Wednesday, September 7, 2011

More support for Dato Sri Abu Bekir to be MP and PBB Youth Chief

Kesediaan Abu Bekir disambut baik: Fatimah

Beliau yakin pengundi DUN Dalat pastinya gembira dan berharap pembangunan akan turut melonjak

It looks like that very successful businessman Dato Sri Abu Bekir is guaranteed to be Member of Parliament come GE 13.  Now it only looks like whether it is just a matter of whether constituency of samarahan or mukah.  What is certain however is Dato Sri Abu Bekir will be federal deputy minister and PBB Youth chief.
KUCHING: Kesediaan tokoh korporat terkemuka Dato Sri Mahmud Abu Bekir untuk bertanding di Parlimen Mukah pada Pilihan Raya Umum (PRU) akan datang, disifatkan satu khabar gembira bagi konstituensi di bawah parlimen itu.
Menteri di Pejabat Ketua Menteri Datin Fatimah Abdullah berkata dengan pengalaman yang luas sebagai usahawan beliau (Abu Bekir) mampu menjadi aset untuk membantu rakyat.

“Kesediaan ini adalah satu khabar yang sangat baik bagi orang di kawasan kita.
“Melalui rangkaian kerjasama beliau sebelum ini, ia dapat membantu orang di kawasan kami terutama membasmi kemiskinan dan meningkatkan lagi pendapatan serta ekonomi rakyat,” kata Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Dalat itu.
Beliau berkata demikian kepada pemberita selepas menghadiri Kursus Jati Diri Guru-Guru Tadika di Dewan Undangan Negeri lama di sini, semalam.
Hadir sama Pengarah Unit Pembangunan Sumber Manusia di Jabatan Ketua Menteri Dr Sabariah Putit dan Ahli Majlis Penasihat Pendidikan Kebangsaan Malaysia Datu Dr Adi Badiozaman Tuah.
Tambahan kata Fatimah, dari segi perwatakan Abu Bekir seorang yang sangat mesra rakyat, rendah diri dan mudah didekati, yang merupakan kriteria pemimpin yang dicari.
Jelasnya Mukah yang juga asal usul nenek moyang kepada Abu Bekir menjadikan beliau bukan orang asing bagi Parlimen itu.
Fatimah dalam pada itu memberitahu kriteria pertama bagi seseorang yang ingin berkhidmat untuk sesuatu kawasan adalah kemahuan serta kesediaan untuk berkhidmat.
“Kriteria seterusnya individu itu harus diterima pengundi atau masyarakat di kawasan dan saya percaya di kawasan saya, mereka tidak ada masalah untuk menerima beliau,” tambahnya.
Semalam akhbar menyiarkan Abu Bekir bersedia untuk bertanding di Parlimen Mukah pada PRU Ke-13 namun menyerahkan ia kepada pucuk pimpinan Barisan Nasional (BN) Negeri dan Pusat untuk membuat keputusan.
Utusan Borneo


  1. Political dynasties have long been present in democracies, raising concerns that inequality in the distribution of political power may reflect imperfections in democratic representation. However, the persistence of political elites may simply reflect differences in ability or political vocation across families and not their entrenchment in power. Dynastic prevalence in the Congress of the U.S. is high compared to that in other occupations and that political dynasties do not merely reflect permanent differences in family characteristics. On the contrary, we find that political power is self-perpetuating: politicians who hold power for longer become more likely to have relatives entering the halls of power in the future. Thus, in politics, power begets power.

  2. What explains a strong trend of political dynasties in the idiomatic Third World?

    I would say that in order to understand the apparent salience of political dynasties, it is important to remember that what we are witnessing are the tensions and contradictions between the modernising state and a traditional order.

    The development of democracy in the West was the result of the dialectical interaction between state and society. Political reform and agitation, revolution and class struggle produced a dynamism which tortuously as well as torturously, resulted in an industrial order emerging from the ashes of the feudal order. Democracy expanded gradually as liberals and socialists agitated for the right to vote in the context of economic growth and institution building and consolidation. Such changes were wrought in the backdrop of a largely secular intellectual milieu. Of course, we have to remember all the counter-revolutions and reactionary movements and wars as well. The road to democracy, universal human rights and inclusive citizenship was long. In any event, Western societies changed as a holistic and thorough-going transformation of state, society and institutions.

