few months Chua has been president, how do you gauge his performance? Has he stabilised the party?
Put it this way, I don't believe in the political semblance of stability. We want to know the true scenario. Of course, at this juncture, I choose not to comment on his leadership. Let the people decide.
On the recent more vocal MCA stand in asking for a gradual removal of the 30% Bumiputera equity, do you think Chua has managed to handle the issue well, or do you think MCA should go all the way? What would you have done?
The latest situation has spoken volumes on whether he (Chua) took it as a party stand or party demand or a mere proposal. I think by now it is crystal clear (what he stood for) because, later on, he put it out by saying that it was a "mere proposal", it was not an insistence or a demand.
But do you think it is fair to ask for this proposal?
To me, the same thing was said and elaborated as well as deliberated some 21 years ago. Meaning, he is 21 years too late. In 1989, the National Economic Consultative Council (NECC) was convened to deliberate on the post-NEP policy. That was the year I was an MCA representative in the NECC. Every week we had sessions and this lasted for three years.
These arguments were the things brought up as a party stand, not a mere proposal. Party representatives, including myself, a young MP in the MCA team then, deliberated extensively on the party stand that proposed the necessity for us to practise meritocracy and needs in the place of quota.
Do you agree with some people saying that Chua has already 'backed out' from his earlier position?
I remember what I said in 1989: the same thing is being uttered now. We did not just mention this in a skeletal form, we did not just say it in a single sentence then.
We deliberated and even cross swords with other debaters as well. We were then very well equpped. Honestly I was taken aback. I said 'after 21 long years, this was resurrected', but of course some people are taking it as something new. Talking about needs and merits is nothing new.
So are you still supporting this stand for the removal of Bumi equity?
Yes. In fact, I remember what I said and deliberated, and of course I stand by my argument. I did deliberate on the issue in the perspective that over the years, we have been overly obsessed with not just the ethnic quota but also the percentage of ethnic possession of national wealth.
Normally, we come across such figures as the 'Chinese X percentage" and the "Bumi percentage" whenever we talk about the distribution of national wealth.
But those figures are meaningless to me. Because when we talk about 'Chinese X percentage', it doesn't mean that that is the magnitude of national wealth distributed fairly and equally among all the Chinese. That might be possessed by a handful of Chinese. I think we should be mindful of the economic desparity between the 'have' and 'have nots' within the same ethnic group. I said all these in the late 80s.
I had said that, on the one hand, we talked about needs and merits but, on the other, it would not give us a correct perspective if we continue to be obsessed with the so-called 'ethnic percentage'.
As I have said, we should ensure a level playing field. Meaning, when we talk about equality we need equality in terms of opportunity. Equal opportunities don't equate to equal outcomes.
So you mean we should go for both equal opportunities and equal outcomes?
I am more concerned about equal opportunities. I don't believe that anybody can ever ensure equal outcomes. Because we have a host of other factors affecting the outcome. At the end of the day, it depends on how much effort you put in.
But of course at the same time, we consider the less privileged, that's where the element of needs comes in. Because the less privileged, especially the physically disabled -- those who are handicapped in one way or another -- are the people who need our special attention.
What do you think of Perkasa and its comments?
Again, this is what I call 'old wine in a new bottle': the kind of racial remarks made are the exact repetition of what we came across in the late 70s and 80s. The only difference is that now on the stage, we have a new set of players, playing the same tune. The same story plot, people uttering the same remarks.
Now that you are no longer holding a top party post, do you still feel you have support within the party for your political future?
Well I think we need to look at the bigger picture. And so far I have never ceased in engaging the people. Not just the electorate but people outside my constituency; not just through Facebook but through other means of communication. I wouldn't confine my scope of vision to within my party or just the party portfolio.
Given a worse-case scenario of a bleak future in MCA, do you have any thoughts of leaving the party for greener pastures, any thoughts of such a possibility?
No. In fact that has not crossed my mind so far because I had experienced worst ordeals in MCA in earlier years. At one time I was about to be expelled in 2003. Even then, I never harboured such a thought. When I am asked about where I place my loyalties, without hesitation I say my loyalty is with the people. And that doesn't mean I'm going to jump ship.
How is the party transformation initiated by the party leadership going?
I don't know. I have left the party leadership. I only came to know about issues linked to the party from the newspapers, just like any one of you. I have been totally kept away from the party in the few recent months.
Meaning no invitations?
Nope. Nothing.
Do you think this is a natural or deliberate move? So far the president has also not visited your constituency?
Let's put it this way: I never waste my time speculating. Not that I'm concerned over anything but because I think I have better things to do, more things that warrant my attention which are matters of public interest.
How do you think the party will perform in the next general election?
I don't know, since I don't have the benefit of knowing what the party is doing now. Certainly it is unfair for me to pre-judge the party's performance in any coming elections.
What are the real obstacles keeping the party from doing well?
Politics is a game of perception and definitely at the same time, we need to take cognisance of the fact that MCA needs to regain its credibility and this could only be done through convincing transformation. Meaning we not only need transformation, it must also be convincing. It must not be done just for a public relations exercise or sloganeering sake. It must be done thoroughly; you must convince the people that you are truly embarking on the path of transformation and that you have managed to produce some visible results. Result-oriented and public interest-driven. That's why I say perception (is important) because people form perceptions based on what they see. And if you can't produce results convincingly, how can you expect the people to have positive perceptions?
No comments:
Post a Comment