There is no doubt that in the 70s and 80s, DAP did perform well and play a great role as a parliamentary opposition in an oppressive environment. So we must retain or reserve a certain degree of respect for its leaders like Dr Chen Man Hin, Karpal Singh and Lim Kit Siang, although we must also be critical of some of their follies, and misguided and overzealous subordinates.

Malaysians still need to have a strong opposition, or even an alternative government, so as to preserve parliamentary democracy, advance human rights and foster national unity to heal the wounds inflicted by the divide-and-rule strategies of British colonialism and the Umno regime.

However, times have changed. So has the political, social and economic landscape of the country. As such, those who fight as oppositionists must also change their mindsets and strategy.

The rise of DAP in the 70s and 80s had to do with the massive dissatisfaction of the non-Malays against the over-zealous implementation of the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the fear of their cultures and religions being destroyed by the Umno-dominated regime.

Everyone - except those shameless minions in MCA, Gerakan, MIC and other even more minor component parties of the ruling Barisan Nasional - supported DAP to register their opposition to the regime.

However, the situation has changed since the early 90s. With the relaxation of the affirmative action programme and the creation of more institutions and opportunities for higher education and big businesses, the non-Malays' sense of alienation and frustration as ethnic minorities began to subside, although not altogether disappear. Its effect can be seen in the drastic change of fortune for DAP in the 1995 general elections.

To suggest that non-Malays' collective sense of alienation in the 1970-1990 period as oppressed minorities has subsided does not mean they do not support the opposition anymore. On the contrary, there is even a greater need for stronger parliamentary opposition in an increasingly corrupt, incompetent and authoritarian environment that breeds corruption, cronyism and nepotism.

It means the new opposition must mobilise the loyalty and support from the broad masses of all races and communities on the common platforms of defending parliamentary democracy and human rights.

The new opposition must be multiethnic in its outlook, membership and leadership, and also reflective of the taste, style and quality of the increasingly educated middle-class who have now more access to information.

DAP, which has failed to provide a new opposition for Malaysians, must now face the following challenges:

First, it still sees itself as a champion of the urban Chinese working class whose number have been dwindling over the years, and who may now be more inclined to vote for MCA and Gerakan for personal interests or advancement, or BA for multiethnic working-class solidarity;

Second, it continues to neglect the pressing need for real party-building and internal reform as well as alliance-formation on the ground; and this leads its leaders to become media commentators and pundits more than serious politicians who know what to say and not to say in public.

Third, the long years of struggling against the NEP and policy of cultural assimilation of Umno have conditioned the minds of some of its middle- and low-ranking leaders and members to be suspicious and distrustful of all Malay-Muslims without distinction as to partisan affiliation and ideological orientation.

But the situation is not completely helpless for DAP. It must reform itself fundamentally in terms of mindset and acquire a sense of the new reality, and make as many friends and allies as possible by controlling the loose-cannons in the party.

It must also have a sense of strategy and self-enlightened interests not to shoot at all directions indiscriminately. Above all, DAP must practice the principle of meritocracy itself in selecting candidates and voting for leaders.

A chronically-disordered DAP, and its quarrelsome relationship with other groups, is a great stumbling block to the defence of democracy and human rights. It only serves to disunite and demoralise the forces for change.