    In sharp contrast as for the rest of Asia and Africa, modernity, including ideas of democracy and rights came along with the colonial system based on domination by a foreign ruling class. It was the educated modern elite that took up the question of reform, including democracy and democratic institutions without much of the society being involved in the setting of the social and political agendas for change. It was more or less the role of some powerful leader that set the terms for the direction in which society will move – colonial institutions had to be transformed into democratic institutions.

    There was no question of tradition being supplanted by modernity. Rather, synthesis between tradition and modernity was more likely. Political dynasties are a typical manifestation of that type of revisionist modernity. In a way, political dynasties represent the forces of modernity while themselves being embedded in the traditional structure of families, tribes and clans that have provided leadership in the past as well as during the colonial period.

  3. Democratic theory presumes that political leadership is claimed on the basis of merit, competence and consent through free and fair elections.
    In principle there is no logical reason to object the descendants of a great leader proving their competence and political skills through the normal political process and thus legitimately claiming the right to come to power.
    However, given the strong role of family, it is possible that the incumbent in power exploits his/her position and power to promote his/her children as political successors.
    Therefore in one sense dynasties tend to impact negatively on the evolution of democratic culture.
    Perhaps just as in the US constitution it is written that no person can be elected as president for more than two terms one can include a provision in developing democratic constitutions that power cannot be passed on directly and continuously from husband to wife, father to son or mother to son and so on. In between there should be incumbents who are not children of the preceding elected ruler.
    This can still leave scope for competent descendants to make to the highest office on the basis of merit later.
    I don’t think it is possible to ban forever a family qualifying for the highest executive because then it would be discrimination that cannot reasonably be justified.

  4. Political dynasties are somehow still part of the democratic political process.
    That is why they are called political dynasties and not hereditary dynasties.

  5. A dynasty is a succession of rulers who belong to the same family for generations. Political dynasties are an unique phenomenon in politic of Asia, where political institutions are weak and personalities dominate.
    Eminence, Influence, familiarity, tradition, genetics, and even nepotism may contribute to this phenomenon.
    Political dynasties are nothing new in the world.

  6. To the writer as above.

    Greetings. Looking at all the 5 post written, it would not be grossly wrong for me to assume that all these originates from one same writer. But with due respect I have to differ.

    Yes, I can see from your writings that you are well versed in the field of political sciences and all the likes. I believe that is your discipline. While not doubting that in as far as substantive matters on the subject of politics you are certainly well versed, but allow me to question the purpose of your writings in all therein.

    Apologies if I may, but in essence it seems to me that you are, in the final analysis justifying the political quest of one individual, if I may, the individual who aspired to be candidate in this article.

    While not wanting to question your intentions, and while not doubting the accuracy of your analysis on global politics and it's varied history but there is some room for dissentment here.

    It is true that political dynasties are nothing new, in fact they are in abundance even in modern day politics. Yes, in the US it is rather common to observe these as well.

    But in it's true essence, in US politics, if a person wishes to be candidate, then he or she has to go to various test and fair competitions among other equally aspiring candidates, all within the same party. For instance, in the US presidential election of year 2000, George WW Bush, no doubt being the son of President Goerge Bush the 41 president, but that per se did not earn him the ticket to represent the Republican party. There were many other candidates as well, and they had to go through various primaries, and open debates to see who had better ideas for the country based on their Republican beliefs. It was the Republicans who chose their candidate to run in the US presidential candidate in the year 2000 and it was not Bush the father. Infact Bush senior had almost practically kept himself out of the campaign.

    That is what we need for this country as well. It's a fallacy to argue that political dynasties are always justified, that the genes in a family are the " X factor " in choosing the next leader. If there is going to be any dynasties then it's aspiring individual must be examine and determine by merits and this must be tested thoroughly and fairly.

    In the case of Mahmud Abu Bekir Taib,is he ready to be tested with other aspiring candidate before chosing who should represent the BN in the next election. It must not be simply due to the " old man blessing factor " because that itself is a proof of political hereditary. Do not keep the party members out of this process.

    Having said that, let me assured here in giving this opinion, I have no interest as I am not a member of any political party. I am here to give further corrections as I think that to justify political dynasties by equating it with free world democracies like the US without looking at the real essence on how democracy works over there as compared to over here is too much a fallacious and misguided view and observation.

    However I respect your opinion as you are entitled to it.


  7. And to solidify my view in opposing political dynasties, let me just say this. If political dynasty is really a trend in the US, then Hilary Clinton would have won the democrat primaries and would soundly beat Obama. After all, she is a Clintonion, a wife of a former President and a Senator in her own right.

