GE13 - The Public Sucks (Why i dont vote ! )

“…politicians…everybody complains about politicians…everybody says they suck! Well, where do people think these politicians come from ? They don't fall out of the sky…they don't pass through a membrane from another reality…they come from Malaysian parents, Malaysian families, Malaysian homes, Malaysian schools, Malaysian mosques/churches/temples,  Malaysian businesses and Malaysian universities, and they are elected by the Malaysian citizens….this is the best we can do folks..this is what we have to offer…its what our system produces…garbage in, garbage out…if you have selfish ignorant citizens, you are gonna get selfish ignorant leaders… and term limiting aint gonna do any good, because you are just gonna wind up with a brand new bunch of selfish ignorant Malaysians…so maybe…so maybe…maybe…maybe its not the politicians who suck…maybe something else sucks around here, like…the public….yeah, the public sucks ! ….”  

(Excerpts from a George Carlin stand-up, Malaysianised to suit our local context)

Disruptive Leadership (Part 2) – Constructive Disruptors vs Destructive Disruptors

My educational background is in chemistry. I have always considered myself to be quite technical in the way I think and the influences it has on my decision making. As much as I enjoy being a techie, sometimes I feel like I am missing the bigger picture. Occasionally I fail to see the business and economic aspect of things. Of late, I have been having a lot of interest in subjects such as economics, business and leadership. I have been reading a number of books and blogs on these topics, but given my current personal circumstances, I find time to be a luxury that I have yet to afford. It is an excuse, I get it. So say no more. I have been a huge fan of BFM 89.9, which I find to be an extraordinary radio station that is heavily focused on business, finance, economy and leadership. They conduct interesting interviews with various industry leaders and experts on things that I find to matter most. They provide critical reviews on a range of relevant blogs that I frequently visit. Since I will get stuck in traffic anyway, might as well kill two birds with one stone.

In one of their recent interview sessions, an ex-journalist by the name of Kee Tuan Chye shared how his passion for writing was deeply motivated by his desires to seek and reveal the truth, and often this got him into trouble with the chief editors and so on. He used to be reprimanded for wanting to make right what he believed to be wrong. He would reach out to the public through his writings. He had hoped to do whatever little he can so that someday the country would be a better place for the future generations. Whether or not he succeeds, is a different story.

Listening to him speak, I realize that he has been trying to disrupt the existing system which he believes to be flawed. And I thought to myself, you don't necessarily need to be a politician in power to bring about transformation. It is a common mistake to think that you are a nobody of significance to be reckoned with. In my last post, I wrote about disruptive leadership. Everyone one of us can be a disruptive leader if we choose to be one. The power vested in a voter would mean that we, the “commoners”, can dictate what we would like to see happen to our country. In fact, to think about it, we are the leaders, and the so-called self-professed leaders-cum-politicians are effectively our followers. But this is only true for as long as we choose to exercise our duty as the leaders. And for as long as we choose not to take that responsibility, then we have to be contented with whatever and however the “followers” choose to lead.

And if you think about it again, there are many other ways to bring about disruption to the existing system. Disruptive leaders do not necessarily have to be individuals. It could be an organization. It could be the corporate sector. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), for example, was initiated on the basis that more needs to, can and should be done to ensure that the palm industry is sustainable economically, socially and environmentally. It was started as a voluntary initiative by a group of companies who sought to disrupt the common practice in the palm industry which they thought was not sustainable. There you go, a disruption at work!

There are many other organizations in this world that have challenged the existing institutional systems that they wish to disrupt. Believe it or not, the corporate sectors can also be extremely influential when it comes to initiating change or pushing for policy reforms. We have all heard of the Google-China saga. Some of us have seen the news of how several multinational companies (sorry-no name and shame here), which was once criticized for procuring goods from Chinese suppliers that violate international labour laws. Subsequently, these multinational companies have adopted their own internal procurement standards to ensure that they no longer get supplies from such discriminatory companies. A glitch in business as usual and bham, now China has made known their commitments to end child labour and abuse. Such actions, though voluntary, can be an impetus for a bigger reform and transformation. These are indeed disruptive leaderships, but through creative means. You don't need to be a prime minister to enforce change. You don't even need to be minister to drive transformation. All you need is the willingness to disrupt status quo by being a creative disruptor.

