COMMENT | Obsession, Not Opposition: Why Akmal Can’t Stop Talking About DAP

“When fear replaces facts, obsession starts to look like leadership — and Malaysia deserves better.”

KUALA LUMPUR : In Malaysian politics, opposition is expected. Obsession, however, is something else entirely. Lately, Akmal’s relentless focus on the Democratic Action Party (DAP) has crossed the line from political critique into political fixation, raising an uncomfortable question: is DAP really the problem, or is it simply the easiest distraction?

Every speech, warning, or statement that circles back to DAP follows a familiar script. The party is framed as dangerous, untrustworthy, or incompatible with national interests. The language may change, but the message remains the same. Yet outside political rallies and social media echo chambers, many Malaysians are asking a different question — how does this help them pay rent, find jobs, or secure a better future for their children?

The reality is that DAP has become a convenient political punching bag. By constantly invoking the party, Akmal avoids harder conversations about governance, reform, and performance. Fear is easier to sell than policy. Anger mobilises faster than ideas. But shortcuts in politics often come at a long-term cost.

Malaysia’s political landscape has shifted dramatically. Coalition governments are no longer an exception; they are the rule. Parties that once swore never to cooperate now sit at the same table, not out of love, but out of necessity. In this context, Akmal’s combative posture looks less like principled resistance and more like refusal to accept political reality.

DAP, for better or worse, represents a substantial segment of the electorate. These voters are not abstract threats; they are Malaysians — taxpayers, students, workers, and professionals. Continually portraying their chosen party as an enemy sends a troubling message about whose voices matter and whose do not. In a democracy, that is a dangerous game.

What makes the situation more striking is the imbalance. While Akmal warns endlessly about DAP’s influence, there is comparatively little detail about what he offers as an alternative. What is the economic plan? How will wages rise? How will corruption be tackled? Silence on these issues grows louder each time DAP is mentioned instead.

Critics argue that this strategy relies on outdated political instincts. In an age of information, voters are less willing to accept blanket accusations without evidence. They demand substance. When none is provided, suspicion begins to shift — not toward the accused, but toward the accuser.

There is also an irony at play. By constantly attacking DAP, Akmal inadvertently amplifies the party’s relevance. Every warning reinforces the idea that DAP matters, that it holds power, and that it must be taken seriously. If the intention is to weaken the party, the outcome may be the opposite.

To be clear, disagreement with DAP is legitimate. Strong democracies require strong debate. But debate requires engagement, not caricature. It requires challenging policies, scrutinising decisions, and presenting better ideas. What it does not require is perpetual alarmism dressed up as patriotism.

At some point, political leaders must decide whether they want to govern or merely provoke. Malaysians are increasingly weary of leaders who shout the loudest but deliver the least. They are watching not who attacks whom, but who solves problems.

Akmal’s fixation on DAP may energise a loyal base, but it risks alienating a broader public hungry for progress. If leadership is about vision, then repeating the same warnings is not vision — it is stagnation.

The uncomfortable truth is this: Malaysia does not need more political enemies. It needs more political adults. And until Akmal moves beyond his obsession with DAP and starts addressing the real issues facing the country, the controversy will not be about DAP at all — it will be about him.