Chua had to pay the price for the folly of his ways

Of Late there have been many letters and opinions posted in the MSM and some have valid points raised . Unlike some armchair political writers in some websites with so called credentials like fellow in this institution , fellow in that , but talking rubbish and painting a one sided story while totally ignoring the facts on hand . To me these writers either do not understand politics as it is or they have been compromised with some sweeteners to write only to the benefit of those providing the sweeteners . They have been used to spin stories . You could probably find many of them in Malaysian Insider and MalaysiaKini .

On the other hand , people , I would not like to use the word delegates , who have been offered money to sign calling for an EGM or to vote for reinstating a certain pornstar is liken to the Chinese saying for money , they will do anything , including selling their mothers to the whore house . They will sell their rights , their principles , their future , their party for a few miserable ringgit .

These people who follow blindly the cult culture of the former president who is now a Tun are now obediently following orders to dispose Ong Tee Keat thru a EGM with sweeteners supplied by his son who became a billionaire before the age of 30 yrs old . He has to protect his interests , his proxy the lady ex-GM OC Phang , as more worms are now coming out of the can .








I found this letter by John Khoo .

JOHN KHOO, Klang

I REFER to your report on moves to convene an extraordinary general meeting of the MCA. On Tuesday afternoon, I learnt that Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat had called for such an EGM.

I am a lawyer and am not an MCA member. I used to admire Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek's forthrightness and ability to speak up when he was the health minister. Now, I prefer to dissect the controversy surrounding him purely from the legal perspective. Sure, there has been an outpouring of sympathy for that man, but I think there's a need to separate emotion from facts.

Dr Chua's sex DVD case first surfaced in January last year. Under tremendous public pressure, he quit as health minister, as an MP and all party posts, although initially he had announced that there was no reason for him to step down. As far as the layman is concerned, he "paid the price". A once high and mighty minister was reduced to a nobody.

But from the legal point of view, justice had not been served yet, because he had not been brought to book. If, for example, the chief executive officer of a company swindled money and the external auditor found out, the CEO could not just wash his hands, quit his post and say "I am sorry, please forgive me". True, the CEO who earned a lot of money now finds himself unemployed. But he had not paid the price for cooking the books yet. That, to me, is a fundamental legal principle.

Another issue was the delay in meting out the "sentence" against Dr Chua. It is quite normal for justice to be served years, if not decades later. The defendants must be given ample opportunity to defend themselves. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it was quite normal for Dr Chua's disciplinary case to seemingly drag. In fact, I read in the newspapers that the disciplinary proceedings against Dr Chua were put on hold due to the party elections last year.

This reminds me of the disciplinary case against Tan Sri Isa Samad, the duly-elected Umno vice-president who was suspended for money politics some years back. Reports were lodged against him as early as 2003, but the Umno disciplinary board only came up with a verdict in 2005 -- a process that took about two years. Action was taken against Isa too, although he had been elected vice-president.

As to the issue of Dr Chua having been voted in by the delegates, we lawyers hold to the maxim that "one is innocent until proven guilty". When Dr Chua stood for the MCA election last year, he was "innocent" under the MCA regulations. When he was found guilty, he had to go.

There is also the question of whether the sacking was too harsh. Yes, in law, one can argue about mitigating factors and judges do take them into account when meting out sentences. I guess Dr Chua's seniority in MCA and vast contributions as a leader cuts both ways -- it can be used to reduce his sentence or it can be used against him. Being a senior leader and minister, he was expected to observe a higher standard of morality. And it didn't help that he admitted "my only regret was to use the same hotel and same room with the same girl over and over again".

And in Dr Chua's case, obviously the disciplinary board took the latter stance .