theSun | THURSDAY JANUARY 22 2009
INTERVIEWS VIEWS Conversations
the efforts to further democratise
the party.
Another difference is the will-
ingness to embrace meritocracy
and ensuring the best ideas are
implemented when facing major
challenges. A good example is
the focus on the economy and
the important role of SMEs and
SMIs for Malaysians, particularly
the Chinese businessmen.
However, what counts is
whether these values and ideals
can be put into place because
ultimately, it’s the result that
matters.
How does the group view
the appointment of central
party posts by the president
especially when deputy
president Datuk Seri Dr Chua
Soi Lek was only assigned to
head a bureau?
Appointment of party positions is
the prerogative of the party presi-
dent. To us, Dr Chua’s position
in the bureau is an important
one because it is widespread in
its scope of monitoring all gov-
ernment policies and this role
should be taken very seriously.
Under what criteria will the
group respond or initiate an
“investigation” into issues
related to MCA?
I would like to be clear here.
Unlike the party disciplinary
board, our watch group does not
have the power to investigate
and punish members. We prefer
to focus on raising issues with
regards to integrity, accountabil-
ity and transparency. Of course,
in our discourse and analyses,
we do make references to a few
examples. I doubt these count as
“investigations”.
Your blog (www.mcaintegrity.
blogspot.com) has been seen
to attack Dr Chua about his
past. Is that what your group
is trying to do or was it a
matter of interpretation by
visitors?
We do talk about other issues if
you happen to follow our rela-
tively new blog. We raised issues
such as politicians’ involvement
in community service, the sale
of IJN to Sime Darby and party
discipline. Let’s be very clear.
IWG is “issue-based” and not
interested in any witch-hunt.
Dr Chua was first mentioned
in our blog concerning the resig-
nation of a Chinese educationist
against the background of sexual
allegations as an example to
highlight contrasting leadership
values.
The second issue was in the
light of Dr Chua’s revelation
that he did “technically resign
as MP”. We were surprised by
that when media asked us for
our comments and instead of
providing personal interviews,
we felt the best way is via press
statement.
So how are you going to
ensure that the group will
not be abused or exploited
by someone as a propaganda
tool or to deal with his or her
political enemy?
Simple. Conduct ourselves to our
utmost professional best. We do
not harbour ambitions of high
office in the party nor will we
receive undeclared payment
from anyone. Ultimately,
it’s the integrity of our views,
suggestions and criticism that
counts. Nobody would listen to
a propaganda tool anyway, and
that will also kill off any motive
to finance or support that tool.
It’s funny that you should ask
this question since many of us
in IWG, including myself, have
used a lot of personal time,
resource and even money for the
party.
Since you say you will conduct
yourselves to your utmost
professional best, would the
group attempt to improve
the working relationship
between the president and
his deputy?
It is our wish that the party
remains strong and united. As
mentioned, we are issue-based.
We are independent of the party
leadership and will raise such
issues and suggest improve-
ments for the good of the party.
Therefore, we are not keen to
be “mediator”, nor do we have
a role as one, if that is what you
are referring to.
Do you think it is fair for the
group to be labelled as a tool
of the party president?
As I said earlier, we are issue-
based and are not interested in
a witch-hunt. Of course, some
issues we raise are controversial
and that will invite a fair share of
criticism and brickbats. We are
prepared to be engaged on those
issues. Just taking pot shots by
saying we are tools of the presi-
dent doesn’t absolve anyone of
corruption, abuse of power and
We do other misconduct. It doesn’t
change anything. You can’t deny
not that “torturing babies for fun is
claim to bad”, by simply saying the presi-
be experts dent endorsed it, can you?
dishing out By the way, I have neither
met nor spoken to the MCA
advice to our party president to date to qualify
party leaders. as his tool.
Our group
provides an How well is the group
analysis or received by the public or
party members based on the
opinion on feedback the visitors leave on
certain issues the group’s blog?
which we We neither seek fame nor fortune
think may with IWG as we are successful
professionals in our own right.
benefit the We welcome constructive com-
party and ments and criticism of our blog.
country.” It seems to me that we did create
– Dr Daphne Loke some ripples in the community,
MCA Integrity Watch although some posts attract more
Group chairperson comments than others.
Do you see the Kuala Tereng-
ganu by-election as a barom-
eter to gauge the acceptance
13
of MCA by the Chinese
community after the chang-
ing of party leadership?
There are many interpretations
of what the KT by-election
stands for but I doubt this is one
of them.
Do you encourage members
of other political parties
to set up such a group or
even members of the public
to form such a group to
watch over the integrity and
conduct of politicians?
Integrity issues are universal.
In more developed parts of the
world, political parties are staffed
by some truly qualified and intel-
ligent people. Even then, having
voices and participation outside
the party is encouraged.
Despite claims of information
overload, the greatest thing the
history of democracy has taught
us is that more information is al-
ways better than less. Our politi-
cal parties are slowly becoming
more aware of the need to hear
voices from the ground and to
open up. As mentioned, the
recent move by MCA to engage
NGOs and other groups outside
the party should serve as a good
example to other parties.
What are the wishes of the
IWG for the party?
That’s simple. We want the
party to serve the people with the
utmost integrity, professionalism
and sincerity.