Considering himself an eternal optimist, opposition leader Lim Kit Siang says new Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has two years to walk his talk. In this exclusive interview, the veteran politician also fields questions on the future of DAP and its succession plan.

Malaysiakini: What are the top issues you will raise as opposition leader in the coming parliamentary sittings?

Lim:

Parliamentary reform is one. We talk about good governance but yet there are government crises - election problems, education, the national service. The government suggested the National Integrity Plan (but) where is the role of the parliament? Our PM has not said anything about parliamentary reforms. In fact, in the past four decades we have stepped backwards. There must be a restoration - parliament must play a pro-active role in not only reviewing all progressive reports but also play a leading role in exerting pressure in this area.

How are you going to be able to push forward these ideas given an emasculated opposition?

It is very difficult with the number of opposition MPs. It is the weakest in the history of the country with a nine-tenth majority (for the ruling Barisan Nasional). But I think there is a window of opportunity arising from a change of prime minister. We don't know how far he is going to go, we don't know how sympathetic he will be. He has made all the right, beautiful commitments and pledges for a clean, incorruptible, transparent and people-oriented government.

So you will be relying a lot on Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's goodwill?

Yes, it would be a test of his commitment whether he is prepared to make some differences. Of course, one should be realistic and not expect him to go the whole hog of what we want. I don't expect him to make a full change, but at least he should be able to restore what we have lost and make some meaningful, little, gains here and there so as to start the momentum of change.

At present, there is an inertia - you don't move, no matter (whether) it is press freedom or the fight against corruption. It seems a little bit here and there, not fully committed enough. There is a window of opportunity. We try to be an eternal optimist.

How much time would you give Abdullah?

There are people who say wait until September. I don't buy this argument. Before, there were people who said wait until the March general election and then there were people who said wait until September - Umno's party election. But if we cannot see meaningful changes, then of course it is very pessimistic. But whatever it is, we still hope for the best. I will give him two years.

That long?

Yes, very long, very long. We are giving him all the time because after all, after 22 years, it's the first time we have a change and I think Malaysians should be prepared to give him full cooperation.

How realistic can these changes be, especially given that Umno has not reformed itself?

Yes, maybe it is a bit unrealistic. Assuming that he (Abdullah) is fully committed to it which is again, open to argument leaving that aside, it still represents a window of opportunity that we should give whatever support we can and check our reservations.

It appears that DAP will be taking the lead within the opposition. How is the party going to work with the other two opposition parties (PAS and Parti Keadilan Rakyat)?

We are prepared to cooperate with the other opposition parties, with PAS, with Keadilan. In fact, we also prepared to cooperate with BN MPs and ministers on what we can agree is good for the country. There are certain issues that we should see from the parliamentarians' point of view that should be larger than your political party identity - which has never occurred in Malaysia. That's probably why the institution of parliament is so weak.

How do you view the voters' verdict in the last general election?

Firstly, I think nobody expected the results the opposition got. But neither did anybody expect (the BN's) to lose its two-thirds majority. I thought it would be within the 70 to 90 percent (majority), but nobody expected it all the way to 90 percent. In a way, it was the Pak Lah factor - to give him a chance, (Dr) Mahathir (Mohamad) was no more around.

Secondly, it was a reaction to PAS' posturing of five years for being very inflexible on the Islamic state - there is opposition and fear among the non-Muslims and even Muslims. In a way, looking back, five years ago PAS never expected to win that good, in March, it never expected to lose that bad.

From PAS' point of view, I think they lost a great historic opportunity - which we will have to wait a few more decades for to come again - to become a real mainstream party. If they have been pushed out of that periphery, (it was) completely because of their own doing. They lost badly in terms of seats but not in terms of votes, but the party was moved out in terms of the mainstream into the periphery.

There was always an important factor even the '70s, '80s when we talked about the big ceramah , big crowd but they could only manage to win one seat, three seats, five seats. It has always been like that. It only made a difference in 1999 and that was because of (jailed ex-deputy premier) Anwar (Ibrahim), but they are unable to read it. It is unfortunate for them, for everybody, for the DAP, for the whole country because there was an opportunity for a new paradigm which was lost.

What about Keadilan?

Keadilan would have to [pauses].

You're choosing your words carefully.

I just don't want to be the cause of another hoo-ha. Keadilan should not be a catalyst for other people's political achievements or gains, it should be able to be on its own, but somehow it has not and I think it should decide exactly what its political role (is). I think it still tries to look for a political identity.

Do you think your victory in Perak's Kinta Valley has sacrificed certain leaders such as (Keadilan's) Dr Lee Boon Chye who has done certain level of ground work over there?

No comment on that.

DAP is still dependent on Chinese votes. Is this viable in the long term?

I am not that pessimistic. In 1969, I remember that it was (ex-deputy prime minister) Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman (who said) that DAP had one foot in the grave. At least 35 years later, there are people who say we have got another 10 years in front of us.

But it is still a major concern.

I agree there is a very great challenge in front of the DAP. Yes, we have been pictured as a Chinese party. In fact, in the '60s, '70s, '80s, we have been pictured as a Chinese party that was anti-Malay, even when we were never anti-Malay - we never said or did anything anti-Malay. We were standing up for multi-racial identity and for Malaysia.

That (being anti-Malay) was interpreted because of the time when (ex-prime minister) Mahathir in his early days, used assimilation, basically one race, one culture, one society so that (DAP) was regarded as anti-national or even anti-Malay. We were never anti-Malay, we were always for all Malaysians, for all groups in parliament, we raised and we championed the issues of suppression against Malay workers, but, of course, because of the issues at that time - the central political question of language, education and culture - that was why we were seen (as such).

