That is the question many had argued over the Dr. Chua’s sex scandal lately. Some says he should since he had committed adultery and as a public figure he should behave himself, some says he shouldn’t as this is exactly what his hidden enemy wants.
I came across this article by Josh Hong posted on Malaysiakini (ya, it’s them, again ), which i think is a good read.
Sexual escapades in moron state
by Josh Hong
Dr Chua Soi Lek’s dramatic fall from grace has indeed shocked the nation, and the Chinese community in particular. Well, not an auspicious start to 2008 perhaps?
Moral vanguards may be quick to cast the first stone – in a rather self-righteous manner – at the former health minister who found his position untenable following the exposure of his sexual escapades, I still would like to salute the man. Unlike others, Chua lost no time in coming forward and admitting his acts. It does reek of damage control, the fact that Chua was prepared to sacrifice his reputation has set a fine example for others – within and without government – to follow.
But should the powerful and influential former vice-president of the MCA have resigned from all his posts in the first place? Probably not.
No doubt, the endeavor by the Barisan Nasional, and the MCA in particular, to project itself as ‘whiter than white’ has suffered a severe blow. Still, one risks losing perspectives if one seeks to confuse private morality with public interest.
We can raise questions about the conduct of public officials in several areas: matters concerning their personal conduct, such as adultery; the criteria they use in designing and evaluating public policies, such as how health policies are formulated in this country; and the implementation of the policies. A minister, as Chua once was, has therefore to be explicit about the conflicts of interests and values in carrying out his or her public duties, and ensures avoidance of them at all costs.
Whether or not a “sex scandal” involves public interest is a test of political wisdom. Not long before the national election in November last year, the ruling Liberal Party in Australia fed the media with the story of Kevin Rudd having visited a New York strip club several years back. Rudd was the rising star of the Labor Party and the man most likely to defeat John Howard and claim the prime minister job. Undaunted, he bravely owned up while insisting that he did it outside office hours and spent his own money. Rudd’s forthrightness paid off as he led his party to an historic landslide victory.
Between public and personal
On the contrary, Chu Pui-hing, director of broadcasting for the government-funded Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK), resigned after being caught by paparazzi while walking hand-in-hand with a sexy girl in the red-light zone of the Wan Chai district, an area made famous by the 1961 movie The World of Suzie Wong.
When the sensational news first broke, Chu instructed his assistants to issue a denial through RTHK, claiming the girl to be “friend of a friend”. Instead of identifying as to whether public interest had been compromised, the Hong Kong media chose to relish in uncovering the “sleazy behaviour” between the two.
In this matter, Chu had committed two public wrongs: first, he made use of his position as a public servant to issue “clarification” over a personal matter and, second, the “clarification” was nothing but plain lie, for the girl was a sex worker that Chu hired. Chu eventually stepped down, not because he had abused his power and sought to mislead the public, but to account for his personal conduct that was seen as “unacceptable”.
In the case of Chua, the public media and the press should at least find out as to whether Chua had extended any material rewards to the woman by virtue of his position as a parliamentarian and a cabinet minister? Is she indeed a “personal friend”? Had Chua permitted her to enjoy any facilities meant for public duties, such as an official car? Were the hotel bills settled with public or private money? Etc.. To play the role as the Fourth State, our media should at least direct its effort at dealing with these issues, rather than the sexual dimension which is always juicy but unedifying to the public.
If all the in-depth report revealed nothing more than an affair between two consenting adults, we should just butt out, for there is no law in the world that says a thirty-something woman cannot have sex with a sexagenarian man at her own will. Hence, Chua need not resign if his sexual (mis)conduct did not breach any public duties. How is Chua to mend his now broken family ties is also entirely a personal matter.
As women rights activist and my friend Toni Zaitun Kasim has opined in the Sun yesterday, rather than a crime, adultery is more of a moral issue that is determined by each individual’s personal accountability.
