Questioning credibility? Really?

 The credibility of a leader has always lingers around characteristics, leadership values, ideas, image, reputation, education and a lot more. For one to be lifted and accepted as a leader, he must be able to be one of the followers too. To be a good leader, one must be a good follower as well. This is deeming true, if one failed to follow, he definitely will fail to be at the peak of hierarchy.

One side of the leadership requires us to be brave and to be strong. We must be brave to stand up for what we believe in, stand up for the truth and stand up for our people. But often the concept of bravery is taken wrongly. Also, often used for the sake of taking one down.

As we all know, recently, it came out at the front page of one of the mainstream newspaper saying that one of our leaders is challenging the credibility of another leader on the left wing. Is this a proper thing to do? I mean, it is okay to differ in opinions and stand but does it really has to be announced out loud to the public? Is it necessary for us to tell to the people that there are tensions between our leaders? Well, it is something for us to ponder on.

Measuring credibility? 

Stepping on the credibility of someone should not be the ground of winning a political game. It is not wrong. Yes, no one ever said it is wrong. But to make it public is it ethically right? Some might say yes, but some might say no. There is wrong and right answer for this question.

Most of the leaders are great rhetoricians but some are great dialectics. Aristotle, pioneer in art of rhetoric, in one of his texts said that for the public to be persuaded to actually believe it, they must be triggered in terms of their trust on one’s credibility, their emotions must me touched as well as their logical reasoning must be in parallel just to get the public to believe in them. In this case, Aristotle’s mentor, Plato has a different opinion. He said in his text, no emotions should be touched as the truth will be the point of believing anything. There should not be any emotional manipulation. But, the only thing that they both believed is that the CREDIBILTY will be one of the determinants of taking anything into beliefs.

 The point about the arguments between Aristotle and Plato is that both believe in credibility is the main point of the mass public to believe in any idea. Maybe, this is the reason why some politicians are so eager in using credibility of their opponent as a weapon of taking them down. Well, I would say, game well-played. There should not be any reason to say the other way. But the blame is not totally weighed on just one side.

I would consider we are lucky that we as Malaysian are still bound to the constitution which holds us together despite of all political differences. Maybe those at the upper lines should consider all their actions as people at the lower level are observing them. They should always remember that we are the people that determine who are our leaders. We are living in a parliamentary democracy country.


Peace Malaysia!