UMNO and its rational leader
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
Semasa zaman Tun Razak dahulu, bila mencari bakat pimpinan, dia menggunakan satu prinsip utama. Dia tanya melalui rangkaian maklumat, bolehkah si fulan berkerja? Dia tak tanya bolehkah si fulan di percayai. Bila dia bawak balik Dr Mahathir kedalam pangkuan UMNO dia tak tanya boleh tak kita percaya Mahathir? Ketika itu siapa nak percaya Mahathir? Tengku Abdul Rahman pun dia tibai. Tapi Tun Razak lebih berminat kepada kebolehan berkerja DR Mahathir. Demikian juga Musa Hitam. Masa itu dia berada dalam kem Dr Mahathir. Belum tentu boleh di percayai, tapi boleh berkerja. Dan berotak. Tapi, bila prinsip ini di abandoned, UMNO mula menghadapi masaalah. Parti kita penuh dengan kaki pengampu dan pembodek. Inilah apa yang dikatakan oleh orang Melayu, penyokong pembawa rebah. Ini masaalah terbesar UMNO hari ini. Boleh tak di percayai di beri premium yang tertinggi mengenepikan ciri kepimpinan yang lebih penting- boleh tak kita berkerja? Saya nak berdebat dengan orang yang tidak faham, saya letih. Saya telah menyatakan dalam artikel saya yang di tulis dalam Bahasa Inggeris, bahawa saya menggunakan ungkapan percaya dalam konteks yang spesifik. Dalam konteks politik kelompok, bila di gunakan ungkapan percaya bererti membisu atau merelakan apa yang pemimpin atasan buat. Kalau pemimpin kita buat salah- kita bisu. Kalau pemimpin kita korap, kita diam. Kalau pemimpin kita lemah- kita juga membisu. Kalau pemimpin kita di dayuskan, kita terus juga membisu. Sindrom bisu lah yang menjahanamkan UMNO. Dan keengganan 'berkurang ajar' sedikit. Kurang ajar bermakna enggan menerima sesuatu secara lahiriah atau face value. Benih keruntuhan UMNO bermula sekitar tahun 1980an. Prinsip ini di gunakan sebagai asas mengenal pasti bakat pemimpin semenjak tahun 1981. Ketika itu, kualiti yang paling utama sekali yang di gunakan oleh pimpinan UMNO ialah mencari siapa yang boleh di percayai dan mengikut kata. Apa yang salah dan silap dengan pendekatan sebegini? Kesilapan asas ialah pendekatan sebegini hanya berminat untuk self perpetuate pimpinan yang ada. Erti self perpetuate ialah melangsungkan jenis kepimpinan yang serupa. Dan kerugian terbesar dengan cara ini ialah, self perpetuity bermakna, kita bergantung kepada seorang pemimpin agung. Jika pemimpin seperti ini berundur, jika pengganti nya tidak seacuan, pemimpin berikut nya akan di kacau. Sebab, kita hanya berminat kepada self perpetuation- memastikan benih dan cara kita berterusan. Walhal yang terbaik ialah kita wajib meletakkan landasan supaya negara ini di letak di bawah system yang self continuous. Yang bererti kalau kita takde pun( dan terror manalah sangat kita ini) negara ini tetap akan berkembang maju. Cara self perpetituty ialah cara memilih pemimpin yang di amalkan oleh mereka yang mirip kepada membina dinasti. Ianya sama seperti ssitem feudal dimanana kedudukan kita dalam hairaki social di tentukan oleh kemalangan kelahiran( accident of birth).
