Loke’s defeat must end DAP’s political monopolies

Loke’s defeat must end DAP’s political monopolies


2 hours ago
Letter to the Editor


The party should stop its power brokers contesting both parliamentary and state assembly seats, allowing young leaders to come up

From Kua Kia Soong

DAP secretary-general Loke Siew Fook’s humiliating defeat at the Negeri Sembilan state election is not merely an electoral setback. It should be remembered as the moment that finally exposed one of the party’s oldest and least democratic habits: the insistence by its power brokers on contesting both parliamentary and state assembly seats.


For decades, DAP justified this practice under the convenient excuse of “leadership continuity” or “strategic necessity.” In reality, it has become little more than a mechanism for concentrating power in the hands of a small political elite.

No democratic party that genuinely believes in leadership renewal should tolerate the same people occupying multiple elected offices while hundreds of capable younger members wait indefinitely for an opportunity to serve.


Every state seat monopolised by a federal heavyweight is one less chance for a new generation to gain legislative experience, prove themselves to voters, and develop into future national leaders.

This has never been about public service. It has been about political control. The irony is especially painful for a party that has spent decades presenting itself as Malaysia’s most democratic political organisation.

Democracy is not merely about holding internal elections every few years, but requires sharing political opportunities, the decentralisation of authority, and the willingness of senior leaders to make way for younger successors.

Instead, DAP has too often practised precisely the opposite. The concentration of parliamentary and state positions among a handful of senior leaders has created an unhealthy culture in which political influence becomes increasingly centralised.


Local leaders become dependent on national personalities. State branches struggle to cultivate independent leadership.

Young politicians find promotion blocked unless an established figure decides to retire — a decision that too often never comes.

Loke’s defeat has now demonstrated the risks of this outdated strategy. Rather than strengthening the party, concentrating responsibility on one person has left it more vulnerable. When one political heavyweight falls, the consequences reverberate throughout the organisation.

A healthy political party distributes leadership. It does not concentrate it. Political renewal is not treated as a threat but as a necessity.


Senior politicians must mentor successors rather than permanently occupying every strategic position available. Institutions become stronger because they are built upon teams rather than personalities. DAP should learn that lesson before voters teach it again.

The practice of contesting both federal and state seats belongs to another era. It reflects a politics of insecurity, where leaders appear unwilling to trust anyone except themselves.

Such behaviour sends an unmistakable message to younger members: your loyalty is welcome, but your leadership is not. No party can claim to champion meritocracy while denying opportunities to its own talented members.

One leader, one elected legislature

Loke’s defeat should therefore serve as the catalyst for sweeping democratic reform within DAP. The party should adopt a clear principle: one leader, one elected legislature. MPs should concentrate on national issues.

Assemblymen should build state leadership. Federal leaders should resist the temptation to dominate state politics simply because they possess greater name recognition. Note Andy Burnham’s resignation as mayor of Greater Manchester when he contested a federal seat.

Such reform would immediately create opportunities for younger leaders, strengthen state organisations, broaden the party’s talent pool, and reduce the excessive concentration of power that has characterised DAP’s internal culture for far too long.

If DAP genuinely believes in democratic renewal for Malaysia, it must first demonstrate democratic renewal within its own ranks. The old guard has often spoken about institutional reform. Now it is time to practise it.

Karpal Singh: no leader is indispensable

One of the hallmarks of mature democratic parties around the world is that they institutionalise leadership renewal. Successful parties understand that no person is indispensable.

This was laid down some years ago by one of DAP’s more principled leaders, Karpal Singh. DAP’s leaders are expected not merely to win elections, but to cultivate the next generation capable of replacing them.

The best political leaders measure their success not by how long they remain in office, but by how many capable successors they leave behind.

Leadership is dispersed rather than concentrated. Younger politicians are deliberately given opportunities to contest winnable seats, gain administrative experience, and establish their own public credibility. Such renewal strengthens institutions because the party becomes larger than any one personality.

DAP has increasingly moved in the opposite direction. Instead of practising succession planning, it has become dependent upon an increasingly small circle of senior leaders who seem unwilling to relinquish political territory.

This is precisely the political culture DAP spent decades condemning in Barisan Nasional. For years, DAP criticised Umno for concentrating power in the hands of political warlords, suppressing younger talent, rewarding loyalty over renewal, and treating constituencies as personal fiefdoms.

The party that once demanded institutional reform now risks becoming an institution resistant to reform.

Such a culture breeds frustration, discourages initiative, and eventually drives away talented younger members who see little prospect of meaningful advancement.

DAP should seize this opportunity to undertake genuine democratic reform. It should adopt a clear principle that no senior leader should simultaneously monopolise federal and state representation.

If DAP truly wishes to distinguish itself from the old politics it has spent half a century attacking, it must demonstrate that leadership is a trust, not a possession.

Otherwise, the party risks becoming what it once opposed: an organisation where political power is accumulated, succession is postponed, and reform remains a slogan rather than a practice.



Kua Kia Soong is a former MP.