Press statement by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjung, Lim Kit Siang, in Penang on Monday, 30th July 1990:
MCA entering the 1990s with a President who could not clear the public challenges of his own Ministers, Deputy Ministers and national leaders that he is not a ‘clean’ leader
The most significant thing about the 37th MCA General Assembly is not who won or lost in the MCA party elections, why 25 per cent of the delegates refused to vote for Liong Sik or why over 200 MCA delegates spoilt their votes rather than vote for Kim Sai, but that the MCA is entering the 1990s with a President who could not clear the public challenges of his own Ministers, Deputy Ministers and national leaders that he is not a ‘clean’ leader.
Datuk Dr. Ling Liong Sik’s MCA Presidential Speech on Saturday was a disaster, and nobody was really interested in what he had to say. This is because uppermost in the minds of everyone is how Liong Sik is going to explain and clear the doubts and challenges thrown up publicly by the MCA’s own national leaders, including MCA Ministers and Deputy Ministers, that he is not ‘clean’.
This must be the reason why the Penang Chief Minister, Dr. Lim Chong Eu, attended the first MCA function since he quit the party 31 years ago in 1959 – as he was also attracted to see how Liong Sik was going to convince the Malaysian public, and in particular the Chinese community, that he is ‘clean’ and a political leader with unquestioned political integrity.
But Liong Sik had failed to rebut these doubts and challenges by his own MCA leaders that he is a ‘clean’ political leader in his Presidential Address.
During the MCA General Assembly debate on the MCA President’s speech, a Selangor MCA delegate demanded a full explanation by Liong Sik on the various deals such as Kamunting, Multi-Purpose Holdings Bhd., KSM-MPHB Investment Fund (the delegate dared not mention Bolton Finance and Pyemas money brokerage company), but Liong Sik did not even try to establish that he is a ‘clean’ political leader in his winding-up speech.
All that he could do was to call on both Ling and Lee factions to ‘close ranks’ and forget what had been raised during their power struggle.
Charges that the MCA President and Transport Minister is ‘not clean’ is a very serious one, and cannot just be ‘forgotten’ because they were raised ‘in the heat of the moment.’
The two MCA factions can forget these charges for their own petty self-interest, but the Malaysian public and in particular the Chinese community, cannot take these charges so lightly.
MCA leaders seem to regard the ‘cleanliness’ and integrity of a political leader as a minor issue, to be used only in party power struggle. The MCA must be the only political party where Anti-Corruption Agency reports are lodged during the power struggle, and such reports are withdrawn when there is a ‘settlement’ in the power struggle, as if corruption is something which is negotiable or bargainable.
DAP gives Liong Sik and the Kim Sai faction three days to rebut allegations that Liong Sik is not a ‘clean’ political leader
The 37th MCA General Assembly has shown that the entire MCA national leadership is sorely lacking in political morality. It may be asking too much to expect the MCA national leaders to have high standards of political morality, when so many top MCA leaders in the past had gone in and out of jail for criminal breach of trust!
However, the Malaysian public and in particular the Chinese community which the MCA claims to represent, have the right to demand that the MCA leaders, particularly those who are Ministers and Deputy Ministers, should have basic political ethics and morality.
Either all the Ministers, Deputy Ministers and leaders who had openly challenged and doubted that Liong Sik is a ‘clean’ political leader declare one by one that they are now fully satisfied that Liong Sik is a ‘clean’ and ‘honest’ political leader, or they should have the courage to admit that they had acted most irresponsibly in making wild, irresponsible and baseless allegations against the MCA President just for the sake of party power struggle. Or are they ‘eating their words’ and suppressing their own conscience to save their political positions in government and party although they still believe that Liong Sik is not ‘clean’ political leader.
If these MCA Ministers, Deputy Ministers and leaders say that they are now satisfied that Liong Sik is a ‘clean’ and ‘honest’ political leader, then they should state publicly what are the reasons and grounds for their new understanding and confidence in the MCA President.
The DAP is giving three days to the MCA, whether Liong Sik himself, the Liong Sik faction or the Kim Sai faction, to clear these doubts and challenges that Liong Sik is not a ‘clean’ political leader. If these doubts and challenges about Liong Sik being a ‘clean’ political leader publicly raised by the MCA Ministers and Deputy Ministers themselves could not be answered satisfactorily, a DAP Special Task Force to investigate into these allegations would set a date for its first meeting.