A few days ago, I was optimistic of BN chances. It can win Tenang I opined. As days go by, my optimism is reduced. Chua Soi lek is not making many inroads into Chinese voters. He remains a discredited figure and his party, the MCA labeled an Uncle Tom to UMNO. Where does he get the basis to make the audacious claim that BN will win big the next time around? As a diversion let me say this. The natives in Sabah are not going to take things lying down any longer. Revolt seems to be in the air in Sarawak too, prompting Taib Mahmud to use the charm of his sister to push Najib through Rosmah, to carry out concurrent general elections. Sarawak has 31 parliamentary seats. Taib Mahmud is telling Najib unless the opposition's focus is divided by having national elections, Sarawak may lose a large number of those 31 seats. If that happens, the overall majority of BN will be greatly reduced and may even result in the exit of BN as government. Najib is mindful of this and he doesn't want to lose Putrajaya. So, how come Chua Soi Lek dare make an audacious claim? Probably, his claim is more of a nervous outburst. MCA is about to become a political appendix. There is so much negativity surrounding BN that such a claim can only arise out of a moment of hallucination. The UMNO machinery is not primed. UMNO local foot soldiers are not giving their all out. The soft approach isn't working in Tenang. The Tenang UMNO boys are out of sync. Tenang is not Galas. There the soft strategy worked precisely, because it was the culture cultivated by Tengku Razaleigh. In Tenang, you can't change the force of habit overnight. What's the habit? UMNO Labis is more accustomed to the boisterous and noisy way of campaigning. Intimidation, shouting matches here and there, jeering here and there. You know UMNO Johor and Johoreans in general- humility and understated style are not their way. Johore- the first modern state, its King uses sword while the other Malay rulers use kerises. He gets to stab first. They play with sailboats, other Malay brethren play gasing. So how can you contain the Johore over exuberance? You can't. By forcing them to take the soft approach, you nullify and dull their senses. The soft approach seems to be out of sync. The ANAK gathering at one FELDA scheme was heckled by the Pemuda UMNO under its ketua Pemuda Labis. They thought they scored points there, but their black-shirt style of harassment serves to reinforce UMNO's detachment from reality. You will need to reorganize UMNO for new purposes. For now, hope for the best that the recipient's mindset hasn't changed that far. The UMNO machinery seems at ease with the soft approach. If they are unaccustomed, better to stick to the old methods. And have you seen Ghani Osman? Now, Ghani Osman was my lecturer in Welfare Economics at University Malaya. If he is still the person he was then, then Ghani will project the image of a diffident person, portraying the bewildered look. Perhaps he doesn't know how to handle a by election such as in Tenang. This is a very hard indictment on an UMNO leader, but I have to tell it as it is. Ghani may be a good person. But he is wanting as a field general.
I like this argument because of its endless variations; cikgu Mala will not sacrifice religious principles in order to please voters. Suppose now, after the results are out, she doesn't win. Will those who didn't vote her be labeled as heathens? Islam to the Malays is a sensitive issue. No one Malay likes to be labeled irreligious. Muslim People drink, they fornicate, but they don't eat pork. A Muslim Malay can do all sorts of wrongs, but there a limit. On an overall basis, the limit is reached when it comes to differentiating Malays in terms of religion. Differentiating Malays according to their religious quotient is a double edged sword. Cikgu Mala now has presented herself as a very observant Muslim. I say this without cynicism, this is good. But my argument earlier stays- her goodness benefits herself as an individual. But is it relevant to society? Society demands more than just having a demure personality and a heart fluttering trait. You will need a feisty, robust, balanced individual. There are many more elements to a good leader than just a face on the shoulders. UMNO before 1981 practised a principle that stood the test of time for a while. When Tun Razak did a talent scout, the first element he looked for was, can this person work. DS Najib, please take note ok. After 1981, the principle was and has been since- can this person be trusted. Many of the ills which UMNO currently faces is the result of adopting the principle of can this person be trusted. Here I use the term trust in a specific sense- the leader chooses his subordinates on the basis of being able to trust the chosen one. That the chosen one stays loyal even as the leader strays from the founding principles of the cause. The corrupt leader chooses his subordinates confident that they will keep quiet, wont rock the boat, join in the looting. We encourage PAS to extol and overrate this trait found on Cikgu Mala. Because it's the principle of choosing whether we can trust rather than can work which right thinking people in UMNO are fighting to reject. You don't choose leadership material based on submissiveness, compliance and honor among thieves. What PAS wants the people of Tenang do, is to choose on the basis, this is a face we can trust. No sir, we want the people of Tenang to choose on the basis, this is the face who can work and deliver.
