Who does DAP really represent?

FMT:

Who does DAP really represent?


4 HOURS AGO
Letter to the Editor

Issues arising from the undersea tunnel trial, the PTMP controversies, and the Kampung Jalan Papan case form a troubling picture of a party that has drifted from its reformist roots

From Kua Kia Soong

The sight of an MP from DAP acting as legal counsel for a private developer in eviction proceedings against Kampung Jalan Papan residents has struck many Malaysians as deeply unsettling. Yes, he may be acting within his legal rights. But the issue now confronting the public is much larger: why do prominent DAP leaders keep appearing in situations where developer interests seem to take precedence over the welfare of ordinary people?


The Selangor government’s plan to demolish houses at Kampung Jalan Papan will displace some 100 families. The state government stated on Oct 23 that only vacant houses and business premises would be demolished. However, on Oct 27, the residents received a fresh notice to vacate their homes.

On Nov 14, the demolition of some of the houses began with the authorities cutting locks, entering houses with people still inside, and arresting anyone who protested.

Originally, about 100 residents were listed for a Dec 18 court hearing on the matter, but many were later removed from the list without explanation. After the changes, only 44 names remain on the updated list.

The residents said those whose homes were demolished were not included in the list, and that the authorities used their lack of formal documentation to evict them.

For a party that has built its reputation on clean governance, social justice and even “socialism” (sic), these recurring controversies demand honest scrutiny.

The Penang undersea tunnel trial: uncomfortable questions


The corruption trial concerning the Penang undersea tunnel project remains ongoing. It would be improper to prejudge the outcome. However, testimony presented in open court has raised serious questions that cannot simply be brushed aside.


The evidence presented in court so far raises major governance issues surrounding the DAP-led state administration.

The public is justified in asking whether DAP’s internal checks and transparency mechanisms are robust enough.

PTMP and reclamation disputes: a pattern of developer-centred approaches?


The Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) has long been criticised by civil society groups for its opaque procurement methods, including reliance on request-for-proposal mechanisms rather than open tenders.

Environmentalists, community organisations, and fisherfolk have repeatedly warned that mega reclamation projects like “Silicon Island” disproportionately benefit developers while saddling local communities with ecological and socio-economic costs.

Again, this is not an accusation of criminality. It is a recognition of a consistent pattern: large developers gaining substantial benefits from state-linked projects, while affected communities struggle to have their concerns meaningfully addressed. These criticisms are not new, but they have become harder to dismiss.

Kampung Jalan Papan: a line crossed?

The latest controversy, a DAP MP representing developer Melati Ehsan Consolidated Sdn Bhd against Kampung Jalan Papan residents facing eviction, has intensified the public’s unease.

Civil society groups like PSM argue that an elected representative should avoid taking positions where professional obligations place them directly against low-income communities struggling against powerful corporate actors. The issue is not whether the DAP MP has broken professional rules; it is whether DAP leaders fully appreciate how such actions affect public trust.

If a DAP MP stands in court on behalf of a developer evicting long-established residents, what message does that send about the party’s priorities?

DAP has every right to insist that no misconduct has occurred. But the optics are damaging – and politics is, unavoidably, about optics and public confidence.

A broader problem: erosion of the reformist ethos

Taken together, the issues arising from the tunnel trial, the PTMP controversies, and the Kampung Jalan Papan case form a troubling picture – not of individuals acting illegally, but of a party that has drifted away from its reformist roots.

DAP came to prominence by championing transparency, accountability, the rights of ordinary Malaysians and even “socialism” (Setapak Declaration 1967, Tanjong Declaration 1991). Today, too many high-profile episodes place DAP leaders in close proximity with developer interests, leaving the public to wonder whether the balance between development and social justice has tilted too far in the wrong direction.

These concerns do not disappear simply because leaders insist they have complied with the law. The public expects more from a party that has long held itself to a higher moral standard. The question Malaysians are now asking is not whether DAP leaders have broken the law – that is for the courts and proper processes to determine.

The question is this: has the party become too comfortable with developers, to the point where its credibility as a champion of the people has been compromised?



Kua Kia Soong is a former MP and a former director of Suaram