Posted on by Kit

Soi Lek MCA president, Liow deputy president

Star Online

Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek is the new MCA president.

The former MCA deputy president polled 901 votes. His nearest challenger was Tan Sri Ong Ka Ting, who received 833 votes while incumbent party president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat garnered 578 votes.

In the straight fight for the deputy presidency, Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai won over Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha. Liow received 1,171 votes to Kong’s 1,106 votes.

Vice-presidents: Datuk Seri Dr Ng Yen Yen (1528 votes), Datuk Donald Lim Siang Chai (1469), Datuk Chor Chee Heung (1202) and Gan Ping Sieu (1202).

113 Replies to “Soi Lek MCA president, Liow deputy president”

  1. Certain quarters within that party are against having a leader with ‘extra-marital tendencies’. Those quarters may start something to show their unhappiness.
    But anyway, that party’s real boss is still Umno…

  4. “Certain quarters within that party are against having a leader with ‘extra-marital tendencies’’ – #1 by DCLXVI

    And it is good that these “certain quarters” did not have their way.

    Dr Chua Soi Lek victory by democratic majority vote to be the new MCA president represents a triumph of New Politics – New Politics in the sense that a man’s or woman’s eligibility to public office should be adjudged by his record of or potential or capability for public service to which he/she is elected as distinct from his private life and its peccadilloes.

    This principle was fought for and upheld by Pakatan Rakyat when Bukit Lanjan assemblyman Elizabeth Wong was allowed to continue as Selangor executive councillor whose revealing photographs were allegedly circulated by a friend Hilmi Malek.

    True, there are some salient differences between Eli’s case and Soi Lek : the latter had committed adultery and was technically guilty of unnatural sex (fellatio). It has to be recollected in his favour that if his wife could forgive him on adultery there is no reason why we cannot; and on the charge of oral sex, we cannot remember anyone being prosecuted under this archaic offence in recent memory, and in the opinion of the ordinary men it is not really a “crime-crime” like theft, robbery or rape, if you get my drift!

    The salient similarities of both cases are that both have their privacy invaded and both would plead that as politicians they too are entitled to private lives which should not be used as dominant criteria to adjudge their eligibility for and capability to execute public office.

    We would have to ask ourselves the question whether we are comfortable with politicians or ministers present or former who are hypocrites, who never own up, say one thing and do another and accuse others of doing the very same things that they do in hiding. Here in sharp contrast the man who took the Hippocratic Oath has owned up to say “thats me in the video” and proven that he is no hipocrite!

    The other point we can look forward in anticipation and relish is how the UMNO led BN will treat his election to MCA presidency.

    They may squirm in quandary/dilemma if Chua should request for cabinet post, as he is by conventionally entitled as MCA president. It puts to test whether 1 Malaysia cabinet in a much touted Islkamic State can have a cabinet minister ‘tainted’ by high profile sexual scandal. If they say “yes” then they are sure to collide with conservative and religious forces within UMNO, not to mention a target of attack by TDM, Perkasa and the other NGOs.

    However if they say “no”, it may cause a rift between UMNO and the MCA to the benefit of the Opposition. It may also benefit the MCA. For once they will have a president who is not allowed to have a cabinet position and all that it represents – power to distribute largesse and other patronage contracts/licences and positions as part of the gravy train. Without these benefits to compromise him and make him kow tow to big brother like previous MCA presidents, what else is there to stop Chua from standing up for the rights of his constitutency? After all he has already stood up for his own rights to privacy; he admitted to his sexual indiscretion; he has been called a porno-actor and yet he could convince his people to vote him in as president of the second major party within the governing coalition, and can tell trhe embarrassed Big Brother, “So what? You can’t stop that!”

  5. At least we can see a clean and orderly election, unlike some other parties where vote-buying is rampant.
    Syabas to the new president who will have a lot of hard work to do, leading to GE13.

  6. Will d new MCA president b stiff n stand up 2 b counted?
    CSL should b charged 4 unnatural oral sex, esp there is hard evidence
    Won’t b surprised d MCA president post may become vacant soon

  7. Does anyone know d date n time when CSL had his recorded sexcapade in a hotel in Johor
    Did he do it during office hours of a working day?
    Was he skruing n did he get sucked while on official duty n getting paid by taxpayers?
    Part of his KPI? How nice

  13. The best thing for Ong Tee Keat to do now is to set off a “big bang” in the PKFZ scandal before the title of Minister of Transport is taken away from him. By so doing (exposing the culprits), Ong’s name and “good work” will be remembered by Malaysians for generations to come.

  15. I agree with #12 yhsiew, yeah OTK should expose them, just let it out!

    Newly elected president, Chua Soi Lek needs to be alert 24/7 now that he is surrounded by Brutus and Third-force men waiting to cause mischief again.

  16. The next plot by LTL and OKT will be finishing CSL. CSL will be paralysed just like OTK. And if this drags on until GE13th, then DAP should have a field day!!! Let’s all wait and see. My prediction: half of current seats at both Federal and State will disappear!! YB, what is your take??

  17. MCA got a “DEAD DUCK” for a President. He definitely got his b#lls held by UMNO. The phantom REMOTE CONTROLLER from UMNO will run MCA!!
    This Beggar Party is history…. only making the Chinese community situation entered further down the drain…
    MELAYU CAPTURED ASSOCIATION = MCA was offered to UMNO on a plate…….

  19. BURUNG TIONG K S of Sarawak must be the strong hidden hands behind for the victory of Chua S L.News on 10 million and scandal of PKFZ will soon buried 10 feet under ground.Ong why should i care

  21. YB Ong Tee Keat – you have lost the battle but not the war.

    Now that you are not in the CC, u r a free man. U can speak yr mind and continue to pursue yr reformist ideals.

    A man has got to do what a man has got to do. Speak the truth. Strive for justice. Send all minions of the devil to hell where they rightfully belong.

    Malaysians will yet salute you. No, you are not finished. Malaysians will not let you down. Don’t let Malaysians down either.

  22. well, now is merry-go-round…umno got soi lek by the balls now. if he doesnt toe the line, he will be charged with adultery and oral sex. hmmm…wonder why he is not on trial but anwar?

    while musa got najib by the balls, and macc got musang by the balls…while rpk got macc by the balls

  23. This is very good news for the Pakatan Rakyat. Murderer is PM and Porn Actor his Chinese side kick. Is this what all those poor souls died for in giving up their sorry but precious lives in defending this nation. Malaysia as a country is dead. The electorate always pleads ignorance when electing this party that keeps changing the goalposts. Malaysia is a nation now available to the highest bidder. And that bidder has won today.

  24. O, what a hard fought erection, one which NgYY was thrilled by CSL’s victory
    Wonder if d new president had given up his philandering activities
    Now, as president, he could continue 2 hv his illicit sex in d privacy of d president’s office
    No need 2 use d same room in d same hotel n worry abt hidden cameras

  28. Another bunch of Suckers trying to be Jackass! Whoever be the President & the Vice President of this Hanjin (i.e. Running Dog or Doggy) Party, I don’t trust this Party and give a damn!! They will continue to sell off our Chinese souls and hopes to the UMNO/BN…

    In other words, they’re trying to be rich for themselves in this Hanjin Party… Sucking around for themselves in the name of Chinese…

  29. MCA should stand for More Chaos Again. I hope that they are finished but don’t forget they have wide influence among the Chinese guilds, clan associations, rich Chinese businessmen and entrepreneurs.

    Ong Tee Keat must continue to probe who are the main culprits behind the PKFZ scandal.

