theVibes.com:
Of ‘chopped logic’ and ‘kowtow’ to ‘Tokong’ – Kua Kia Soong
When hardworking politicians such as Charles Santiago lose in this feudal drama, all Malaysians los
DAP leaders’ claim that they had told Klang incumbent Charles Santiago years ago that the 2018 general election would be his last after three terms – a fact Santiago denies ever hearing – sounds absurd when we see quite a few deadwood DAP MPs who have stood in general elections since the 70s, 80s, and 90s still being given seats to stand in GE15, writes Kua Kia Soong. – The Vibes file pic, October 29, 2022
READING DAP leaders’ statements trying to justify their sacrifice of outspoken MPs such as Charles Santiago, one recalls Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet:
“How, how, how, how? Chopped logic! What is this?”
‘Chopped logic’ is false argumentation disguised as logic, but is in truth fallacious and insincere.
Their claim that they had told Santiago years ago that the 2018 general election would be his last after three terms – a fact Santiago denies ever hearing – sounds absurd when we see quite a few deadwood DAP MPs who have stood in general elections since the 70s, 80s, and 90s still being given seats to stand in GE15!
As I described in my just published memoir, The Malaysian Dilemma, any aspiring DAP politician must “kowtow” (become subservient) to the “Tokong” (temple, gods) of the party if they want to be assured of longevity as MPs. That is the culture of “dia-mau-kerusi” (“they want seats”) in DAP.
Those who have their own independent minds, from Fan Yew Teng, Sim Kwang Yang, Lee Ban Chen to today’s younger leaders, who do not pay obeisance to the “Holy Family”, will ultimately be sacrificed at the altar of the “Tokong”.
We are only spared the “chopped logic” when those who have had enough unilaterally announce their early exit: Teng Chang Kim, Ronnie Liu, Tony Pua, Ong Kian Ming, Kasthuri Patto and others.
This snippet from The Malaysian Dilemma will give readers an idea of the culture as I experienced it, in the inner sanctum of DAP: “Our last central executive committee (CEC) meeting was on 31 May 1995 which was specifically called to discuss the post-mortem of the 1990 general election.
“The committee’s report was superficial since the secretary-general had already laid down the parameters, namely, there was nothing wrong with the party’s manifesto, and pulling out of Gagasan Rakyat was timely.
“There was no leeway for an alternative narrative for the committee. When it came to our turn to speak, we said that we should leave the official position on the causes of the election debacle until after the delegates had spoken at the party conference fixed for June 4.
“We reiterated our position that the pull-out from Gagasan was not in the interest of a multi-ethnic coalition and completely contradictory to our decision to join the Opposition Front in the first place; the mistakes and oversight of the Tanjung 3 project, the fact that there had been no consultation among the CEC leaders about tactics and strategies in the campaign, and the lack of consultation in the selection of candidates.
“We made it clear to the CEC that we had decided to resign from the party since we had failed to make any change in the party, and we did not want to be a continual thorn in the side of the CEC.
“Thus, on June 14, 1995, Lee Ban Chen, myself, and Chong Joon Kin (three civil rights activists) handed in our resignation letters. On June 23, it was headline news in the Chinese press.
“The CEC then delegated the national chairman, Dr Chen Man Hin and the secretary-general to talk to us about withdrawing our resignations. We met Dr Chen a week later. The secretary-general did not show up.
“The chairman’s view was that ‘…the secretary-general has already changed a lot; he has already given in to you two in many respects…’ Among these ‘respects’ was the fact that there were now discussions in CEC meetings. We dreaded to think what it was like before we had joined the CEC!
“What more do you want? the national chairman asked at the end of our meeting, as if our resignation had been a bargaining device to extract concessions from the secretary-general. It was clear he could not comprehend the source of our disaffection and our difference in political and ideological thinking. His last words to me on his way out only illustrated our disillusionment with the DAP leadership:
“By the way Kua, I must say I agree with you that the 1995 election theme should have been Reform Malaysia and not Minor to major liberalisation (the secretary-general’s choice).
‘So, WTF didn’t you say so at the CEC meeting?’ I wanted to say to the DAP elder.”
(The Malaysian Dilemma: My Memoir & Manifesto by Kua Kia Soong, 2022: 155)
Alas, after almost 30 years, it seems that the culture of “dia-mau-kerusi” in DAP is still alive and kicking.
