We have thus far lost quite a number of MPs since the first defection. And each time someone leaves, surely there are lots of revelations about “secrets” and “weaknesses” within the coalition. Sure enough there are weaknesses. Don’t tell me BN is flawless because we know that's not true. Don’t tell me you (the resigned MPs) are flawless too.
Now, a coalition consists of many members, not to mention many parties. Putting BN aside which UMNO dominates, controls and can overrule everything, most coalitions would strive to be fair and free. In BN, you can’t raise a question, display any sense of doubt, and disagree with anything. Even though you are really doubtful, or object to an idea, you need to appear as if you understand and agree to it. You even need to find excuses to psyche yourself into believing it. Now, this isn’t what we all want. It isn’t what you (the defected MPs) want either, do you? Or have you been too fed-up with not getting what you want in PR that you just don't care anymore. If that is the case, shouldn't you resign as MPs too, as what we want is not of your concern anymore? And now that we are disappointed, should we "leave" you too?
In PR, you are given the freedom to speak, to voice up and to disagree to anything. And that means there is also a high chance your ideas would be ignored, put aside or even rejected. Compared to not being able to speak, which do you prefer?
If you have been a human long enough, and if you have been in any structured organization long enough, you would have known that decision on accepting or rejecting an idea depends very much on majority support, on conditions like hard evidence, socio-economic impact, and how well you know the decision-maker, etc. And most of the time, a good relationship with the decision-maker does make a difference. Not to say that you are bribing someone but the person would know you well enough to know the weight of your raised concerns. Besides, a good leader will not just listen to a single person. Any allegation requires thorough review, investigation and discussion among leaders as well as related parties. It cannot happen overnight, or by merely a word said by someone.
Now, someone may have raised an issue. Is there evidence to support that claim? What is the impact of the allegation? Does the state government of the day recognize this? How about the Federal government, the Anti-corruption agency, the Police? You may say that as a State government, they should be able to do something. Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense that they should start doing something. No because it still has to abide by the laws of the country, and proper procedures and channels. Bypassing that, you will eventually face the consequences yourself. I believe that is why Nizar did not work on other ways than going to the courts. I believe that is why the Police and the MACC are still referred to even though we all know how un-trustworthy they are.
In a society, and if you have been in politics long enough, your “rank” and “status” comes from how many people follow you, respect you, and listen to you. And in some cases, you may think you are doing the right thing, but it could be wrong for the other groups. Put yourself in their shoes and you will understand why. Take for example why people are still supporting BN-UMNO when so much negative aspects have been revealed. Why are some people so stubbornly protecting something they themselves know very well is wrong? One reason could be they are bound to what they are familiar with and cannot break away. Another reason could be that there is just too much personal gain that they feel reluctant to let go. In this case, they care more about their own greed than about public interest, about the future of the people, about the welfare of the people.
Does that mean we should give up and let them be as they want to continue to be “tangled” and “confined” within their own deluded tiny world? I’m sure your answer would be “NO”. Well, what was the reason that took you to become acquainted with politics? And more specifically to the “OPPOSITION” party? If wealth, social status, and power is what you look for, wouldn’t it be easier to get them from the ruling party?
Some may say that being opposition, you stand a greater chance of being fielded for election as they are lacking in able people. And upon achieving that, get wealth, social status and power from there by means of approving permits, tenders, etc.
Some other may say that upon getting elected, you can bargain for defection.
In short, it seems that defections are “bought”, and all revelations after that are excuses to justify that defection.
It may be true to some extent, but let us put that aside for now. Let us ASSUME that they are sincere in their claims that they are upset with the PR Coalition. The action of leaving the party but keeping your posts as an MP may indeed help you in the following way.
1) Serving as a boycott against the “Napoleons” as well as the leadership for ignoring your concerns and your voice.
2) Threatening the leadership, and trying to force them to start listening to you.
3) Raise concerns and awareness of the issues among other members and eventually catch the attention of the top leadership.
But let me share my point of view on the matter, based on basic corporate organizational observation.
1) An announcement to leave the party because your voice is not heard will not be viewed as an alarm. It is seen as a threat. And no one likes threats, especially if you do not have enough “points” to support your threats.
2) Begging you to stay will make it a bad trend, and more members will do the same, hoping to have their “wishes” fulfilled. This is not very healthy.
3) If you threaten to leave for the sake of trivial things, management will just think you are immature. And that makes you worthless to them.
In which case the organization will not make you stay. And probably would not take you back if one day you regret leaving. But this is politics. And in politics, there are no real enemies as much as there are no real friends. However, the people who voted you may hesitate to throw their votes for you again.
Some members raised alarms, and made strong statements before they were referred to the disciplinary board and eventually got sacked. This seems to be the proper way; but still, that depends on the issue raised, and relevance of supporting evidence. Some raised an issue and immediately followed this by threats of resigning. This actually gives an impression that they are seeking attention. And the resignation is an act of boycott. It is even more obvious when he resigns from the party but still insists on keeping all other posts.