  30. We have a highly possible killer as Prime Minister…….a sex maniac as MCA President….yet… a man….who so call sodomized ONE..not so any…just ONE….cannot be allowed to stand for elections.
    We have also seen one who carry UMNO balls for 22 years stayed as CM in Penang and was booted out by voters….when his UMNO master retired.
    Such is the senario of our Malaysia ……governed by crooks and robbers.
    Will Chua Soi Lek be better than Ong Tee Keat by arranging MCA to pull out of BN?
    You can bet your life…he is waiting for Najib to shower him with all sorts of offers….that he will never refuse.
    Good times and rewards for Chua …….if he supports…divide and rule….race and religion politics.
    That is the present MCA….a bunch of useless good for nothing racists balls carrying UMNO BARU…to support jungle rules and laws…and lead Chinese ..to be happy…..to stay as second class citizens.
    It will be great to hear Soi Lek comment on Anwar’s sodomy charges….as he should know..sex has nothing to do with politics….when sex are free and easy…hurting no one.
    But here…UMNO is not protecting the accuser so much… than to say…Muslims must not sodomize.
    To me…that is the most hypocritical low down political ass-sin-nation cooked up by Mahathir…which Najib enjoys to apply same art and style…with no shame at all.
    This UMNO BARU comedy show have been on…..since the day…Abdullah Bedawai became PM….and on going….all master minded by Mahathir…which will be the man to kill his own party…as he killed off the original UMNO…and Tunku’s sacrifices. UMNO BARU is most ungrateful..to his own kind…….for money and corruptions. What more to others?

  31. //what else is there to stop Chua from standing up for the rights of his constitutency?//

    Jeffrey, you have answered your own question when you wrote in the same post:

    [the latter had committed adultery and was technically guilty of unnatural sex (fellatio)]

    UMNO has a ‘’unnatural sex’’ video taped case ready to be used anytime against Chua.

  32. Re posting #30 : Yes it may be argued that UMNO govt have not acted so far because they are reserving this ammunition of a charge for unnatural sex to threaten/blackmail CSL and make sure that as MCA president he toes the line.

    However they will also have to explain why, if they take action, they are doing so only after such a long lapse of 2 ½ years since the scandal first broke. Why as late as Feb 10 this year, in the heat of MCA leadership tussle, the DVD issue was revived again after a Kelana Jaya resident lodged a police report based on an envelope containing the DVD and a letter being placed in his mailbox. And Police had actually started investigations under section 292 of Penal Code – with CSL being called in by police to have his statement recorded pertaining to the video clip – even though it may be asked what is there to investigate? [CSL had already admitted he was the one implicated in the sex DVD].

    If they were to take action now would it not mean and reflect on them that they are trying to thwart and frustrate the majority wish/vote of MCA? [After all they had ample time to take action well before MCA election yesterday]. Would not it also reflect that it is a case of extreme selective prosecution since no one else is ever prosecuted for private consensual oral sex (fellatio) alone even though the archaic law is in the books since time immemorial? (One has to distinguish the unnatural sex charge against Anwar based on three differences: its sodomy, not fellatio; it involves persons of same sex; and the alleged offender and victim, both Muslims – not to mention that the alleged offender, a fulcrum that holds a resurgent Opposition together threatening the very survival of BN whilst CSL, in contrast, was elected by majority democratic vote to galvanise, unite and hold together the 2nd major party of BN coalition to face the next election for BN’s survival).

    Indeed if action were taken taken against CSL, the Opposition is likely and ought to support CSL (on principle). Based on Clara Chooi’s report in TheMalaysiaInsider March 25th CSL “has commended the Pakatan Rakyat for not using his sex scandal against him, unlike his own party members. He expressed thanks to the opposition for not expounding on the controversy, saying that he had the highest respect for them because of this. He slammed the members of his own party for having used the issue as their weapon, pointing out the bitter irony of how they were willing to defame him while the opposition had not. He also praised the opposition for maintaining political decorum and ethics.“You notice that one of their colleagues also had a similar problem? But do they ever use it again? Did they use it after that? She took one month’s leave and then when she came back, nothing happened,” he said.

    PR did a right thing. It fights for the right at least of a non Muslim to privacy and not to have to State impose its private sexual morality on him, not to mention to right to equal protection of law and not to be selectively prosecuted….Only hypocrites maintain that fellatio (between consensual heterosexuals) is a sexual expression against the order of nature. How many are doing it – only that they are not unfortunate to have been illegally filmed/blackmailed! On this principle of “New Politics” CSL should be supported (Like Eli Wong). This has nothing to do with any assessment of his competence as a public figure, a separate issue. He should however be criticised/condemned if he evinces lesser fervour than (say) Ong Tee Keat to pursue the corruption in PKFZ scandal and does anything to facilitate cover-up!

  33. You’d notice that YB Kit has always taken the high road of not being personal. He maintains the separation between public and private. He criticised Zaki Tun Azmi’s appointment to the highest judicial post but on what grounds? He mentioned first Zaki’s 5 step jump over the heads of many more senior judges in the judicial hierarchy without any intervening appintment as High Court or Court of Appeal judge. Kit also mentioned about Zaki’s prior position as UMNO’s legal counsel and his involvement in UMNO’s dsiciplinary board and intricate net work of corporate directorships – all of which give an appearance of conflicts of interest.

    Never once did Kit criticise/oppose his appointment based on his repute as ladies’ man or his well publicised controversial marriage and divorce from his second wife Nor Hayati Yahaya half his age whom he married in a ceremony conducted by a kadi from Thailand in a textile shop in Perlis in March 2005.

    That is the kind of “political decorum and ethics” that CSL speaks of in relation to the Opposition. We expect no less.

  35. MCA’s politicians on the other hand have neither political decorum nor ethics. They engage in gutter politics. We hear of black gold triad infiltration. They have no qualms about dirty underhand tactics. Just to fight for power they have no compunction using someone’s filming CSL on the sly – itself a criminal act – to force him out of the political stage, nevermind shaming the whole party for having such a vice president in the process – not very different from the other side, for the sake of political struggle, trying to humiliate an internationally respected Malay leader by charge of sodomy before the whole world.

    Look at the way parties/factions switch allegiances running up to MCA elections. It tells the whole story. No need to even recount 40 years of betrayal of their constitutency’s interest and subservience to Big Brother!

    Thats what you get when you put political expedience above the principle of what is right from wrong. No wonder majority of Chinese desert it.

  36. I believe MCA has finally reached the begining-of-its-ending Chapter in the political hsitory of this country. This is reflected by the majority of the Cenral Delegates at the election. Its action is akin to that of UMNO where the process enabled the CDs to dictate terms on those standing as leaders. OTK should have concentrated on his agenda of expanding the power to elect all the leaders to the branch level where the great number itself can ensure that cash could not do much damage. Of copurse, that was history.
    The question remains; notwithstanding the fact that I bet MCA to lose at least 50% of the current seats they are holding, if CSL would expand the base of the voters in MCA? If not, his days are also numbered, as LTL seemed able to sway more CDs than he did. I guess another round of wrangling is coming. At this juncture the role of MCA is iirelevant; though in the mind of many Malaysians; once the 2 party system can ooze into the scenario, both supporters of DAP and MCA can participate across the divide. In an equitable political environment, this is a must. A choice must be available for Malaysians to make. At the moment, wothout a possible choice of an alternative Gomen, the mind-set of politicians in the country, with the exception of a few leaders or more prominent ones, is still influenced by the leading party UMNO.
    Over the last 30 years, the tag-line of making good fortune as a politician has been indoctrinated by wanton practices as shown proven by Toyol and the PKFZ. By now a change is a must! If the people in Selangor and Penang can stand steadfast to PR’s cause;then hope is still there!

  37. Congratulations Dato’Seri Dr.Chua Soi Lek !….The road to success comes through hard work, determination, and personal sacrifice…you had to work twice as hard to rise above….MCA should not follow DAP’s footsteps by practicing nepotism…..placing wrong people to hold top positions and lead a state government….1 Malaysia needs leaders of high integrity. In this regard, honesty, ability, truthfulness, transparency, sincerity and trustworthiness are extremely important in order to execute their responsibilities to the country.