Instead, we should go after the culprits who had intruded Chua’s privacy – the silent majority will only send the signal that the spying culture in Malaysia is too prevalent and entrenched to be done away. It would also serve as a pretext for the authoritarian government and the religious vanguards to exercise more moral policing and even scrutiny on the public in the future should we condone it. Blame no others but ourselves then.
It is indeed tragic that Malaysian politics has again descended into the dark and unpredictable ravine of nasty insinuations. With the party polls scheduled to take place later this year, various factions within the MCA are now beating ploughshares into swords rather than making peace. Chan Kong Choy, MCA deputy president and Transport Minister, has seen his image tarnished beyond rescue in the wake of the series of deadly road accidents and the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal that came to light last year. Almost a spent force, Chan must be so thankful to be given a reprieve now that Chua, a potential challenger, is gone forever.
Seen as a threat
Being a capable minister with a strong power base in Johor, Chua was also popularly seen as much more charismatic than Ong Ka Ting, the MCA president. Most strikingly, Chua’s command of Bahasa Malaysia and English is impeccable, and he speaks fluent Mandarin despite coming from an English-speaking background. Quite clearly, Chua’s linguistic talents and confidence in meeting the press and the public had all made Ong extremely uneasy and even feel threatened.
Chua’s dedication to the Ministry of Health is evident in his visits to most of the hospitals across the country, and his ability to communicate with hospital staff and civil servants in Bahasa was a tremendous help. He can be critical sometimes, as he happened to be the only cabinet minister who said the government should look into the root causes behind the meteoric rise of Hindraf. In other words, suppression and smearing would be futile to solving the problems facing the Indian community.
Using personal issues to attack political rivals has long been a Malaysian culture, laying bare the serious incompetence of public figures in engaging in rational debate. Hence, when the opponent is hard to beat, the next thing to do is to resort to dirty tricks: second wife, womanizing, possession of porn materials, homosexuality, unnatural sex – you name it. Most hypocritically, many do so in the name of upholding public moral standards, although they stoop so low simply because of bitter jealousy and power hunger.
Like it nor not, Malaysia abounds with such humbugs, and Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the former prime minister, is the hypocrite par excellence who in 1998 notoriously dragged the entire country into a political crisis by trumping up dodgy charges against Anwar Ibrahim just to protect himself from being toppled.
At several campaign rallies, I also heard PAS supporters taunt Hishammuddin Hussein, the head of Umno Youth, as “pondan” and Azalina Othman, the Youth and Sports Minister, lesbian. Some years ago, the principal of a Chinese-language college was forced to quit reputedly due to sexual misconduct of private nature.
Surely one can question whether or not these people deserve public office, but to pursue them with personal and demeaning attacks must not be tolerated at all times. Chua is only the latest illustration of the intellectual vacuity in Malaysian life.
Pak Lah’s dilemma
It was obvious that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi could ill-afford to keep Chua in government. Had he done so, he would open himself to barrage of charges of favouritism by Umno and BN grassroots given that Rahim Thamby Chik, the former Chief Minister Malacca, and D P Vijandran, the former MIC Secretary-General and deputy speaker of Dewan Rakyat, both resigned over sex scandals in the 1990s. Umno extremists could even accuse the prime minister of “condoning the immorality of a Chinese minister”.
Most importantly, how was Abdullah to compete for votes against the religio-moral crusaders in Pas mocking his “Islam Hadhari”?
Still, if Chua had to resign, why not Dr Ling Liong Sik, the former MCA president, who while Transport Minister allegedly made use of his ministerial office to reach private deals with a Herr Franz Christoph Heldwein, an Austrian businessman?
And what about Rafidah Aziz over the Approved Permits scandal, Samy Vellu over the cracking bridges/flyovers and toll concessions shrouded in secrecy, and Chan Kong Choy over the Port Klang Free Zone that is nothing but a white elephant?
If Malaysians are consumed by moral outrage in the wake of Chua’s infidelity, condemn his acts while rushing to watch the tapes, yet show no interests in pressing for others who have failed their public duties to quit, what kind of a country and a society that we are living in now? A moron state, maybe?
