……. (can we see the similarities between what happened years ago to what is happening now? A leopard cannot change its spots. A party doesn’t change its malicious ways no matter how much they are saying otherwise..)
In the 1970s the favourite political gimmick employed by DAP was to either ‘boycott parliamentary sessions and state assemblies’ or to stage ‘walk-outs’ even if the event was an important one such as Budget presentation. In 1970, 13 DAP MPs boycotted the Budget speech at the Dewan Bahasa on December 22nd, and the habitual boycotting of Parliamentary and State Assemblies became the norm of DAP’s political tactic and style for years to come.
Why is DAP adopting this irresponsible mode of representing the voters when it accused others of the same? Will such boycotting contribute to nation-building? DAP has an impeccable record of boycotts, the national education consultative council and numerous walkouts in Parliament and State Assemblies.
When DAP is not invited to give their views, the Opposition accused the BN of being undemocratic and dictatorial; but when they are invited, they have nothing to contribute. Instead they staged political gimmicks to obtain cheap publicity and political mileages. For once voters in the DAP constituencies should convey a strong message in protest against DAP’s trampling politics.
This contradiction is a typical example of DAP leadership since its founding years. Its wishy washy political policies are always subjected to the whims and fancies of its leadership depending upon the political moods of DAP leaders in exploiting the political circumstances of the day. In 1972, two DAP National Vice Chairmen left the opposition citing many of the current DAP leaders as “opportunistic, unprincipled and hankering for personal power and glory”. Many of the DAP staunched leaders like Goh Hock Chuan, Dr A. Soorian who had earlier condemned the policies of the Alliance, came to realise the ‘final truth’ of the DAP in later years.
By June 20th 1972, DAP lost four of its 13 MPs and twice that number of Assemblymen. The DAP was split in Perak, Negeri Sembilan, Selangor, Melaka (the whole committee of Melaka Branch resigned in August) and Penang. The DAP fell foul of old friends with whom it had an election understanding in 1969 and refused membership of the National Consultative Council (just as it boycotted the NECC in 1989) and boycotted KL City Day. The DAP was virtually in the ‘dumps’. Dr A. Soorian, former DAP national vice chairman was expelled because he was increasingly ‘critical’ of Lim Kit Siang for having betrayed the trust and ideal of the DAP as laid out by founder members such as Devan Nair. Lim Kit Siang’s leadership according to the former DAP leader, had no fixity of purpose or sense of direction, and “Kit Siang behaves as though the DAP belongs to him”.
4. DAP devoid of ideologies and principles
As early as 1967, precisely on 5th October, 28 years ago, current DAP Chairman Dr Chen Man Hin who held the same position then, said that the DAP was a multiracial party which would ‘never’ desert its cause by aligning itself with a racialist party, (quote): “… be it the Pan Malayan Islamist Party (currently PAS) or any other chinese or indian chauvinist party” (unquote). In 1971, DAP secretary general outdone his Chairman by saying (quote) : “The DAP must learn from the mistakes of compromising with political opportunists. The people must not repeat the mistakes of desiring on “opposition unity” at “whatever costs regardless..” (unquote).
Yet, seven years later in 1978, the same Lim Kit Siang made a generous offer to PAS to work together “in the name of benefitting all Malaysians”. The pertinent question we have to direct to Lim Kit Siang is that: “What benefits have all Malaysians received from the DAP-PAS political “marriage of convenience”? We know that DAP has played a key roe in assisting PAS in capturing Kelantan State government. We know that the Kelantanese chinese community is living in fear and apprehension of PAS in imposing the proposed Hudud laws and all types of restrictions in the name of PAS Islamic rules are being enforced, restricting Kelantanese chinese community’s rights and freedom to their economic and cultural practices.
Yet, DAP was willing to sacrifice those purported principles it so gallantly preaches by covering up PAS’ misdeeds and seeks electoral pact with PAS to fulfil Lim Kit Siang’s personal ambition of becoming Penang Chief Minister. In 1990, Lim Kit Siang stated openly in the Malaysian Press that DAP was more than willing to work with PAS to further “its own interests”. In other words, DAP National Chairman Dr Chen Man Hin’s open declaration not to align with PAS was meant either to ‘deceive’ the voters or that DAP is void of “principles”. Can Malaysian voters place their trusts upon DAP national leaders who have no principles, and having been exposed to have said something at a particular time but doing something else at another time!
