Thursday, June 11, 2009

Professionals as Politicians what are the differences between them when it comes to Comradeship and political Struggle?

Professionals who joined politics see and solve issues differently and many were influenced by their professional training. Lawyers for instance, by their training were supposed to be able to see for themselves what is just, fair and equitable. They were also trained to determine what was wrong and what was right and their legal training also gave them much advantage over other professionals in handling debates about public issues. This was because lawyers were trained to argue and be sensitive to social perception of a given issue.

But one thing about lawyers in politics, that is, if an issue affect themselves, they may, based on the urgency and necessity of the situation when had to chose between two evils, many say lawyers tend to sacrifice comradeship by “killing” the other comrade off so that he could be saved. It was said, he has to decide, in between the two evils that the “killing” of his own comrade was the only way out to prevent the other evil from destroying him. He has to save himself if he sees himself as the lesser evil, but, normally it was a natural thing that he would decide, even if he was not the lesser evil that he needs to see himself saved! So, he has no choice, but, has to put his comrade on alter and “kill” the comrade so that the comrade could be, instead of himself, be offered as a sacrifice to solve the political problem affecting him and the organization. This was what people used to observe and for me, I also came to the same conclusion of my analysis of a lawyer being a politician.

Many may not agree with me, but, this was an unavoidable fact. A lawyer may take such an action based on the law of necessity. The lawyer by his training was told that necessity was a general defence and in certain circumstances, killings based on necessity to save lives was said a good defence, especially, when it involves self-defence in homicide cases.

Every lawyer knows the case of Dudley v. Stephens (1884) very well. The case for the three accused men in this case called for the defence of necessity of killing the boy in an open boat after they were drifted in the sea after the shipwreck. This differentiates law and morality. Therefore, when a politician who is a lawyer by training decides to chose the two evils, the law of morality may play no part on him anymore. He has to choose who among the evils he has to destroy and here where selfishness creeps into his head, he may then make the wrong decision and may even go to destroy the lesser evil, but, dared not himself be destroyed!

How about doctors? Doctors by their training normally are not people who were argumentative, but, they were very observant and careful in their undertakings. This is because they could not afford to make mistake as mistake may be fatal to his patient’s life. Unlike the legal profession, the lawyer can still have the opportunity to appeal to a higher court to save the life of his client if he lost the case in the lower courts, but, in medical practice, there is no such opportunity for doctors. So doctors by their training were always careful in making decisions and their judgment must always be accurate and they were not trained to argue.

When they see cancer cells in the body, they may just decide to cut or chop off that part of the body so that the cancer cells will not separate to other parts of the body.

Therefore, when it came to politics, if the doctor-politician decides that his comrade is a liability in his organization, the doctor-politician may just decide to “eliminate” him and may not wish to allow him chance to survive politically for the doctor-politician may fear that this comrade may destroy the whole organization.

So, there could be a difference between a lawyer and a doctor in deciding things. A lawyer if he takes necessity as a need and if he himself was involved, necessity may require him to be selfish in his decision and may tend to decide in favour of himself while a doctor who could not treat himself, could not decide for himself, but, only could decide for his patient.

How about engineers and accountants? We don’t find many engineers and accountants who are politicians in Malaysians politics, but, there is no reason why these professionals should shun politics.

However, there are police and army officers in politics. By their training police and army officers were trained to eat, live, do things and die together in the battlefields. They were trained to be armed and to fight a war and to win a war be focused on their enemy. If they were commanders in their units, they were trained in military strategies in a given battlefield. They were also trained to be disciplined to orders and they were trained to carry out their orders strictly to the letters irrespectively whether the order was right or wrong! They were in actual fact trained to be obedient followers and were told not to question an order from their superiors. This was pure blind obedience! Creating a sense of camaraderie and esprit de corp among themselves were of exceptional importance and they were trained to pull their ability together as a team to persistently and consistently in pursuit of a common purpose.

People say politics is a game and you must be skillful to play the game within the rules to survive and to succeed, but, police and army officers by their training when they became politicians may not see politics as a game. They may see politics, like war, as a cause to struggle and as politicians they should be diehard fighters for a cause along their comrades, not a player in politics. By their military training, they were expected to fight on and on with their comrades and the objective of their struggle must be clearly understood by the public. They were also trained to win their enemies not only by military skills, but, also by psychological warfare.

In politics, police and army officers as politicians, in order to win the public by in psychological warfare will normally adopt a strategy to tell the people that they were fighting for a worthy cause, that the “war” could be won and worth winning. To do this in politics, they had to get rid of the “bad boy” image associated with discipline in the force and the perception that they were rough people.

I was a police officer and it had been difficult for me in the past years to win people and even now I was also much understood by friends, comrades and foes in my struggle to see a just and fair society. I hope people will just give me a chance to fight on and to serve and I need the help of every pe0ple.

No comments: