Leadership issue: I trust you, NOT Give me your trust.

Today I am not writing about Dr Mahathir. For the time being that is. I will write some more because I can. I have a fertile field to write on. He has written 62 chapters about many things in his memoir. I have only begun.

I take nothing from him. He deserves all the accolades and tributes. That he does, does not require me or anyone individual saying it. The whole country pays homage to the man who has led this country for 22 years.

As I have said, there were many contentious politics in there. I seek to offer an alternative view. I am conscious that whatever I write will never diminish his esteem in the many millions. That is not my intention nor am I capable of doing such a thing.

My critics who have nothing to answer but have to resort to personal issues are of no consequence. The reality of my private life is very remote from what these people have described. But I chose not to answer. Many don't know me, what more with what actually transpired. So don't be pure evil, people. You take your gutter journalism elsewhere. Here we want to debate in a civilized manner. I now know many of these bloggers who write for what they think is about and for UMNO can be pure evil. These are the blatant liars and faceless cowards.

But at the moment, let's place what Dr Mahathir wrote in perspective. It's not difficult to accept that Dr Mahathir writes from the perspective of a politician and a statesman. What he wrote from the later perspective will be judged by posterity. We have not yet feel the full impact of his policies.

Writing from the perspective of a politician is a different matter. Dr Mahathir is a consummate politician. He writes the history from the perspective of a victor. The victor writes those things favorable to him. When he took over the PM's job in 1981, he said he will retire as soon as he gets the signals from the people.

He wasn't prepared to return Tengku Razaleigh's favor of giving way to an older brother by naming Razaleigh as deputy UMNO president. As I said, that would be a Malay thing to do. He didn't and I leave it to readers to deduce why he didn't. To me, what he did was an un-Malay thing.

He was never supportive of the idea of having Razaleigh as number two and a possible future PM then. Right from the beginning he was envious of Razaleigh's stature and capabilities. In 1981, Musa never had any chance of beating Razaleigh who was generally hailed as the economic czar then. Mahathir threw his lot behind Musa to prevent the elevation of Razaleigh.

We shall return to this story later.

Let's move on to another issue. I read somewhere that, kalu saya berani, criticize the number 1. That would be the PM. This stupid fellow has not read my blog in the past. I have not been shy to write on the number one where relevant. I suspect many run off the mill bloggers cannot write simply because they have not been reading or don't know the subject matter.

I have criticized his policies quite openly. And when I did and will do, it should not be read as endorsement for Anwar Ibrahim or anyone else. Personally I think Anwar is a damaged good. His priority isn't going to Putrajaya anymore but saving himself. His future may be that of a bridesmaid only helping out other people finish his dream. He is a crowd puller but not necessarily a vote puller any longer.

Since the issue of not brave enough to criticize the PM has arisen, we shall humor this li'l Abner son of Pansy and Lucifer Yokum.

The PM has just returned from Sarawak. While there he met with his cyberspace friends- those whom he engages through his tweeter and Facebook.

What did he ask from these people? Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak asked his Facebook friends, especially those who were young, to give him their full support and trust as the nation's prime minister to deliver a better future for Sarawak.

Saying he was delighted to meet 250 online friends from all over Sarawak for the first time, Najib added that young people should have idealism and expect fair and transparent governance.

Give me your trust and I will do the rest is what in essence Najib is saying. What is wrong with this statement?

I suspect Najib is aware of the trends of future leadership. The sources of change and the impetus calling for change are no longer monopolized by old school leadership. The main characteristic of that kind of leadership is that all changes and innovation comes from the top to bottom. Scholars termed this kind of leadership, the push-factor leadership.

In the future it's no longer that way. One draws parallel for example from the dilution of American influence in world geo politics. The center of influence no longer resides solely in Washington. It's now shared in places like Tokyo, Delhi and Beijing in addition to the old adversary in Moscow. It's a multipolar world.

Similarly, matters that affect the lives of citizens are no longer solely decided by the government of the day. It is now decided by the people acting in independent groupings or in affiliation with alternative political and social movements. It's also a multi-polar little world of decision making centers.

The leader now listens to what those governed articulate and talk about. And after listening to what they talk, Najib asks the people to trust him.

Now, clearly in a pull-factor setting- where the leader listens and in turn configures his actions and behavior according to what he hears, this is a wrong approach to take. The right question or rather statement the PM should be making is- PEOPLE I TRUST YOU AND YOUR JUDGMENT.

The way Najib goes about framing his statement reminds me of what Milton Friedman wrote on Kennedy's inaugural speech. In the 1962 book of Capitalism and Freedom, this was what Friedman wrote.

"In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your 'country" implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.

To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.

The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect?

You get the same impulses from the soon to be oft quoted passage- People, give me your trust....