A neighbourly letter (2)

Dear Neighbour,

Here’s the plan. I’ll apologise but – and there’s a lesson here for young you-know-who – without really apologising, and frankly, how could I, when that would not be sincere since my reasoning for my remarks has been 101% justified.

Take it from me, old boy, that before you say anything nasty or likely to be considered as a political faux pas, you assess the likely worst case scenario and the possible consequences, prepare your justifications, go ahead and say what you want to say even if the general population of idiots (compared to us intellectual leaders) think you have dropped a coat, that is, committed a blunder.

Then you wait for the expected hysterical responses from some of those low brow masses, and that is when you show your ace-up-your sleeve, to wit, your prepared justifications. You can even mention the ‘S’ word if that makes you come out on higher moral grounds. With the smooth execution of such a planned strategy, there is buggerall the world of dumb people can do (don’t forget, this is just between us, I didn’t say the 'bugger' word – jaga standards you know) .

This way, you will even enhance your reputation as a redoubtable intellectual each time you are called upon to explain. I look upon such controversies as golden opportunities to demonstrate my capabilities - you know, half a glass full and all that jazz. Look at yours truly – am I not a prime example of formidable political intellectualism. It’s not that I want to brag, but when you have it, old boy, jolly flaunt it! It adds to the myth surrounding us.

But yes, I will nonetheless make the ‘sorry’ word to boost your standing. I will make it because those sycophantic flocks of sheep, some from your side, will think I am God for being brave enough to acknowledge my ‘mistake’ – haven’t those cretins realise yet that I just don’t make mistakes? Be that as it may, it’s going to be a rippling win-win situation for both of us.

I will weave the ‘S’ word around your ‘discomfort’ with my remarks, rather than the essence of my remarks, and old top, talking about ‘discomfort’, you really should be less uptight about that has-been. I will throw in a dagger or two at that silly old bugger, just for your sake of course. I will show him out to be a recalcitrant unprogressive person in stark contrast to your dignified elegant self-assured self.

Well, that’s the skill your boy must learn if he wants to be a formidable politician of note. And another tip for him, there are the three ‘R’s of behaviour for leaders of international politics – be resolute, resilient and redoubtable.

In fact, those namby pamby arty farty political analysts may even detect that my ‘apology’ will be a subtle high brow argument that I was in reality easy on you people. Basically I will be making a point in my formal letter to you that my provocative remarks were less than what I had written in the past, and typically, those parasitical low-IQ media bacteria will jump on that statement, dissect and analyse it as my claim to being the more forgiving magnanimous party, which of course I am.

But note my anticipation of those low brow nattering nabobs of negativism [a succinct term borrowed from poor old Spiro Agnew). They are intellectually pathetic and frankly, just no match for me. Anticipation, dear old chap, anticipation, that is the key to political success.

I would advise that your boy spend more time with us down here so that, as I mentioned in my previous missive, we may groom him. He has the cut, pedigree and the inclination, and you are right to be proud of him. Why, I even think of him as 'my own'.

By the by, old chum, just an advice, don’t gush all over my letter of ‘apology’ when you receive it. And some suggestions, of course purely for your kind considerations.

To use some choice Malay phrases, first, it may be useful for you to tarik harga, and even merajuk that you are not impressed with my explanation. You show publicly you disagree with my arguments; don't hesitate to even comment that my remarks have been totally uncalled for. But then, being the nice forgiving good-neighbourly type (unlike someone else), you say you would ‘take on board’ or ‘take note’ of my explanation, but without acknowledging you have accepted my apologetic non-apology.

This is exercising the three ‘D’s of politics – disinform, disguise, distract!

That way, you will be Teflon coated. No one can accuse you of swallowing everything I say in the letter, yet at the same time no one can say you are hysterically captive to low brow mentality of provincial animosity.

Your status will be greatly elevated by your measured gracious response to my ‘apology’. You will be viewed as a notable statesman who is at ease with the nuances of modern international relations. Why, old boy, your image will even become more favourable to some of your people who hero-worship me and are sycophantic and sympathetic to every word I utter.

If you want to take it one more step, to seal this plan, you could even get one of your subordinates, someone expendable?, to praise my 'apology' as one unexpected but welcome from a wise man. That's a display of the three 'S's of politics - subterfuge, shoring-up and sacrifice (not of your own boy of course).

Till we meet again for golf.

Yours amicably,

You-know-who

Related: A neighbourly letter