But of course one will argue that not all disruptions are necessarily good and indeed that is true. A destructive disruptor will bring more harm than good. A disruptive leader with personal motives and agenda can be extremely destructive. We have seen many of this throughout history. Adolf Hitler is a case in point. He had a large crowd of ardent followers and thus making him a leader by nature. He managed to, successfully if I may add, disrupt the established institutional system. But he brought more harm than good - though it is worth noting that if he is still alive, he would probably deny this. It's a classic case of a destructive-disruptive leader. Sadly to say, I think we have more destructive disruptors than constructive disruptors, but of course not to the extent of the destruction that Hitler had caused.

In an ideal world, we want our government to be the constructive disruptors. But realistically, under the present scenario and in the world that we live in, we need more creative-constructive disruptors. To that end, i should probably register as a voter now!

Disruptive Leadership- Lead, follow or get out of my way!

As I sit here at my hotel room desk in Jakarta, glimpsing out of the window occasionally, I could not help but compare and contrast the capital of Indonesia with our very own pride and joy, KL. And I must admit that we have gone a long way to come to where we are now today, not just in terms of the physical socio-economic transformation, but also the in the quality level of the physical infrastructures. This is not insinuating that Indonesia is much more inferior than Malaysia, but if you feel offended, then sorry- get over it and get on with life.

Some may argue that I have not lived long enough to appreciate the evolutionary transformation that has taken place from way before my generation. But I will of course beg to differ for my very own reasons. I recalled a book I read several years back written by Kim Quek titled “Where to Malaysia? Back to Mahathirism or Anwar’s Reformasi”, where the author has very strong negative views against Dr Mahathir and in particular his mega projects. It made me realize that no matter what you do, you will always have people going against what you believe, telling you that you have done wrong and criticizing your every decision. The art of effective leadership is to not ignore criticism, but also to not take it personally.

I sometimes think that people confuse between leaders and politicians. To my mind, not all politicians are leaders inasmuch as not all leaders are popular. Most politicians would only change their ways when they receive cues from the citizens reminding them that it is time to change and the fear of losing the popularity battle is the impetus for change. A true leader, on the other hand, has sufficient foresight to think what is strategically best for the nation or the people of the country. To put it simply, a leader leads and not waits to be led by the citizens. But of course, that would mean that his actions would not necessarily be a popular one thus making him a failed politician. There are many instances where leaders were/are also popular, but there is no point in naming names since obviously my perception of a successful leader will differ from others. It is subjective in nature.

In thinking about leadership styles, there are also cases of disruptive leadership that is often against the majority thinking flows that are entrenched with complacency. These are the kinds of leaders who believe in a cause that differs from the majority, but seeks to revolutionize the present system for a potentially better future. Worst still, often they are dismissed as a “mad-man” and their ideals go unnoticed. This is a deterrent for many to go down the route of being different from the majority as they fear that they would inevitably invite trouble. The mere fact that there is a saying of “never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you” signifies that this is the mindset that is prevalent in the current society globally –i.e. just go with the flow.

We need more disruptive leaders to bring about the change that is required. Relying on the naturally slow Darwinian momentum may prove to be too late for us as a nation. A disruptive leader, by definition, would disrupt the natural cycle by turbocharging change and overcoming whatever inertia thats holding us back against progress and betterment. Martin Luther King was a disruptive leader. He saw injustice and inequality in his society and decided to change it. He disrupted the existing system which initially drew resistance from his very own people, the oppressed. But as with all charismatic leaders in history, although he had a difficult start, he managed to gain sufficient supporters to fight for the dream that he had. And yes, it all starts with a dream of a future that we want…

Tan Sri Phang says that Musa Hassan is ungrateful and implies that Police is indeed not independent!