  40. CSL’s victory is interesting in the sense that MCA CC members have been able to elect someone who has admitted to a criminal act even though he has not been convicted in a court of law.
    Maybe it shows that MCA members are able to separate the private affairs of leaders from their public office.
    If he has really repented I don’t see why he cannot hold public office as we do have many rules and regulations for those who hold positions of trust – the problems arise when we do not enforce them like judges making judgments according to laws and not their political masters.
    But I think CSL will find it tough to stand up to UMNO unless he decides to lead MCA out of the BN. Otherwise MCA is simply living on borrowed time till the next GE.

  43. The key to taking down CSL is his stand on Perkasa – more importantly Perkasa wish to defend ISA, the corrupt/broken police, MACC, AG office and judiciary and also the broken education system..These are the things that matter to the Chinese old or young..

    If CSL won’t take on Perkasa, he can’t take on the issues that matter to the Chinese either..

  45. Sex Celebrity can be the President of the Party! What can you expect from this Hanjin Party? It seems like the Hanjin Party does not possess any smart persons, only this bunch of suckers and smart-asses…

    Hopeless party can never be trusted no matter who are the leader of the Party… Just pull down your pants & fart whatever you like….

  46. “Congratulations Dato’Seri Dr.Chua Soi Lek !….The road to success comes through hard work, determination, and personal sacrifice…you had to work twice as hard to rise above…”

    Was this spoken by the idiot cintanegara or by A. Yam ?

  47. This is indeed a wonderful opportunity for PR. CSL will not push as hard for the sharks to be netted under the PKFZ scandal…he knows he can’t stand up to Tiong or to UMNO. A slight whisper and CSL will have his tail between his legs.

    CSL has already said he doesn’t want a minister’s position. The head of the MCA doesn’t need to sit at cabinet meetings ? Liow Tiong Lai to be the eyes and ears for CSL after Liow’s alignment with Ong Ka Ting ?

  49. So, this is the meaning of UNITY within MCA? Each time there is an MCA function, it will end with all the leaders going up stage and holding hands singing “UNITY IS STRENGTH” in Mandarin! And just look at what they do when they are off stage?

  50. The salient similarities of both cases are that both have their privacy invaded and both would plead that as politicians they too are entitled to private lives which should not be used as dominant criteria to adjudge their eligibility for and capability to execute public office. – Jeffrey

    What salient similarities are you talking about?
    One was filmed acting with sexual zest while the other was sleeping! One was caught being adulterous while the oher was having some shut-eye!
    Both were filmed, yes, but one was the knave while the other was blameless!
    So, what are the similarities, salient or otherwise?
    Another point is that about the forgiving wife – do you want his wife to whack him with a golf club to show her anger, like Tiger’s?
    Outwardly, things may be forgiven and calm, but forgiven? You seem to lack any understanding of the psyche of women, especially Chinese women!
    Or are you an ardent apologist of which there is a springling around all web-sites!!

  51. cintanegara: “Congratulations Dato’Seri Dr.Chua Soi Lek !….”

    Congratulations also to MCA’s boss, Umno. The leadership problem over the past several months appears to be finally solved and now the rakyat will just have to wait and see whether the ‘glue’ will hold together at least until after the Hulu Kelang by-election for Umno-BN wouldn’t like to look bad, wouldn’t it? But it may be too late as in the rakyat’s eyes, already too much damage has been done…

    cintanegara: “The road to success comes through hard work, determination, and personal sacrifice…you had to work twice as hard to rise above….”

    He certainly did ‘rise perpendicularly’ to the occasion plus lots of ‘I scratch your back, you scratch my back’ wheelin’ & dealin’…

    cintanegara: “MCA should not follow DAP’s footsteps by practicing nepotism…”

    Actually it should be Umno’s footsteps, but then it must be impossible to ask the old doctor & Mukhriz not to be father and son anymore, or ask Najib & Hishamudin to stop being cousins…

    cintanegara: “..placing wrong people to hold top positions and lead a state government….”

    When was the last time MCA had any real say about placing its ‘right’ people in top positions or even lead a state government?

    cintanegara: “1 Malaysia needs leaders of high integrity. In this regard, honesty, ability, truthfulness, transparency, sincerity and trustworthiness are extremely important in order to execute their responsibilities to the country.”

    Does this mean people like Ahmad Ismail, Nasir Safar, Abdul Rauf Yusoh, Ahmad Husni & even Ibrahim Ali???

  52. If CSL can be MCA President after committing fellatio, then why charge Opposition leader Anwar for alleged sodomy. The AG is biased against Anwar. The AG must also charge CSL for committing fellatio in order to be fair to both of them since both crime (unnatural sex) are punishable.

  53. CSL must get rid of OKT & OKC influence once and forever. These two bro’s expanding their empire too long and eventually causing the chinese comunity lost of dignity. CSL must ensure he stay alive to fought this battle.

  54. Perkasa wish to defend ISA, the corrupt/broken police, MACC, AG office and judiciary and also the broken education system.. Who would’nt when all these protect its interest. If say the power suddenly changes hand from Umno/Bn to PR,I think Ibraim Ali and Perkasa will be the first to condemn the very institutions which he once defended when it goes after him. This is typical of political frog’s culture as practised by Ibrahim Ali.Zahrain,Zulkili Noordin etc.

  55. f they were to take action now would it not mean and reflect on them that they are trying to thwart and frustrate the majority wish/vote of MCA? – Jeffrey

    What makes you think that UMNO gives a damn about the MCA? Or the other component parties in the BN?
    As far as they are concerned, the MCA is a millstone around their neck!
    Also, I understand that oral sex is a criminal offence and there is no statue of limitations as far as this is concerned. So, it can be used as a weapon anytime UMNO chooses!

  56. Bintulu Tiong is now holding a grand party to celebrate the closure of the PKFZ scam. No one will now be able to find out the truth about the RM12,500,000,000 of taxpayers’ hard-earned money

  57. ///What salient similarities are you talking about? One was filmed acting with sexual zest while the other was sleeping!/// – #49 page 1 Winston.

    Yes while the other (Eli) was sleeping and unconscious of being photographed, are you suggesting that the other one acting with sexual zest was conscious of being filmed ????

    ///Outwardly, things may be forgiven and calm, but forgiven? You seem to lack any understanding of the psyche of women, especially Chinese women!/// -#49 page 1 Winston.

    Well if you know the psyche of women better are we not entitled to judge them by their outward/ostensible public statement and conduct by which the wife in this instance had not only expressed forgiveness but also hugged and kissed the husband on his victory (photographed in media)? Or you say that you have a microscope to examine what’s really inside her mind that counts, that you could generalize that she’s like most other women whom you think cannot forgive, that she’s putting on a show? Are we judging people by their conduct as held out to the public or speculate what’s in the deeper recesses of their mind that we have no means of ascertaining unless we’re confidant to that person? Which is the reasonable approach?

    When the scandal first broke you’d be surprised that in the blogs seemed to be harsher in their comments of CSL than women. You may want think about that.

    On the question “What makes you think that UMNO gives a damn about the MCA? Or the other component parties in the BN?”

    Well if they don’t care, then they take whatever the consequences. The last I recall they cared more about MCA Titi Tinggi assemblyman Yip Sunn Onn’s resignation than the MCA itself!

  60. As far as rakyat is concern, none of the candidates in the elections are qualify to represent the chinese community except maybe Ong Tee Keat. AT least he got the guts to step on corrupted and unethical politicians and greedy tycoons in BN and MCA.
    As usual, people who do the rights things in Bolehland get bashed left right and centre. Poor OTK got booted out by those powerful corrupted politicians and tycoons.
    On top of that, the chinese community now has a pornstar and a politically death guy reprenting them. How great!!!!!!!!
    With the new “kids” on the block, the final nail was hammered into the coffin. MCA is as good as gone.

  61. /// MCA has,it really amazed me far beyond my imagination that the delegates elected a pornstar to be its president. What did it show ?/// – #8 by frankyapp

    Probably the delegates thought MCA needed a political erection! One hopes that CSL will be just as candid, accountable, honest and forthright about (say) probe into PZFZ as his admission of his tryst.

