The man everybody wants to replace our current PM with, has a warped assessment of credibility. To him a person who has credibility is measured by the number of times he can attend community feasts or kenduris and funerals. That’s all folks.
The bigger things such as negotiating for the purchase of submarines, buying Russian made fighter planes, armoury of other varieties are done by politicians of higher standards like him of course. The mundane things such as attending kenduris and funerals are left to minions.
That is the kind of mental leadership that has failed Malaysia in many respects. When we lost Pedra Branca or Pulau Batu Putih, somebody had the cheek and alacrity to declare that we lose some and we win some. Why so quick la? To my mind, when the ICJ handed a 12-4 decision in favour of Singapore, we lost completely and absolutely. A Japanese minister would have resigned or in the olden days would commit hara-kiri.
When I was an ADUN for Pekan,( yes the bastion of Najib The Red Lips) I applied a common sense principle in supporting the giving of titles to land applicants. The first principle I used was- has the applicant worked the land? If he has not, I didn’t care two hoots whether the applicant is a local UMNO warlord, he has not qualified himself to become an owner of titled land. My principle was, land to those who worked it.
No one asks an applicant whether he or she has academic qualifications. He needs only to qualify by way of showing proof that he has worked the land. And I have used the simplest form of proof of having worked the land. Signs of whether you have built a small pondok, plant a few trees, or even built a fence using stumps of wood. All these to me suggest, there was an attempt to own the land and should qualify to suggest seriousness on the part of the applicant. And I was bloody serious about this simple rule by taking photographs of the land applied in question. I have caught out many applicants and stumped many a lazy settlement officer for not doing their job this way.
Has Malaysia applied this common sense over Pulau Batu Puteh?. I think Singapore has used the island for over a century and yet Malaysia did not raise any objections. Malaysia’s muted behaviour or failure to raise objections lent credibility to the ICJ that Pedra Branca was Singapore’s. Hell, we didn’t even draw a map showing that the island is ours. Proximity to Malaysia is by no means a guarantee of ownership claim just as an application is by no means a conclusive evidence of ownership . Possession is. And by building on the island, Singapore has shown it was serious in staking a claim on the island.
On the other hand, Malaysia’s tidak apa attitude borne of course from a mentality represented by a man who many wished would kick out Abdullah Badawi quickly, has given Singapore the island by default.
How can the minister of foreign affairs claimed that it was also a victory for us? Was he misleading us by saying that Malaysia is confident of winning a few days before the ICJ rendered its verdict?
Singapore sent its crème-de la crème to argue its case. I am not sure whether we did judging from the measure of a man method enshrined in the bosom of he who would be our (almost) PM. I know that Syed Hamid Albar who hasn’t practised law for centuries and the AG were there. So who argued our case? Perhaps the DPM felt sufficient to send a so-so team or did he accept that it was a lost cause anyway?
Maybe it’s time for us to bump off these fellows from their pedestals.