In his last speech, the outgoing IGP alleged that there were third party interferences disrupting the command and control of the police force. Some of his choices of words were:

"...yang mengecewakan saya kadang kala ada interference daripada pihak2 yang lain dalam kita menjalankan tugas...,there shouldn't be any third party yang memberi arahan2 kepada Pegawai Polis bawahan tanpa pengetahuan Ketua Polis Negara. .... ini adalah satu tindakan yang salah, because ianya tidak selari dengan command and control of the pasukan Polis..."

- Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Outgoing IGP-

That obviously ruffled some feathers somewhere and not many people were happy about it. And now comes the usual denials, retaliations, counter-accusations etc…but hey, what’s new…Malaysia boleh rite?! However, one really caught my attention. The comments from Tan Sri Robert Phang, Chairman of the Social Care Foundation, I find to be quite… eeeerrrrr hhmmm ….funny…not haha funny, but “funny” funny….

You can read his comments here: http://www.malaysiandigest.com/news/36-local/8347-phang-musa-ungrateful-to-former-masters.html

Below are some of HIS "funny" comments that I have extracted:

1) “Has he forgotten that his tenure as top cop was extended thrice by former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak and Dato’ Seri Hishamuddin?”
Taiko, you see, when you say that, what it means is that the IGP position was given to Tan Sri Musa and tenure extended thrice not based on competency and achievement, and so he should be indebted to “them” because if it were based on merits alone he would not have been there for so long… so to show gratitude he has to serve “them” as “masters” and not the people, even if there is a conflict… what this implies is that Tun Abdullah, Datuk Seri Najib, and Dato Seri Hishamuddin have all extended his tenure because of the vested interest that they have in this position…OR in other words (and a much more interesting one is that) you are implying that Tun Abdullah, Datuk Seri Najib, and Dato Seri Hishamuddin have all corrupted the transparency and independency of the police force…so taiko, is this what you are claiming…ada berani?

2) “…Just because his tenure has not been extended, he has now suddenly found his guts to speak up for the force and champion independence”
So you do admit that all these while the police force is not independent? If the police force has always been independent, then what is there to champion?

3)“Musa should look at himself in the mirror and ask whether he had contributed to the enhancement of the police force. The nation’s crime rate is at worrying state and the public has lost much confidence in the police force”.
Classic, if you can’t refute his allegations, then attack him personally…okayla taiko, I give you the benefit of the doubt…so he is ineffective, he has not done a good job and was an irresponsible IGP who didn’t help improve the image of the police force and the crime rate….hhmm…taiko, then why did Tun Abdullah, Datuk Seri Najib and Dato Seri Hishamuddin renewed his tenure three times ah? If like you say he is not competent enough, and if it were up to any normal thinking human being, then no one would have extended his contract…not even once…let alone three times. Oklay, since I am in a good raya mood today, let me give you two possible scenarios for you to choose as your defense. One is that he is really an incompetent IGP but whose tenure were renewed thrice because Tun Abdullah, Datuk Seri Najib and Dato Seri Hishamuddin has vested interest in keeping him as the IGP and therefore depicts the lack of transparency and independency of the police force. Second option is that he is incompetent (still), but the three politicians are busy politicking and couldn't care less about the worrying crime rate in the country or if Tan Sri Musa is the right person for the IGP position and therefore would be easier to blindly extend his tenure instead of finding a replacement. So taiko, which one…the IGP incompetent, or the ministers and prime ministers are incompetent?

4)“…don't tell me that he is Mr Perfect and thus the government should not interfere?”
Aiyo…so got interference or not? One time say don't have, now say got…which is it la taiko… if he is acting within the law then why interfere?…if he has done something deemed wrong but is not illegal, then draft a law or code of conduct or whatever to control him…and if he breaks it, then sack or reprimand him…why have all this subjective interferences based on whims and fancies…the latter will only send out the message that the government has a hand/say in all police actions…with all these hanky-panky going on, how can you blame the people for saying that police investigations against brader anwar was not fair.

