Wednesday, November 12, 2008

重整?重演?

一个组织的改革,
除了本身领导层,
也必须看看领导层定下的大方向。。。

更重要的是组织思想模式需要变。。。

今天马华总会长宣布了新阵容,
委任了上议院副院长为总秘书,
更大胆启用马青领袖平凡人,
很多人的看法都是不一样。。。

正如波力拔克所说的,
每一个人的看见都是不一样的,
因为角度不一,
就连蔡署总也来一句“没有表明是否接受这样的阵容”。。

蔡署总的话只是简单回应一句?
还是内有玄机呢??
我也不懂。。。大家不要去猜测。。。

但我还是要强调一点,
新阵容让我们看到马华决心年轻化,
但在于整个党的整合角度来看,
新阵容能否达到这个目标,也许我不加以评论。。。

因为翁总是一个强调州主席票选的,
但还是出现“天兵”领导一些州属,
若是要落实州主席票选,
应该尽快让各州领袖自行决定推荐人选。。。

换一个角度,
也许这样的安排也是为了要解决组织文化的问题。。。
甚至是让一些天兵去处理一些党内的“家事”,
然后再为票选目标铺路。。。

这些都应该只是党内,
党外的我比较有兴趣知道,
以后的新阵容要如何去处理华社问题,
以及采用什么思想模式去传送政治教育?

我近来发现,
陈祯禄当年的其中一个目标,
就是传授政治教育,
他希望要让更多的华人知道政治的重要性,
甚至呼吁华裔多关心国内政治。。。

近年来,
马华推广终身学习,
概念确实是不错,
但我觉得现在需要的是推广及提升人民的公民意识。。。

标榜敢怒敢言的新阵容,
其中一个我期待的是,
将一些敏感的课题漂白,
让它变成不敏感,这样才是上上策。。。

当然,
在执政党里头,
他们也必须知道如何去参与决策,
甚至是让人知道他们是当家又当权。。。

在一个民主发展里头,
他们也有必要去促进巫统在国阵的改革,
也必须与巫统一起改革。。。

不然,
人民下一届会告诉你,
“我觉得你们应该去当反对党,因为你们很好,尤其敢怒敢言”
(反对党标榜的敢怒敢言比任何人还要强,马华要变敢怒敢言,也只能打成平手)

到底新阵容带出一个什么信息?
是重整呢?
还是重演以前旺盛的马华?

马华要继续新未来的方向?
还是要重回以前旺盛年代?

马华的党员应该了解,
我所谓的以前旺盛,
也就是用新模式执行旧思想。。。

闭门协商,但却没有参与决策?

闭门协商,主导决策的参与者?

敢怒敢言,闭门后,但却没有参与决策。。。

敢怒敢言,闭门后,坚持主导决策改变。。。

12 comments:

keykok said...

团对刚形成还待处事,不过年轻的确会惹来麻烦.

坚持知情、参与和决策。

Chen said...

不知马华是否没有人才了?一人兼多职,是否有效的执行任务呢??
领导者,别带我们去“荷兰”哟,,,,,!华族兴亡,在看你们表演呀!别害了我们的下一代,谢谢你们先!

Lexus said...

希望明天会更好!

pikachu said...

没看

陈志忠 Chee Tong said...

振国,
期待归期待,人民的要看的就是成效。。
再慢半拍,也许就要闹换政党了。。。

参与决策与知情原本就是马华应该的责任。。
所以他们要坚持。。。

陈志忠 Chee Tong said...

chen,
去“荷兰”。。。哈哈。。。有趣。。。
人才有很多,看看这个敢怒敢言的总会长敢不敢用而已。。。

但依我看,他是坚持“用人不疑,疑人不用”

所以新阵容都可以看到是“很翁诗杰”的模式
(引用郑丁贤大哥的“精句”)

陈志忠 Chee Tong said...

lexus,
哈哈。。。明天永远都会更好的。。
因为明天的情况不是由马华决定的。。哈哈
再加上马华也无法决定。。。哈哈
(开玩笑而已,各位马华党员大哥不要生气)

陈志忠 Chee Tong said...

pikachu,
你的朋友HeHe呢??
他去了哪里?
我很想念他。。。。

为什么没看??