Now, you may say that by keeping the posts, you are trying to serve the rakyat better by being independent from any party, being neutral and free from pressures from top leadership. However, may I ask the following questions?
1) If you cannot solve problems being a member of a “bigger power”, what makes you think you can as ONE person?
2) If you really want to be neutral, why then do you give support to a “power” that you know is corrupted?
3) If your voices are not heard in a party where you are given freedom to speak, what makes you think that it will be heard in a party that suppresses your freedom?
4) Similarly, if you think you can change something as an individual, why didn’t you initiate that change when you were part of a bigger power, where you have more support and influence over people below you (including the rakyat)?
5) You think that someone has done wrong. Can you say for sure that no one ever thought you did something wrong too?
6) What effort had you put in to address the issues that you are dissatisfied with while you were with the party? You have "seen" it, but did you do something before you called it a quits?
7) Put aside the issue you are dissatisfied with. Have you performed your responsibility as the MP of your area up to the satisfaction of the party, and especially the residents there?
Combined efforts will always carry you to greater heights. No one is an island, and no one single man can change the world by himself. You are in an organization that fights for justice and freedom. And the top leadership has vowed to keep it that way. Along the way, there would surely be many challenges as some members stray from the cause. The leader may be too busy with something else. As a member, and part of the leadership, is it not your responsibility to help maintain, lead and direct your teams to the right direction visioned by your top leader? Or at least the same vision you shared with him when you joined the party?
Before you raise your white flag, have you tried everything within your means, and everything that you can think of to overcome it? Well, you threatened to resign against one or a few points which you are not happy with, and jeopardized the welfare of the people who voted for you. All in all, have you thus far performed your responsibilities towards them? If you have not, aren’t you supposed to answer to that before you start complaining about other issues?
So, disappointed MPs, we are all watching. PR may not have had enough talents to be fielded during past elections and had to put a shaky-willed person like you in. But I’m sure many have urged them to start sourcing talents. A more important point to note is, we the common folks are disappointed with PR too sometimes, but have we given up? If we haven’t, why have you?
Thus far, I have personally made much comments on PR’s management or lack thereof. And I have seen many of them step up. Moreover, we supported the cause to fight for justice and freedom, not really for PR itself. PR is the force, the vehicle. A combined effort and determination of the people – leaders and the common folks alike, to carry the cause along. Your leaving it on the ground of being disappointed with “SOME people”, abandoning the “vehicle” to walk by yourself does not seem justified. Well, at least reveal evidence of the abuse of power, or information that could convince the people about your mistreatment before you walk off else it remains an allegation due to your PERSONAL PREFERENCE. And that affects our PERSONAL PREFERENCE towards you too, for if you are hasty and make drastic decisions, how should we place our trust in your hands?
By ViewAct
Now, a coalition consists of many members, not to mention many parties. Putting BN aside which UMNO dominates, controls and can overrule everything, most coalitions would strive to be fair and free. In BN, you can’t raise a question, display any sense of doubt, and disagree with anything. Even though you are really doubtful, or object to an idea, you need to appear as if you understand and agree to it. You even need to find excuses to psyche yourself into believing it. Now, this isn’t what we all want. It isn’t what you (the defected MPs) want either, do you? Or have you been too fed-up with not getting what you want in PR that you just don't care anymore. If that is the case, shouldn't you resign as MPs too, as what we want is not of your concern anymore? And now that we are disappointed, should we "leave" you too?
In PR, you are given the freedom to speak, to voice up and to disagree to anything. And that means there is also a high chance your ideas would be ignored, put aside or even rejected. Compared to not being able to speak, which do you prefer?
If you have been a human long enough, and if you have been in any structured organization long enough, you would have known that decision on accepting or rejecting an idea depends very much on majority support, on conditions like hard evidence, socio-economic impact, and how well you know the decision-maker, etc. And most of the time, a good relationship with the decision-maker does make a difference. Not to say that you are bribing someone but the person would know you well enough to know the weight of your raised concerns. Besides, a good leader will not just listen to a single person. Any allegation requires thorough review, investigation and discussion among leaders as well as related parties. It cannot happen overnight, or by merely a word said by someone.
Now, someone may have raised an issue. Is there evidence to support that claim? What is the impact of the allegation? Does the state government of the day recognize this? How about the Federal government, the Anti-corruption agency, the Police? You may say that as a State government, they should be able to do something. Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense that they should start doing something. No because it still has to abide by the laws of the country, and proper procedures and channels. Bypassing that, you will eventually face the consequences yourself. I believe that is why Nizar did not work on other ways than going to the courts. I believe that is why the Police and the MACC are still referred to even though we all know how un-trustworthy they are.
In a society, and if you have been in politics long enough, your “rank” and “status” comes from how many people follow you, respect you, and listen to you. And in some cases, you may think you are doing the right thing, but it could be wrong for the other groups. Put yourself in their shoes and you will understand why. Take for example why people are still supporting BN-UMNO when so much negative aspects have been revealed. Why are some people so stubbornly protecting something they themselves know very well is wrong? One reason could be they are bound to what they are familiar with and cannot break away. Another reason could be that there is just too much personal gain that they feel reluctant to let go. In this case, they care more about their own greed than about public interest, about the future of the people, about the welfare of the people.
