COMMENT | In calling for the old guard to make the ultimate sacrifice by stepping down, Malaysiakini assistant editor Zikri Kamarulzaman made this rather queer point about how the DAP has failed to make an inroad into the Malay community because of “the anti-Malay DAP bogeyman that Umno, Bersatu and PAS like to harp on”.

Hence, “…if these veterans really do have DAP’s interest at heart and if they really want their party to make more inroads among the Malay community - they must step aside and make way for new leaders”.

So, in other words, because of racist propaganda, these leaders have to step aside for new leaders, and what then, will the propaganda stop for these new leaders?

Remember Muhkriz Mahathir has publicly stated that the anti-DAP propaganda was a concerted effort by Umno to demonise the DAP when they could not provide solutions to any given problem. In other words, this is a strategy and not about personalities.

Do not get me wrong. For nearly a decade now, I have explored much like what another Malaysiakini associate editor Martin Vengadesan does here about how DAP is essentially a Chinese-based party with token Indian and other representation all wrapped up in a weird cult-like ideology of toxic online behaviour and national victimhood.

It is as if Umno’s Chinese bogeyman political party was willed into existence after decades of racial and religious policies and a certain percentage of the electorate is suffering from some form of PTSD.

Furthermore, the Bangsa Malaysia ‘kool aid’ is an even more dangerous form of propaganda than anything the state came up with.

Not only was it mendacious, the DAP as a political party certainly did not reflect such inclusivity but more importantly in terms of policy decisions did not aspire to what the DAP was pushing to its base, sublimating honest conversations about race and privilege in this country.

Crucial overhaul

So yes, the DAP must reflect in party composition the multi-racial ethos it claims to have. This would mean a crucial overhaul of well, everything, and the abandoning of the sycophantic culture which defines the party at the moment.

The problem with Martin’s piece, like Zikri’s, is that both assume a new batch of younger leaders would not be stamped by the imprimatur of the old guard.

These young leaders, including some named by Martin, have done nothing to demonstrate that they would be any different from the old guard; indeed in many instances, they are responsible for promoting much of racial and religious compromises that the old guard and indeed many Malaysians believe forms the social contract in Malaysia.

In Pakatan Harapan’s brief tenure in the federal government, former prime minister (twice) Dr Mahathir Mohamad publicly castrated Lim Guan Eng, when he said that Lim had to run everything through him before he made any important decisions.

Furthermore, there was a concerted effort to give the Malays more at the expense of the Chinese community, but nothing could be said at the time because this would upset the DAP’s non-Malay base.

Zikri contends that these new leaders of DAP must “…strike a balance between its ‘liberal’ ideals and the conservative realities of Malaysian politics”.

Malay power structures

In my experience, conservatism in the Malaysian context means do not spook the Malays which essentially translates to do not disrupt the existing political paradigm even though it has proven extremely toxic economically, socially and politically to the majority community.

This is exactly what Lim and probably most DAP supporters found out when the party assumed federal power with its allies.

The DAP, like the MCA, has engaged with Malay power structures in much the same way, that is, through appeasement and rejecting the secular and egalitarian values they preach to their base.

This has always been the problem for Malaysians who want an honest deal. This is the definition of “moderate politics” in Malaysia and that has resulted in the erosion of our public and private spaces because the Malay political establishment had no pushback whatsoever from compliant non-Malay political partners.

This is why in 2019, Harapan non-Malay political operatives were accused of not defending non-bumiputera rights on the matriculation quota (for instance) by Gerakan, another supposedly multi-racial political party.

“Oh Tong Keong said the fact that the Harapan government had agreed to maintain the 90 percent quota for bumiputera students in the matriculation programme, was due to failure by DAP to assist more non-bumiputeras to enter in the programme.

“He said Education Minister Maszlee Malik’s statement linking the matriculation quota to language requirements for job opportunities was uncalled for.”

This is what non-Malay political operatives do. They cannibalise each other because the role of the non-Malay political operatives is to provide a fig leaf of moderation and inclusivity for their Malay counterparts.

This has of course resulted in non-Malay resentment. Non-Malays like to think that the political parties that they support will stand up for their rights. That these parties will act as a counter-balance to the extreme political and religious impulses of the Malay establishment.

Propaganda and brainwashing

The reality is that both the MCA and the DAP while playing the moderate game failed to do this, and the Malay polity - that which supports Malay uber alles parties - has become further entrenched in the propaganda and brainwashing carried out by the state.

There is nothing radical about calling for new leaders or forming a new political party. What is radical is actually adhering to the supposedly progressive ideas the party claims to have.

What is radical is maintaining a strictly secular political stance. What is radical is working with anyone on issues constructively even though such parties do not subscribe to your views for the betterment of the country.

What is radical is rejecting policies by any parties (even those you have worked with on certain issues) if such policies go against democratic and egalitarian norms.

In other words, ideology is the draw of the party and not a race, even though there will be a section of the majority polity who will never be drawn to what you are offering. This would mean the goal of federal power is not the sole motivation and yes, federal power may not be in reach. This means not blindly supporting your coalition partners merely because their unhinged strategy is supposed to bring the coalition to federal power.