contrarian: DAP must practice tyranny
I can’t get this past my head, so forgive me for sounding quite contrarian: the DAP must learn to be tyrannical to itself. I mean look at it this way: the DAP, whether we wish to believe represents the aspirations of Malaysians for a democratic state, must learn in my opinion to engage in selective tyranny, especially with itself.
We have here a political party run by personalities and not ideals, in my opinion: it’s all been trench-fighting, tossing diatribe after BN’s diatribe. All this is fine, I suppose, and some would say necessary: our political climate is such that with BN’s overwhelming majority in parliament, any incident not turned into a national issue is a lost opportunity.
Well and good. We have had demogogues, with LKS being the most prominent - this in itself is not wrong, I believe, because this in itself reflects necessity. But when you have a party, country or company run by a personality playing the by-lines and blowing up issues, you can’t afford to be seen as tardy in your own backyard.
See, the way I think of it is like this: LKS, Teresa Kok and the memory of Lim Guan Eng’s imprisonment, etc. all help to form a certain image of DAP to the public. If the recent ear-squat incident, or the recent hoo-haa about university rankings is anything to go by, LKS and Teresa Kok have had the opportunity to appear larger than life. Now, that’s my point: DAP is well placed to appear either larger than life, or standing for things larger and far bigger than the mundane.
Add to this the singular opportunity to appear messianic: they are being castigated in the press (two of them against Legion), they have every opportunity to play the suffering crusader. But then the bubble bursts: a let-down in Kota Melaka, Lim Guan Eng and wife are out, whispers of conspiracies and what-not.
To be eaten from the inside is far worse a tragedy than to be defeated by your foes, that’s what I say. So therefore, DAP must submit to some kind of central authority. It’s my belief that Singapore enjoys success now purely because of LKY’s patriachal tyranny - and I mean this not as a pejorative, but refer to the mode of government.
This isn’t time for DAP to “stand together”, this is the time for DAP to submit to the vision of one man, however misguided, because a singular front penetrates public consciousness far easier than does a squabbling spectacle. DAP is playing right into BN hands.
Yes, I am aware of the irony of proposing a tyranny within a party that espouses democratic values, but that’s the only way, I think, they can make inroads in the electorate.
That’s what I think, anyway.


Lol, so you’re actually arguing that DAP become more authoritarian ala Dr Mahathir/LKY???
So it seems the saying “One can’t please everybody” rings true here. On one hand, many Malaysians constantly criticises BN for their “One Man Rule” and silencing of dissent style, and yet when DAP shows some ‘democracy’ in their leadership struggles, the same people (am I wrong to put you in the same category) turns around and starts accusing them of not being united! Laughable!
Dude, you can’t have it both ways. Vibrant internal party power struggles are healthy, in kept in check. Democratic tussles for the leadership in Australian parties such as in the Labor Party (Keating practically kicked the PM out during his term) and the Liberal Party (numerous changes in its leadership before settling on John Howard) doesn’t seem to be detrimental to those parties in the long run.
So don’t be a hypocrite and stick to what you believe in. If it’s democracy you want, DAP is showing it now.
Comment by cyrix — Monday, 19 December 2005 @ 9:22 pm
It’s a matter of consistency, not ideals, like I’ve said. If DAP wishes to run its campaign based on populist issues, then it must have the consistency to run itself in the same vein.
We don’t seem to be living in Australia, we’re living in the real world, viz. Malaysia; if you trust the people to be “educated middle-class voters”, then you’ll have to explain the spectre of that 92% majority in parliament BN’s enjoying.
If anything, it appears Dr. Mahathir’s tyranny is what the people want! So wherefore our “democratic” aspirations? Might as well be honest and do away with them, yes?
So yes, you can have it both ways, basically, because there being “two ways” is an entrenched delusion. Democratic aspirations, of whatever party, is a basic smokescreen for the people; if either of the two DAP stalwarts want to maintain the momentum they’ve gained over the past few weeks, they should dispense with silly ideas like running a party like a glorified committee.
Yes, make noise about this issue or that issue, but if you’re going to let party internal struggles become a reason for the people to lose faith in you, then I’d say don’t even bother making noise.
If you see this as hypocrisy, then I’d have to say that view is naive.