What will people make of the refusal of the PAS candidate refusing to shake hands with menfolk in Tenang? She may have the vision, analytical skills, imagination and all that. But does she have a sense of reality? Is she displaying a sense of pompous piety? Really, will shaking hands with menfolk in public in front of many, compromised her religious beliefs and will drive menfolk into sexual frenzy? Will the absence of the sense of reality diminish her capacity to serve as ADUN? Her refusal to shake hands will be read as lack of pragmatism and sense of reality. Not good qualities to be without in an ADUN. The fact sheet about Tenang is as follows. Tenang has 14,753 registered voters comprising 7,014 Malays (47.5%), 5,766 Chinese (39%), 1,780 Indians (12%) and other races (1.5%). There are 18 postal voters. Most of the Malays in Tenang are involved in agriculture. 3000 of them lived in Felda settlements. By and large, Felda settlers should be unmoved by side issues. Like others they are conscious and aware of the evils of corruption. They do read in between the lines. The question is will this concern be big enough to translate into votes against BN? Probably the people in Tenang have a live and let live attitude. It's not commendable, but that's how it is. Like many of us, Felda settlers are resigned to the fact that corruption isn't easy to abolish and proven in court. Energy and resources would be wasted. Settlers are more concerned about bread and butter issues. Will they be getting their land titles? Will the good palm oil price persevere? Will the community get social amenities and facilities? Can their children have access to educational facilities? If the PM comes and says there's cash to be given around, they will gladly accept the money. Who doesn't with school going children and a host of expenses to be met at the beginning of the year? As to the corruption, they will support those public spirited souls who continue to expose the shenanigans of those in power. Like I said, corruption is an important issue but the difficulty is to establish the relevance of such an issue in Tenang in a by election. How far has the alleged pervasive corruption affected their lives? If the PR can establish a direct link between this issue and the interests of the Tenang people, they can win support and votes. Hence the issues such as corruption will be interesting to hear, clapped and jeered at. But I fear it will not be enough to sway voters. Will the opposition inspired ANAK be a force in Tenang? The issues raised by Anak concerning deceitful pricing of FFB (that's fresh fruit bunches) and others are contestable in court. That can be easily demonstrated as the presence of avenues for settlers to settle grievances. As settlers have won several cases, these facts can be adduced as evidence that, what the Felda Corporation people connived were not done with government's complicity. So I would say, ANAK's ability to influence the majority of felda settlers will not be as great as to sway voters away. What about the 4000 or so Malay non settlers? They work as traders, educationists and general workers. What are the issues that interest them? What do UMNO and PR represent? That's what interests them. Which way they go will depend on the ability of any one party that is better able manage the demand between Malay issues and how far these issues can be and are compromised. That would depend on the ability to assuage the feelings and assurance given that Malay concerns will not be compromised. Religion, language, kings and so forth. Who gets the votes will likely depend on which party is perceived to have given up more than necessary. I suspect, people will be asking to evaluate as between Najib Tun Razak and Anwar Ibrahim, who have compromised Malay issues more? Then, as between them, who is better able to assure Malays that their interests will be protected. Urban Chinese will also evaluate who between the two is better able to mollify Chinese apprehensions. I called a Chinese businessman friend whose home is in Segamat. I asked him who he thinks will win. He answers without missing a beat- BN gerenti menang!. Menang in Tenang. Almost 40% of the voters are Chinese mostly engaged in trading and mercantile activities. As long as they make money or the environment within which they can make money is all right, Chinese are ok. They are indifferent as to who governs. Will the climate be good to allow making money? They will be looking at who between BN and PR are able to inspire confidence. The Indians who are relative poorer community requires nothing but immediate relief. Bring relief, and the Indians will be won over. There's nothing demeaning in this attitude, but they like others, will be looking out for their immediate interests first. This by election is not about finding who between the candidates are pristine and pure in their religious beliefs. If that is the case, then the PAS candidate displaying a very public sense of piety by refusing to shake hands with menfolk can easily win. By the way, is this an indication that people in Tenang are a bunch of horny hordes that the slightest touch of the human flesh with the opposite sex will trigger sexual urges that are uncontrollable? What are they eating? People will be looking at pragmatism here. To me, it is ironic that a dose of pragmatic balance between demands of religious edicts with practical aspects of human interaction during the course of work becomes the deciding factor in the election in Tenang. Will the people in Tenang be willing to live with an ADUN who wears gloves all the time to allow her to shake hands with all and sundry?
And now it is scrapping the bottom of the barrel, using Umi Haffida's help.This woman's sounds so stupid, so unMalay and out of her mind. Now more people will distance themselves from UMNO The above was a comment on my earlier article. The message of that article should be abundantly clear. Unless UMNO develops the tools beyond mere hype, it can lose. Not that it MUST and NECESSARILY lose, but CAN lose. Unfortunately, I think this isolated event which the commentator laps up, does not contribute to the alienation of UMNO. I believed for a transformation to occur, it does not arise as a result of a single event, however important the author/s of that event want it to be. It has to be a change in the enabling environment. A general trending as it were, of which a single event may or may not be a factor. So UMi Hafilda or who or Anwar Ibrahim are not the factors that will lead to our political transformation. I have come to realize, this craving for change is not because those who want change are motivated by Anwar Ibrahim. It's because, by and large, the people in general are tired of the same old business. The business as usual approach- entrusting the elite to make sure things are all right. In exchange for what? In exchange for these so called intelligent people do things as they pleased? So that a person in power can do whatever to the maid and subject us to his bullying tactics on a daily basis? So that the CEO of khazanah can reach Putrajaya in a helicopter? So that the CEO of Khazanah and his smart assed boys can play out their missed childhood fantasies in a Disney- like setting at Lego land? So you put the paper tigers in Khazanah for example and they run and operate any businesses they want and crowd out the real entrepreneurs. And then you ask them to assess each other. The mister CIMB will of course say only good things about Khazanah because the latter holds almost 30% in Khazanah. What is it are the people looking out for? They are looking for a more reliable and democratic form of authority. This is the general trending I am speaking about. We haven't actually place Najib's big ideas on a rigorous examination. Because we are busy looking at the man, who he is rather than the substance of his ideas. It's an indicator of how 'primitive' we are actually when we evaluate someone based on who he is rather than what he can do. It is already showing the same business as usual strategy- entrusting the future of this nation to an elite group of businessmen, technocrats, civil servants. These are supported by the very same institutions that supported the old business ways. Go into the inner recesses of Sungai Penchala, and you will see mansions built by retired civil servants. How did they get the money? I am sure most of them didnt get them through managing real businesses. These are former DGs, KSUs, TKSUs, SUBs etc. They probably got them through ill-gotten means. Probably a large portion came from the RM28 billion that is lost each year through leakages- corruption, artificial pricing of magee mee packs, gold plated screw drivers, titanium bolts, submarines that can't dive, budget planes that will cost more when fitted with engines, radars, computers etc. It makes us wonder; when Proudhon declared that 'property is theft' he was actually onto something. What is Najib doing actually? As many people say in an unserious manner, he is outsourcing everything. But he is outsourcing the running of the country to a special group of people- the elites in their field. Hence his 4th Floor is manned by over 1000 people and we lament the increasing administrative costs. Yusof Noor the symbol of can't do anything much any longer is retained as adviser. The same drill is replicated in many other areas. GLCs are peopled by persons who should retire and step aside for real operators. So, what's wrong with that approach? The 'wrong' is that these people operate under the same institutions that supported the old ways. So, transformation can't really occur if these people, however bright and industrious they are, are using the same tools as before. Just look at the old power structures- GLCs, Government departments, our dewan negeris and Dewan Rakyat or even the mainstream media- have proven to be incompetent and corrupt. What the main cause? - The main cause are the people who run these institutions who occupy the commanding heights of our meritocratic order or what we assumed it to be. What have we turned these people into? They think, the organizations they lead are theirs and they can do as they pleased. Nazir Razak thinks CIMB is his. Tan Sri Ali down south thinks Johor Corporation is his and he refuses to let go as though it's his own personal property. You need to convene an EGM to remove him? So again, what are people looking for that's driving this country into a changed era? People are looking for a more democratic and reliable form of authority.
Much was made out from the PM's meeting with MPs last week. Not all MPs attended. Maybe 105 or so. There was one comment on my article in the Malaysian Insider where this article also appeared. The commentator says he has been around because the nature of his work dictates him so. He must a policeman or something of that nature that necessitates him moving around. He says, the mood is slowly going back to the BN government and some are already goyang and even liked the PM. A long time ago, if this gentleman has read my articles, I have stated that PM Najib is a personable fellow and a very decent bloke. If I am allowed one upmanship, to this commentator I will have to say I have been around the man Najib for some time too. I was his ADUN, his Division Committee member and for 4 years served as Information Chief. That was after 1999 and I met him on regular weekly basis for almost 4 years. I think I can safely say to be able to say something about the man. The idea to meet all the MPs wasn't his in the first place. Somebody senior in UMNO remarked to people who are close to Najib that it would be a good idea for Najib to meet the MPs to pacify their nervousness. Yessiree- BN MPs are nervous about political developments in their own areas. So contrary to the commentator who says his work takes him around for him to be able to state his observation haughtily, those directly in charge of their wards are nervous!. So some people brought the idea to Pm Najib, hence the PM meets the MPs. He asks them what projects can he give them in their areas that can nullify or reduce their nervousness. It wasn't a session for the PM assessing the performance of the MPs. He has all the information he wants from various sources- the SB, Military Intelligence, Kemas, government departments and that shadowy band of eager to please 3rd party volunteers. He does not need the MPs to confirm their deceit and lies. He wanted to play Santa Claus to deliver goodies so that he can help them retain their seats. In that process he retains Purtajaya. Was the meeting actually successful? Most of those MPs who went there felt the meeting wasn't useful and effective. They were given about 3 or 4 minutes to speak their mind and with the incessant butting in by the UMNO secgen- Teuku Adnan Mansor buddy to that great businessman Vincent Tan, nothing much can be said to the PM. Indeed, the most common after the meeting talk and complaint is, WTF should Teuku Adnan be there in the first place?