顺吉 said...

谢谢你,过奖了~
人民已经对马华失望了~

Hon said...

A non-malay even though he is more capable and more qualified but cannot:

Be - the prime minister of the country
Be - the deputy prime minister of the country
Be - the head of any branch of the armed forces in the country
Be - the head of department in a ministry
Be - the head of state of the states with no rulers
Be - the head prefect of a national school
Be - the IGP of the country
Be - the nominated as the best of the best in the school
Be - the secretary-general or deputy secretary-general of a ministry

What is worse is that the PM goes around telling people, repeating a crazy lie, by saying that - "We do not practice racial discrimination in our country".

Did the MCA and MIC leaders agree to this in 1957?

Did the people in Sabah and Sarawak also agree to this in 1963?

I think malays will keep on to give rubbish answer!

kok said...

The truth is that the ability of education to bring people together is limited. On top of that, education - at least secular one - is about the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and hence whatever is taught in schools should be based on the truth and reality in order to unite the students.

But when our society is already polarised by the law and other economic realities, and we tell our children otherwise in school, its likely that the unity lessons will never stick for long or even worse result in a backlash.

What is more distressing is the fact that national education policy is only meant for the masses while our political leaders send their children overseas. Can we believe they have faith in our own educational facilities and that they are sincere in wanting the best for us?

In Malaysia, unfairness is institutionalised. For example, it is alright for certain schools or universities like the Universiti Institut Teknologi Mara to bar non-malays.

So it piques me to hear some blaming vernacular schools for racial tensions. Vernacular schools have never barred malays from enrolling into them unlike Mara educational institutions. If vernacular schools are to be blamed, so too must the Mara institutions.

A minister responsible for higher education who can make such inflammatory statements confirms that the so-called meritocracy system of university entrance is a sham, since he was able to promise that the percentage for malay applicants will never fall below the previous quota percentage.

Is he suggesting that we should rejoice over our poor education? Please do not confuse quality with quantity.

I cannot help but think that the politicians have an ulterior motive. If so, please be honest and brave enough to admit it.

With such narrow-minded people in charge, it is difficult to have confidence in any of their suggestions.

When it came to choosing a career, I avoided public services for the fear of being excluded from promotions just like how I was excluded from matriculation etc. Many employers are also very racially defined.

Now, as much as I miss hanging out with people of other races, I end up being with people of my own race.

Looking back, I don't think our primary vernacular system is the cause of disunity. On the contrary, it enriches our Malaysian heritage. The real problems are with the uneven playing fields that split malays and non-malays from secondary school onwards.

Another examples are the Chinese Indonesians. Most of them don't even speak their mother tongue, nor do they even carry Chinese names anymore, yet come any major political turmoil, they are targeted by the majority. Is this due to vernacular education?

The government should be aware of the fact that the number of Chinese schools has not increased over the past 30 years despite the need for them due to increased demand from both Chinese and non-Chinese students.

The diversity of education methods in the country is a national treasure and should be upheld. Unity will come from mutual respect and fair treatment for all - not necessarily from a uniform education.

Whether they will take concrete steps to address the imbalance is another matter for, while I am optimistic about the people of Malaysia, I have very little faith in politicians.

coolooc said...

Then let me re-quote Lee Kuan Yew:

Singaporean politician Lee Kuan Yew of the PAP, who publicly questioned the need for Article 153 in parliament, and called for a "Malaysian Malaysia".

In a speech, Lee Kuan Yew bemoaned what would later be described as the Malaysia social contract:

"According to history, malays began to migrate to Malaysia in noticeable numbers only about 700 years ago. Of the 39% malays in Malaysia today, about one-third are comparatively new immigrants like the secretary-general of Umno, Dato Syed Jaafar, who came to Malaya from Indonesia just before the war at the age of more than thirty. Therefore it is wrong and illogical for a particular racial group to think that they are more justified to be called Malaysians and that the others can become Malaysians only through their favour."

Eventually, and Singapore became an independent nation in 1965, with Lee Kuan Yew as its first prime minister.