    Yet what the delegates have done – giving the man ‘tainted’ with sexual scandal the presidency – is the first, a milestone in this conservative country.

    We are not “liberal” as (say) the United States or Italy. [In the US, porn actress Stormy Daniels, with 150 steamy flicks in her name, is entering 2010 Louisiana Senate Primary Race against Louisiana Senator David Vitter in 2009. Her slogan: “Screwing People Honestly”. She promises an “Ultimate Stimulus Package”. It is not the first time. Earlier another Porn star Mary Carey ran for California governor against Arnold Schwarzenegger. Notwithstanding her size 36-D implants she lost! Over in Italy Hungarian-born Italian porn star Cicciolina was elected to the Italian parliament in 1987. Being so inspired Milly d’Abbraccio, a 44 year old surgically enhanced porn star stood as candidate for the Socialists in Rome].

    This question of CSL’s eligibility to represent MCA as president, especially concerns as raised by his detractors, is not a simple black and white question.

    Admitedly it is not easy to separate our lives into mutually exclusive boxes – one private and the other public. Many of us do adjudge by the way the politician/public official conducts his private life, ie sexual morality. He is after all custodian of public trust, and hence a role model for everyone and their children. So there’s a very strong argument that character and private morality do matter to a large extent, for it affects how a person/politician/official shape public/political policies. I mean it is often argued that if a married person could renege on his sacred commitment to his spouse by engaging in extramarital affairs, would he back his comitments to his constitutency? A fair point from that angle.

    But there’s also a strong counter-argument that wherever possible we should separate the private from the public. It is the cornerstone of secular govt. that makes this separation. Thats what many of us fight for. In a theocratic state, there is no such line and private morality, whether of citizens or politicians, is as great concern to the Theocratic State and necessarily this impinges on the individual’s civil liberties and rights. In Secular value system, the question, to ask, is whether a person’s actions harm others, his private morality is his business. Thats because we place equal priority on being truthful, accountability as against hypocrisy.

    So on these premises what’s the problem in a public official who whilst having “cheated on his wife” otherwise discharges his public duties faithfully and honestly harming none of his constitutents but actually benefiting them – compared to (say) another family man, 100% faithful to his wife and family, and yet, precisely because of that, engages in corrupt acts to enrich himself at public expense to benefit his beloved wife & family?

    Ideally we will want a politician who is both exemplary in public as well as private conduct of his life/family life but are we living in a real world or dream world? Count with your fingers how many can you get. Most time you get a bunch of hypocrites which makes CSL’s frankness and owning up like a breath of fresh wind in an arid desert of defunct/failed politics!

    Just 40 years ago, British Prime Minister – Harold Macmillan – famously said: “If you want personal morality, talk to a bishop, not a politician”! So leave it be. The delegates have made their choice by democratic vote. For better or worse, they also live with it.

  62. For OTK to make a political come back, may we respectfully suggest 2 him 2 b a more aggresive pornstar in a taped tiger show in the Year of Tiger, growl!
    Just wear his birthday suit n perform n then upload his conquest on YouTube
    His fame n popularity will rise n all female MCA delegates, including NgYY, will surely vote 4 him, gotcha!
    No worry, his wife will surely forgive him n proud of his political come back

  64. A man of dubious character will not make a good leader. We should of course accept a truly repentant person. But Chua is entirely remorseless about his sexual immorality (which shows what kind of character he is of). In fact, the only thing he ever regretted on this matter was going to the same hotel.

    But let’s set aside the above consideration for the sake of argument. Let’s assume for the moment that one’s sexual immorality does not constitute or lead to a bad character (if a good character is essential for good leadership) or that a good character is irrelevant to good leadership. Even so, Chua cannot be a good MCA leader, as the circumstances of Malaysian law on oral sex and the propensities of UMNO to manipulate other BN component parties are such that he will most probably be controlled by UMNO to the detriment of MCA and Malaysia.

  65. the saga continues….it is all in the names…in the past they have the wrong combination to get rid of ong tee keat…now seems to be right….here in hokkien in sounds like this…

    Chua So le, Liow Tiong Lai, Ong Ka Ting

    In hokkien as in english it sounds like this…
    — The snake slithers by, then Liow comes charging thru the middle and nails the emperor to his feet…

    the only mistake last time is they have Wee Kah Siong in the equation… his name already sounds like as in hokkien ..k(Wee) Kah Siong…injury all over as in english.

  66. Jeffrey claims that the most important consideration is whether one’s action harms others.

    Hasn’t Chua’s adultery harmed his wife and family?

    Chua’s paradoxical honesty in owning up to his CHEATing on his wife does not mean that he is an honest man. Would you call me an honest person if I honestly admit that I have embezzled money from my company? Can someone who honestly and yet remorselessly admits his dishonest and/or fradulent activities be deemed as honest?

  67. On the question of ‘honesty’, I guess my ‘bias’, if one can call it such, is the implicit assumption that a high proportion of many married men, ordinarily considered by friends or relatives or associates alike as otherwise ‘honest’ in character and dealings can claim, with honesty, having not, one time or another in the course of their marriage, been unfaithful or committed adultery in relation to their wives.

    Whether their adultery harms their wives and family is opening a pandora box of another debate. Suffice to say some cases “yes” and others perhaps “no”.

    In Chua’s specific case, its a “yes” because of the publicity/embarrassment. But in other circumstances of tryst not been discovered/publicised, we cannot speculate whether wife suspected or knew about it. No wife would be happy but they might live with the situation. In any case she appeared, at least in public, to hold out ‘ostensible’ forgiveness of the spouse. Shouldn’t we hold her to that ostensible public display of forgiveness (what ever the real situation)?
    Also isn’t a man like CSL entitled to forgiveness or another chance?

    Besides this discussion of “harm” relates to private relations between spouses whereas the ‘harm’ I was talking about, in the context of a politician/official and its constitutency/public, is whether he is a competent and honest politician in the execution of his public official duties.

    Mind you people vote him, in first instance, primarily for (1) his competence and honesty as a politician/public official – and not exactly for (2) his faithfulness, fidelity and honesty as a husband, though there’s tendency by many to equate (1) and (2), a sentiment I don’t share because we don’t know the domestic situtation and private relations. An emotionally challenged or difficult wife can drive many a man to the arms of other women and what I am saying is that we cannot morally judge who is ultimately wrong between the two as we don’t know the real situation.

  68. Typo omission rectified in capitals – “….high proportion of many married men, ordinarily considered by friends or relatives or associates alike as otherwise ‘honest’ in character and dealings canNOT claim….”

  69. Look guys,America has zero illiteracy,well developed ,modern, advanced and the people are socialable and pretty open-minded. Look at Tiger Wood’s case,though american has forgiven him but he is still unable to pull himself up and worst still for him,many of his sponsors have dropped him off becase they claimed that he (Tiger) is no more a good role model. Now as Jeffery said and I agreed that Malaysia is not only a conservative but is also a multi racial and religious country.Under these circumstances,I think CSL would be facing pretty lots of rejection especially by those who practise religious conservatism. As a political public figure how do you think CSL is going to project himself when being asked about morality ? I think the MCA delegates in their swift desperation to get rid of OTK and OKT,may not have thought about the adversity CSL would bring to MCA in particular and BN in general. I think this’s some pretty good thing for PR.

  70. We should of course accept and forgive a truly repentant person. But Chua is entirely remorseless about his sexual immorality (which shows what kind of character he is of). In fact, the only thing he ever regretted on this matter was going to the same hotel.

  71. If I have extramarital affairs, I cheat on my wife.

    If I take money from the cash register of my dad’s shop, I cheat on my dad.

    Jeffrey: Yes, you harmed your wife if you cheated on her, but this is different from the kind of harm I talk about in the political context.

