DAP delegates have been urged to approach Sunday’s party conference with a clear and rational mindset when deciding on a proposal for the party to withdraw from the government.
DAP Malaysia Political Education director Howard Lee Chuan How said political history showed that parties which left governments abruptly in an attempt to protect their standing could sometimes suffer the opposite outcome and ultimately weaken their own position.
He cited Belgium in 2018, when nationalist party N-VA withdrew from the federal government following internal pressure and opposition demands over the UN Migration Pact. Instead of regaining support, the party saw its parliamentary seats fall from 33 to 25 in the subsequent election, while rival Vlaams Belang increased its representation from three to 18 seats.
Howard also pointed to the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders brought down the government in 2025 over asylum policies, only for his PVV party to see its seats decline from 37 to 26. In Bulgaria, the There Is Such a People (ITN) party, which had 25 MPs, failed to cross the electoral threshold and disappeared from Parliament after helping to bring down the government in 2022.
A similar outcome was seen in Slovakia, where Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) saw its parliamentary representation halve from 22 to 11 seats after bringing down the coalition government in 2011.
Howard said these examples challenged the assumption that leaving government would automatically restore a party’s credibility or erase criticism over compromises made while in power.
He acknowledged that there was genuine dissatisfaction and disappointment over unfinished reforms and unpopular decisions, but stressed that Sunday’s vote should not be treated as a referendum on the party’s anger.
“A party cannot simply resign from government and erase its record,” he said, warning that DAP could continue to face blame for past shortcomings while also being held responsible for instability that follows its withdrawal.
Howard welcomed the party leadership’s decision to allow delegates to determine the matter through a secret ballot, saying the issue should be decided through mature and rational consideration rather than emotion.
He said DAP’s choices were not limited to remaining in government without conditions or withdrawing immediately. The party could instead set specific conditions and deadlines while demanding measurable reforms and monitoring their implementation.
“If withdrawal eventually becomes necessary, the public must first understand the reasons before resignation letters are submitted. The political argument should already have been won,” he said.
Howard said the key question on Aug 16 was not whether DAP had reasons to be angry, but whether leaving the government would genuinely advance reform or instead give political opponents an opportunity to weaken the party.
“Power is not the objective, but surrendering power does not automatically make it a principle,” he said, adding that political courage could sometimes mean remaining at the negotiating table until the work was completed.
He called on DAP delegates to make their decision with a clear mind and a strategic approach, as the outcome could shape both the party’s political direction and its ability to pursue reforms moving forward.
