The Need for Backbone and Claws
It started out as quite murmurs in the first year of the Abdullah administration.
But coming into his 3rd year, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi seems to be facing a siege on all fronts. The rumbles of discontent are getting louder, by the day.
The rise in fuel prices, the AP and Rafidah issue, the "scenic bridge, sand and airspace" issue with Singapore, the Augusta sale to Proton (and the weak progress of Proton itself), alleged police violence and open insubordination, the perceived lack of progress on the anti-corruption measures, the perceived involvement of some of his family members in business, the rise in electricity tariffs, the Malaysian Airlines debacle and the controversial domestic route-sharing with Air Asia - are just some of the more major issues, that have been held against the Abdullah administration.
Some of the issues arose from over-promising, during the elections. Some of it arose due to poor perception and PR management. Some are legacies of problems inherited during the Mahathir era. Some it are just pure imprudence, despite all good intentions. And some of it, should just plainly not happen.
In just 3 years, the bulk of the Malaysian goodwill that backed the Abdullah administration after it took over, has just fizzled out.
It doesn't help that the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir has stopped short of using his political claws, to unseat Dato' Seri Abdullah. The recent interview with Malaysiakini fuelled speculation that the predecessor has turned up the volume, as far as how unhappy he is with the current administration.
Some see it as the beginning of something more sinister in UMNO. The only way to publicly check the temperature in UMNO, would be at the next UMNO General Assembly. The next one is going to be interesting, I feel.
***********************************************************
Reading Raja Petra Kamaruddin's article in Malaysia Today (dated 1st June), was even more disconcerting.
It contained some very hard-hitting points against the Abdullah administration - from a person who is not known to be a big fan of Mahathir and was perceived to be an Anwarite, at one time. It insinuated weak leadership and improper conduct on the "scenic bridge" issue, involving the sale of sand to Singapore.
It insinuated suspicious behaviour on the sale of Augusta to a foreign party for a paltry RM4 and that the current management of Proton could not see the strategic point of having Augusta within Proton.
It's understandable that the Abdullah administration may not want to seem like it's being confrontational - especially with a well-respected former Prime Minister.
But some of the issues raised, should be confronted head on. Avoiding conflict will only diminish the perception of the Abdullah administration in the eyes of the people.
There are times, when you have to stop running and start fighting. And to address the issues - even ones where it would be painful for the Prime Minister to execute.
Especially, when there are also many things that have been done right, within the Abdullah administration. It's time to tell people about it.
It is ironic that possibly the single most important achievement of the Abdullah administration, so far - openness in the media and the push for transparency within public institutions and GLCs - is also the major cause of the current discrediting of (and gradual loss of confidence in) the Abdullah administration.
And sometimes, the lack of rebuttal/denial and tactical silence backfires on them - fuelling speculation that what is alleged, is true. Or worse, it is perceived as a sign of cowardice and becomes a point of public ridicule.
The fact is this - allowing for more media openness and transparency - would have to involve the current Prime Minister being more verbally active, than the previous one. If you allow people to talk, then you have to allow for more time to defend yourself and the policies of your administration.
That's the price of openness - the volume of public opinion will exceed the volume of public productivity. At least, with the majority of people.
The sad thing is that - the truth is probably somewhere in between, lost between the point-scoring done by the argument and spin-doctoring on both sides. We'll probably never really know. And sometimes, to Malaysians, the truth doesn't seem to matter as much as their respect and undying loyalty to the leader.
But if the Abdullah administration wants to survive without going down in history as another tragic and ousted Tunku Abdul Rahman administration - it better start showing some claws and gumption.
The only sort of leadership that Malaysians respect and understand (especially in UMNO) is a strong one.
Dr. Mahathir did not survive 22 years as Prime Minister and UMNO President out of ability and respect, alone. And neither was he always right - and on some issues, he was gravely wrong. And sometimes, it would cost Barisan Nasional, a state or two, in the general elections.
But much of his political survival had to do with the ability to wield political power effectively, to serve the country's needs - be it express or implied.
He never appeared fearful, or in doubt and refused to be cowed by anyone. He didn't care, if he was popular or respected - as long as he was adequately feared and he felt that the right things were being done. He said things as he saw fit, even if he had to offend an entire nation (and sometimes, other countries, too).
And sometimes, he would make us absolutely proud, with his stand on international issues and against the bullying of developed countries, exposing their hypocrisy.
