By Joe Fernandez
MCA leaders, unlike DAP, show no proof of intelligence in the form of ability for learning from mistakes!
Commentary And Analysis . . . Former MCA President Tan Sri Chua Soi Lek, in statement on DAP, raises questions on logic, evidentiary basis, and the limits of political speech under Malaysian law.
(https://www.therakyatpost.com/news/malaysia/2026/05/13/watch-the-best-among-the-bad-options-chua-soi-lek-on-why-chinese-voters-should-still-choose-mca/)
There’s logical and evidentiary defeciencies in the Chua statement in the media on DAP. There’s proven degeneration into hasty generalisation (argumentum ad populum).
Chua asserts that “some DAP leaders had grown complacent” and that “candidates were parachuted into constituencies at the last minute and still win easily.”
The proposition lacks particulars: no names, dates, or constituencies were given.
In reasoning, an allegation of fact without onus probandi (burden of proof) fails the test of prima facie (at first sight) credibility.
Any general assertion about a political party’s internal attitude was not probative of voter behaviour.
DAP
There isn’t proof of any good emerging from among bad options when comparing DAP, MCA and/or BN (Barisan Nasional).
Chua’s framing that “there was no substantial difference between MCA and DAP, but that MCA was more sincere” presents binary choice while denying the existence of alternatives.
That’s logical fallacy, not intelligent argument.
MCA
DAP isn’t the Chinese-based MCA under another label, albeit multiracial.
Swettenham Doctrine
MCA and related organisations were in fact about the continuation of the Swettenham Doctrine, the cornerstone of British administrative policy in Malaya.
It was British Resident-General Sir Frank Swettenham who wrote in “Letters from Malaya” that “the Malay was arrogant creature”.
“He would not hesitate on harming us even if he suffers much greater harm. We must protect the Malay from himself.”
“All he can think about was the harm that he can do.”
The British encouraged the formation of NUPW (National Union of Plantation Workers), Umno, MIC and MCA for continuation of the Swettenham Doctrine.
Malaysian Malaysia
In retrospect, DAP takes the cue on chanting the Malaysian Malaysia mantra from Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP before 1965 in Singapore.
Under Article 10(1)(a) FC, voters retain freedom of speech and association in considering multiple parties and independent candidates.
The Chua statement narrows the field without justification based on “after this because of this” (post hoc ergo propter hoc).
Chua credits BN’s purported recovery in Johor based on the Menteri Besar’s leadership style and disbursement of RM50m and RM20m for the Chinese Diaspora and Indian Diaspora.
No causal link was demonstrated. Correlation wasn’t causation.
Judicial Review
In judicial review, such reasoning would be insufficient to establish ratio decidendi (reason for deciding) for a claim of improved electoral support.
Defamation
Legal Risk: Defamation and Electoral Offences.
The claim that “some DAP leaders had grown complacent” and that candidates were “parachuted” may amount to defamatory imputations if it alleges dishonesty, abuse of process, or lack of integrity.
Under Section 499 Penal Code, defamation requires publication of a statement imputing conduct affecting reputation.
The defence of qualified privilege (privilegium qualified) may apply for political speech, but malice would defeat it.
Without specifics, the Chua statement was vulnerable if there’s claim that it was injury without damage (injuria sine damno) for reputation.
Election Offences
Section 4A Election Offences Act 1954 prohibits false statements of fact regarding a candidate’s personal character.
A blanket claim that leaders “disappeared” after winning, if untrue, could fall within this provision.
The line between political comment and false statement of fact was fact-specific.
Constitutional Context
Freedom of Expression in Article 10(1)(a) Federal Constitution enjoys broad protection including on political speech.
However, the right was subject on restrictions under Article 10(2) FC, including defamation.
Chua’s proposal for strategic voting was lawful advocacy. The advice isn’t electoral offence per se.
Separation of Powers
The suggestion that a party may become “overly powerful and dominant” implicates the doctrine of checks and balances.
The Federal Court in Semenyih Jaya 3 MLJ 561 recognised judicial power as part of the Basic Features Doctrine (BFD) permeating the Federal Constitution.
The argument gets stronger when tied with specific constitutional provisions on separation of powers or anti-hopping law Article 49A FC.
Political Strategy
The Chua statement functions as political strategy, not legal reasoning.
It lacks the specificity, evidence, and logical structure required for sustaining defamation defences and/or persuade the court on issues of constitutional law.
In being effective in a legal forum, the argument would need particularised facts, reference on statutory provisions, and avoidance of conclusory statements viz. in the form of declaring opinion as law.
Intelligence
Again, law or no law, intelligence can be defined as the ability for learning from mistakes. That’s where many people, including Chua and other politicians, fall apart.
Human beings, as bio-chemical robots, are about GiGo viz. garbage in, garbage out.
There’s mind with free will which, unlike the brain, can separate the continous stream of sounds emerging from language into alphabets, phonics, words, phrases and sentences.
That explains language learning and reading difficulties. It’s the mind that needs healing.
AI, machine learning tool based on large language model (LLM), does not know language. In that sense, it’s like DNA which does not know language and how we look like.
We don’t look alike because of immune system reaction, based on environmental factors, in the habitat.
AI was all about working out the next word based on pattern recognition. AI sees patterns.
AI can only be good as what we make of it. There are issues with AI. We will have problems if we don’t see them. There are solutions. — TJT
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea. He should not be mistaken for a namesake formerly with the Daily Express in Kota Kinabalu. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat on the nature of human relationships.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Jesselton Times.
