An Islamic State.
Government knows best.
Hollow statements. An administration that spends too much time on platitudes and too little on substantive governing efforts must surely be lost or at the very least, on its last legs.
There are a multitude of issues facing the country. Rather than worry about bloggers, national unity or the labeling of the state and acting as high priests, perhaps it can be argued that government should be just a government and focus on creating a just state.
A government's role is to govern. In Malaysia, that government is particularly charged with the responsibility to govern and to govern justly. To balance the needs of the many against the needs of the few. To provide a means by which the underprivileged and the disadvantaged can build a better life in society. Not to equalise but to equip and to empower. To protect the people's civil rights and freedoms long denied by their former colonial masters. To build a free and just nation. A beacon of tolerance, inclusion and acceptance. To leverage the strength that is our diversity. Not to divide and conquer as the colonialists did in the past.
Amongst the centrepieces of the policy recommendations currently being drafted there will be a focus on the role of government; specifically, the roles of the Executive and the Legislature (ie the politicians).
Commenting on party politics is beyond the scope of this site but the setting of guidelines for qualification to sit in either Houses of the Legislature is well within its remit. This will also be an area touched upon.
It is truly a sad thing that after nigh 50 years of Independence our Executive and Legislative branches of Government appear to have diminished rather than strengthened. From the quality of debate, policy-setting and an appreciation of the responsibility to govern, the nation appears to have become that much poorer.
We have to gain back that which has been lost.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
The Long Game
The end justifies the means.
Means to an end.
End game.
Too many fall by the wayside when they lose sight of their beginnings, their principles and especially of the end-point of their journeys.
Political crusaders begin life with a set of principles that shape their view of the end-state of the world that they would like to see. Along the way, life and society may alter, in small or significant ways, their principles and maybe even their view of the End.
Most times, the world around them manages to do a bit more. The temptation to focus on the now and on short term glory, for whatever reason, infects and infiltrates even the most hard-core of political puritans. The delusion that single acts in one short, finite space of time will yield spectacular results that will hasten the achievement of the End takes hold in their minds.
The result is that he or she resorts to committing acts of supreme folly that ultimately leads to not even a phyrric victory but a supreme defeat; the loss of one's position and all that has been worked for as well as distancing the achievement of the End.
Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A move that hastened the end of the Second World War but at the same time, was an act of brutal and indiscrimnate murder that ranks with the Holocaust. So did good triumph over evil? Was the End envisioned by Allies of a freer and more just world achieved? Did it bring about the End or some other second-best, twisted end?
Realpolitik. Tactics versus strategy.
I choose to argue that in politics of principle, one must stay true to principles and the End. There is no excuse for not thinking through one's steps and rushing headlong. To use a cliche, there are no gambles only calculated risks.
To achieve the End, one has to always keep to the principles that have shaped one's vision of the End. Anything less serves to diminsh one's position and makes the bringing about of the End that much harder.
Bringing about the End takes time. So be it. Take the time.
Means to an end.
End game.
Too many fall by the wayside when they lose sight of their beginnings, their principles and especially of the end-point of their journeys.
Political crusaders begin life with a set of principles that shape their view of the end-state of the world that they would like to see. Along the way, life and society may alter, in small or significant ways, their principles and maybe even their view of the End.
Most times, the world around them manages to do a bit more. The temptation to focus on the now and on short term glory, for whatever reason, infects and infiltrates even the most hard-core of political puritans. The delusion that single acts in one short, finite space of time will yield spectacular results that will hasten the achievement of the End takes hold in their minds.
The result is that he or she resorts to committing acts of supreme folly that ultimately leads to not even a phyrric victory but a supreme defeat; the loss of one's position and all that has been worked for as well as distancing the achievement of the End.
Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A move that hastened the end of the Second World War but at the same time, was an act of brutal and indiscrimnate murder that ranks with the Holocaust. So did good triumph over evil? Was the End envisioned by Allies of a freer and more just world achieved? Did it bring about the End or some other second-best, twisted end?
Realpolitik. Tactics versus strategy.
I choose to argue that in politics of principle, one must stay true to principles and the End. There is no excuse for not thinking through one's steps and rushing headlong. To use a cliche, there are no gambles only calculated risks.
To achieve the End, one has to always keep to the principles that have shaped one's vision of the End. Anything less serves to diminsh one's position and makes the bringing about of the End that much harder.
Bringing about the End takes time. So be it. Take the time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)