Dear Syed Saddiq, you’re in trouble
What happened at the ARMADA Annual Convention, was another incident that worries me. When Saddiq publicly denounced the senior members of his party, that it’s wrong to use politics to get contracts and positions, he received a tremendous amount of backlash from the senior and conservative side from his party.
Do I think it’s wrong to use politics to get contracts? Of course, it’s deplorable. But that’s not the point.
On Twitter, there were plenty of lame-ass defences given by Pakatan’s fans.
“At least ARMADA raised their voices, not like Pemuda UMNO before.”
If your standard of effective governance is “at least they’re better than UMNO”, it goes to show how rock bottom your standard is.
It’s akin to a woman who had divorced an ISIS terrorist then recently married an unemployed junkie. But hey, at least he’s not a terrorist.
The Chess Moves
In the Avengers: Infinity War, Doctor Strange mentioned that he has seen approximately 14 million possibilities that could be played out to defeat Thanos. And The Avengers only won in one possibility, out of the 14 million.
That might be fiction, but what he was doing is essential for a politician, to consider all possible options and to choose the best one. To do an opportunity cost analysis.
In life, all of your decisions are like chess moves. Giving up the Time Stone to Thanos is losing a battle in order to win the war.
It’s wrong to say ARMADA must publicly condemn the seniors to prevent corruption, or they will be considered as supporting corruption. It’s a false dichotomy. There are hundreds more (if not thousands) of options that they can choose.
Besides, when ARMADA publicly condemned the senior members, did it work? No, if fact days after Saddiq’s speech, several Bersatu members were exposed to use politics to get positions.
The Pragmatic Approach
If I’m in ARMADA, this is what I would do — I will strenuously execute a plan to enact a party by-law that will prohibit the party members from using political influence to get contracts and/or positions.
It’s not about showing people that you’re against corruption. It’s about eliminating corruption. It’s about disabling corruption.
If you show people that you’re against corruption, but it is still widely active in your party, you’d still fail. Whether you show the public you’re in favour, abstain, or against corruption holds far less significance than the outcome of your chess moves.
In fact, I would go so far as to internally ask the senior members who were the people behind the by-law’s enactment. Because I would want to exercise my plausible deniability. I want to achieve my desired output without facing the counteraction of my input.
Why? Because political survival is paramount. I want to survive, politically.
You want to bring good changes to the country, I get that. You want to improve the citizens’ condition of living, I get that. In fact, in terms of idealism, you’re way more idealistic than many other politicians in Malaysia.
But how can you bring good changes if you don’t politically survive?
Idealism per se is insufficient. In politics, especially in your case, pragmatism trumps idealism most of the time. Do you want to bring amazingly good changes in Malaysia? You can’t keep pissing the senior members off for no urgent reason.
Right now, you’re getting the counteraction of your input without getting the actualisation of your desired output. It’s a lose-lose.
You have this tendency. Like the infamous bathtub Instagram post.
Were many Malaysians so irrational that they have to be angry over a picture of an ice bath? Of course they were. But why didn’t you anticipate that?
The fact that you’re a politician who didn’t anticipate that, is worrying. Even you know that the decision to post the picture was short-sighted. That’s why you deleted the picture after the backlash.
Is it beneficial to have an ice bath after sports activities? Of course. But there are a thousand other ways to tell Malaysians to take an ice bath without posting a backlash-bait picture. Again, ponder your chess moves.
If you’re a politician in a crazy town filled with crazy people, and
i) saying something will result in unnecessary backlash while
ii) not saying that thing will not bring any negatives,
then don’t fucking say it.
It takes guts to say the right thing. But it takes bigger guts to keep quiet from saying the right thing at the wrong time.
The Debaters’ Environment
While reading law in UiTM, I’ve met some of the brilliant thinkers in the university — The Debaters.
While any group certainly has their strengths and shortcomings, the merits of a debater are certainly undeniable. I have never met a dumb debater, and I don’t think they exist.
And yes, you’re a debater too, from UIAM.
See the thing about debating is, in a competition, whether you win or lose, adjudicators will decide on that. An adjudicator will determine whether your points are strong enough to win the debate.
In a debate, however, whether the opposing side will eventually agree with your points is not a winning factor. And that’s the catch.
Because in reality, that’s factor numero uno. When you’re arguing with a person, you “win” when the person agrees with you.
This is my personal observation — You’re stuck with your debating environment.
Whenever you’re about to argue, you don’t care about winning the hearts and minds of your opposing party. You care about “winning” the “debate”. You care about getting the approvals from your current supporters, who have already approved you.
Saddiq, whenever you argue, you amplify existing sentiments instead of shifting sentiments.
When you argue it’s not wrong to post a picture of you taking an ice bath, the results of your argument is those who support you, strengthen their support, and those you hate you, strengthen their hate.
Because you care more about amplifying your current supporter that gaining new supporters. I guess for you, you’ve won the debate.
This tendency is not exclusive to you of course. Many Twitter keyboard warriors do this too. But the thing is Saddiq, they’re not the Youth Minister. You are.
To debate with your opponent requires eminent skills. To persuade your opponent however, requires greater skills.
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
— Sun Tzu
The Populist
There are a lot of downsides to putting popularity (like focusing on social media) as one of your strengths. For one popularity fluctuates. But more importantly, the aspirations that you’re giving to the youth Malaysia. Because those aspirations are flawed.
That’s why youth nowadays, they want to be popular. Because they see in Malaysia, only the popular ones that get to make a change. It’s never about substance. I’ve met a lot of great individuals with substance that’s not popular at all.
Because in Malaysia, it doesn’t matter if you have great substance, if you’re not popular. Don’t contribute to that. Don’t enable that further.
You might think that you’re unpopular, in a controversial kind of way. But you know every time you speak something that sparks controversy in a group, it also sparked popular support from the opposing group. You know this.
When you speak out against liberals, you think that you’re choosing the unpopular option. But in reality, you’re just conforming with the conservatives, i.e, choosing the popular option for the conservatives, and vice versa.
Populism per se, is not wrong. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are populists. The former used it for the wrong cause, and the latter used it for the right cause.
But why I think you should focus less on Populism, is because Pakatan have won the election. Yes, I agree that most of the talking points used by most Pakatan politicians in the previous election were populistic in nature. Those were necessary, but not anymore.
It’s time to focus less on being popular and focus more on executing what you’ve promised.
The inevitable departure of Tun Mahathir
You might wonder, why do I say you’re in trouble when in fact you’re on the rise now. If I could give only one reason, this is it — Tun Mahathir as your patron.
Did you know why TMJ mocked you on Twitter but when Mahathir visited his father, TMJ praised him on Twitter? Because Tun Mahathir is the very definition of power. And you Syed Saddiq, you don’t have that yet. What you have, is proximity to power.
“Proximity to power deludes some into thinking they wield it.”
— Frank Underwood
What we tell the people who overwork, is to rest. What we tell the lazybones, is to work. What we tell the obese men, is to eat less. What we tell the anorexics, is to eat more.
You have a tremendous amount of idealism, Saddiq. But what you need, is pragmatism.
For a great individual, idealism and pragmatism are like two wings for a bird. Right now Syed Saddiq, yes, you are flying.
But you’re flying with one wing.