Comment by xpyre — Monday, 19 December 2005 @ 9:32 pm
True, our fellow middle-class Malaysians are severely under-educated on their democratic power and responsibility in preserving check and balance mechanisms in the parliament.
But let’s not get too carried away here on the Lim Guan Eng and his wife issue here. They just lost their Malacca committe places, which is basically a state matter, which is understandable. You can’t expect everyone to be a LGE supporter. Every party have their factions.
However, federal level DAP is still very united under LKS and Karpal Singh, exactly to your preference. However, is this actually a good thing? I am a big admirer of what DAP has done for our society, but I must agree with others that currently its a lethargic party. LKS has helmed the party for too long now. He should go now, and make way for new, young and dynamic leaders with a different vision for the party.
But thanks to that very same tyranny (or tenacious, if you like) that LKS and his senior advisers practice in culling many new talents who is seen as a treat to their positions, DAP has been seriously deprived of new talent.
So is a strictly controlled leadership-changing process really that desirable? I disagree with these designated ascensions, in favour of a free, all out internal party elections.
Comment by cyrix — Tuesday, 20 December 2005 @ 8:59 am
No, I do believe “educated middle-class voters” do know what they’re voting for when they do, in fact, vote. If we can’t trust this group of voters to vote with their conscience, then the democratic enterprise, or rather the aspiration to have a nation engaged in steering its own destiny, is fruitless.
My question still stands, however: why, despite a burgeoning middle-class in Malaysia over the past 20 years, did we have a 92% majority for BN in parliament?
My position is that the people have never had a proper alternative. One look at Barisan Alternatif and you see the splits and cracks within the coalition. It is this fractious state of affairs that scares voters away: not only do not have any faith in an untested BA (an argument from ignorance, surely) but on the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be a strong, dedicated coalition to bolster confidence.
The same follows for DAP, in my opinion. It’s a matter of control, isn’t it? It’s been a common complaint that LKS has wielded - and is wielding - too much power within the party, but consider the alternatives: take away the personalities and fill positions with technocrats, or worse, bureaucrats. Will this win votes?
In my opinion, it will not. And isn’t that the name of the game, to win votes? In such a besieged climate, I believe communal hugs and backslaps won’t amount to much; we need strong, concerted and concentrated leadership to carry the day. That, I think, is the bigger picture.
Comment by xpyre — Tuesday, 20 December 2005 @ 11:34 am
If we were to believe that DAP can help us achieve a “democratic” state, then, sad to say (IMO) “you can only hope”. The same goes to any other Opposition Party. Each and every leaders in those parties have their OWN agendas.
Ahh. The dirty game we call Politics. The question is, how dirty can they be?
Comment by Lord Vendetta — Tuesday, 20 December 2005 @ 4:41 pm
Vendetta> I believe you’re right, but that’s the point: by themselves, all opposition parties have agendas - it’s just a macroscopic reflection of situations in a community: all individuals have their own self-interests at heart. The point of having opposition parliamentarians would be to have a balance of interests within parliament.
I think that’s the realistic view of any democracy. We shouldn’t be blinded by happy-meals meted out by proponents of liberal democracy and lose sight of that fact, I think.
Which therefore demands that DAP and other opposition parties play to win votes; all those funny declarations of doing this and that are moot if they aren’t even in parliament, man!
Comment by xpyre — Tuesday, 20 December 2005 @ 9:55 pm
Xpyre dude,
You sound like you are a Leninist….
You got to have this enlightened small group of core cadres to lead the ignorant and decadent middle class masses to achieve revolutionary purity…
Let me see… PAP the Singapore big brother is a Leninist too…. well a Sinicized Leninist in with an entrenched oligarchy secure in power…
Dude, that will only work if the oligarch or tyrant have Lee Kuan Yew’s characteristics…
Remember… Mao led China to a disaster in the 60s and early 70s… remember: the Cultural revolution….
Comment by Amit — Thursday, 22 December 2005 @ 11:00 pm
Amit> I’ve got to admit, I would very much agree to a core group of cadres leading the party, not the implication down that road of leading the people in such a manner.
From the comments so far, there seems to be a conflation between methods of running a party, and that of running the country. Isn’t there a substantial difference?
Comment by xpyre — Thursday, 22 December 2005 @ 11:07 pm