    Can we say that someone who remorselessly steals money from his dad’s shop can be a good leader (all else being equal – i.e. if he has good leadership skills etc) given that he has only harmed his dad, and that kind of harm is different from the kind of harm we talk about in the political context (harming your dad vs harming your electorate).

    One may argue by some sort of generalisation that someone who steals from his dad is likely to steal from other people, including his electorate.

    Well, if that argument is acceptable, then why can’t we say that someone who betrays his wife is likely to betray other people, including his colleagues and electorate? Why can’t we say that someone who is so selfish as to care about his own sexual gratification at the expense his marriage vow and his wife’s feelings is likely to look after his own benefits and gains at the expense of other people’s well-being, including his colleagues and electorate?

  72. I have read on the Net an interview of him on 8th Aug 2008. The relevant parts:

    “Q: So you’re repentant now?
    A: I have admitted my guilt. I’ve resigned — that is like a form of punishment. I’m willing to start all over again, which means I leave it to the delegates to decide my political destiny, whether my private life is more important than my public performance.”

    Admission of guilt is of course not admission of repentance.

    I can therefore go along with your surmising that “Chua is entirely remorseless about his sexual immorality” but not necessarily the other part about “which shows what kind of character he is of”.

    The reason this guy appears remorseless is because (whether people agree with him or not) he even takes the moral high road of asserting that, as a politician, his private/personal life (including what he considers his sexual peccadillo) is nobody else’s business. Only his competence and record as public official are of relevance to the public or voters. He thinks that the redeeming factor, if any, is (I quote the interview) “I’m the first to admit it. I never say that it looks like me and sounds like me (but isn’t me). I’m the first to come out and tell people what I am.” He is pitching that he a least comes clean, itself a quality of honesty in that quaint sense.

    That does not mean he necessarily expects everyone to agree with his position – that private life of a public figure remains separate from evaluation of his character/worth as a public figure/politician. That is why he also said “It is up to the delegates to decide whether to accept my weaknesses and strengths.” I think that thats a reasonable view. Apparently as far as 90 odd majority MCA delegates are concerned they think, on balance, his strengths outweigh weaknesses.

    On the part that his act (adultery cum fellatio)constitute “sexual immorality” I will not engage in a debate on that because what constitutes “sexual immorality” is relative to individual’s looking at the surrounding circumstances and his background/understanding of such issues.

    On the average I cannot say I know many married men who have kept strictly to the oath of marital fidelity even though they may in other respects behave reasonably honourably (but perhaps you could say I mix with the wrong ones).

    The other relevant part of the interview of interest as it pertains to this issue is: (I quote):

    “Q: Have you overcome any of the weaknesses you admitted to?
    A: No, this is my girlfriend of nearly 12 years. My wife is aware of it. She has openly said, “I married my husband. I know he’s not a saint. But he’s a good husband, a good family man.”
    Q: Are you still seeing this girlfriend?
    A: No.”

    Right or wrong in the real world thats the quite typical thinking of many an Asian, and if I may say, Chinese men. They think they have performed abundantly their marital duties as husband and a good family man long as they are responsible (financially) for their family and are there for the children. Marital fidelity? Its considered an aspiration in relation to which occasional clandestine infractions (whether with girl friends or commercial sex) are considered very much part and parcel of the hypocritical putting up with the strict regime of monogamy that is inconsitent with the natural/biological imperative and libido of men.

  74. I have of course no particular reason to defend CSL. However it must be pointed out that it is dangerous to make the connection – ” someone who betrays his wife is likely to betray other people, including his colleagues and electorate?”.

    There are many political leaders whom their electorate consider good or even great politician/leaders but whose marital infidelity is well known. For examples: War hero, American president Dwight Eisenhower whose mistress was Kay Summersby; JF Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe; French President Mitterand, to name a few, not to mention those whose mistresses are not known. Not everyone could discipline the libido as (there must be others who are 100% faithful) but does that cheating on the wife make them necessarily less qualified for winning of the confidence of their electorate in their conduct of public office?

  75. Lee wang Yen,please don’t beat around the bushes,okay . Old and bad habits die hard. People repented but if given a chance they would go back to their old way {s} again. History keeps repeating itself,don’t you know ?Take Mamakhtir for example,for 22 years as PM,he swallowed billions of the people’s cash,retired,supposed to be repented but look at him now,joining Ibrahim Ali wanting more from the rakyat. Everything gained is at least at the expense of something. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. People can forgive but cannot forget. CSL will never be able to excape from his sin,remorsed or repented or both,people who knew his case would repeat it again especially his adversary.This is the typical society we are in ,once being entangled,you can never excape from it (immorality) and the sooner one can accept it,the better would be for him or her to live on.

  76. Please note the context, Jeffrey.

    Let me copy what I write in an earlier posting.

    One may argue by some sort of generalisation that someone who steals from his dad is likely to steal from other people, including his electorate.

    Well, if that argument is acceptable, then why can’t we say that someone who betrays his wife is likely to betray other people, including his colleagues and electorate? Why can’t we say that someone who is so selfish as to care about his own sexual gratification at the expense his marriage vow and his wife’s feelings is likely to look after his own benefits and gains at the expense of other people’s well-being, including his colleagues and electorate?

  77. We have to look at real life examples around whether one who betrays his wife (in terms of not keeping strictly to fidelity vows) is, from our experience and observation, necessarily likely to betray other people, including his colleagues and electorate, isn’t it?

    It is true that one “may argue by some sort of generalisation that someone who steals from his dad is likely to steal from other people, including his electorate.”

    But stealing is not (in context) parallel to or as natural to our biological make up as the imperative of testosterone driven sex, is it?

    Even in terms of experience as learned from interacting with people: if you ask them is stealing is wrong, they say “yes” so the guy who does not conform to this moral admonishment is more deviant than (say) the guy who cheats on his wife who when he relates to his married friends they all say that they too have one time or another cheated on their wives without affecting their family lives, where they consider infidelity more a human weakness than a matter of serious moral turpitude.

  78. Some may argue that their biologically entrenched desire for survival or/and material well-being drove them to steal.

    I’ve met many people who think that adultery is morally wrong.

    At any rate, the fact that many people in one’s social circle commit adultery does not make it a mere human weakness rather than moral failure. Someone who gratifies his own sexual desire at the expense of his wife is morally problematic.

    People who rape, steal, burglar, kill, lie etc will tell you that there are biological elements. Studies also show that there is a correlation between high levels of testoesterone and violence. But that does not mean that a man who commits a violent crime is not culpable on these biological grounds.

    The fact is that all of us have natural desires and urges driven by our biological and psychological make-up. The difference between humans and animals lies in our ability to regulate our desires and urges by our sense of morality. We desire food and financial security. This desire is deeply embedded in our biology and psychology to enable us to survive in natural selection. But that does not mean that glutony, greed, corruption, stealing, robbery etc are mere weakness rather than moral failures. We have a moral obligation to regulate our desire for food and financial security. The same applies to our desire for sex. Within certain bounds the expression of desires is good or acceptable. But it is a moral failure on our part if we allow our desires to go out of hand, whatever they are.

  79. There are many good and bad factors that contribute to one’s particular action – belief, will power, biological, psychological, and social influences, environment etc.

    The fact is that these factors jointly influence rather than individually or jointly determine our actions. There is a crucial difference between influence and determination. Moral responsibility exists in so far as human beings possess free will. If humans don’t have free will they won’t be morally responsible for their actions since someone who has been determined by factors he can’t control cannot be held morally responsible for whatever he has done.

    But we think that humans are morally responsible because we think that they have free will, despite being influenced by factors that they can’t completely control. So we should not blame our biology or environment or our parents for what we have done. They have no doubt played their roles in influencing our actions and eventually the formation of our characters (by repeated actions of a particular kind), but we ourselves are ultimately responsible for our choices under these influences (rather than determination). Unless you believe in determinism of some sort (biological or psychological or sociological or a mixture of them), we are responsible for yielding to bad influences rather than good ones in our choices of actions.

