Small boys playing grownup games

In 1998, the objective was to bring down Dr Mahathir. In 2004, the objective was to bring down Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. In 2008, the objective was to weaken Barisan Nasional. In the next election, the objective is to try to take over the federal government -- or, if we can’t do that, then at least get as close as possible to a hung Parliament so that Barisan Nasional will be severely weakened and what will emerge in its place is a strong two-party system.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin

RPK, I don't understand you. You whack almost everybody. I understand your desire for clean honest leaders but these are no angels and you will never find one. Besides how can you find an answer when you just throw the mud on your blog for everyone to agree or disagree? DSAI is not an angel but he is by the only one we can look upon to lead us to topple the BN. – HARRY

***************************************

In 1919, at the end of WWI, the victorious nations of Europe organised the Paris Peace Conference, which resulted in the Treaty of Versailles. Basically, Germany’s face was rubbed into the mud, a great mistake -- in particular the war-guilt clause, which the Germans never forgot or forgave until the next generation.

Then along came Hitler and he gave hope to the German people -- in that he could lead them to restore Germany’s pride and dignity. (Incidentally, Hitler had fought in WWI).

Of course, Hitler was not a virtuous leader. He was, in fact, very dangerous. He was organising violent street demonstrations with an aim to destabilise the government. But he was able to talk. His speeches moved the people. Very few at that time, or even now (maybe except for Sukarno of Indonesia) could move the people like Hitler could.

Today, taking advantage of hindsight, the Germans made a great mistake in allowing Hitler to lead the country. But the German were desperate. They had been greatly shamed. And Hitler was the only man who could erase this shame and restore Germany to what it used to be, the most powerful nation in Europe. The cost matters little when it comes to pride, dignity and glory. And in Germany’s case it was a huge cost indeed.

Rewind to 1800, in neighbouring France, soon after the Storming of the Bastille in 1789. The whole of Europe had ganged up on France. France’s neighbours -- that included England, Russia, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Prussia, the Italian Republic, the Papal States, etc. -- wanted the Republic destroyed and the monarchy restored. France needed a leader to end the chaos and anarchy, the period that we now call The Reign of Terror.

Then along came Napoleon and he gave hope to the French people. He was a war hero. He led an army that had been victorious in many battles against odds stacked up against him. His small army swept across Europe and demolished bigger and better-organised armies. And, most important of all, he could talk. He could give speeches that moved the people.

So the French chose him to lead France. And he crowned himself Emperor with the Pope in attendance, which means God Himself endorses his coronation. And then he grabbed the crown from the Pope and crowned his wife the Empress. Never before had the world seen such a thing. And never before has a man born from the masses and not from nobility been crowned by the Pope.

So I would agree with Harry’s comments above. I am a student of history (I am still studying, in fact, and my final exam will be in two months time). So I know all about leadership. And we need strong leaders. And, sometimes, strong leaders may not translate to virtuous leaders.

There is this story about the Muslim army of Medina preparing for war and the Prophet Muhammad chose a general who was not quite of a virtuous character to lead the army. The Prophet’s companions decided to speak to the Prophet about it. Why can’t the Prophet choose a more religious person? This particular person is known to indulge in certain ‘weaknesses’ (if you know what I mean).

And the Prophet replied that to win a war we need the most skilled soldier and not the most religious person to lead the army. Of course, those were not the exact words but that is basically the story of what happened.

So I know about compromises. And I know that a good politician may not necessarily mean that that person is a good leader. And a good leader may not necessarily mean that that person is a good administrator. And a good deputy may not necessarily mean that that person will make a good number one. And a clean person may not necessarily mean he or she will be a good leader. And so on. Even the Prophet chose a skilled soldier over a religious man to lead his army, much to the puzzlement of his comrades.

Am I really as naïve as you think I am? You think I did not know of Anwar Ibrahim’s weaknesses before this?

I knew him from school in 1963. I knew him when he joined Umno in 1982. I knew him when he challenged Suhaimi for the Umno Youth Leadership. I knew him when he made a bid for the Umno Vice Presidency and offered the Umno Youth Leadership to Najib as ‘payment’ to entice Najib to support Dr Mahathir instead of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. I knew him when he made a bid for the Umno Deputy Presidency. I knew him when he made a bid to oust Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Do you know that in 1996, two years before Anwar was kicked out and sent to jail, I wrote in the PAS newspaper, Harakah, that Anwar will make a bid to topple Dr Mahathir and attempt to take over the leadership of Umno, meaning also become the Prime Minister of Malaysia? I even joked that if the ‘RAHMAN Theory’ were correct, this would mean Rahman, Abdul Razak, Hussein, Mahathir, Anwar and Neo Yee Pan.