And the best of all, Phang also urged Musa to clarify whether he is a Law Degree holder or just finish Diploma in Criminology…Phang said “He must clarify. The public need to know. There is a very much different between Law and Criminology”.

Tan Sri Musa, make sure you put that clearly in your resume next time you retire, not when you were first appointed because Tan Sri Phang obviously feels that you are not fit for the position, and it seems that he feels very strongly of this only when you retire...so folks, retirement is not as easy as it used to be...u need to be qualified to justify your employment pre-retirement in order for you to retire…so Tan Sri Musa, please take note…the people NEED to know your qualifications when you retire, just as much as I NEED to know if my neighbor washes his backside after he takes a crap!

Change for "change"

We as a country get leaders that we deserve as a perfect reflection of who we truly are....a nation who is not willing to change...a nation who puts personal interest above others..a nation that do not have faith in the power of the people...

we speak about change, but only to commercialise and politicise it..sloganeering that has gone so bad that the word itself has lost every iota of meaning that it was originally meant to have...now how do I call for change if the word itself is so tainted and carries with it humongous baggage linked to politics, insincerity and contention. If I cry “change!”, would you decry “politicking!” ? Or even worse, if I cry “change!”, would you just ignore me?

But maybe, we just need to have faith once again..have faith that someday change would mean change, and nothing less. Maybe we just need to be hopeful that someday, someone will make change possible. Call it wishful thinking, but perhaps wishful thinking is what we need for a change. And for a change, perhaps we should change first. Perhaps we need to change our view towards change. Perhaps changing our perspectives towards change is exactly what we need. And now, perhaps, if I cry change, you would cry in joy for the change to come! And I ask here, do you have enough faith to change for change?

The time has come for an innovative political reform!

(Image taken from http://evdguy.blogspot.com/)

The BN has been governing the country for many years now. Whilst I do agree that a lot have been achieved since independence, I also do have regrets that a lot were not done, if not could have been done better or differently. Looking at the political scenarios of other developed countries, it is unsurprisingly common to see the establishment of a two party system, which many economist and political analyst would argue as a necessity to provide the check and balances for a country to be well governed. And a political party gets elected as the government via a fair voting process. This is what we call democracy. And the experts say that democracy is good for the country, irrespective of which country!

Malaysia achieved independence in 1957- that's almost 53 years ago. We have only just started to form a “not-quite” two party system. I say not quite because though we now have PKR-DAP-PAS as another possible ruling coalition, we still have yet to break the monotony (for a lack of better word) of having the same ruling party governing the nation. Some states have seen changes especially in the last vote, but not the country as a whole. I am not vouching for this alternative coalition, but I feel that the whole check and balances argument is valid to prevent complacency and entrenchment from creeping in.

So yes, we are close to establishing a more desirable political system. But what we are lacking is the political maturity that is needed for a two party system. A healthy competition between the two parties has to be established for good nation building. It is okay to be critical of each other, if it is for the good of the rakyat. It is okay to be challenging and difficult, if being difficult would mean that the rights of the rakyats are taken care of. But what good is a two party system, if it is to only look after the self-interest of the politicians. What are we trying to achieve if parties are vengeful against each other at the detriments of the rakyat. Be professional, is all I am asking for.

If ruling party loses a state, then accept it with grace, acknowledge that the rakyat has chosen the then opposition and only have yourself to blame for not trying harder to please the rakyat. And do not take it out on the rakyat, because without us, you will not even be there in the first place. And using your federal power to suppress the lost-out state will only show your lack of professionalism and political immaturity, and the deep rooted vested interest political fundamentals of the party.

And the same professionalism and maturity has to be shown by the opposition. The role of an opposition in a two party system is not to oppose every single thing just for the sake of opposing. Oppose to what is wrong and work with the government if it is right, because at the end of the day, even if political parties are slow to mature, the rakyats are maturing at an even faster pace. We see what is happening in the political arena, and playing dirty politics as a populist measure will not win the hearts of the rakyat. If you take your opposition role to an extremely personal level, I question if you have the ulterior motives of a vested interest politician.

