DAP did not need Ong Kian Ming to tell us that we faced difficult elections. We knew the political conditions were unfavourable and anticipated that the results would not be encouraging. Our leaders, members and volunteers nevertheless worked tirelessly to turn the tide and secure the best possible outcome. Predicting a defeat does not absolve a party member of the responsibility to help prevent it.
Ong says the leadership did not approach him about his election forecasts. As a member then, he could have approached the leadership himself. If his intention was to help DAP, he should have communicated his findings directly and discussed what the party could do.
By his own account, his Johor forecast was presented at a private briefing with journalists before the slides circulated publicly. A briefing for journalists is still not a discussion with the party leadership. He cannot place the entire responsibility for communication on others.
Ong also suggested that DAP leaders considered themselves smarter or more knowledgeable than him. Yet his complaint seems to be that the leadership failed to seek his advice. Does he believe he is so much smarter than the current leadership that they owe him a consultation? Expertise does not give anyone a monopoly on political judgment. Not being consulted is not proof of arrogance, and not having one’s views adopted is not evidence of marginalisation. Before questioning the leadership’s attitude, Ong should examine his own sense of entitlement and his conduct while he was still a DAP member.
In January, he publicly pledged to campaign for Khairy Jamaluddin at the next general election regardless of Khairy’s party affiliation. He also expressed willingness to serve in a Cabinet led by Khairy should Khairy become prime minister.
That commitment placed his support for one individual above any consideration of which party Khairy might represent, whom he might contest against or what position DAP might take. It was a personal political pledge made without a mandate from DAP. Where was his sense of party discipline and loyalty when he made that commitment?
DAP exercised considerable restraint and took no disciplinary action against him over those remarks. Ong should acknowledge that magnanimity when portraying the party as unwilling to accommodate him.
He is entitled to support Khairy. But the public should assess his criticism of DAP with that declared political commitment in mind. Someone who has promised to campaign for a politician and offered himself for that politician’s future Cabinet has already expressed a clear political preference.
Ong has said he does not plan to join another party in the near future. Whether that changes is for him to answer. His publicly declared support for Khairy is already a matter of record.
When Ong announced his resignation on 31 August, DAP respected his decision. Ten days later, he chose to publicly criticise the party and its leadership.
I have nothing personal against Ong. But respecting his departure does not require us to leave his account unanswered. I am setting the record straight because the public deserves to hear DAP’s side as well.