Unfortunately, for politicians such as Santiago, who may well have a credible track record with their constituents, but do not “kowtow” to the “Tokong”, they will have to find justice in the wilderness…This, unfortunately, is another Malaysian dilemma, and when hardworking dedicated politicians lose in this feudal drama, all Malaysians lose. – The Vibes, October 29, 2022
Kua Kia Soong is a former Petaling Jaya MP
READING DAP leaders’ statements trying to justify their sacrifice of outspoken MPs such as Charles Santiago, one recalls Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet:
“How, how, how, how? Chopped logic! What is this?”
‘Chopped logic’ is false argumentation disguised as logic, but is in truth fallacious and insincere.
Their claim that they had told Santiago years ago that the 2018 general election would be his last after three terms – a fact Santiago denies ever hearing – sounds absurd when we see quite a few deadwood DAP MPs who have stood in general elections since the 70s, 80s, and 90s still being given seats to stand in GE15!
As I described in my just published memoir, The Malaysian Dilemma, any aspiring DAP politician must “kowtow” (become subservient) to the “Tokong” (temple, gods) of the party if they want to be assured of longevity as MPs. That is the culture of “dia-mau-kerusi” (“they want seats”) in DAP.
Those who have their own independent minds, from Fan Yew Teng, Sim Kwang Yang, Lee Ban Chen to today’s younger leaders, who do not pay obeisance to the “Holy Family”, will ultimately be sacrificed at the altar of the “Tokong”.
We are only spared the “chopped logic” when those who have had enough unilaterally announce their early exit: Teng Chang Kim, Ronnie Liu, Tony Pua, Ong Kian Ming, Kasthuri Patto and others.
This snippet from The Malaysian Dilemma will give readers an idea of the culture as I experienced it, in the inner sanctum of DAP: “Our last central executive committee (CEC) meeting was on 31 May 1995 which was specifically called to discuss the post-mortem of the 1990 general election.
“The committee’s report was superficial since the secretary-general had already laid down the parameters, namely, there was nothing wrong with the party’s manifesto, and pulling out of Gagasan Rakyat was timely.
“There was no leeway for an alternative narrative for the committee. When it came to our turn to speak, we said that we should leave the official position on the causes of the election debacle until after the delegates had spoken at the party conference fixed for June 4.
“We reiterated our position that the pull-out from Gagasan was not in the interest of a multi-ethnic coalition and completely contradictory to our decision to join the Opposition Front in the first place; the mistakes and oversight of the Tanjung 3 project, the fact that there had been no consultation among the CEC leaders about tactics and strategies in the campaign, and the lack of consultation in the selection of candidates.
“We made it clear to the CEC that we had decided to resign from the party since we had failed to make any change in the party, and we did not want to be a continual thorn in the side of the CEC.
“Thus, on June 14, 1995, Lee Ban Chen, myself, and Chong Joon Kin (three civil rights activists) handed in our resignation letters. On June 23, it was headline news in the Chinese press.
“The CEC then delegated the national chairman, Dr Chen Man Hin and the secretary-general to talk to us about withdrawing our resignations. We met Dr Chen a week later. The secretary-general did not show up.
“The chairman’s view was that ‘…the secretary-general has already changed a lot; he has already given in to you two in many respects…’ Among these ‘respects’ was the fact that there were now discussions in CEC meetings. We dreaded to think what it was like before we had joined the CEC!
“What more do you want? the national chairman asked at the end of our meeting, as if our resignation had been a bargaining device to extract concessions from the secretary-general. It was clear he could not comprehend the source of our disaffection and our difference in political and ideological thinking. His last words to me on his way out only illustrated our disillusionment with the DAP leadership:
“By the way Kua, I must say I agree with you that the 1995 election theme should have been Reform Malaysia and not Minor to major liberalisation (the secretary-general’s choice).
‘So, WTF didn’t you say so at the CEC meeting?’ I wanted to say to the DAP elder.”
(The Malaysian Dilemma: My Memoir & Manifesto by Kua Kia Soong, 2022: 155)
Alas, after almost 30 years, it seems that the culture of “dia-mau-kerusi” in DAP is still alive and kicking.
Unfortunately, for politicians such as Santiago, who may well have a credible track record with their constituents, but do not “kowtow” to the “Tokong”, they will have to find justice in the wilderness…This, unfortunately, is another Malaysian dilemma, and when hardworking dedicated politicians lose in this feudal drama, all Malaysians lose. – The Vibes, October 29, 2022
Kua Kia Soong is a former Petaling Jaya MP
No comments:
Post a Comment