The adage “whatever happens in Texas, stays in Texas” is very much applicable in this country too. Whatever bickering that happens in this country, must only be kept within this country. Whatever dissatisfaction that is felt is expressed only within the country. The rule-of-thumb is to never complain to a foreign country or bitch about Malaysia to other countries because it really does make you wonder if you are truly faithful to the country. How can you sell your country by revealing the dirt to outsiders? It is like being in a marriage. Would you really tell outsiders about the bedtime inadequacies of your partner, or in other words would you really tell the world about your partner’s kinky fetish? Although you have differences in political fundamentals, both parties are essentially representing the common rakyat. So that does make you partners. Partners in trying to develop the country. Partners in ensuring only the best for the rakyat. To the outside world, both parties are Malaysian parties. To the outside world, it does not matter if you have different believes. If you continue to bicker in public, condemning the country to the external public, the external public would not see any shortfalls as being due to the ruling party, but rather a shortfall of the country. The country would get bad press. The country would get a bad name. See the following links for a recent bickering that was taken to the international level by the so-called politicians that are there to safeguard current and attract future foreign direct investments.

Article1: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023813383421900.html
Article2: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023801488108836.html

What are we trying to achieve here ? Who are we trying to impress? The Americans?

The time for a political reform is definitely now. We established a political system that had worked in the past. But in the past, it was a single party system. Now, we have a two party system, and it is here to stay for much longer. And unless we find innovative ways to co-exist and work together, we will not go anywhere as a country. This is a new field to us. But the world does not care if we are a newbie to this arena. No one will buy us some time to acclimatize to this new scenario. All countries are running, but some are running faster than the others. We can’t afford to slow down to learn to adapt to the new system. There is just no time. Pick up where we left off, and continue sprinting. Continue developing the country. Continue to improve our education system. Continue to attract more foreign investments. Because every second we stop to argue, we are losing to other countries that are eager to develop and are offering better and more attractive conditions for investments.

China has an autocratic political system. It is much easier to implement changes in China. So do we really want to delay, procrastinate or even stall progress?

Politics 101: Introduction to Politics

Politics is an intricate subject by itself. But Malaysian politics, I have to admit, adds a fourth dimension, taking the entire topic to another level of complexity. To all the Chemists out there, if Politics were Organic Chemistry, then Malaysian Politics is perhaps equivalent to Quantum Chemistry, which goes so far as saying that the politics in Malaysia is highly convoluted and mind boggling. Therefore, to all of the newbie (myself not spared) out there, the following is an extract from an email I recently received, which gives a rather general, but realistic, view on the basics of politics.

One day, a son asked his father “Dad, what is politics?”
And the dad replied…

“Son, since I bring home the money, so I am the CAPITALIST.”
“Your mother administrates the money, therefore she is the GOVERNMENT.”
“Your grandpa, who keeps an eye over the whole thing, is the UNION.”
“Our maid is the WORKING CLASS”
“ We all want just one thing, your well-being. Hence you are the PEOPLE, meanwhile your younger brother who is still in his nappy is the FUTURE.”

And when the father asked if the kid understood it, the little one thought about it and told his father that he wanted to sleep it over for one night.

Then during the night the boy was woken up by his younger brother’s constant crying and the foul smell in the room. As he didn’t know what to do, he wandered into the parents’ bedroom but only to find the mother in the room sleeping all alone. The mother was so sound asleep that the little boy failed to wake her up. So he then went over to the maid’s room, but this time only to realize the father was having “fun” with the maid, whilst the grandpa was secretly peeping through a hole. They were all so engrossed into their own activities that no one realized the boy was standing there in the room. Seeing that he didn’t know what else to do, he decided to get back to bed and force himself to sleep.

On the following morning, the father asked the little boy if he could, in only a few words, explain what he understood about politics.

Confidently the boy said that he could and started explaining:

“The CAPITALIST abuses the WORKING CLASS”
“The UNION watches without doing anything”
“While the GOVERNMENT sleeps”
“The PEOPLE are completely ignored”
“And the FUTURE is in a shitty mess!”

What can I say..that is politics! :)