I hope this will be a fair take on Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye, the politician turned social activist.
First off, it mystifies me why he continues to be a politically polarising figure even after a whole generation has grown up since he abruptly retired from politics while in his prime.
He was steadfast in his resistance to other political offers (such as from Gerakan's Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon, a friend of his) and betrayed his emotions after the media caught up with him despite his efforts to elude them in the aftermath of his decision to leave DAP in 1990.
I had the chance to meet this towering Malaysian (in the words of another friend of Lee, Richard Song) over an intimate dinner this week when he was in Kuching for his book tour.
In the book, Call Lee Lam Thye!: Recalling a Lifetime of Service, he came clean on his decision to quit politics.
Lee said he could not accept the decision of DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang to move him from the Kuala Lumpur parliamentary seat he had held for four terms when a general election was imminent and he was not given any reason for the shift. After much agonising, he felt the honourable thing to do was to retire.
Oddly, Lim reacted to the revelation by claiming no knowledge of any decision to move Lee to another constituency.
Whatever the real story behind this mystery, there was no denying the internal differences between Lee, then party deputy secretary-general, and the party leadership, principally Lim.
The differences may be characterised as a clash between two titans: the established and the rising one, pitting a gentlemanly political moderate against a street-fighting ideologue.
Were elements in the governing coalition then adverse to exploiting whatever rifts in DAP for political gain, as Lee's detractors claim? Of course not. The same would apply if the shoe was on the other foot.
Should Lee have accepted government posts after his retirement? It will be churlish to begrudge him these, especially when they fitted well to the causes he had devoted himself to as a social activist, post-politics.
Although he held two prominent posts — at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the National Service Training Council — they did not end well. The former was due to petty politics by the Pakatan Harapan government and the latter which Lee put on record as a "regret" for not living up to his ideals of national unity and racial harmony.
It is tempting to dwell on what might have been had Lee's political career not been cut short. Dare we have hoped that as he gained ascendancy within DAP, the tenor of our national political discourse might have changed for the better? Much debate about DAP today centres around its inability to attract Bumiputera members.
A leader with the temperament and inclinations of Lee would be perceived as having better chances in drawing in a more even and racially balanced membership. The tragedy of Lee's abridged political career is, thus, as much personal as national.
The polarising views that his resignation continues to generate is not because he is himself a polarising figure. It is because society itself is, perhaps, irredeemably polarised. A society and polity where, when push comes to shove, politicians have little qualms about pushing the ethnic-identity button.
Umno and DAP both play this regrettable game, only that the former is not shy about admitting it while the latter pretends it is doing the opposite.
There is speculation that, depending on the outcome of the coming general election, realpolitik may see Umno and DAP sharing the same bed. Superficially, that may portend positives but political realities are stubborn and unchanging: one party will probably gain more, possibly at the expense of the other.
The journey towards a truly united, non-racial Malaysia has a long way to go, as Lee himself has alluded to.
The writer views developments in the nation, region and wider world from his vantage point in Kuching
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times