Does that mean we should give up and let them be as they want to continue to be “tangled” and “confined” within their own deluded tiny world? I’m sure your answer would be “NO”. Well, what was the reason that took you to become acquainted with politics? And more specifically to the “OPPOSITION” party? If wealth, social status, and power is what you look for, wouldn’t it be easier to get them from the ruling party?
Some may say that being opposition, you stand a greater chance of being fielded for election as they are lacking in able people. And upon achieving that, get wealth, social status and power from there by means of approving permits, tenders, etc.
Some other may say that upon getting elected, you can bargain for defection.
In short, it seems that defections are “bought”, and all revelations after that are excuses to justify that defection.
It may be true to some extent, but let us put that aside for now. Let us ASSUME that they are sincere in their claims that they are upset with the PR Coalition. The action of leaving the party but keeping your posts as an MP may indeed help you in the following way.
1) Serving as a boycott against the “Napoleons” as well as the leadership for ignoring your concerns and your voice.
2) Threatening the leadership, and trying to force them to start listening to you.
3) Raise concerns and awareness of the issues among other members and eventually catch the attention of the top leadership.
But let me share my point of view on the matter, based on basic corporate organizational observation.
1) An announcement to leave the party because your voice is not heard will not be viewed as an alarm. It is seen as a threat. And no one likes threats, especially if you do not have enough “points” to support your threats.
2) Begging you to stay will make it a bad trend, and more members will do the same, hoping to have their “wishes” fulfilled. This is not very healthy.
3) If you threaten to leave for the sake of trivial things, management will just think you are immature. And that makes you worthless to them.
In which case the organization will not make you stay. And probably would not take you back if one day you regret leaving. But this is politics. And in politics, there are no real enemies as much as there are no real friends. However, the people who voted you may hesitate to throw their votes for you again.
Some members raised alarms, and made strong statements before they were referred to the disciplinary board and eventually got sacked. This seems to be the proper way; but still, that depends on the issue raised, and relevance of supporting evidence. Some raised an issue and immediately followed this by threats of resigning. This actually gives an impression that they are seeking attention. And the resignation is an act of boycott. It is even more obvious when he resigns from the party but still insists on keeping all other posts.
Now, you may say that by keeping the posts, you are trying to serve the rakyat better by being independent from any party, being neutral and free from pressures from top leadership. However, may I ask the following questions?
1) If you cannot solve problems being a member of a “bigger power”, what makes you think you can as ONE person?
2) If you really want to be neutral, why then do you give support to a “power” that you know is corrupted?
3) If your voices are not heard in a party where you are given freedom to speak, what makes you think that it will be heard in a party that suppresses your freedom?
4) Similarly, if you think you can change something as an individual, why didn’t you initiate that change when you were part of a bigger power, where you have more support and influence over people below you (including the rakyat)?
5) You think that someone has done wrong. Can you say for sure that no one ever thought you did something wrong too?
6) What effort had you put in to address the issues that you are dissatisfied with while you were with the party? You have "seen" it, but did you do something before you called it a quits?
7) Put aside the issue you are dissatisfied with. Have you performed your responsibility as the MP of your area up to the satisfaction of the party, and especially the residents there?
Combined efforts will always carry you to greater heights. No one is an island, and no one single man can change the world by himself. You are in an organization that fights for justice and freedom. And the top leadership has vowed to keep it that way. Along the way, there would surely be many challenges as some members stray from the cause. The leader may be too busy with something else. As a member, and part of the leadership, is it not your responsibility to help maintain, lead and direct your teams to the right direction visioned by your top leader? Or at least the same vision you shared with him when you joined the party?
Before you raise your white flag, have you tried everything within your means, and everything that you can think of to overcome it? Well, you threatened to resign against one or a few points which you are not happy with, and jeopardized the welfare of the people who voted for you. All in all, have you thus far performed your responsibilities towards them? If you have not, aren’t you supposed to answer to that before you start complaining about other issues?
So, disappointed MPs, we are all watching. PR may not have had enough talents to be fielded during past elections and had to put a shaky-willed person like you in. But I’m sure many have urged them to start sourcing talents. A more important point to note is, we the common folks are disappointed with PR too sometimes, but have we given up? If we haven’t, why have you?
Thus far, I have personally made much comments on PR’s management or lack thereof. And I have seen many of them step up. Moreover, we supported the cause to fight for justice and freedom, not really for PR itself. PR is the force, the vehicle. A combined effort and determination of the people – leaders and the common folks alike, to carry the cause along. Your leaving it on the ground of being disappointed with “SOME people”, abandoning the “vehicle” to walk by yourself does not seem justified. Well, at least reveal evidence of the abuse of power, or information that could convince the people about your mistreatment before you walk off else it remains an allegation due to your PERSONAL PREFERENCE. And that affects our PERSONAL PREFERENCE towards you too, for if you are hasty and make drastic decisions, how should we place our trust in your hands?
No comments:
Post a Comment