a nation on a short route to disaster?
The Prime Minister's take on the issue which lead to the BBC Chairman Datuk Shahrir Ahmad's resignation:
Prinsip Barisan Nasional (BN) yang tidak membenarkan Ahli Parlimennya menyokong usul pembangkang di Parlimen adalah kekal dan perlu dipatuhi semua anggota.
So in principle, Datuk Shahrir was in a serious breach of party conduct when he supported the Opposition's bid to investigate the claims made in the NST newspaper report against the Jasin MP, with regards to his dealings with the Customs office.
I find this so-called 'party principle' perplexing - what is the practical basis of such ruling?
Solidarity? Facade of unity? Perhaps.
But what happens when the will of the party does not concur with the need and desires of the public - the very people who elected you in the first place?
The logical thing to do is to resign. Fair enough.
But what does this ruling say about the party as a whole? Sure, it is a fine way to ensure that all party members toe the line.
But what does it say about affecting and initiating changes within the party? Is it able to evolve and respond to external circumstances if all that it demands from its members are their unwavering devotions whilst suppressing any vehicle for change?
When you think about it, the argument for solidarity and unity does not seemed so valid anymore.
A party who refuses to listen to its members and opresses any dissenting voices from within risk eventually of being stagnant, apathetic and out of touch with the realities of the current political landscape.
It doesn't take a genius to deduce what would happen to such parties if they remain oblivious to their own internal shortcomings - history is replete with countless warnings and examples of such situations.
It is foolish to assume that a single dissenting voice would be able to tear the whole party apart; surely, the party is made of sterner stuff than that.
However, if the party is held together not by a commitment to integrity and sound principles, but instead racked with tribal-like allegiances greased by shady money politics, one can understand why dissenting voices - even if it is in the minority - are much feared and loathed.
Even if the desire for solidarity are made in good faith, why then are our MPs so susceptible to make the broad and often misleading conclusion that everything and anything which comes from the Opposition are detriment to the country's interest and therefore should be rejected outright?
Are they so blinded by divisions along partisan lines and consumed by party allegiance that they feel safe to simply abandon their faculties of reason and common sense?
Does joining a political party requires you to be accountable first to the party and second to wishes of the public?
Does joining a political party means having to sell or throw away your own conscience?
I believe one should always focus on the content rather than the messenger; in this case, the merits of the Opposition's proposal should take precedent regardless of the person who originally proposed it, especially when it concerns the integrity and honour of the Parliament.
To nonchalantly push aside any proposal which seeks to extract the truth over the matter simply because it came from the other side reflects badly on the mentality and maturity of the MPs besides exposing their sheer narrow-mindedness.
Furthermore, it makes one wonder: are they not capable of rational thought at all?
It is a sad day indeed for Malaysia.
Prinsip Barisan Nasional (BN) yang tidak membenarkan Ahli Parlimennya menyokong usul pembangkang di Parlimen adalah kekal dan perlu dipatuhi semua anggota.
So in principle, Datuk Shahrir was in a serious breach of party conduct when he supported the Opposition's bid to investigate the claims made in the NST newspaper report against the Jasin MP, with regards to his dealings with the Customs office.
I find this so-called 'party principle' perplexing - what is the practical basis of such ruling?
Solidarity? Facade of unity? Perhaps.
But what happens when the will of the party does not concur with the need and desires of the public - the very people who elected you in the first place?
The logical thing to do is to resign. Fair enough.
But what does this ruling say about the party as a whole? Sure, it is a fine way to ensure that all party members toe the line.
But what does it say about affecting and initiating changes within the party? Is it able to evolve and respond to external circumstances if all that it demands from its members are their unwavering devotions whilst suppressing any vehicle for change?
When you think about it, the argument for solidarity and unity does not seemed so valid anymore.
A party who refuses to listen to its members and opresses any dissenting voices from within risk eventually of being stagnant, apathetic and out of touch with the realities of the current political landscape.
It doesn't take a genius to deduce what would happen to such parties if they remain oblivious to their own internal shortcomings - history is replete with countless warnings and examples of such situations.
It is foolish to assume that a single dissenting voice would be able to tear the whole party apart; surely, the party is made of sterner stuff than that.
However, if the party is held together not by a commitment to integrity and sound principles, but instead racked with tribal-like allegiances greased by shady money politics, one can understand why dissenting voices - even if it is in the minority - are much feared and loathed.
Even if the desire for solidarity are made in good faith, why then are our MPs so susceptible to make the broad and often misleading conclusion that everything and anything which comes from the Opposition are detriment to the country's interest and therefore should be rejected outright?
Are they so blinded by divisions along partisan lines and consumed by party allegiance that they feel safe to simply abandon their faculties of reason and common sense?
Does joining a political party requires you to be accountable first to the party and second to wishes of the public?
Does joining a political party means having to sell or throw away your own conscience?
I believe one should always focus on the content rather than the messenger; in this case, the merits of the Opposition's proposal should take precedent regardless of the person who originally proposed it, especially when it concerns the integrity and honour of the Parliament.
To nonchalantly push aside any proposal which seeks to extract the truth over the matter simply because it came from the other side reflects badly on the mentality and maturity of the MPs besides exposing their sheer narrow-mindedness.
Furthermore, it makes one wonder: are they not capable of rational thought at all?
It is a sad day indeed for Malaysia.
posted by wanaimran at
12:13 AM
1 Comments:
It is indeed a sad day for our country but it is more prevalent than before. Narrow-mindedness? Indeed, it is but one of the many.....
Just looked around us and you will see a misbehaving state minister; we used to hear one state government aimed to have a 'zero opposition' which is a bit silly for we need opposition to act as the check and balance in any form of government; a ridiculous statement by the Information Minister of how Malaysian public will not be shown live Parliament debates because Malaysian..... dhuuhh.... what's was the reason again?!
Our MPs also often times got their priorities mixed-up i.e. they recently debated on what is the right dress code to the Parliament rather than the problems of the people; at times we heard contradicting statements by the ministers and deputy ministers on the same issue and, classic cases of mismanagement of the many government-linked-companies (GLCs).
Those are only some of many shortcomings of " a nation on a short route to disaster".....
So, what say you? Hear ye, hear ye .....
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home