I took note of your views on this. However, the way is see it, the people ( or this case the delegates-umno ) should select leaders ( contesting for various positions ) without prejudice. i reject the notion of if
This was a comment posted by a visitor to my blog calling him/herself as Centralist Malay. I think his/her comment deserves respect. I prefer this comment over some other comments which seem fearful that their pet assumptions and perception all this while may crumble. Here, there is substance I can rebut and likewise, substance to weaken my arguments. Way to go. I have reproduced it verbatim so that the sting of his argument is not lost.
I wish to say that I have no problem with not agreeing with my line of thinking. It would be nicer if we would ground our convictions with persuasive reasoning. That would allow readers to make evaluations.
I have just finished reading my friend Smalltalk. He has clearly indicated his point of departure and his reasons for disagreeing. I respect that, as he has pointed out, that in the history of UMNO elections, breaking the vicious cycle as I put it, has never been used as a criteria to select UMNO leadership.
Indeed, I am offering a new criteria for selecting our leaders. Namely, a commitment to break the vicious cycle. To me that is necessary as a means to liberalise the selection process as attempts to dismantle outmoded rules have failed. Using this line of thinking as a basis for selecting our leaders does not contradict the democratic process. Such a basis shares the same validity as all the other reasons for confirming or changing leadership. It may also be possible that this kind of attitude may dampen somewhat the entrenched way of money politics.. On this topic, I think I have written about it a few blogs ago. Long ago, I said the future leadership of UMNO will be decided in the loos of PWTC.
Now, if I may expand on the issue at hand, a little bit. The above gentleman has in fact strengthened my argument for a progressive citizenry. The characteristics of such a progressive society are the prevalence of achievement norms, universalism and specificity. On the other hand, the characteristics of a less endowed citizenry is their affinity with ascriptive norms, particularism and diffusiveness.
What do these concept mean? By the way, these are terms widely used in the filed of sociology which deal more with non-quantifiable variables unlike economists who pretend to be more numerate.
In a progressive society, its citizenry evaluate others in terms of what they can do or by the things which our anonymous commentator mentions.. merits, credentials, personal education , strength of character, social backgrounds and other factors that are necessary to be evaluated and considered
Universalism means that anyone is eligible to compete with any job not because he comes from a particular family background.
And finally in order to be efficient, the holder of office is tasked to doing things specific instead of being all things to everyone. Once a leader is reduced to a dogsbody, he loses the competitive edge as we deny him chance to hone in his leadership skills. Example: an ADUN who is tasked to do all things to all people- look after clogged drains, damaged roads, road kill chickens and goats, instead of concentrating on say, analysing the budget, overseeing the GLCs, become just that- a pasar malam commodity.
In less endowed society, the people evaluate people based on who they are, hence the genetic lineage. Only certain people can do certain jobs- so only those known to the powers that be are assumed to be the only people who can do the tasks at hand. Finally, you reduced the chosen one to a pasar malam merchandise when you ask him to be all things to everyone. Hence for example, in front of partisan crowd the Anwar Ibrahim of the world will say- implement Hudud. But in front of other PKR and DAP attack dogs, he says- come to think of it, quite difficult la.
That’s precisely my argument. The glass ceiling based on artificial barriers must be broken. Except that in
PS: You see- when I insist that your name must be a ben Hussein or ben Mahathir, otherwise you are doomed, that is prejudiced?. What do you say then when someone says, you are not from