  80. It’s an interesting discourse in #27 & 28 and what’s being said about Free Will versus Determinism. Necessarily, I would agree with the argument that if one has freedom of choice, and if he exercises it in a manner towards making a marital commitment based on monogamy upon which the other partner relies, then he is morally bound to adhere strictly to the rigors of its obligations in exchange for its benefits, and arguments of biological imperative of sex and natural libidos offer no moral excuse for infraction. On that score, when debating mortality in the abstract, adultery, no matter how prevalent, is immoral.

    Humans, as you say, “have natural desires and urges driven by our biological and psychological make-up”. If these were given full rein without restraints it would be impossible for to live as a society much less enter into institutionl arrangements like marriage for orderly raising of families necessary for perpetuation of our species. Hence the formulation of rules of laws and morality to regulate what is permissible and what is not, the latter being a set of forbearances backed by either official state sanctioned penalties or unofficial but nonetheless often effective social pressure and judgment.

    These latter set of “forbearances” is set up in a heirarchy, probably at three levels. Most basic level at bottom is buttressed by criminal law: “thou shall not commit murder, theft, robbery, cause hurt, rape and the rest”. These are predicated upon extreme “harm” to society and significant others within if these anti social/illegal/immoral acts were not restrained. For convenience, I call this “Criminal level”.

    At the other extreme of continuum – the apex- are morality rules: “thou shall be kind/compassionate; thou shall not engage in sexual licentiousness; honour one’s words and commitments, don’t do unto others what one does not like being done to himself and the rest”. One is conditioned to embrace such positive moral values reinforced by social judgment/pressure. Infraction invites negative social pressure/evaluation but no legal penalties or criminal punishment. For convenience, I call this “Moral level”.

    In between comes, amongst others, matrimonial rules/regulations : “Thou shall not commit adultery” where infraction not only invites not only negative social pressure/evaluation but limited legal penalties predicated on civil as distinct from criminal laws. The defaulting party is subject to divorce by the other and the monetary penalties of maintenance, division of matrimonial property etc. For convenience, I call this “Civil level”.

    So it can be seen that these rules (legal/moral) are set on an ascending heirarchical scale, Criminal, Civil and Moral, going upwards with the harm to society at Criminal level being perceived most severe; in the case of Civil level, infraction most immediately affect private relations ie the spouse though wider it also affects negatively society from perspectives of impact on children by fractured family units….

  81. (Continuing) From standpoints of humans, we’re neither angels nor devils. Depending on Nature versus Nature, Free Will versus Determinism, our capabilities to put up with do’s and the don’ts vary at all three levels.

    Though “some may argue that their biologically entrenched desire for survival or/and material well-being drove them to steal” it is argued here that the instinct to have/enjoy sex is greater and more natural and urgent than that to steal, therefore making, on the average, matrimonial infraction at Civil level more understandable and hence less socially intolerable that acts at basic Criminal level. Which is why, returning to the original debate here, infractions at basic Criminal level are not tolerable as a measurement/benchmark of eligibility for public/political office whilst matrimonial infractions at the Civil level are, to many but certainly not all peoples, treated as matters relegated to private to be separated from public, and hence not (necessarily) an absolute disqualifying factor for public/political office.

    Which could then also explain why certain political leaders like (say) Dwight Eisenhower, JFK cited in my posting #24 were/are still considered good or even great politician/leaders when their marital infidelity is well known.

    Much depend on circumstances, like for example whilst no harsh judgment visited upon Dwight or JFK, the same is not true for Clinton doing it with Monica in White House and not admitting to it, that is considered by many a disqualifying factor, so to speak.

    As far as DR CSL is concerned, he laid it out bare: “that’s me in the DVD, I am not prevaricating, I didn’t like Clinton do it in Ministry of Health, my wife had all along suspected if not acquiesced with my infidelity, in any case its with a long time 12 year friend and not common prostitute, in any case, I posit its a private matter between me and wife of which the public, in my view, should not hold it against me now after I have been “punished” by resignation from all posts when scandal was first exposed (not voluntarily by me but by a surreptitious criminal invasion of my privacy). Yes you can say I did not appear “remorseful” but that’s because my relations with spouse and the implicit understanding between us including acquiescence to my weakness is not something others are privy to or entitled to judge”.

    Reasonably, he does not even expect others to all agree with his position. He does not say that all must necessarily agree – though he pleads for an understanding – but he hopes his forthrightness, candour in admission will mitigate the imbroglio. That’s why he keeps repeating in interview “I leave it to the delegates to decide my political destiny, whether my private life is more important than my public performance”. “It is up to the delegates to decide whether to accept my weaknesses and strengths,” he added. I think that that’s a reasonable position to put forth for a man in his predicament. As I earlier said, “apparently as far as 900 odd majority MCA delegates are concerned they think, on balance, his strengths outweigh weaknesses”, so he was voted in as MCA President notwithstanding the resurfacing of the scandal issue just before the ballot. That is their vindication of his position put forth on separateness of private from public, a kind of “forgiveness” as Ng Yen Yen said. What is there for the rest of us to press our moral judgment in these circumstances? I rest my case.

  83. I should clarify that the above discussion are entirely (in context) based on premises of a secular state with secular politics/norms appreciating the ideal demarcation between private and public spheres of concerns, which don’t apply at all if (in context) religious norms and the position of a theocratic state are held paramount.

  85. I am no fan of Dr. Chua but for those who are very critical of Dr. Chua, just remember this:

    The difference between Dr. Chua and many others is that Dr. Chua was caught on DVD but others were not! Can you be sure that the others are clean?

  87. I’m not sure others are clean. But even if 90% of the others are unclean, that does not show that Chua is morally acceptable. The fact that many people do it does not make it right.

    I agree that extramarital affair is not a crime. I’m only saying that it is morally bad. Theft, rape, lies, corruption, extramarital affairs, etc are all morally bad. Of course, some items in this list are both morally bad and criminal according to law, but the crucial point is that a morally bad person should not be a leader.

    (Of course, Chua’s incident is complicated by the fact that under the peculiar law of Malaysia, his usually non-criminal act of oral sex is deemed criminal. This peculiar law conjoined with UMNO’s track record of controlling its coalition partners provides an additional pragmatic reason why Chua should not lead MCA. But let’s set this complications aside to focus on our discussion in hand.)

    Suppose harm is a key consideration in moral judgement. Stealing from your father’s shop harms your father and his family (except you). Cheating on your wife harms your family. Why is the perpetrator of the former more culpable than that of the latter?

    Do we need any religion or any theocratic state to tell us that stealing from your father’s shop harms him and his loved ones? Do we need any religion to tell us that betraying your wife harms her and your family?

  88. 2 reasons why Chua should not lead MCA

    1. moral reason: his dubious character
    2. pragmatic reason: the circumstances that render it very likely for him to be controlled by UMNO to the detriment of MCA and Malaysia.

    The second reason is particularly strong.

  89. There are problems in this equation – marital infidelity is “morally wrong”, therefore cheating husband is morally wrong, his character is therefore morally dubious, therefore he is unfit for public office, a further pragmatic ground being if he could cheat on wife so he could cheat on electorate/public.

    The 5 problems are:

    1. There is no one yardstick marital infidelity is “morally wrong” that neglects circumstances/context. There are within morality various gradations, some very wrong morally, some fairly immoral, others immoral but nothing the rest of us should bother. I mean even “if 90% of the others are unclean (in sense that they don’t adhere to strict letters of marriage fidelity vows), even if logically that does show Chua is morally wrong, the fact if really 90% are guilty of the same thing, I think it is morally untenable for them to cast the first stone at Chua (just because he was caught unaware) by this holier-than-thou attitude on this issue!

