Has MCA redeemed itself from the cooperative scandal?

Media statement by Liew Chin Tong, DAP Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera, on 2nd November 2012 in George Town, Penang

Has MCA redeemed itself from the cooperative scandal?

While the 1986 deposit-taking cooperative scandal which happened twenty six years ago has faded in the memories of most people, recent attempts by MCA to rewrite and whitewash history have come to light.

Former MCA president Tan Koon Swan will be conferred with the Lifetime Achievement Award at the fourth World Chinese Economic Forum “as a recognition of his continuous contributions to politics and business.” The Forum will be organised by Asia Strategic and Leadership Institute (ASLI) in Melbourne, Australia from 12th to 13th November.

At the press conference announcing the award and basing his views on the writing of former Singaporean prosecutor Glenn Knight, MCA president Chua Soi Lek said that “I must congratulate Tan Koon Swan as subsequent events have shown that he was innocent and it is time for redemption.”

Glenn Knight claimed that Tan Koon Swan was wrongly charged but his view was neither endorsed nor shared by the Singaporean government.

Further, after his release from Singaporean prison, Tan Koon Swan was charged, convicted and imprisoned for criminal breach of trust in Malaysia for his roles in the cooperative scandal. There was no attempt to review his conviction.

540,000 people were adversely affected by the get-rich-quick deposit-taking cooperative scandal.

26 years later, MCA has still not apologised to the victims for their sufferings as a result of MCA’s foray into businesses through the funds from the cooperatives.

While Chua Soi Lek thought Tan Koon Swan had redeemed himself, there is certainly no redemption for MCA.  MCA still owes Malaysians an apology.

Share this article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Harmonising ESG practices

In the 1970s, Milton Friedman talked about the purpose of a corporation. He argued that a corporation had only one purpose — to make profits for its shareholders. For over…
Read More