Regarding to your report entitled MCA the most democratic party? I wish to state that MCA is not the first political party to restrict the tenure of its top leaders.

DAP had in 2001 amended its constitution to restrict the tenure of the party's secretary-general to a maximum of three terms (nine years). Therefore, to credit the MCA as the first party to restrict the tenure of its top leaders is incorrect. DAP is the first party to adopt this regulation.

It is also inappropriate to mention that MCA is the most democratic party in Malaysia just because of the restriction on the tenure of its leaders, as stated in Ng Kian Nam's article published in Sin Chew on July 16.

Kindly allow me to quote from and translate it here, viz: 'In order to lead by example, Ong Ka Ting himself has shown his sincerity to contribute to the party. He took the lead in amending the party constitution by restricting the tenure of the top leaders in MCA, MCA Wanita and MCA Youth, including a nine-year restriction on the post of president.

'Such a bold move is not only setting a new trend [...] but is also a new milestone in the democratisation process of Malaysians politics.'

It is a questionable argument to claim that such a restriction can be considered 'a new milestone in the democratisation process'. Restriction of leaders' tenure should not be the only or the most important yardstick to measure how democratic a political party is.A democratic system should also respect the voice of the minority and that they be adequately represented.

MCA Life Long Learning Campaign director Quek Ngee Meng was quoted in your report as dismissing the minimum nomination system and cadre election system of other parties as 'constraining the rights of delegates'.

His statement is neither true nor accurate as the cadre election system practiced by DAP is to ensure a more balanced representation in the party's leadership.

In closing, it must be stated that the coming MCA elections will have no big impact on the democratisation of Malaysian politics.