Elsewhere, it seems that the aborted attempt in 2018 to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Icerd) was carried out by a ghost.

The game of finger-pointing continues and almost everyone is in denial mode. The DAP said it was not involved. Saifuddin Abdullah (who served as foreign minister during the Pakatan Harapan administration) pointed to P Waythamoorthy (former national unity minister) who immediately gave a brisk reprimand.

Doesn’t anyone have the gall and gumption to take responsibility and give reasons for doing so? No, that’s not their style and expect the expected – people forget.

Then, there are DAP’s Selangor chairperson Gobind Sigh Deo and national secretary-general Anthony Loke DAP. Collectively, they can’t give plausible reasons for dropping incumbent Klang MP, Charles Santiago.

They talk about “he knew he would be dropped” since 2008 but why? Did he go against the party or was he involved in nefarious activities to require him to stand down?

Or simply put, did Charles refuse to align himself with any of the factions in the party or he refused to kowtow and pay homage to certain leaders? We can only speculate when no reasons are offered

Interestingly, Loke justified dropping another - the incumbent MP for Bentong, Wong Tack, because he was “not that popular on the ground” and a survey that they conducted indicated “low levels of satisfaction with his performance.”

Caught in the crossfire

But in Klang, no survey was conducted and the people have openly stated their stance. Voters from across the communities want him to remain as MP. It is reflective of the man’s commitment to service and his integrity.

His magnanimity can be measured by his statement (after being dropped) that he is committed” to democracy and its principles and accepted the decision of the party.

Who knows better - the people whom Charles spoke for or party leaders who seldom step foot in the area?

Then, there’s this theory of introducing fresh faces being bandied about. Really? What about other old horses who have served longer?

It would certainly be not right to question the decision of the party but when it goes around advocating and propagating openness and listening to the people. Where’s the principle of practising what you preach?

With the election days away, many have shot themselves in their feet and others have been caught in the crossfire and a handful maimed by a friendly power.

So, is this much-talked-about honesty and openness for real? If they cannot be open on matters of selection, what about on more important matters being elected to office or even forming the government?