In a complex country like Malaysia - there are virtues to such an approach. Left to their own devices, Malaysians would probably only look to pull the country in several different directions, based on emotive political/racial/economic responses. It's because we are a country, that's not yet a nation. It needs clear and present leadership.
To be an effective Prime Minister in Malaysia - you must not only lead, but be seen to be leading and exercising power without fear, based on your deep-seated convictions, on where this country should be heading. The majority in your party and coalition must be firmly behind you - and not be hesitant or afraid to come to your defence, in the media or in Parliament.
You must not only work hard and be highly intelligent - but you must be willing to take on active (and even impolite) verbal sparring, with anyone who attempts to discredit you or your administration. (Some of Dr. Mahathir's most memorable comments were sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek ones. But boy, were they popular!)
And to repeat the message like a broken record - the same way Dr. Mahathir did, on the currency speculation issue.
No one in Malaysia appreciates religiousness, softness, fairness, dilligence and a consultative approach as the main brand for a leader.
It's a difficult country to run, Malaysia - and nothing less than a show of sheer political strength, will do. A Malaysian leader must show a lot of backbone and sometimes, be willing to hit others on the head, with it.
It's time to show your political backbone and claws, Pak Lah. Or risk being put to sleep by eager hunters, who seem to think that you're a toothless tiger.
But coming into his 3rd year, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi seems to be facing a siege on all fronts. The rumbles of discontent are getting louder, by the day.
The rise in fuel prices, the AP and Rafidah issue, the "scenic bridge, sand and airspace" issue with Singapore, the Augusta sale to Proton (and the weak progress of Proton itself), alleged police violence and open insubordination, the perceived lack of progress on the anti-corruption measures, the perceived involvement of some of his family members in business, the rise in electricity tariffs, the Malaysian Airlines debacle and the controversial domestic route-sharing with Air Asia - are just some of the more major issues, that have been held against the Abdullah administration.
Some of the issues arose from over-promising, during the elections. Some of it arose due to poor perception and PR management. Some are legacies of problems inherited during the Mahathir era. Some it are just pure imprudence, despite all good intentions. And some of it, should just plainly not happen.
In just 3 years, the bulk of the Malaysian goodwill that backed the Abdullah administration after it took over, has just fizzled out.
It doesn't help that the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir has stopped short of using his political claws, to unseat Dato' Seri Abdullah. The recent interview with Malaysiakini fuelled speculation that the predecessor has turned up the volume, as far as how unhappy he is with the current administration.
Some see it as the beginning of something more sinister in UMNO. The only way to publicly check the temperature in UMNO, would be at the next UMNO General Assembly. The next one is going to be interesting, I feel.
***********************************************************
Reading Raja Petra Kamaruddin's article in Malaysia Today (dated 1st June), was even more disconcerting.
It contained some very hard-hitting points against the Abdullah administration - from a person who is not known to be a big fan of Mahathir and was perceived to be an Anwarite, at one time. It insinuated weak leadership and improper conduct on the "scenic bridge" issue, involving the sale of sand to Singapore.
It insinuated suspicious behaviour on the sale of Augusta to a foreign party for a paltry RM4 and that the current management of Proton could not see the strategic point of having Augusta within Proton.
It's understandable that the Abdullah administration may not want to seem like it's being confrontational - especially with a well-respected former Prime Minister.
But some of the issues raised, should be confronted head on. Avoiding conflict will only diminish the perception of the Abdullah administration in the eyes of the people.
There are times, when you have to stop running and start fighting. And to address the issues - even ones where it would be painful for the Prime Minister to execute.
Especially, when there are also many things that have been done right, within the Abdullah administration. It's time to tell people about it.
It is ironic that possibly the single most important achievement of the Abdullah administration, so far - openness in the media and the push for transparency within public institutions and GLCs - is also the major cause of the current discrediting of (and gradual loss of confidence in) the Abdullah administration.
And sometimes, the lack of rebuttal/denial and tactical silence backfires on them - fuelling speculation that what is alleged, is true. Or worse, it is perceived as a sign of cowardice and becomes a point of public ridicule.
The fact is this - allowing for more media openness and transparency - would have to involve the current Prime Minister being more verbally active, than the previous one. If you allow people to talk, then you have to allow for more time to defend yourself and the policies of your administration.
