Team players who don't play

Currently in the federal opposition, a very loose pact between Pribumi (an ultra Malay* political party) and Pakatan Harapan (though no one knows whether PKR is coming or going, but I put my bet on PKR under Azmin Ali 'going' to Pribumi), there exists a very trying issue, that of their PM-designate.

* with leaders like Mahathir who dislikes Chinese, 'I am Malay first' Moody, and pro-Malay ex-EC chief Abdul Rashid (also an ultra Melayu Perkasa VP), Penang Perkasa chief Marzuki Yahya, and former Selangor Perkasa chief Abu Bakar Yahya etc, Pribumi lives up to its name (which signifies its ketuanan Melayu credentials)

When left in the Kingdom of the Blind, DAP has stuck to Wan Azizah as its nominated PM-interim but with Anwar Ibrahim as its real choice (note: Azmin keeping silent on this as he has his OWN interest and ambition to be PM).

But Pribumi in the person of Mahathir doesn't want the loose pact to reveal who will be its PM-designate (because his real choice may probably put either the DAP or the voters off, wakakaka) until it's too late for DAP to say, 'Hey wait a dong dong second, we can't accept that as it'll be merely changing the label on a bottle of rotten rancid raki', wakakaka.

If a pact cannot dare to reveal its PM-designate, it means the pact has something, maybe sinister, to HIDE or even mucho disagreement among itself, so it's unlikely such a pact will last long, but probably long enough for the bloke who says 'surprise!' to marshal 112 frogs under his banner, and then to f**ks with the stupid DAP.

You wanna vote for such a pact?

Anyway, my topic in this post is not so much about the bullshit Mr volte-face untrustworthy Maddy, who thinks Malaysians (bukan Melayu) mudah lupa, is selling.

Much as I personally dislike Anwar I prefer to stick to him as PM-designate (with his wife as interim PM) than to be surprised by Maddy. I bet the choice by the latter will be horrible, Based on more than 2 decades of rotten experience.

My topic today is about team, teamwork and team leader. I employ 'team' in a very general sense, without qualification of its size or level.

In a team, whether military or civilian, every member with his or her own speciality or specialization and strength (experience, track record, ideas, etc) works together under the guidance and motivated drive of the team leader to achieve an agreed or assigned objective.

Invariably there will be differences in opinions, ideas, proposed policies in any team, but having taken everyone's input into consideration, the team leader and him/her alone, makes the final decision.

Now, this is the important part which some people who doesn't understand his or her position in the team, basically someone who is not a good team member or team player, always fail to observe.

When the decision has been made, EVERYONE in the team MUST support it even though the final decision may be quite the opposite to what he or she as a team member has in mind or had proposed earlier.

Some of those who aren't team player will at best merajuk or worse, SABOTAGE the decision.

I suspect such people are so conceited as to take umbrage their recommendations were not taken on board, or so arrogant that their recommendations MUST be accepted, or just childish, immature and behaving like spoilt brats or worse, traitors to their respective teams and their assignments.

Remember an ex air force bloke who refused to adhere to Armed Forces Council Instructions (AFCI)?

And who or what, by the way, is the Armed Forces Council?

We are informed by Wikipedia that:

The Malaysian Armed Forces Council is a Malaysian military body established under Article 137 of the Constitution of Malaysia and is the constitutional body responsible (under the general authority of the King as Supreme Commander) for the command, discipline and administration of Malaysia's armed forces.

It is composed of the following members;

• The Minister of Defence.
• One member appointed by the Conference of Rulers.
• The Chief of the Armed Forces Staff, who is appointed by the King of Malaysia.
• The Secretary General of Defence.
• Two senior staff officers of the federation armed forces, appointed by the King.
• A senior officer of the federation navy, appointed by the King.
• A senior officer of the federation air force, appointed by the King.
• Up to two other members, appointed by the King.

Should you be surprised when someone who bucked against the Supreme Commander of the Malaysian Armed Forces, basically His Majesty the Agong, would be asked to leave the air force if he couldn't be a team player?

The team leader always has a tough job because in the final outcome he or she bears the responsibility of any failure.

In a military team or group such as a platoon up to a division or even (as per WWII size) army group of umpteen divisions, the leader must take responsibility for any failures.

People like Edwin Rommel, Vo Nguyen Giap, George Patton, William Westmoreland, Peng Dehuai (Chinese Commander in Korean War), Georgy Zhukov (Russian Commander against German forces invading Russia), Heinz Guderian, had either benefitted from their successes or paid for losses under their command. Rommel suffered the ultimate loss.

In a political team at the highest level, the cabinet members are the team members while the PM is the team leader. The PM thus makes the final decision and either prospers or falls by those decisions.

On a slightly lower level (at the state), the team members would be exco members while the CM or MB is the team leader. Thus in Selangor, MB Azmin makes the decisions and exco members are required by etiquette to support him, or at best resign but (except in corruption cases with evidence) preferably like gentlemen (or ladies) without badmouthing Azmin's decisions.

In a loose sense it can said that voters appoint them as team leaders, and if they don't perform, off with their heads by the next election as had happened to, for example, Wong Pow Nee (Penang 1969), Koh Tsu Koon (Penang 2008), Tajol Rosli Ghazali (Perak 2008), Khir Toyo (Selangor 2008) and Harris Salleh (Sabah 1986).

I come finally to my point, that of Dr Lim Mah Hui and Roger Teoh. Both were in a sense advisors to the Penang government, with the latter even a member of the DAP.

Both could not accept that the CM, being voted by Penangites as the state's CEO, has to answer to the voters and thus has to make decisions which might not be to Dr Lim and Roger's liking, but which took in other pressing considerations which Dr Lim and Roger have the luxury of not having to respond to.

Are Dr Lim and Roger Teoh team players?

Should they then write to UNESCO and local media respectively when decisions had been made which did not accept their inputs? Were they voted in by Penang voters?

There is a saying that 'With authority comes responsibility'. 

It's annoying some want 'authority' but not the accompanying 'responsibility' or even not realizing there's an accountable 'responsibility' with that 'authority'.