"I am disappointed that the plan is being questioned and rejected more than three months after I announced it. Shahrizat had repeatedly said that she would not contest the top post even if nominated as she adhered to the transition plan. It was she who said that 'my word is my honour' and that she obeyed the advice from the party leaders."In a feudal setting, the succession takes place when the leader either voluntarily relinquishes his leadership or dies. An example, King Edward VII abdicated paving the way for QE2's father to become King of England. In between you have a transition stage.
Replying to a text message sent to her, Rafidah said: "The transition plan became null and void the moment Shahrizat announced her intention to contest the top post."
In the above case, Rafidah certainly didn't come across as sincere in her offer to step down. The AP fiasco certainly has tarnished her image... her conduct after being unceremoniously dumped by our PM (who is now also in the same boat as she is) all point towards her time being up.
Anyway, why all these transition plans? It's as though we are back in the feudal age. In a democracy, if the people do not want a particular leader, they should be free to vote a new one in....instead of all these transition plans. One gets the impression that these leaders think they are indispensable.
One of the hallmarks of democracy is a free electoral system. If the people want change, an election is held to choose the leader they want. So why is Rafidah so pissed off? Does she think we are still in a feudal setting? Our democracy is only in name but not practice? Our leaders seem to think that it is up to them to decide when they want to go even after they are not wanted.
No comments:
Post a Comment