That's the price of openness - the volume of public opinion will exceed the volume of public productivity. At least, with the majority of people.
The sad thing is that - the truth is probably somewhere in between, lost between the point-scoring done by the argument and spin-doctoring on both sides. We'll probably never really know. And sometimes, to Malaysians, the truth doesn't seem to matter as much as their respect and undying loyalty to the leader.
But if the Abdullah administration wants to survive without going down in history as another tragic and ousted Tunku Abdul Rahman administration - it better start showing some claws and gumption.
The only sort of leadership that Malaysians respect and understand (especially in UMNO) is a strong one.
Dr. Mahathir did not survive 22 years as Prime Minister and UMNO President out of ability and respect, alone. And neither was he always right - and on some issues, he was gravely wrong. And sometimes, it would cost Barisan Nasional, a state or two, in the general elections.
But much of his political survival had to do with the ability to wield political power effectively, to serve the country's needs - be it express or implied.
He never appeared fearful, or in doubt and refused to be cowed by anyone. He didn't care, if he was popular or respected - as long as he was adequately feared and he felt that the right things were being done. He said things as he saw fit, even if he had to offend an entire nation (and sometimes, other countries, too).
And sometimes, he would make us absolutely proud, with his stand on international issues and against the bullying of developed countries, exposing their hypocrisy.
In a complex country like Malaysia - there are virtues to such an approach. Left to their own devices, Malaysians would probably only look to pull the country in several different directions, based on emotive political/racial/economic responses. It's because we are a country, that's not yet a nation. It needs clear and present leadership.
To be an effective Prime Minister in Malaysia - you must not only lead, but be seen to be leading and exercising power without fear, based on your deep-seated convictions, on where this country should be heading. The majority in your party and coalition must be firmly behind you - and not be hesitant or afraid to come to your defence, in the media or in Parliament.
You must not only work hard and be highly intelligent - but you must be willing to take on active (and even impolite) verbal sparring, with anyone who attempts to discredit you or your administration. (Some of Dr. Mahathir's most memorable comments were sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek ones. But boy, were they popular!)
And to repeat the message like a broken record - the same way Dr. Mahathir did, on the currency speculation issue.
No one in Malaysia appreciates religiousness, softness, fairness, dilligence and a consultative approach as the main brand for a leader.
It's a difficult country to run, Malaysia - and nothing less than a show of sheer political strength, will do. A Malaysian leader must show a lot of backbone and sometimes, be willing to hit others on the head, with it.
It's time to show your political backbone and claws, Pak Lah. Or risk being put to sleep by eager hunters, who seem to think that you're a toothless tiger.
posted by Stingrayz | 5:12 AM
6 Comments:
Bro,
I read through that Raja Petra piece...
He lately did not impress me. But he is entitled to his opinion...
1. SIngapore's scenic bridge was to be build to allow container ships/tankers to go under the Causeway? Has he been there lately? There's not enough room, a LNG tanker can't go under it, let alone a tanker!
2. Why Proton bought Augusta? To create a RM 10,000 car. Kinda tough since Augusta's motors are expensive. Even when Proton acquired Lotus, we don't even see a RM 20,000 car. This is again, a questionable business decision, and letting it go is better. The solution for Proton, better quality products from its vendors who happens to be.....
Well.. I am not impressed with the arguments given by Raja Petra. But then again, it shows, how easily swayed Malaysians are by perceptions. I see the non confrontational nature of PM's admin as something similar to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). But for most, it is a sign of weakness...
At least, Pak Lah did not close down Malaysiakini after they published the interview with Tun. So you are right, we are now are free to express our views, at the expense of the current PM...
But, bak pepatah Melayu, jangan di sangka air yang tenang, tiada buaya... :)
pun intended, he he he
Have you ever noticed how feudalistic the malays still are? I think Dr Mahathir knew this. Which was why he was such a strong leader.
It's despicable that some people are taking advantage of the PM's niceness for their own political agenda.
Ervan:
I agree with you. It's not that Raja Petra's arguments are all entirely too convincing.
That's all the more reason why there should be a rebuttal.
But some of the allegations/insinuation need to be responded to, to show that the Government has nothing to hide.
For instance, the sand and airspace offer. Who offered to sell sand? Which company was going to benefit? Is it related to Pak Lah's family member?
If the insinuation is not true - then it's best to rebutt it, immediately. Berani kerana benar, as they say.
If he doesn't rebutt it, then the mud sticks and causes a loss of confidence, in his sincerity to stamp out corrption.
As Sharizal would say it, perception is reality.
As for Proton, I'm with you that the rationale on the purchase aspect of Augusta isn't entirely clear.
And at least, one year after they purchased it, I was told that there was nothing done with Augusta, even while it was financially bleeding. Why?
This is something that the Abdullah administration should use as a rebuttal.
But circumstances of purchase, does not clarify the circumstances of the sale.
Why was there not at least, a closed tender, so that the best price for Augusta can be obtained and the loss on Proton minimized? (considering that it was going to make a loss, either ways)
I agree with you that sometimes, it's more consistent with the Islamic ethos, to be gentlemanly and non-confrontational.
But it will not work in running Malaysia. Not now. Not yet.
It will take time, for Malaysians to understand political strength that is not power-based.
And it's certainly not going to come directly, after a Mahathir administration.
And Pak Lah risks the good intentions and effort of his Administration being undermined, currently.
hatepolitics:
Agreed.
But the last nice leader we had was Tunku Abdul Rahman - everyone after that had either exercised political strength directly or had "political hitmen" do the work for them (when they found is distasteful).
Behind the scenes of all the development that has happened in Malaysia, that is the political reality.
Prime Ministers (or even component party presidents like MCA, MIC or Gerakan) has always had to fight hard, politically and stave off direct and indirect challenges, to remain in their seat. (Ask Dr. Mahathir on Anwar Ibrahim)
And Pak Lah understands this reality of having to fight for principle and the price that has to be paid. And he's paid it before.
He was in Team B of UMNO, back in the mid-80's and it caused him a few years of "political cold storage" where no one would touch him with a barge pole.
Nice guys who are in the top seat, (and who remain nice guys) will fall in Malaysian politics.
They can either lament this or they can adapt.
It's called self-defence. And done in the right way, that's not un-Islamic. Doesn't God help those who help themselves, first?
I would prefer Pak Lah not to comment (or offer a rebuttal) on Proton sale of Augusta. The message he should be sending is that Govt will leave GLC matters to the Board and shareholders.
Anon 2
Anon 2:
I would agree with you, if it was a privately owned company and not a GLC.
But the moment it becomes a GLC, people notice the GL, more than the C. They demand accountability and transparency - especially when it's been promised to them.
Top it off with the fact that Malaysian car owners have (willingly or unwilingly) participated in "supporting" a protected Proton all those previous years - not giving a decent reply is tantamount to short-changing Malaysians, even more.
I don't think there is a choice.
In a situation of media openness and promised transparency by the Government, even an unsatisfactory reply, is better than none.
(It's like when Dr. Mahathir is asked by the foreign press about bail-outs, he would point to the Americans doing the same thing with LTCM.
It doesn't answer the question, of course. But for the most part, it stumps people because the same animal, seems to be regarded differently, by the press)
You keep silent - and you risk making the truth out of false allegations and popular speculation.
Sometimes, it is better to take an unpopular stand (like Dr Mahathir did with Bakun) than to be evasive and not to take a stand at all.
I'm not saying that there should not be a reply. All I'm saying is that Proton Board should be responsible for giving that reply. They can't delegate this to anyone, least of all to the PM. And those most interested in the reply should be Proton shareholders.
As a consumer, all I want from Proton is good cars at a cheap price, good after sales service and superior warranty coverage. It shouldn't matter to me, as a consumer, that Proton only breaks even or registers a loss in order to provide all of that.
As a taxpayer, the only question concerning Proton that I feel is relevant is whether the govt has recovered, through dividends, its investment in setting up Proton. If it has, then well done: it's a success and everything else (transfer of technology, better skilled workforce, additional taxes) I would consider a bonus.
On the Augusta sale, this is a matter of concern only for shareholders, unless there was an element of fraud involving govt officials (in which case it's irrelevent that Proton is a GLC - we should be equally concerned even if the company concerned was, say, YTL or Genting).
Govt can be involved in business but only at a macro level: making good laws and ensuring good enforcement, providing incentives, assisting in upskilling/reskilling of workers, opening doors so that Malaysian business can penetrate foreign markets, that sort of thing. Augusta to me is too micro.
Anon 2
Post a Comment
<< Home