THE ongoing wrangling between Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye and Lim Kit Siang over whether the former was given the signal to vacate his Bukit Bintang seat in 1990 is irresolvable simply because the method of candidate selection all these years has been the sole prerogative of the party’s secretary-general (SG).
The spat could have been avoided if there was democracy in the first place to allow the Federal Territory DAP committee themselves to first decide their candidates’ selection.
In my latest memoir The Malaysian Dilemma, I share my experience of DAP’s “dia-mau-kerusi” culture between 1990 and 1995 when I was in the party.
Apart from those who have political ambitions, no-hopers can also stand to gain from being candidates just because of the generosity of donors who wanted to get rid of the Barisan Nasional government…IF they are on the right side of the SG. This “dia-mau-kerusi” culture has become routine as DAP culture.
While the SG talked about party reforms in the 90s, this did not extend to structural reforms that could ensure greater democracy in the selection procedure for candidates to replace the pattern of selection-making power resting solely in the hands of the SG.
At the same time, in the 90s, the protracted problems of factionalism in Perak, the Federal Territories, Penang, Negri Sembilan, Selangor, Melaka and Johor were never brought into the open to be resolved. The SG’s solution to these factional problems was to maintain a “balance of power” and he had developed this strategy into a fine art in the various states under his patronage system.
There is little evidence today that these factional problems have been solved. On the contrary, recent battles between the so-called “Chinese chauvinists” and the “Great Lovers” – and with unhappy leaders announcing that they are stepping down in the 15th general election – it seems such problems continue to thrive within the party culture.
In my memoir, I also write about the “little revolution” we (the civil rights activists) created at the central executive committee (CEC) meeting in 1993 when we called for democratic elections of office bearers, instead of these posts being unilaterally announced by the SG after the party elections.
We were told that this was the way things had always been done in DAP. This election of committee posts was already practised in our branches and the Selangor state committee and thus, there was no reason why it could not be practised in the highest decision-making body of the party.
This simple proposal to have basic democracy in the CEC was received by the stalwarts in the party as if it was an attempted coup d’état or revolution. There were a few weak protests about how we were rocking the boat of tradition, but we knew that no one in a party that champions democracy could disagree with our proposal.
The party stalwarts were not pleased with this “little revolution”. They were not pleased at all, and it was the beginning of the “cold treatment” by the SG faithful against us, the civil rights activists.
Nevertheless, I also point out in my memoir that, on the eve of the 1995 election, it was not the right time to explain to the people our misgivings about the party. If we had decided not to stand in the 1995 general election, the adverse publicity for DAP would have been unimaginable. We did not want to repeat what Lee did just before the 1990 general election.
As it happened, I never expected that my candidacy at the 1995 general election would be sabotaged by a DAP cadre. My nomination form witness Richard Yap, a long-time DAP member, omitted to sign one of the triplicate forms and was also missing during nomination day itself, a strange coincidence indeed.
The DAP leadership knew about this but did nothing to stop their keyboard warriors from spreading the lie that “a PhD holder” didn’t know how to fill the nomination forms.
Yap was ultimately rewarded when he was given a state seat in Ampang Jaya to contest in the general election of 1999. The rest is history… – The Vibes, June 21, 2022
Kua Kia Soong is a former Petaling Jaya MP