In 1990, we cooperated with Semangat 46 although it ended up with Tengku Razaleigh (Hamzah) going back but at least there was a period when DAP was not seen as anti-Malay. Then the (Lim) Guan Eng's case, I think that was a major psychological event. And then BA (Barisan Alternatif) - whatever the final outcome of ourselves or PAS, the Islamic state - I think it helped to send a message that DAP is not anti-Malay.

And I think in this election, of course we don't say we had very significant Malay votes - undoubtedly in 1999, we had more Malay votes - but with my victory and Karpal (Singh)'s victory, I think not only the non-Malays are happy but the Malays are also happy. The challenge for DAP now is how we can move organisationally to reach out and get more support from Malays, Indians.

How?

Of course, that is the question for the secretary-general to answer.

Your party previously had a few prominent Malay leaders. How can the party inject more non-Chinese new blood?

It is very difficult but we have to try. Things have not been easy in the past five years because we were in the BA and there was less room, or less urgency, for Malay leaders to come in.

But you have to recognise that among DAP's 12 parliamentary seats, all of them are overwhelmingly Chinese-majority seats. The only one that the party lost - Kota Melaka - has the lowest percentage in Chinese votes.

I would say that DAP had this problem in this general election - how do we centre the issues that we care most about: the question of the Islamic state, the social contract, how to preserve the social contract.

The DAP is the only party that is capable of making a stand and getting the message (preserving the social contract) across but of course we had the 'No to 929 campaign' that failed, but we were caught in the dilemma also - the tactical, the electoral strategy.

The non-Malays or non-Muslims do not seem to be concerned about the issue, they are quite indifferent, apathetic, a lot of them think the 929 campaign was just a political gimmick. On the other hand, the Malays might be antagonised, the Muslims might be alienated so you can fall between the two groups, that's our dilemma.

We were greatly hesitant about it. A major reason that I went to Kinta Valley was to use it as a test bed. Since we cannot go nationally because of this hesitancy all around, we needed a place to do it.

I think with Kota Melaka, there appeared to be no awareness that we could lose. It also shocked me. They never communicated to me that it (defeat) was possible.

But there was also an increase in Malay voters in Kota Melaka.

There was, one or two percent compared with the past election. I don't solely put it on that ground, the Malay or non-Malay thing. I said we should have made it clear to the voters that it was important with this election to preserve the secular democratic basis of this country. I am sure that the people of Kota Melaka would have responded to the issue as did the people in Kinta Valley, so strongly, as proven in Kinta Valley.

The other reason was the lack of awareness that we could lose, and the failure of the party leadership to tell voters that we could lose our 35-year stronghold in Kota Melaka. That one statement could have changed the whole picture

What about the criticisms by (former party secretary-general) Kerk Kim Hock regarding internal sabotage in Kota Melaka?

I would draw a larger picture rather than here and there, true or not true, how valid or not.

Have you done a post-mortem?

I think it is being done by (party's national organising secretary, Tan) Kok Wai

Do you think you have overshadowed Kerk in the past five years?

No, that's why when it's regarding party things, I dare not respond to your call for interviews.

But like it or not, you have been seen as the party's de facto leader. You cannot run away from that fact.

Alright, I don't deny my influence and my role. But if as you said I am the party's de facto leader, I could have my way in terms of how to strategise and decide on the election strategy, it would have been quite different then.

There is speculation that the party's AGM was deferred from August to September this year to let your son, Guan Eng, be nominated as secretary-general.

I think Kok Wai has explained that and clarified it. I try to draw a line, this is a party matter. Although it is very difficult to draw that line, but I try to draw that line.

One of the most sensitive issues for you is Guan Eng's position in the party. How do you respond to charges of nepotism?

Just like I cannot orchestrate him going to jail and (his) disqualification from being a member of parliament, I cannot orchestrate what is going to happen to him - that all depends on the party. For those who think a lot about the speculation over the so-called dynasty, I think it refers to a very simplistic interpretation of the events and developments of the party.

Any thoughts about the party's succession plan?

I am not the one who should be thinking about succession, the party has to think about succession.

And your retirement?

One must retire one day.

Have you set a time for that?

I haven't set any time for myself, as yet.

Will this be your last term in parliament?

Oh no, no. I haven't set myself any time yet. You can set it for me, I have no objection.

DAP has recently recruited some young leaders.

Actually when you look back at every general election, we have had new leaders. They don't get the media attention unless they leave, defect or claim they had a quarrel with me. So as long as they remain in the party, they are regarded as very ordinary, unexceptional. Once they leave the party, they are regarded as instant talent. So what to do?

What about factional squabbles within the party?

Of course, you notice (over) the past five years I have been the party chairman, we have had a party secretary-general who handled party matters. I step backwards and I don't get involved in those developments, so ...

But you still have an opinion on that.

Some of (the) things which happened, of course, I feel is good, some of the things which happened, I don't feel it is good. But still you know, I don't interfere.

You have been criticised as being authoritarian. Have you changed the style of your leadership?

I think you have to ask other party leaders whether I have changed, or whether I haven't changed.

Do you think you have?

Well, everybody grows and develops, but when it comes within the definition of changes, I don't know.

Kit Siang to handle queries from readers

Do you have questions for opposition leader Lim Kit Siang? Lim has agreed to participate in a Q&A forum with malaysiakini readers. Please send your questions to editor@malaysiakini.com .

Photos by Tom Lungu