Kit Siang realising his past follies and own lies had caused uneasiness within his own rank and file is trying to make amends by recently “covering up with another lie” that DAP will go to the polls “alone” suggest that DAP will distance itself from PAS. Should Malaysians voters believe again and again these lies? Should Malaysians in the coming general elections, increase DAP representation knowing that DAP rank and file are powerless to stop their “unscrupulous” Kit Siang’s lone ranger actions and absolute powers. Kit Siang being an old fox is bound to change his political tactics to woo public sympathies by “lying” that he is old and ought to be given a last term in Penang state. In the 1990 general elections, did Kit Siang give Lim Chong Eu a last chance to serve the constituents? The answer is obviously ‘no’., Kit Siang is too arrogant and in 1990, politically killed Lim Chong Eu.
Now that Koh Tsu Koon has replaced Lim Chong Eu for Gerakan in Penang, it is time that Lim Guan Eng should replace Kit Siang in DAP. What assurances are there to stop DAP from exercising “dictatorial rule” in Penang, exactly the way Lim Kit Siang runs DAP? Greater liberalisation in supporting DAP means a support of “tyranny” (unjust rule by a person or small group of people who have power over everyone else in the state or party).
5. DAP & educational policies
DAP has no constructive educational policies. Since its founding years, the party’s policy has been one of opposing for the sake of opposing. When MCA initiated the Tunku Abdul Rahman College, the DAP in 1968 “accused the MCA of using education to produce a race of fanatics who were prepared to sacrifice ordinary laws to the party machinery (source: NST 16th September 1968)”. [JMD – very much like the DAP law-breakers we have now..]
It further slandered MCA by saying that TAR College teachers would be “indoctrinated with the beliefs of MCA and that text books would be written to glorify MCA”. The DAP compared MCA’s proposed TAR College to schools in Germany turning out Hitler’s Youth who graduated into the Gestapo.
This is the type of opposition leadership within DAP of yesteryears and the quality of its leadership has since deteriorated by employing new political gimmicks, malicious methods and destructive means to keep the DAP afloat. Not only does DAP wants to do nothing to the cause of Malaysian education, the DAP leadership also wants “others” not to do anything worthwhile towards education our younger children. Envious and jealous of MCA initiating the TAR College in 1968, the DAP spread malicious lies, sowed seeds of suspicions and doubts among the community just to sabotage a beneficial community project. If DAP had been successful in sabotaging the TAR College project, hundreds of thousands of Malaysians would be deprived of educational opportunities and careers. To be exact, 40,500 TAR College graduates would be deprived by DAP of their educational opportunities and thousands of careers wiped out at the costs of nation-building.
Today, DAP lies have been proven to be malicious and has further proven that those DAP leaders who made such lies are liars. None of these graduates has been ‘indoctrinated” by MCA and not a single graduate turned out to be a Hitler Youth! [JMD – but these days it is alleged that most students in UTAR are pro-DAP. Irony.]
There is a mentality among voters who support the DAP for the very reason that the opposition was needed to “voice their grievances” and to provide “checks and balances” in government. In reality, DAP is “morally and ethically incapable of voicing your grievances for the very simple reason that DAP leadership is no longer capable to protect your interests. DAP is predominantly occupied by protecting its own political survival.
Recently the dAP has adopted “new political technologies” to survive. It has mastered the art of “claiming credits” to its name. Never mind, whether the achievements are economic, political or social related. Malaysia’s development progress is attributed to DAP’s existence! And DAP hopes to “hoodwink” the voter in the street even though it might be an insult of intelligence to the man on the street. Another “political technology” employed by DAP since Tanjong Two failed to materialise was to “beg” for sympathies by threatening to “resign”.
Lim Kit Siang during his 25 year political career as DAP Secretary General has threatened to resign no less than 50 times either within DAP or to the electorate, an average of two threats per 12 months of his political office. His practice of using “tricks and threats” to solicit sympathies is synonymous to Lim Kit Siang’s norm and childish prank he endears to, in order to keep absolute power.
DAP has been this way since its inception. Wither Malaysia should they are given another chance to wield power in Pakatan Rakyat.