I just took this one quiz on Facebook, well, among many others lately, i.e. who am I in Twilight (which I haven't watched yet), what kind of legendary creature am I (which is the Dragon by the way, which is, well, you know, kinda cool and all whatever), which Gossip Girl character (why the bloody hell my character is Jenny?!), when will I get married (I got when I'm 32 which is super awesome because I still have lots of time to screw up) , Friends TV Show character (I got Ross which, well, I kinda liked it anyway) and the endless list goes on.
Oh yea, that quiz I was talking about earlier - do I support the National Front or the People's Alliance? Well, I wouldn't want to start by questioning (in a good curious way, not for argument) the questions surveyed so I just go straight away to my result, which is "neither".
Neither.
Am I on the fence? Or the current choice that I have is just simply inadequate? Should I be bounded by the current options? A new Prime Minister of Malaysia has just been appointed last week, as well as the new UMNO Youth Leader. Well, mm, I'm not excited about it, nor I resent the outcome of the interestingly complex process. I am here in New Zealand. I'm not really sure if I am capable of casting any kind of vote or support but I shall choose the easier option, which is to stay back and observe from a distance, without any intention of really analyzing the situation. If the choice made is utterly unpatriotic, well, mm, file a lawsuit and shove it up somewhere inappropriate.
On top of my head at the moment, effective leaders are suppose to have two things; the capacity to lead, i.e. the brain, the energy, all the necessity criteria that makes him or her capable of making the right decision for effective leadership; and trustworthy to carry out the landed responsibility.
A leader can be not that smart but trustworthy. He or she is honest, transparent and all the sugar and spice that makes him or her reliable to handle the taxpayer money. Well, mm, except he or she runs the wrong policy, draft a bureaucracy system which actually will only works if he or she was elected in Luxembourg, hire more not so smart people around to advice him and use electric car simply because it is green to do so (electric/hybrid cars are not exactly green by the way).
Meanwhile, another leader can be a genius but not so trustworthy. He or she holds a PhD in Awesome Leadership from Awesome University and has the ability to turn a desert into an international paradise. However, he or she will only do it if there's something in it for him or her (ahh it's getting annoying to do this he/she non-sexism thingy. From now on I'd just write him or he and we shall all accept it as a universal non-sexism notation). Anyway, he's smart yeah but you can definitely feel that your tax money is not entirely in good hands. Sure he'll build you a bridge, for the non-existing river that he'll eventually give you one as well.
Anyway, of course the actual political scenario is far more complicated than this. Should it be that difficult anyway? Well, perhaps it should, and we as committed citizens should learn all this crap, At least, for now, I know I'm not that fond of the National Party in New Zealand because of the weak sustainability policies, i.e. the ban on gas and coal-fired electricity repealed, carbon neutral public service programme cancelled, etc. Although it won't be enough for a sound decision making, but still, it's a start.
In conclusion (ewah), I think it sucks to have leaders tainted with frustrating prosecutions. It really sucks.
Oh yea, that quiz I was talking about earlier - do I support the National Front or the People's Alliance? Well, I wouldn't want to start by questioning (in a good curious way, not for argument) the questions surveyed so I just go straight away to my result, which is "neither".
Neither.
Am I on the fence? Or the current choice that I have is just simply inadequate? Should I be bounded by the current options? A new Prime Minister of Malaysia has just been appointed last week, as well as the new UMNO Youth Leader. Well, mm, I'm not excited about it, nor I resent the outcome of the interestingly complex process. I am here in New Zealand. I'm not really sure if I am capable of casting any kind of vote or support but I shall choose the easier option, which is to stay back and observe from a distance, without any intention of really analyzing the situation. If the choice made is utterly unpatriotic, well, mm, file a lawsuit and shove it up somewhere inappropriate.
On top of my head at the moment, effective leaders are suppose to have two things; the capacity to lead, i.e. the brain, the energy, all the necessity criteria that makes him or her capable of making the right decision for effective leadership; and trustworthy to carry out the landed responsibility.
A leader can be not that smart but trustworthy. He or she is honest, transparent and all the sugar and spice that makes him or her reliable to handle the taxpayer money. Well, mm, except he or she runs the wrong policy, draft a bureaucracy system which actually will only works if he or she was elected in Luxembourg, hire more not so smart people around to advice him and use electric car simply because it is green to do so (electric/hybrid cars are not exactly green by the way).
Meanwhile, another leader can be a genius but not so trustworthy. He or she holds a PhD in Awesome Leadership from Awesome University and has the ability to turn a desert into an international paradise. However, he or she will only do it if there's something in it for him or her (ahh it's getting annoying to do this he/she non-sexism thingy. From now on I'd just write him or he and we shall all accept it as a universal non-sexism notation). Anyway, he's smart yeah but you can definitely feel that your tax money is not entirely in good hands. Sure he'll build you a bridge, for the non-existing river that he'll eventually give you one as well.
Anyway, of course the actual political scenario is far more complicated than this. Should it be that difficult anyway? Well, perhaps it should, and we as committed citizens should learn all this crap, At least, for now, I know I'm not that fond of the National Party in New Zealand because of the weak sustainability policies, i.e. the ban on gas and coal-fired electricity repealed, carbon neutral public service programme cancelled, etc. Although it won't be enough for a sound decision making, but still, it's a start.
In conclusion (ewah), I think it sucks to have leaders tainted with frustrating prosecutions. It really sucks.
7 comments:
hehehe.. aku tak blok ko la ;p i quit blogging atas byk sebab tp mungkin akan start semula tak lama lagi. i'll b sure to invite u ! :D
aku tulis kat komen tadi la then mcm tak kena je ape aku tulis.so delete ehehehe abaikan sajorkkkk ;p
firstly...ko jenny..means that ko nyer girlish side has control ur guy side..hahah..aku igt ko ni 50/50..
secondly..biler ko balik msia nnt, ko sure amek tau pasal politik kat sini nyer..lg2 nk masuk keje..n sume media biar la surat khabar, tv dan lain2, sume start off ngan politik..mmg bosan... tp in the end important sbb dierang yg patut lead the country towards the light (light meaning success not the light towards the end of the world)
.. I can't help but laugh that after reading most of your very interesting analysis of the political dilemmas, I can't stop thinking - you're a Jenny?! :P
yes i'm jenny sheesh.
am also a dragon, a ross, isabella (why the bloody hell i often get a female character?)
sigh.
OMG ROSS, congratulations! He is the best character by a planet's width!
From,
Ross die hard fan.
thank u, finally! :D
actually... a 'non-sexist' generalised word for a 2nd person can be 'they' rather than 'he', bcuz 'he' can be rather sexist ;)
but yeah.. politics... sigh.
Post a Comment