Nevertheless, I said in that article that Anwar is going to fail. He will never be able to oust Dr Mahathir. Anwar’s political career is going to end as Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. And this is because Dr Mahathir is a better and more skilled politician than Anwar. Dr Mahathir is Machiavellian. You really don’t know what he is up to. He can smile and praise you as he holds the knife in his hand hidden behind his back. Anwar, on the other hand, is so transparent you can read him like an open book (and I use the word ‘transparent’ not in the positive light).

This was what I wrote in 1996 and which Harakah published. The long article was called ‘The Rise and Fall of Anwar Ibrahim’.

In fact, the Old Boys of MCKK can probably remember the MCOBA annual dinner of 1996 where I wrote the script of a musical about the history of Umno. Rehman Rashid and Hishamuddin Rais also helped with polishing that script. The late Pak Din played Dr Mahathir and Latt Shahriman played Anwar. Of course, we had to get the more jambu boys to play Rafidah and her challenger, Dr Siti Zaharah.

The play opened with ‘Dr Mahathir’ crying during the Umno annual assembly (to the song ‘It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to’) and it ended with ‘Tengku Razaleigh’ breaking up with ‘Nik Aziz’, rejoining Umno and hugging ‘Dr Mahathir’ (to the song ‘Reunited and it feels so good’), and ‘Anwar’ being kicked off the stage (and hence out of Umno).

Someone gave Anwar a copy of the video and he was pissed because we took the piss out of him. The following year, he decided to attend the annual dinner in case, again, we make fun of him on stage. That was the first and last dinner he ever attended. The following year he was already in jail -- bad fengshui attending the MCOBA dinner.

However, when what I ‘predicted’ in 1996 did happen, we rallied around him. Yes, we know who Anwar is. Most Old Boys of MCKK know as well. But many Old Boys rallied around him not only because he was an Old Boy but also because we did not like what Dr Mahathir did to him.

That was the bottom line. And we supported him as the leader of the opposition because the opposition needed a leader and did not have one yet.  Furthermore, the opposition needed a leader who could bring PAS and DAP to the negotiating table and only Anwar could do that. Even Tengku Razaleigh failed on that score.

Can you remember that Tengku Razaleigh’s Semangat 46 had THREE coalitions? On the West Coast with DAP it was called Gagasan Rakyat. On the East Coast with PAS it was called Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah (APU). And in Sabah it was another coalition with PBS that was not given a name.

So, while Tengku Razaleigh could not get all the ‘warring parties’ to sit at one table, Anwar could. Hence we supported him as Opposition Leader.

So what does that make me? A hypocrite? I said I know Anwar and yet I supported him. No, that makes me a realist. That means I am pragmatic. This shows I know what the focus is. And the focus was to bring down Dr Mahathir.

In fact, Anwar himself told us not to attack Umno. There are some people in Umno who are sympathetic to us so we do not want to antagonise them. The target is Dr Mahathir and those within his inner circle. So that was the focus of our attacks.

But that was in 1998. In 1998, the objective was to bring down Dr Mahathir. In 2004, the objective was to bring down Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. In 2008, the objective was to weaken Barisan Nasional. In the next election, the objective is to try to take over the federal government -- or, if we can’t do that, then at least get as close as possible to a hung Parliament so that Barisan Nasional will be severely weakened and what will emerge in its place is a strong two-party system.

In 1990, the catalyst was Tengku Razaleigh. In 1999, it was Anwar Ibrahim. For the next election it is no longer about Tengku Razaleigh or Anwar. It is already beyond both of them. This time around the catalyst has to be the rakyat.

The rakyat need not stand behind Tengku Razaleigh or Anwar. Instead, Tengku Razaleigh and Anwar have to stand behind the rakyat. This time, neither Tengku Razaleigh nor Anwar are going to lead the charge like last time. This time, the rakyat are going to lead the charge.

And if I have to keep drumming this into your heads I will continue to do so, regardless of all the names the Pakatan Rakyat people may call me and all the ridicule and mocking that I am subjected to.

This is not about Caesar. This is about Rome.