    2. The debate on this morality issue cannot be fully explored without necessarily dragging in a related issue of whether the institution of marriage itself, predicated on life long sexual exclusivity, interest and fidelity to the spouse, is realistic in its aspirations/assumptions. My personal view is that it is not. Why else we hear so many cases of adultery and divorce especially more in developed countries in which individuals stress on personal autonomy and happiness? That is however not to say there are not a fair number of married people who could be faithful and discipline their libidos better than others. Yet there considerable number of others who engage in clandestine adultery (whether personal/commercial) as a valve for sexual release in order to maintain the tolerance to continue the family relationship, if not for personal happiness then at least for well being of the children. What is lacking in terms of complete honesty in this respect is made up by other acts of generosity and consideration to wife and children. Often marriage vows on sexual fidelity are honoured more in breach than strict adherence, and if there are many many cases like these, do we assign marital infidelity as the most or least “immoral” within that range of gradations??? I think it would be the latter, to the extent that defaulters even by language say marital infidelity is human weakness as distinct from moral wrong.

    3. In general it is not easy to just impute moral wrongness on marital infidelity without considering all circumstances. Just a few hypotheticals: what if even my spouse has other (occasional) lovers as well? What if on reaching menopause, she is not interested in sex and gains 20 pounds? What if, apart from the physical, both parties have out grown their love but stay together out of familial considerations especially welfare of children? There are multiple “what ifs” that mitigate (though they don’t cancel) the so called moral wrongness but which most of us who are not privy to the facts of that intimate relationship tend to pass judgment with alacrity, which itself is not right.
    If Tiger Woods or for that matter (say) JF Kennedy cannot discipline their libidos, hence cheat on their wives, does it conclusively suggest they have higher propensity to cheat their colleagues and electorate in work or politics? I cannot say that it so suggests.

    5. Its hard enough to get politicians who are competent and not corrupt. Ideally they should be moral & faithful husbands as well. To impose these criteria, can we get enough politicians to meet our ideal expectations? After all we not voting them in for priesthood – just politics, and we know how rough and tough the political game is.

  90. Correction – Under 3. : “What if, apart from the physical, both parties have out OUTgrown their love…”

    and also 4. should precede – “If Tiger Woods or for that matter (say) JF Kennedy cannot discipline their libidos…”

    The other part raised in posting #38 (about the pragmatic circumstances that render it very likely for him to be controlled by UMNO to the detriment of MCA and Malaysia due to the potential fellatio/unnatural sex charge), Godfather and I have debated extensively opposing views on that in preceding thread.

    However if for sake of argument only it were conceded -which I’m not – that the UMNo govt could do anything including, for example, re-activate a charge after 10 years, the fact remains that every, if not majority of all the MCA Presidents had been “controlled by UMNO (never mind for perhaps different reasons) to the detriment of MCA (Chinese)and Malaysia” without any of them being implicated in a publicised sexual scandal and a potential criminal charge of an archaic offence. I am entitled to ask whats the difference that will make this particular scandal of Chua aggravate more the subsisting detriment to MCA (Chinese)and Malaysia (if Chua were president).

  91. Lets address this interesting poser by Wang Yen – “Suppose harm is a key consideration in moral judgment. Stealing from your father’s shop harms your father and his family (except you). Cheating on your wife harms your family. Why is the perpetrator of the former more culpable than that of the latter?” Why stealing from your father’s shop “More Culpable” than “Cheating on Wife” (given both are morally culpable)? There are two reasons:-

    1. In part its answered in my posting #31 – “Though ‘some may argue that their biologically entrenched desire for survival or/and material well-being drove them to steal’, it is argued here that the instinct to have/enjoy sex is greater and more natural and urgent than that to steal, therefore making, on the average, matrimonial infraction at Civil level more understandable and hence less socially intolerable that acts at basic Criminal level.

    I speculate from anecdotal experience that within a class of children taught not to steal less will be deviant and steal from their father as compared to the other class of “married men” in which more are expected to be “matrimonially in default” to commit adultery notwithstanding the solemnity of their marital vows.

    When something like being 100% sexually faithful to wife is in reality more honored in hypocrisy than reality/practice, some would even consider the degree of “moral deviance” to be less than the other case in comparison.

    2. Stealing from your father’s shop may lead to stealing from others shop (if one has no compunction stealing from one’s own father why would one be deterred in relation to others?) It therefore harms society.

    In the other case if one cheats on wife, it only harms the immediate wife than the society (unless one extrapolates to say that it leads to divorce, and from there delinquent children leading to crime, which is too remote an argument to pursue since there are intervening factors that a cheating husband may not neglect children or family welfare and will always lead to divorce etc).
    There are other mitigating circumstances stated in 3. of my posting #39.

    Suppose harm is a key consideration in moral judgment (and I must add context, harm to public/electorate is key consideration in moral judgment of a political candidate’s eligibility), these two reasons will argue why the perpetrator of the former (theft) more culpable than that of the latter (marital infidelity).

    Sorry to prolong the debate.

  92. I have stated very carefully at the outset that I think Chua has a dubious character because of his extramarital affair AND his remorseless attitude towards this. I have repeatedly said that we should accept and forgive those who are truly repentant. So I reject the accusation of making a problematic inference from Chua’s single affair to his dubious character.

  93. Jeffrey says:
    ‘Stealing from your father’s shop may lead to stealing from others shop (if one has no compunction stealing from one’s own father why would one be deterred in relation to others?) It therefore harms society.

    In the other case if one cheats on wife, it only harms the immediate wife than the society (unless one extrapolates to say that it leads to divorce, and from there delinquent children leading to crime, which is too remote an argument to pursue since there are intervening factors that a cheating husband may not neglect children or family welfare and will always lead to divorce etc).’

    If we think that one who steals under a set of conditions A has a propensity to steal under another set B, why can’t we say that one who betrays A under circustances X have a propensity to betray B under circumstances Y?

    Why allow the first generaliation while deny the second?

    If you think that there are many intervening factors between extramarital affairs and delinquent children, why can’t we say that there are many intervening factors between the loss of $1000 from your millionaire dad’s shop and his suffering bad financial, emotional, etc. consequences?

  95. Jeffrey:
    ‘(if one has no compunction stealing from one’s own father why would one be deterred in relation to others?) ‘

    WY:
    If one has no compunction about cheating on someone he loves (or more probably, used to love) so much, isn’t he a fortiori likely to betray the trust of others whom he has or/and had less affection?

  97. I would agree that in acknowledging first generalisation there is no logical reason to deny the second.

    Whilst the first generalization (stealing from father shop that leads to stealing from wider society) is contemplatable, it is however not something easy, on basis of anecdotal experience, to verify. (In fact there may equally as many intervening factors, I am not sure, that may not lead inevitably to the harmful outcome of crime. Thats why generalisations in both cases have their limitations).

    In respect of the second generalization – that if one cheats on wife, the harm may extend beyond the immediate wife/family to wider society in terms of divorce/fractured families and children delinquency – and whether this is true, this is more appropriately a matter for sociological studies to make a more authoritative inference than my layman’s opinion.

    However just based again solely on anecdotal personal experience and what is observed of situations/outcome relating to relatives/friends/colleagues (committing adultery), the “harm” to society, at least in terms of delinquency, does not appear that apparent.

    Indeed the “harm” to nearer significantly affected (wife) is also not that apparent especially in instances where adultery is clandestine, intermittent and unknown to or unsuspected by the spouse, and the primary marital relations is shielded by non-revelation. Blow-ups happen only where adulterous relationship is protracted, (often not commercial based involving sex workers) and therefore discovered but then again this depends on whether the one aggrieved (the wife) closes ‘one eye’ and acquiesces with the situation as some do for other compensations – the defaulting husband has status, provide financial security, a good father and except for his adulterous infraction is otherwise still a tolerable life partner, so to speak etc.

    But whatever it is, and even if we accept the second generalization that adultery may lead to ‘harm’ on the wider society, some how it is not the kind of harm that, in terms of perception of severity of harm, will arouse as great a degree of moral revulsion/disapprobation/condemnation, as the cases of other crimes like theft in the first generalization, which is precisely why in secular context adultery is not treated a crime.