    But this did not happened. Why ? Because the reality is not what we imagine it to be. Democrats have choices between these two, and the choice to have the best candidate to face John Mc Cain, an equally heavy weight candidate from the Republican. Democrats chose Obama because they think he is the better candidate and stood a better chance of beating Mc Cain. So where is the X factor here ? Where then is the prefix to the name ?

    If we want to have a healthy and meaningful democracy, then we must not promote any dynasties of any kind. But having said that, I am certainly not against any candidate from any political ruling family but he or she must be tested, and examined on merits and popularity in the party. The prefix to the name or family ties however should not be militate against other genuine and equally good and potential aspiring candidates. They all must be prepared to put forth their ideas and vision for the country and then let the party members make the choice.

    In the case of Mahmud Bekir Taib, there must be other potential aspiring individuals within PBB itself in order that there be healthy competitions among themselves. Then let the PBB as a party decide whom to chose among the many or few. That is what matured politics is all about, the freedom to choice the best individual to represent the party in future elections and to this effect, the choice must not be dictated by any " old man blessing "

    Remember this, when Hilary offered herself for the presidency, she had to still face the early primaries in all the 50 states. Despite Bill Clinton support for her, but the under currents then was with Obama.

    So it would be fallacious to say that since political dynasties were common in the US, then it's justify it here. Political dynasties exist in the US, yes it does. BUT it DOES NOT PREVAIL ALL THE TIME. Hilary Clinton belong to one dynasty but that did not win her the overall primaries in the US elections.

    Obama did not belong to any dynasty but he won the primaries and the US elections. 4 years before becoming a president, Obama was not even a congressman, he was just a another man with no place in US politics.

    But because the US system breeds the chance and opportunity for a man with vision like him ( that doesn't mean I am his fan though : ) ) then he was able to ascend to the ladders of authority and finally land himself in the seat of power. The ultimate factor is the choice of party members, all fair and sundry.

    So PBB, please be matured and let the members decide whom they want to stand as candidate in the next election.


  8. And finally this. Please be matured in politics. To be honest, Sarawak politics has yet to blossom into it's full beauty of maturity.

    Barrack Obama was a one term senator and served less than 4 years before becoming president. He was not a man of any dynasty or political lineage. He believe in the audacity to offer himself to the American people, to ascend to the presidency with zest and vigour and ideas and vision. And that led him to write his book entitled " The audacity of hope ".

    And let me emphasise again, political dynasties in the US does not prevail all the time. Before the US Presidential election of year 2008, even from the Bush dynasty there is one aspirant, Jeb Bush the governor of Florida. Yes, he is from the Bush dynasty. But that is not good enough for him to even get the candidacy because Republicans were already having many candidates in mind for the early primaries and Jeb Bush was not one of them.

    So where and how does the political dynasty prevail here ? It didn't. Because at the end of the day, it's the party members that decide, all plain and simple.

    Matured democracies give equal chances and opportunities for every one. But it must be earn and in most cases, earned the hard way. It must not be given on a silver spoon and a golden platter to anyone, just because he or she belongs to one family.

    I will write more, GOD willing and if time permits.



  10. I agree with Knights of Saladin observations and his criticism of the ways of political patronages in Sarawak. Do we really have a matured democracy ? Certainly we don't.

    And for one writer who earlier wrote in favour of ruling dynasties, now what is he up to ? I see no merits in his arguments except the quest to justify one individual aspiring to be a candidate.

    As Knights of Saladin wrote, political dynasties do not always prevail in the US, that is so true and correct. Otherwise we would now see Jeb Bush as now president and Laura Bush as senator. Even the Kennedys do not promote their own, Ted Keneddy won the senatorship on merits and not on his Keneddy prefix to his name. Other than Ted, who else in the family are now in the halls of power ? None.

    So is as the case of Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton put on a lot of support for her, but then that so perceived dynasty did not help her to win the US primaries. Then where is this dynasty thing that some people argued were common in US politics ? Such argument in absurdity.

    I don't really see much stuff in Bekir Mahmud. Even from the corporate world, is he anything or any achievement to shout about ? He landed himself in business with already billions in hand. So what is so outstanding about the money which his family earned ? Tell me, who in the world would not do well, if you have tons of money and have that as your business capital. He does not have to struggle like most genuine businessmen.

