My
article on WP’s silence in many hot and controversial issues has received mixed
reactions as usual. Some are still unhappy that the WP has stayed away from
making a stand when the people wanted them to say something. Some have
complimented the WP for being wise by not being drawn or trapped into a
situation like Chee Soon Juan or JBJ and other opposition politicians and be
smashed to bits and buried alive.
There
are merits and reasons to want WP to speak up. There are also very good reasons
not to speak up but speaking up only at a critical moment when it counts. It is
easy for WP to fire away at the many issues that the people are unhappy about
and score political points and win over more supporters. Other than this, they
are not going to gain anything meaningful and may open themselves to attacks
just like cleaning the ceilings of hawker centres. Everything they said would
be used to slice them to pieces, right or wrong, nitpicking to the tiniest
hair. Even if they can say all the right things, all they need to do to get
into trouble could be as minor as a sneeze while speaking.
What
would happen to the issues if WP did not speak up? The problem could magnify
and accelerate to an intolerable level much faster since no protest could be
seen as everything is good, no problem, policy well received, or no one can
find anything wrong with the policy. It is like allowing the fire to burn
itself out.
Speaking
out and pointing out problematic areas would allow remedial actions to be taken
to rectify the flaws and could even turn a bad policy or issue around. A
potentially explosive issue or bad policy could be massaged to become more
acceptable. Speaking out, criticizing is helping to solve a problem, helping to
make things better. The bad part is that no one likes to hear the bad news, the
critiques, and people who spoke out are seen as bad people, trouble makers, the
messenger of bad news, and often be kicked in the arse.
This
may be a good reason why WP chose to stay reticent, don’t ruffle the feathers,
don’t be a smart aleck when it is not welcomed, don’t be the messenger of bad
news and don’t get butted for trying to help. What is the point when whatever
they said would be received badly and seen as stirring trouble, with the wrong
intention? Must as well let people be
happy with their mistakes and let the problem and pain fester and rot, and wait
for the opportunity to pick up the pieces when it is too late to salvage a bad
situation. Being quiet, non committal has many merits and can be strategically
very sound too. It can also be a game of psycho, making the enemies wandering
what one is up too and what is brewing. It may force the enemies to panic, to act
prematurely and start barking for the wrong reasons. It can mislead the enemy
to become complacent, to think there is no threat, all so nice and humble and
accommodating. A nice and easy going politician, always smiling and so sweet
can be even more dangerous than a barking dog. It is all a game and how the
politician can play to his advantage. What is real or unreal?
We
are just bystanders watching the chess players moving their pieces. Who will
emerge the winner when it is game over, the quiet one or the one that is kpkb
for the wrong reasons?