“WHAT role does DAP play now in the new government? Has it become a ‘yes man’ party?” asked baffled Progressive Democratic Party (PDP) president Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing.
This was in response to the Sibu MP’s about-turn to defend the 90:10 racial quota for admission into the pre-university matriculation programme.
Tiong said Oscar Ling Chai Yew’s statement rationalising the system’s continued implementation to “take into account the feelings of specific ethnic groups” amounts to an attempt to gain political mileage.
He pointed out that the DAP which had previously opposed the quota system and protested against alleged discriminatory policies by Barisan Nasional (BN) when it was the opposition, is now giving reasons to defend them.
“Once the former government is gone, has the current practice suddenly become legitimate?” Tiong once again asked.
He added that 16 members of the national DAP and Dapsy leaders had spoken out in the past to abolish the quota system and allow students from low-income families to enter the university preparatory system.
“But Ling alone continues to believe it to be reasonable to retain the current system,” he said in a press statement issued yesterday.
“Previously, I had recommended that the allocation system should be based on ethnic population proportions. But I did not anticipate that Ling would support the direct distribution in a 90:10 manner.”
Tiong said by making such a reversal, DAP owes the Chinese community an apology for turning away from their previous statements of fair treatment for all races once they have been elected into government.
“Even with 41 MPs, they cannot alter the decision of the Education Ministry to maintain 90 percent of the matriculation spots for Bumiputeras instead of abolishing the quota system in place of a fairer system. In this instance, DAP is merely a tool with no power,” he said.
Tiong accused the Pakatan Harapan of misleading the voters by rationalising unfair policies now as the government, after portraying itself for years as a four-party coalition based on equal representation and consensus building by negotiation.
“This decision is obviously unfair to many students. Clearly, DAP sadly has no ability to provide checks and balances to the government,” he said.
“Otherwise, is DAP actually agreeing to ignore the plight of the non-Bumiputera students or worse, exploiting them merely to gain votes? How can the public continue to have confidence in the DAP?”