    And now putting him in the fore front in politics, what is that for ? And even before anything else, there is already talk of making him a youth chief for PBB. Can you imagine that ? PBB elections are couple of years ahead and there is already this arrangement on this.

    PBB members should ask themselves whether this is ever fair to them. There must be other capable people in PBB to be considered as Parliamentary candidate but this man is just served with it on a silver spoon and a golden plate.

    I agree that PBB should aim for maturity in politics. That is the choice must be made by it's members, meaning real choice and not the dictates of " one old man blessing "

  11. And for those clamouring for political dynasties by arguing that these are common phenomenon in Asia, again such opinion is deeply flawed and misguided to the very least.

    If we are to look very carefully on these Asian dynasties, more often than not, we see the tell tales of downfall and disgrace.

    Let us start with Indonesia


    Suharto's cause of downfall is actually his children. They were the root of his ills and wrong doings. Otherwise Suharto began his politics as a noble man, a great general who successfully crushed the communist at Tanjung Buaya in Jakarta, and saved his country from being taken over by the reds.

    Over the years of his rule, Suharto was generally a fair leader, but of course not ignoring the human rights abuse allegations. But in all fairness, corruption was rife and institutionalised. His children owned almost half of the nation' wealth and in fact he was GROOMING SOME OF THEM for the future leadership seats. Hence it explains why none of his vice Presidents were ever allowed to be popular and Suharto kept all of them out of the lime light. The reason is all too obvious, Suharto wanted to promote his own children to inherit the vast and authority from him. His intended political inheritance is all clear and even his vice presidents knew that all along.

    But none of his 4 children had successfully step up to the halls of power, at least not in the top GOLKAR leadership. Or even in top executive posts though some were given high appointments but too little too late in the end of his reign. Not one, in either Siti Hardiyanti, or Bambang Trihatmodjo, or Siti Hediyanti, or even Tommy Hutomo Mandala Putra.

    So is that a dynasty at all ?


    If anyone were to think that the Lee dynasty is a show case for examples of successful dynasties in Asia, then this too is a deep misconception. Lee Kuan Yew is no doubt the father of modern Singapore, he turned a small island into one of the economic giants in Asia and perhaps a country in the league of the advanced and highly industrialised country in the world. It would be superfluous to list out Singapore success and I shall not attempt to do so here for lack of space.

    But at what cost ? Singapore human rights record are far from being commendable and this too are to superfluous to be listed out here. But then again, still it is a success story. Lee Kuan Yew successfully handed over succession of leadership to his son Lee Hsien Loong, even though there was a transitional period of Goh Chok Tong in between.

    But this Lee dynasty too, is unlikely to last, at least in as far as the family hereditary is concern. Hsien Loong's son is still too young and tender to take over leadership and election results in the just concluded election showed that more Singaporeans are clamouring for change in both leadership and directions of the country.

    Even if PAP, the present Singapore ruling party is to last in the next many more years ( which somehow I believe they would ) but Hsien Loong must have in his mind that to continue this Lee dynasty is not feasible or even wise, in context of the modern day politics.

    I shall write more, perhaps the Marcos dynasty, and the Nehru / Ghandi dynasties and perhaps the Bangladeshi's political dynasties and their rise and fall from grace later, GOD willing and if time permits.

    My argument is simply this. We are living in a new millinuem, where politics and the political landscape of the day is one where freedom and true democracy is the prevailing order of the day.

    To call for the setting of new political dynasties is a dangerous pastime.


  12. I shall write more later. I hope that PBB will live in the present time, and not seek to dwell on the practice of the past.

    Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak is a leader who understands the heart beat and the impulse of the people. He decision to abolish the ISA and other preventive laws and to enacts newer and better legislations are bold but wise and visionary move, because DS Najib knows the changing tides of time.

    I hope PBB leaders will also understand that we are living in a new era of freedom and a thriving democracy. To set up a political dynasty admist this new world order of thriving democracy and freedom is an affront to democracy itself, in it's true sense.

    In this era, no man should be deprive of offering himself or herself as candidates, to put forth his or her ideas and visions, and to argue that he or she is the best and then to let the party members decide whom should represent them in elections. That is democracy, real and alive. No man should be allowed to force himself upon others, that others may choose him, on account of his origins or family background.

    Let men and women of good standing offer themselves, if indeed he or she is good regardless, then let the people be free to choose him or her on account of his or her goodness among the rest, then let him or her lead with the moral and legal authority for this are the legitimacy of his or her leadership.