EVERY political party seeking public acceptance has its own criteria for selecting candidates for general elections. In Malaysia’s political culture, two common considerations are a candidate’s winnability in the constituency and loyalty to the party.
Interestingly, DAP has introduced its own criteria for retaining MPs and state assemblymen in future elections through a key performance indicator (KPI) system.
DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke Siew Fook recently said elected representatives who fail to meet the party’s KPIs risk being dropped as candidates in future elections.
“Failure to meet the KPIs will mean they will not receive the surat watikah candidate appointment letter from the party for future elections,” he was quoted as sayingwhen opening the Perak DAP convention in Ipoh on Oct 18.
The KPIs cover public service, constituency work, participation in party activities and efforts to strengthen the party at the grassroots level.
On closer examination, however, the criteria raise an important question: do they adequately account for the common good?
The stated criteria may serve the party’s interests, but do they address situations in which elected representatives must speak out against the interests of party elites, particularly when those interests conflict with coalition politics?
For example, when it comes to public service, will DAP representatives have the freedom to speak their conscience on critical national issues, including transparency and accountability in governance, social justice for marginalised communities, corruption involving parties in the governing coalition, and the promotion of grassroots democracy?
Will they also be free to vote in Parliament according to their convictions when their position runs counter to that of the party leadership?
What is concerning is the perception that DAP MPs in the unity government have been reluctant to openly challenge certain government policies that may run counter to the common good.
The question is whether they have exercised sufficient independence, particularly when the party’s political standing has come under pressure following electoral setbacks.
For example, why did DAP representatives not press more forcefully for equal constituency allocations from the beginning of the unity government?
To be fair, DAP leaders have publicly supported equal allocations. Loke himself backed legislation to institutionalise equal constituency funding in 2023, while the party renewed its call for the reform in 2026.
The question, therefore, is not whether DAP has raised the issue at all, but whether it has done enough to turn its stated position into meaningful change.
Loke has said the party would continue improving its KPI system to address shortcomings and ensure it benefits the public.
If he is sincere about creating a system that serves the people, he should also encourage elected representatives to speak according to their conscience on issues affecting the nation. Such independence goes beyond the performance criteria he has outlined.
Malaysians would like to know more about the details of these KPIs so they can assess whether the system serves the public interest or primarily strengthens party discipline ahead of the next general election.
The people need elected representatives who are not blindly loyal to their parties, but who can exercise independent judgement and speak out for what is best for the nation.
Allowing such principled dissent would not weaken DAP. On the contrary, it could help the party rebuild its battered image and demonstrate that it remains committed to the principles needed to move Malaysia forward and sustain a truly vibrant democracy.‒Oct 19, 2026
Ronald Benjamin is a human resources practitioner based in Ipoh. He is currently secretary of the Association for Community and Dialogue.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Main image: Harian Metro
