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

ariff.sabri@gmail.com

Sunday, 23 November 2008

Political Villainy and Success.



does this represent reality?-more villainy=more successes?

N. Machiavelli would say this. It is not necessary to be (actually) good to become a leader. One needs only to appear good to become one.

This, and many other extracts from Nicholai Machiavelli’s The Prince became what is known as the Machiavellian thinking. Which basically means one progresses, gains success by means of deception.

If we now take a very generalised application of the concept- it would strongly suggest that being a baddy or political villain, gains you victory. Especially in politics. If you are too gentleman, too refined, then you are mincemeat. Politics is not for the faint hearted just as becoming a doctor is anathema to a person who despises blood.

Scanning through several writings on the blog, one can almost establish a positive and direct relationship between being ‘bad’ in its most general form and achieving success. Such a postulate would then suggest:- the badder and more wicked one gets, the more success you achieve. You have to be ruthless to achieve success. The more ruthless, the better successes one gets. Can anyone imagine, if LKY of Singapore had been too easily compromised, too soft and refined, would he have succeeded in overcoming the communists and communalism? .

Now, apply this simplified positive relationship between villainy and success to 2 instances. The pemuda race and wanita contest.

Muhkriz’s slogan berani berubah or dare to change.. MM’s battle/war cry is supposed to be a call daring and challenging UMNO members, especially youth to go against the establishment. Establishment here means, the administration of Pak Lah and what is represents. It represents among others, the concentration of economic and political power, inefficiency, the emasculation of UMNO, flaccid leadership, directionless leadership. I am just putting them down here, without passing judgment. The sum total of all these- the leadership of UMNO by Pak Lah and his sycophants, resulted in an UMNO discredited by an increasing number of the population.

MM’s answer, is being a baddie- go against these. Destroy them and in place put in a strong leadership. MM offers himself because he believes he has the ability and capability to offer the kind of leadership that UMNO wants.

The question remains however, has he the stomach to be as politically ruthless as the father was? Is he prepared to place UMNO under the knife and carry out an invasive surgery. Remember- the Tun has always said, to remove a malignant tumour, you have to carry out an invasive surgery.

Doing all these things, require a heart of steel, the resolve of a lion, the ruthlessness of the Temudgin( the Mongol).

Will MM have the stomach to escalate his baddy role? Remember- he doesn’t need to be an actual villain, he just needs to appear to be one.

Now, to use a line from one of the character is Blackadder’s episode- to be refined in politics, is like trying to the teach a mongrel to speak Norwegian- impossible!.

Suppose the positive relationship between being a political villain and success is true, then the outcome will be this. The person most willing to go the distance, to carry out all despicable and ruthless political acts, will win. One who wins will employ any means necessary to gain victory- bribe, threaten, cajole, persuade, whatever. In other words, do whatever, one would regard as politically villainous.

Consider now the coming contest between Rafidah and Shahrizat. Rafidah can huff and puff and decry the treachery of Shahrizat, that will not alter the possibility that she may be defeated. Suppose, Shahrizat has in fact, committed political treachery, what does that make her? A political villain right? It shows, to win, she will be ruthless.

Again, if the positive relationship between degrees of villainy and success is true, Shahrizat and you guys going for the ketua Pemuda post, it pays to be a political villain! There goes Sakmongkol’s preference for political cultured-ness and sobriety.Its the Supply Curve all over again. Supply more villainy, the more successes you get.


5 comments:

Confuseus 23 November 2008 at 08:58  

Hello Datuk,
I think all these political confusion is getting into your head.
I just want to ask you one pertinent question.
Is Malaysia a secular country ?

Thank you.
Confuseus
www.citizenthinktank.com

sakmongkol AK47 aka Mat Tomoi 23 November 2008 at 10:00  

why is answering your 'pertinent' question more important than the others? the way you put yr question across, make it seems you have the ONLY right answer. cheers then to you.

Jed Yoong 23 November 2008 at 10:27  

HA HA HA HA HA
Confuseus, Sakmongkol is very civil..so far, be nice. =)

confuseus 23 November 2008 at 11:52  

Sorry Datuk,
How do I put the question across ? How else can i put the question across?

Alahai Datuk, you are making simple things, so complicated.

Jangahlah marah ... nanti cepat tua !!!

Zawi 23 November 2008 at 12:48  

Datuk Sak,
'The sum total of all these- the leadership of UMNO by Pak Lah and his sycophants, resulted in an UMNO discredited by an increasing number of the population.'
Population here means inclusive of the UMNO members themselves right?
I know it is an obvious question but I want to stress the fact that even UMNO members are distancing themselves from UMNO.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP