The Blackest of (leadership) Treachery

This statement may not be palatable to many. Many say politics is about perception and here's one to ponder. What this concept means is, it is excusable to be deceitful and self assuring to be deceived.

We don't have to actually be the qualities that we say, but it's sufficient that others believe that we have those qualities. We do not have to be actually religious, but sufficient if others believe us to be so. So we adorn skullcaps, run our fingers over prayer beads, wrap our bodies with robes, utter religious verses, hey presto, we are what we make believe ourselves to be.

It is similar about leadership. We don't need to have substance. We need only the form by which to project our make believe selves. We let out noises which we want people to use as excuses to believe we are leaders of substance. Hence we offer people a slew of liberalising measures unclogging certain areas of the economy. The untrained and eager beavers say Malays are ready to compete. Of course we do- we compete in selling goreng pisang and, apam balek. We compete and indeed over compete in those low-value added economic activities. But the high value added economic pie is still exclusively shared by the well connected and powerful.

We want the people to believe that we are actually doing something by carrying some cosmetic reforms over the financial sectors when we are actually skirting around the issues. Once again, because perception is everything, it is alright to be deceitful and excusable to be deceived. This falsity around which we wrap ourselves has enabled form to triumph over substance.

We have this Munchausen's Syndrome and sadly, Malays are advanced than others in this department. We actually believe that economic sufferings cleanse the soul. Will that mean, that because, by and large, and this is accepted as a cardinal maximising postulate of the Malay, it should be all right if they remain poor? To complete this process of economic immolation, we shall let loose the minister in charge of religious affairs to instruct those well meaning religious proselytisers to dish out appropriate comforting religious sermons.

Our leaders continue to assail us with inexhaustible menu of mental and attitudinal defects, thus clearly displaying their politically masochistic tendencies.

I hope by now, many more people will realise the farce surrounding this statement- that the age of leaders know best and better is over is but a huge mollycoddling sleight of hand and a twist of tongue. Not a single day passes without those who have just ascended the leadership ladder continue berating us and continue making fools out of us. The application of draconian measures and carrying out of repressive actions on disagreeable but lawful political dissent has completely and utterly discredited the goodwill announced by the present administration. This administration is slowly going into credibility deficit.

By what standards do we now measure the current leadership with?

I have recently written about the legacy of Tun Razak. More will be forthcoming. That particular article was supposed to be the preamble on the discussion on leadership. I am also ambitious in wanting acceptance of Tun Razak's leadership standards be used as the yardstick.

Assuming Tun Razak's leadership standards are accepted, one is immediately led to measure the current PM to his father. In extracting the leadership principles of Tun Razak, I have chosen to rely more on anecdotal assessments. These are at once recognised as merely perceptions and are likely to be discounted by the rigorous analysts. But, didn't the majority say, perception is everything in politics?

A contemporary of Tun Razak is Tun Ghazali Shafie. He is still alive but in the poorest of health. Ghazali Shafie was nicknamed King Ghaz. He was also perceived as a pugnacious SOB. That perception is second religion to his detractors of course. Abdullah Ahmad (of Machang infamy) would certainly be on top in the list of Ghazali Shafie's haters.

King Ghaz was a very intelligent individual whose razor sharp analytical mind but overbearing personality was off putting most of the time. But Tun Razak valued these qualities in Ghazali Shafie. Because Tun Razak knew he could milk Ghazali Shafie's talents and networking. Ghazali Shafie's usefulness and his talents overrode personal defects and these were valued more by Tun Razak.

Compare the two buddies and you will hear the following assessment. Everyone knows Ghazali Shafie is a clever chap. But in his presence, he brings out the adversarial alter ego in everyone. He makes everyone wants to challenge him and dispute him. But Ghazali Shafie thrives on adversarial relations.

But with Tun Razak, you have this feeling of wanting to serve him. In his presence, even those sharper witted than him feel like submitting to him. Possibly that's a gift from God. Razak was a quiet and contemplative man. He stood in direct opposite to the boisterous and rambunctious King Ghaz.

Tun Razak was by any measure a refined and subtle thinker. Always able to cut through the chaff he was mindful of what constitute pragmatism. Political expediencies are not pragmatism to Tun Razak. To Tun Razak pragmatism means taking a decision that leads to capacity building. For example, building on the concept of PERIKATAN to morph it into a more inclusive BARISAN NASIONAL was pragmatism. Will this action bring benefits? Will it be politically profitable? If they do, how will things work out in the long run? Pragmatism to Tun Razak is always tied up with longer term interests. Expediencies are for short tem gains.

So when Malaysian Insider stated that:-

Pragmatism, and not bending to the will of former prime ministers, has emerged as the dominant principle behind decision-making in the early days of the Najib administration, as Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak seeks to reconnect the Barisan Nasional government with the elusive non-Malay and younger vote bank. And there are two factors which are driving Najib to look at matters in a practical way rather than through party lenses: fear of leading BN into defeat at the next general elections and knowledge that time is not on his side.

I find myself unable to agree to that statement. If pragmatism means preference for longer term interests, lets look at a few of the PM's recent decision making.

Take for instance the recent decision to stay away from Penanti in Penang. That decision was funded on the pragmatic principles of not wanting to waste precious time and money. That reasoning was quickly proven hollow when these two elements were obviously disregarded when UMNO now wants to go to Manek Urai. Differentiating the two on the basis of the former being the product of political ploy and the later as having a valid reason to participate hasn't gone down well with the Malay rakyat.

The longer term principle that sustains UMNO and keeps it relevant is self respect. The second thing is the foundation upon which UMNO builds its relevance- that of fighting for, preserving and expanding Malay interests. The decision to stay away from Penanti actually means, the UMNO president is favoring political expediency (short term interests) over pragmatism (longer term interests).

That, Tun Razak would not have approved.