    Then there is a question of nexus. Take for example MCA delegates, some of whom may be also unfaithful to the wives. I don’t expect they will draw a nexus between the candidate’s trysts/marital infidelity and his capability (what ever that is) as a party/political leader. Certainly the women delegates (and even Ng Yen Yen) don’t draw that nexus, otherwise they would vote for and support him. For those delegates who are also unfaithful husbands, they might not even share the view that CSL is necessarily a morally dubious character as evinced by the scandal, for to think so is to self incriminate.

    Well likewise in wider society there are similar differences of opinion/perception on his moral culpability in relation to his eligibility for that post.

  98. If I recall, I don’t think anything I said challenges what is asserted in your posting #46. Reference is made to first paragraph of #30.

    But I think when dealing with people and the way they look at other people (politicians), in general, competing ends/objectives are juggled and balanced on practical grounds and less attention is paid to issues of morality in the abstract, and absolute sense, except to take it as a mere point of reference/aspiration.

  99. To assert that if one (a defaulter) breaches contract with wife one is therefore more likely to also breach contract with voters/electorate, it must pre-suppose that the defaulter views commitment to wife (as far as sexual faithfulness) the same level as commitment to responsibilities of political office. It is not necessarily they view both the same. (the “is” and not what “ought” to be the case situation).

    We can then have a person who believe in being responsible politician/leader and yet compartmentalise and view infractions of occasional adultery is not big issue. Conversely we can have a totally devoted and faithful husband who as a politician has no qualms puting his hand in the till to beter the financial circumstances of his wife and family.

  101. Jeffrey:

    ‘But whatever it is, and even if we accept the second generalization that adultery may lead to ‘harm’ on the wider society, some how it is not the kind of harm that, in terms of perception of severity of harm, will arouse as great a degree of moral revulsion/disapprobation/condemnation, as the cases of other crimes like theft in the first generalization, which is precisely why in secular context adultery is not treated a crime.’

    Note that the second generalisation is not from adultery to harm on family, it is from betray of A to betrayal of B.

    A recap:
    If we think that one who steals under a set of conditions A has a propensity to steal under another set B, why can’t we say that one who betrays A under circumstances X have a propensity to betray B under circumstances Y?

  103. ///Note that the second generalisation is not from adultery to harm on family, it is from betray of A to betrayal of B.///

    Correct but it depends on how the relevant candidates think. For eg to us he’s ‘cheating’ wife by adultery but to him its may not constitute ‘cheating’ to him (if for eg there’s some implicit ‘understanding’ with wife that she closes one eye to the intermittent affair. Or it may be other reasons. We don’t know about people’s real domestic situation). We cannot draw the conclusions that he acknowledges, in his (not ours) scale of values that his adultery is “cheating” of wife, that he does care about breaching contract/oath in this marital context, and therefore has the same lackadaisical attitude of breaking contracts/oath in other contexts as well, all the same.

  104. One who cares to be a faithful husband sees the value of regulating his desires to achieve some worthwhile goal and has nurtured the habit of rejecting bad desires and influences. One who has no compunction about extramarital affairs and sexual escapade has nurtured the habit of yielding to bad desires and influences, and has no compunction about gratifying himself at the expense of others, including those he used to love. It will be easier for the latter to look after his own interests at the expense of others. The latter is more likely than the former to defraud, betray, steal, embezzle…

  105. ‘Jeffrey:

    We cannot draw the conclusions that he acknowledges, in his (not ours) scale of values that his adultery is “cheating” of wife, that he does care about breaching contract/oath in this marital context, and therefore has the same lackadaisical attitude of breaking contracts/oath in other contexts as well, all the same.’

    Well, if this argument is acceptable, why can’t we say that the guy who steals from his dad’s shop may have a value system such that he has no compunction about stealing from his dad but does not have the same lackadaisical attitude towards stealing from non-family members; or the guy who steals from his school’s co-opt may have a value system such that he is ok with stealing from school but not ok with stealing from other organisations?

  106. Re #5

    Seriously can we say stealing from Dad’s shop extending to stealing from non family members has, in principle, a rational differentia based on relations?

    However “cheating wife” in marital situation comparing with cheating electorate as a politician, he could compartmentalise thinking either he has wife’s acquiescence or occasional infraction (adultery) is a natural men’s thing (or even preogative given their higher testosterone/libido level and that it suffices if he keeps to primary obligation of providing financially for family ie keeping up to the spirit than strict letter of the commitment) and does not bring the problems home where the wife is in blissful ignorance). I am not saying that you should think or that its correct to think like that but we do have people who think like that – as everyday experience testify. They can “compartmentalise” in this situation and does not (necessarily) mean they view their responsbilities as a political leader in same skewed way. But ordinary experience does not testify to the same kind of compartmentalisation for the 1st example of theft (from father to non family members as distinguished).

  107. Also adhering to moral imperative (of not stealing) appears less stressful if for eg one’s financial circumstances are not that bad whereas the adhereing to moral imperative of being faithful to one’s wife could be more stressful even and especially for those of good financial circumstances) in view of continuous biological need/curiosity to expand one’s experience – and the availability of partners in todays easy mixing world.

  108. If there is reason to compartmentalise betraying a type of person in a type of circumstance, why isn’t there reason to compartmentalise stealing from a type of organisation?

    You’ve been appealing to your anecdotal experience (which you then generalise it to ordinary experience). My anecdotal experience is quite different. But I won’t appeal to it since I’m aware that one’s experience on this matter is biased by one’s social circle.

  109. “My anecdotal experience is quite different.” (I expect so) “But I won’t appeal to it since I’m aware that one’s experience on this matter is based by one’s social circle.” (You are right about this).

  110. Jeffrey:
    ‘… the adhereing to moral imperative of being faithful to one’s wife could be more stressful even and especially for those of good financial circumstances) in view of continuous biological need/curiosity to expand one’s experience’

    One may argue that given one’s biological make-up which gears towards survival in natural selection, adhering to the moral imperative of not betraying one’s colleagues, friends, electorate etc at the expense of one’s own interests is stressful; or adhering to the imperative of not punching someone who irritates you is stressful.

    Nurturing discipline in any areas is bound to be stressful. Nothing worth doing comes without any difficulty. It takes effort to nurture good habit and cultivate good character. It takes endurance to cultivate the habit of yielding to good desires and rejecting bad ones. The difference between humans and animals lies in the ability of the former to regulate his desires with effort rather than allowing himself to yield to any desires that he happens to have.

  112. ///It takes effort to nurture good habit and cultivate good character. It takes endurance to cultivate the habit of yielding to good desires and rejecting bad ones.///

    True enough. Endurance – and discipline – is function of a play/balance of what must be a myriad of factors: one’s intellect to determine the abstraction what is really moral, ability to internalise values beyond just conditioning, a sense of fairness, ability to weigh pros and cons (to cheat wife or not) and consequences objectively, quality of relations, satisfactions or implicit understanding otherwise with one’s marital partner, tenure/maturity of the marital relationship availability of substitutes/alternatives, financial time resources etc.

    For a start I don’t expect politicians to be philosophers or for that matter an epitome of moral excellence. It suffices if they meet the “minimum” though we may not agre what is minimum.

    On your posting #8, surely its difficult to determine reality by just rational arguments.

    What else is there (at least for me) but anecdotal social experience to rely for validation – unless one comes out with all kinds of in depth studies by others? Having said that, people have different social experiences.

    I expect our social experience/circles to be different. It remains to be determined which experience is nearer representative of the wider true general situation and experience at the society at large.

    I’d be first to admit I have no means or qualifications to make that determination.

  113. It may be unreasonable to expect ALL politicians to be above board or of good character besides being competent. But is it unreasonable to expect that of a top leader, especially the president of a (or an allegedly) 1-million-strong party?

Leave a Reply