A King and his rooks, bishops? Knights?
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
You can't shut off your mind from these things.
A mere statement by the 1st Respondent that the exercise of power was Necessary on the ground of national security without adequate supporting evidence is not sufficient in law....
Can UMNO be saved? Of course it can, the answer lies with the members and the leadership at the basic unit of UMNO organisation- the UMNO branch or cawangan. A party with a 64 year history just simply can't fade away because of shenanigans at the apex. It will definitely not whistle away because the opposition wish and fictionalise its demise. They have to also win the electorate. There must first of all be a genuine desire to transform UMNO and it must begin at the basic level. The top at the superstructure is less relevant because it essentially feeds off the base. It is to the base that we need to pay attention. Forget the top- why should we bother to reform people like Rais Yatim for example or the large numbers of UMNO divisional heads who are more interested in hobnobbing with ministers whispering sweet nothings into their ears, spending evenings listening to concerts? Why must transformation take place at the bottom of the UMNO structure? Because it's the foundation upon which the superstructure rests. Change the foundation, the superstructure will change accordingly. The UMNO branch is the cell that is the basic structure and functional unit of the UMNO living organism. It is a simple concept. We create them; we should be able to de-create them. The leadership at the superstructure I mean. The 25 elected supreme council members, the president, the deputy president, the 6 vice presidents, the information chief, the secretary general, the treasurer and the 12 others appointed by the president. I don't think this contradicts the popular adage that the fish rots first in the head that translates into if you want to make changes, start at the top. We are, that is why we are starting with the branch heads. They are the real top cats. Why do we have to limit our thinking of believing the top has to be the top at the superstructure? Look at the top of the basic unit, i.e. the branch. Revolution doesn't start from the conventional top. It doesn't start with the status quo. It begins with resentment and disillusionment with the status quo by the broad masses. The status quo simply doesn't have the consciousness nor the political will to change itself. Transformation and revolution must come from elsewhere and they don't come in refined and chaste manner. Demanding change in the quality of leadership at the basic UMNO unit is violent in nature because, just as those entrenched in power at the top at higher levels, leaders at the basic unit will also resist being forced out of power. The clash between two opposing forces can't be anything but violent. You call for a revolution; you must know that revolution is not like a dinner party or making crotchet. You know the saying; "Revolution is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly." When the UMNO president calls for some form of direct elections by more some 140,000 delegates to the divisional meetings, that's a revolution by UMNO standard. It hasn't reached a real revolution yet, because the agenda set forth by the UMNO president is a qualified revolution. It's still fettered by rules here and there. The question of having to transform UMNO would have been unheard of before 2008. UMNO won a big majority at the 11th general election. That was in 2004. Tun Abdullah had succeeded Tun Mahathir a year earlier. There was euphoria for a moment and a lot of hope was pinned on Abdullah. Within 4 years, the euphoria turned to disillusionment. We got rid of the illusion that Abdullah could make a difference. He was wanting in most departments. His leadership resulted in the biggest loss UMNO had in its history. UMNO wasn't paying attention to its front liners- the branch leadership. UMNO's leadership was more besotted with esoteric ideas. Islam Hadhari, inter-faith dialogues, Economic corridors which by the way are fast turning into nothing more that economic boundary markings by predatory economic players. . UMNO leadership (not just Pak Lah alone) sent the message of an Utopian-esque future. Pak Lah and UMNO wasn't paying attention to the UMNO front liners who bear the burden of translating the ideas into practice. All Pak Lah was able to muster later, was to come out with a limped whimper blaming the little napoleons. In order to translate and implement, members must first understand the agenda. The little napoleons didn't understand Pak Lah. They still don't about PM Najib's agenda. Either you make them understand or have them replaced with those who can understand and share your enthusiasm. Problem is, PM Najib is surrounded with eager to please the leader people. People who continue to blindly say, it's ok boss, it's ok until it reaches a point when the OK turns into KO. The little napoleons were in the form of UMNO branch leaders – he wasn't paying attention to them. He lost the message war. Where was he bringing the country to? How do we get there? The other leaders too made the same error. The future of a country rests in the hands of over 100,000 branch leaders who elect 191 division heads who in turn elect an even smaller number to manage the country. Just take a look at a typical branch leader- he may be a school gardener, a watchman somewhere, the village bully and loafer, the local strongman. With due respect, these people are hardly the material on which to build a great nation. Would these people have the required presence of mind to choose leaders with capabilities, intelligence and probably dissimilar thinking at variance with what they have been accustomed to? What was needed wasn't Islam Hadhari. What we could have profited from, was an UMNO hadhari- a pursuit to make UMNO leadership relevant. The question then is, how does the UMNO leadership ensure UMNO stays relevant? It can't retain relevance by retaining a leadership at odds with the new mood of the electorate. How has the profile of the electorate changed?
© Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP