The difference between Najib and (insert US President here)

Is that a US President has to own up to his errors, and on occasion apologize. This is the most powerful man on earth, saying sorry. That means something. Nixon had to do it. Clinton had to do it. Even the Bushes (both Snr and Jnr). While we may disagree about the value of the apology, or the value of the man, i think we can agree that a public apology takes integrity, and say what you will about American Presidents, they take their personal integrity, and more importantly the integrity of their office very seriously.

So much less can be said about our own man, Najib. It doesn’t matter if it was your handlers who made the mistake, and not you personally. Besides getting them all to fall on their swords (which should happen without question, and if can be done publicly, even better), they were HIS handlers, his men, his responsibility. Just like the general who is at fault if his men failed, Najib is at fault for not being clear in his instructions (and even if he was clear, and they still went against his orders, then he is still at fault for hiring them in the first place). 

What a snafu. Say sorry, take the hit like a man. I promise it won’t hurt if you mean it. 


2 thoughts on “The difference between Najib and (insert US President here)

  1. Over the last 2 days you have been given ample examples of why i) the 1Malaysia slogan is a farce and 2) why Najib’s reforms in promoting racial unity will go nowhere.
    First you have this blunder by him/his aides (?) in as some said ‘dechristianing’ Christmas. Surprise, surprise Christians consist of Chinese and Indians, still think they are celebrating unity through our football team?
    Second you also have the government MPs and Utusan playing to their usual racist tunes and focusing on narrow interpretation of Islam (look I can see the outline of her body through that t-shirt) on the issue of Teo Nie Ching’s senamrobik during Maal Hijrah.
    You are right, SA probably had similar opposition to racial unity too, but they were external to ANC (Mandela’s party) and even if they did appear, Mandela was quick to keep them in check. Do you see our PM doing the same or is it just keep on saying 1Malaysia and just hope everyone believes it, never mind the ground realities?
    Ditto on newspapers in SA, did ANC own a newspaper that opposed Mandela’s policies of racial unity? Nope…at least I don’t know of any…maybe you do? BN is playing a double sided game, 1Malaysia to please the non Malays and use its papers like Utusan to get its racist Malay votes. Until BN shows that it is really serious in racial unity and stops advocating policies on racial grounds, I can’t take racial unity through BN seriously…1Malaysia notwithstanding.


  2. It’s an interesting position to take, playing the political games BN plays. It is trying hard to please everyone, the ultras and the moderates. And, i’ll be the first to point that this creates all sorts of moral inconsistencies. Promoting 1Malaysia but letting Perkasa run freely just one of them.
    It may be worthwhile to let PR run the country for a term or two, just to see if they are able to stay in power without playing a similar game.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s