Copyright Notice

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below.

Sakmongkol ak 47

Wednesday, 29 October 2008

The Folly of Debates

The main problem with UMNO, is its members do not know how to disagree. If one disagrees with the opinions or principles of another, one is viewed with intense animosity. Whereas, that anger and animosity must be directed to outsiders, not within the party. We are like a marauding cat on our own kind, but behave like a meek mouse facing outsiders.

One of the ways to disguise our contempt on our own kind, is to seek public debates. Our purpose is not to establish common grounds of our common struggle which could really reveal the principles we wish to advance. Our intention really, is to humiliate our opponent,. We want to have the chance to expose his smallness using our own pettiness.

Many years ago, Sakmongkol was watching the news on ITN. That was in the UK in the early 80s. The feuding political leaders of Israel then were Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Inside Israel, the two were at loggerheads. It would seemed that the two would rather be at each other’s throats.

When Peres visited the UK, he was asked by the ITN interviewer, to explain the political feuds between the two.

Shimon Peres explained: we Jews in Israel may disagree vehemently with each other, but we never pour out our quarrels so outsiders can hear.

Perhaps, we can learn some lessons here. What is the purpose of debates among ourselves? We all live by the same principles inside the party. We don’t demand respect but earned it through the quiet confident ways.

Rather than verbal jostling, why not publish your thoughts? So that we can analyse them under more congenial atmosphere as compared to the emotionally charged atmosphere that usually accompany debates?


A Tabib 29 October 2008 at 07:13  

Having public debates is one way of bypassing the no canvassing rule.
I can imagine the glowing tributes to a certain son in law being penned by the media even as we speak.

Tok Pa said that there shouldn't be debates because Umno youth is not mature enough to handle such things. He fears members may be atken in by the form rather than the substance. Damning methinks, but correct.

mekyam,  29 October 2008 at 11:17  

sak & doc,

i think tok pa speaks plenty truth!

after trawling malaysian blogs and reading their comment boxes several years now, i agree that msians seem easily taken in by form. umno youth is definitely cut of the same cloth.

just look at when...

kj teamed with nazri aziz to debate malik imtiaz sarwar on al-jazz(?), there were quite a number of comments in blogs as well in their comment boxes on how good kj came across... based on his mat salleh accent and how articulate he was in english.

i heard the debate myself on u-tube and i thought mis, who was not just articulate but put forth reasoned and informed arguments, was brilliant while kj and nazri were totally outclassed.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by 2008

Back to TOP