Which Part of Khairy Jamaluddin’s Statement that DAP’s Decision to Conduct Re-election is “An Admission of Guilt” is “Evidenced-based”?

In a press conference yesterday, the Minister of Youth & Sports, Khairy Jamaluddin stated that “Because I got into politics because of policy not because of politics, and I wish that our politics was evidence-based, empirically-based.” I certainly could not agree more with such sentiments.

However, it is ironical that during the very same press conference, the Minister chose to go on an unfounded political rampage against the DAP. Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar has called DAP’s decision to hold a fresh central executive committee (CEC) election an “admission of guilt”.

“I don’t know why it took so long, finally they admitted they were wrong in this issue, with the decision for re-election. In fact they admitted they are wrong, (it is an) admission of guilt,” he said.
Firstly, I’d like to ask Khairy how he arrived at his “evidence-based, empirically-based” conclusion that our decision is “an admission of guilt”?

My statement yesterday on the decision stated very clearly that “to protect the gains by the DAP in its struggles over the past 45 years and in the long term interest of the party, the CEC has decided against its will, to proceed with a fresh election of the party leadership to prevent the devastating impact of a de-registration attempt by the ROS.”

In addition, I stated that “the decision to do so is in no part a concession to the incredulous accusations made of the DAP party elections such as vote-rigging with 547 phantom delegates, or the failure to notify 753 party delegates. Instead, the decision to hold fresh elections will allow our delegates to prove once-and-for-all that the Party has done absolutely no wrong.”

Where is it in any part of any DAP leaders’ statement which cause Khairy to reach his “evidence-based, empirically-based” conclusion?

Secondly, and perhaps more pertinently, the question needs to be asked as to why Khairy has chosen not to apply the same high standards of “evidence-based, empirically-based” politics to the Registrar of Societies (RoS), in the manner by which DAP is being punished?

Perhaps the UMNO Youth Chief can answer on the RoS’s behalf as to which law in the Society’s Act provides RoS the power to punish a political party for any alleged wrongdoing with “fresh elections”? As of today, DAP members and Malaysians in general are still awaiting a factual reply from the RoS on the specific law which gives RoS such arbitrary powers.

The “evidence-based, empirically-based” Minister of Youth and sports can also enlighten us as to whether the punishment meted out by RoS is a result of complaints from less than a handful of disgruntled delegates, or the failure to notify 753 delegates as widely accused by UMNO leaders, media and blogs?

Since the Minister is so certain that DAP’s decision is an “admission of guilt”, perhaps he could provide us the necessary empirical evidence since the RoS has stubbornly refused to provide the party with any proper grounds for their decision. In fact, as an “evidence-based, empirically-based” Minister, he should demand that RoS policy decisions be made based on facts instead of vicious slander and political victimisation.

If Khairy is unable to produce an iota of evidence, empirical or otherwise to prove that the DAP has breached any laws in the Societies Act, then he should immediately retract his claim that our decision is an “admission of guilt”, and to cease his attempts to score brownie points for the upcoming UMNO General Assembly by victimising the DAP with lies and slander. Otherwise, he is unfit to stake a claim on the high moral ground of wishing “that our politics was evidence-based, empirically-based”.

Under normal and routine circumstances, the DAP would not have hesitated to strike out the ROS order in the courts of law. The Party's lawyers have confirmed that the ROS has absolutely no power to "punish" a party with fresh leadership elections.

However, if the ROS can abuse its non-existent powers to demand that DAP hold fresh elections, then certain it will not hesitate to abuse the powers which it has - that is to de-register a political party - if the powers that be deem it politically expedient and necessary. We have also contemplated that any attempts to defy the unlawful ROS order via a judicial review will give "justification" to, and pretext for the ROS to de-register DAP. Hence the CEC has decided to proceed with a fresh election of the party leadership under protest, to prevent the risk of a devastating de-registration by the ROS.