The PM has met all the BN MPs yesterday. He asked whether they can win and retain their parliamentary seats. I am sure most will say they can. No problem sir. As long as we pump in more money. Semua OK. The rakyat are with us. They all liked you sir. This is unprecedented. We have never heard of any PM before Najib who has taken this extraordinary step. Inviting all BN MPs to give him a frank assessment of their chances. The only thing similar to this was way back when Dr Mahathir saw every delegate to ask them their stand on his contest with Tengku Razaleigh. It also shows that Najib is at least methodical. He is actually ferreting the pretenders out. My only reservations are the way he is doing it. I personally think this is quite not right. It's not in our culture (Malays, Chinese or Indian) to sing our own praises. I would assume the MPs would be bashful. But then, politicians are a breed apart. They have rhino skin hides. They will say what must be said and will even sell their mothers to get another term as MP. First they will say politics is not about personalities. It's not about issues. It's about principles. If everything fails, they will cheat. As we now know, issues and personalities are already thrown out- the last arsenal they have left is cheat. So what do you think when you meet the PM and the Secgen in threes? They will cheat and will be lying through their teeth just to stay on. It is only logical to expect, when there are 3 of you meeting the PM and the Secgen, you are not going to tell the actual story in front of the other 2 MPs who you know will tell tall tales. You will want to out-story them. Then Najib will know the person lying is the person he wants to get rid of. Has anyone seen how a typical ADUN lists down his activities? He will say something like these: 1. Attend kenduri 2. Visit pak bakar karok 3. Accompany ketua bahagian 4. Attend workshop 5. Participate in fishing contest 6. Hand out Kemas hampers 7. Attend welcoming back HRH 8. Follow Dato Najib's entourage. 9. Send Dato Najib back to the airport. Where is the beef? Asks the lady in the Wendy's Commercial. PM Najib must throw out all those beefless windbags. Most likely you can never get the truth out of these people. They will not discredit themselves. Now I know why Telekom Malaysia does what it does recently. Appoint a subcommittee who submits report to a supervising committee. You ask your own 'brethren' to make a report on themselves. I am sure the people who make up the investigating team are conscious if they come out with an incriminating report, it will be the end of the world, the TM people are accustomed with. That is the world full of office politicking and infighting. It's a TM world where the executives are busy writing poison pen letters to minsters to inform on each other, to discredit one another. It's a TM world, where every business decision offers an opportunity for many to wet their beaks. I mean can you imagine those eager beavers who gave Alcatel the TM business had also wanted to give Alcatel the business of supplying and installing towers and cabins? Oh, I forget- this is a Fortune 500 company which has many indigenous inventions to its credit. I must not forget to prepare an apology for besmirching Alcatel insinuating it cannot supply and install towers and supply cabins. TM is merely following the established way on how to solve problems. They learn it from the politicians. The BN MPs who met PM Najib are masters as this game. How many will say, we will lose this parliament and please replace me? They will instead say- semua OK Dato Sri Sir. Only if we can have these roads, these projects for all the UMNO class F contractors, only we kick out those pesky trouble makers and of course if only I remain the MP. Of course the Indian MP will say, we can win if Palanivel is made full minister. The other Indian will say, we can win if Kaveas is appointed. PM Najib will of course study carefully these expected answers. He is not a fool to be fooled with these kinds of answers. He knows, the answers will be skewed towards asserting, they can retain their seats provided they are retained as candidates. In these circumstances, the first rule of thumb PM Najib must observe is to jettison those who gave such simpleton answers. He must apply the contrarian rule. Retain those who are discredited by political rivals within. Because the more likely case is, those discredited by their own members are doing a good job. Seek evaluation from 3rd party sources that are closer to the ground. Perhaps a better way to make a better judgment is to meet all the ADUNs in the parliamentary areas. Ask them to give an assessment of their parliamentary colleagues. You are more likely to get a truer answer from the ADUNs from a parliamentary seat on the performance of the MPs.
© Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP