Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The top 10 resume mistakes and how to avoid them



The best form of defence is attack, and that's what you need to do to make sure your CV is a targeted weapon. That means no mistakes. Here's a checklist to run through.

1. Typos, bad English

A recruiter is looking for an excuse not to consider your application, and bad grammar and typos gives him an excuse to put your application in the special file marked the bin. A badly written CV shows you are disinterested or that you just can't spell. Either way, it's fatal. Check it yourself, and get someone else to go over your CV - it is easy to miss mistakes in your own copy.

2. Just the facts

Have you provided relevant contact details - have you entered the right numbers?

3. Don't be passive

Can you shake things up, can you solve problems, will you walk into your job running? If you can - great - you're what your employee is looking for. The question is: have you communicated this with your CV?

To do so you need to drop the passive verbs, and use active ones.

For example,

Don't write:

Managed a team of sales professionals for 18 months

Do write:

Built a highly organised sales team. Led it to record sales in three straight quarters.

Use: built, won, drove, inspired, sold. Don't use I.

4. Don't be vague

Your employer wants to be impressed, and to see that you know your business. Details help. State what you have achieved, with action verbs, and use numbers where possible.

5. Customisation counts

One size does not fill all. A senior post in particular demands that you understand the position, and that you tailor your achievements to that job in your CV.

Read the job specification carefully. Look for key words in the text the reveal the kind of personality being looked for, and what the employer expects the right candidate to be able to deliver.
6. Don't be dull

No one wants to know your duties (I attended the weekly sales meetings); they want to hear your achievements (Used leads from the weekly board meetings to add ten active clients to my roster). 7. Don't be flabby

Tell your story - but don't make your CV too long, or cut it down so much it says nothing at all.

8. Mission statements

If you are going to write a mission statement avoid MBA style buzzwords, and generic meaningless phrases. Be clear and precise as to what you are looking for.


Who isn't a "Team player", who would claim not to have "Project management skills"; if you're not "Results orientated" - you have problems; "People management skills" is a pre-requisite, not a clincher.
9. Design

Make your CV pleasing to the eye. How your CV is presented tells a story about you. Are you visually aware, do you care enough about the job to present the information well? Your CV is sending signals to your employer. Make sure they are the right ones.
10. Don't put it off

If you see a job you're interested in, don't delay putting together the application - do it the same day and send it the same day. Thousands of jobs have been lost because the applicant never got round to sending in his CV.

Monday, October 20, 2008

quote from mr x blog

what i don't understand is how mahathir, an indian, can manage to fool, debase, demean and insult the malays, and then rule over them for over 2 decades, at the same time robbing them blind and keeping them dumb.

A VULTURE NAMED MAHATHIR - curi and paste Magic River



A letter from Dr Munawar A. Anees posted on The Might Of The Pen, October 19, 2008...

As a student I knew of the horrors of the Holocaust and other human tragedies, but merely as a distant thunder: the violation of human rights and crimes against humanity were only an abstract notion.

That was all fated to change with my arrest under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) of Malaysia, which allows for indefinite detention without trial. My crime? I had known Anwar Ibrahim, the deputy prime minister and finance minister of Malaysia, as a close personal friend for many years. We shared and strove for a vision of life firmly rooted in human dignity. We struggled for building an intellectual and political milieu for free expression. Together, we subscribed to the idea of economic prosperity, gender and racial equality and a civil society.

Alas, the Malaysian dictator, Mahathir, under the growing burden of corruption and cronyism, conspired to halt the march of freedom. In order to build his fraudulent case against Anwar, Mahathir himself ordered my arrest.

My kidnapping and detention by the infamous Malaysian Special Branch taught me how it feels to be forcibly separated from one’s wife and children. How it feels to be searched and seized, disallowed to make phone calls, handcuffed, blindfolded, stripped naked, driven in an animal cage, shaven bald, endlessly interrogated, humiliated, drugged, deprived of sleep, physically abused. What it’s like to be threatened, blackmailed, tormented by police lawyers, brutalized to make a totally false confession, hospitalized for a consequent heart ailment, and treated as a psychiatric patient with symptoms of Stockholm syndrome.

Barely surviving on a meager diet of rancid rice and chicken along with 12 medicines a day, I spent nearly four months handcuffed around the clock to my hospital bed, under the watchful eyes of the prison guards.


Thereafter, my ability to speak, read and write took a considerable time to show signs of recovery. Short-term memory lapses were frequent. I existed in a fluid state in which suicidal tendencies, depression and despair were punctuated by fits of rage and indignation.

Weekly visits of less than an hour by my wife, Nadia, with our young children — Aisha and Omran — were my only contact with the outside world and the only inspiration to live on.

In collusion with the lawyer appointed on my behalf by the police, the Malaysian authorities refused the legal assistance of my choice, coercing me not to mount an appeal against the court verdict and threatening me with greater punishment under new charges if I didn’t co-operate.

Simultaneously, Nadia constantly endured police harassment, wiretapping and disruption of our e-mail and bank accounts. Some of our friends were met with the same fate and were compelled to abandon us when we needed them most.

But, in attempting to scare off and alienate my friends, how terribly mistaken were Malaysian autocrats in aping gross Gestapo tactics. How they underestimated the temper of freedom in so many places around the world, above all among friends in the West.

Floodgates of human compassion were opened when the futurist author Alvin Toffler, who Mahathir asked to advise him on a pet high-technology project, sent a message of protest to the Malaysian leader within 72 hours of my capture. In a major interview with the Western press, Mahathir even felt it necessary to make assurances — unfulfilled, of course — about my well being.

With every passing day, the rising tide of concern for my plight seemed to personify the words of Elie Wiesel:

“Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor. Never the victim. Never the tormented.”

Friends and strangers alike took a stand and support began to mushroom everywhere. Nadia related to me in the hospital how Amnesty International had declared me a “prisoner of conscience,” and how Pen International adopted me as a “writer in prison.” Against all odds, two prominent Malaysian lawyers, Manjeet Singh Dhillon and Balwant Singh Siddhu, offered their services unconditionally. To top it all, an international coalition — Friends of Dr. Anees — came into existence in defence of my rights. The core group of Naseer Ahmad, Baseer Hai, Safir Rammah, Jamal Mubarak, Anees Ahmad and Naeem Siddiqui mounted a media campaign with phenomenal success.

What touched my heart was that the person, Kamal Mubarak, who set up the Web site had never met me in person. From the depths of my confinement, I could see the magic of human compassion had begun to defeat oppression.

The pinnacle was reached after my release in the warm hug laced with watery eyes of an Amnesty friend in Toronto, Margaret John, who witnessed a pledge of solidarity between me and Devan Nair, the former president of Singapore, for we had come to share a similar fate.

My victimization at the hands of Mahathir’s “Asian values” has transformed me in another way. All my adult life, like so many in the Muslim world, I have suspected under every nook and cranny some conspiracy by the West to keep us down. Yet, in this seminal experience of my life, my friends in the West succeeded in saving me, while Mahathir, a Muslim, did everything to destroy me. And he is trying to do the same to Anwar again through his obliging courts on totally fabricated charges.

Mahathir has demonstrated that, though a proclaimed Muslim, his heart is blind to compassion. Tyranny is the hallmark of his bankrupt concept of “Asian values.”

My tragedy, and that of my friend Anwar, ought to make our fellow Muslims think very hard when they ponder the West and its role in the world. As we set out to shape our collective destiny in the 21st century, will the values of Mahathir or Jefferson serve us best? Mahathir himself made that choice for me. Sic semper tyrannis.*

-----
* Sic semper tyrannis is a Latin phrase meaning "thus, ever (or always), to tyrants." It is sometimes mistranslated as "Death to tyrants." The phrase is a shortened version of Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis, which translated means "Thus always death comes to tyrants." (Wikipedia)

Monday, October 13, 2008

Another era of Mahathirism is dawning – People Power needs to act!

by R. Shan

Having Mahathir for 22 years was the cause of the deterioration of education, abuse of power, abuse of the judiciary, corruption, nepotism, cronynism, inequality and unfairness in the system. All in the pretext of protecting the Malaysian citizens and developing the nation.
Speak to any Malaysian citizen prior to his rule and they will tell you that people used to respect each other and dealt with one another with humanity, equality and kindness.

Fast forward 22 years and you see division, inequality, emotions running at an all time high. This was his contribution to Malaysia and what he is still trying to contribute while trying to uphold his artificial legacy. Why do you think an 83 year old man needs to create a blog! Other than to serve his legacy and ensure Mahathirism survives, what other reason could there be?

He has purportedly brought modernization and material wealth to society. But what good are these when humanity and civil liberties are compromised. It leads to greed and corruption.
Look around at his advisors and cronies. When it is a business deal, it is always the Indian and Chinese, even the convicted Jew, Jack Abramoff (the poster boy for lobbyists in Washington DC who set up the meeting between Mahathir and President Bush and received about $1 million from the Malaysian government for his lobbying services in 2001 and 2002).

And yet, he is the great divider by championing Ketuanan Melayu. And there are many who fall into his trap, enticed with the promises of more wealth. Yes, the wealth is going to the Malays. But which Malays? Is every Ahmad, Abu and Ali getting any richer?

What I can't understand is why he goes on dividing us further. What is his objective? To uphold his so-called legacy or to do what is good for the society? If it is for the society, then show me the results! Don't point to stone and mortar and tell me these make people better citizens.
Imagine an 83 year old, ready to hit his grave, can still generate a blog and dictate the course of our generation in Malaysia. This is truly fascinating. Apparently 9 million hits on his blog already!

It is people like TAR, Dr. Burhanuddin Helmi and Tun Dr Ismail who are the true heroes of Malaysia. They had nothing to hide, no hidden agendas and only the goodwill of the nation in mind.

People Power must rise to create the awareness that these true heroes tried to instill in Malaysians. We cannot continue to live our lives feeling superficially secure.

We all say we have faith in the Malaysian public, but do you even know your Malay, Chinese or Indian neighbours? Would you help them in their time of need? Would you even know if they are in need? Faith alone is not enough if it is not practiced. We need to rejuvenate and reinvent ourselves to find out what a Malaysian society truly means. It should not mean we are divided by colour, race, religion or creed. We should all be equal.

We cannot go on living in our coconut shell and think "semua boleh". Mahathir with his magic wand will make all bad things go away. Riiight!!!

Look around and see the truth and the reality that is persisting in Malaysia. If you do not want to change and your conscience allows it, then it is your choice. Hey, we can't save everyone! But to the rest, we can go on trying. We should continue trying. We need to keep on trying to create the change we seek for a better Malaysia.

We can't allow Mahathirism to re-emerge and shed away whatever humanity and liberty that was given some breathing space during Badawi and submerge our future generations. One lost and coconut-shell generation should be a good enough lesson to all of us.

You need to look at yourself and be your own judge and executor to see if you are doing your part for change.

Understanding Politics In Islam - dipetik dari blog husam musa

Understanding Politics In Islam PDF Print E-mail

1. What is the aim of politics in Islam?

According to Al-Mawardi from his book Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniyyah, it is hirasatud din wa siasatud dunya - to uphold the religion and administer the world. Politics is not munkar - is not a depravity - real politics is noble virtuous because it administers the affairs of all creatures, bringing man closer to good and away from fasad - evil. According to Ibn al-Qayyim, politics is really the justice of Allah the Almighty and His Prophet (peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him).

The Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. was a politician as well as the messenger conveying the risalah, murabbi - teacher, Qadi - Chief Justice, Head of the nation and Imam of the ummah. The Khulafa' al Rasyidun - the rightly guided leaders who succeeded him were also politicians following the Sunnah - way of the Prophet, establishing just administration, practising ihsan - the betterment of good and providing the leadership of 'ilm - knowledge and Iman - belief.


However in the present time, due to 'politics' man faced suffering as a result of deceit and political ploys and scheming and devious politicians, whether in the form of past colonialists, treacherous rulers, tyrannical leaders and regimes preaching Machiavellian philosophy (the ends justifies the means!).

It became common to label and describe committed Muslims as 'political' so that they are regarded warily and wickedly for the purpose of disassociating and furthering apart the people from them, intending that society will shun and hate what is called 'political Islam'. It has been such that symbols of Islam like the headscarf, the proper attire and congregational prayers - Salat jama'ah are attempted to be labelled 'political'.

It is a blatant lie for those who say that there is no religion in politics and that there is no politics in religion. This deceit was once tried in the form of an attempted fatwa - a decree while the members of the Ikhwan al-Muslimun were imprisoned in the detention camps in Egypt in the 50's. The regime wanted to influence the masses to regard the activists and the Dai' (the very people who wanted to uphold the Syari'ah, Al-Qur'an and Al-Sunnah) as the purveyors of fasad - evil by using corrupted 'ulama - paid scholars.

2. The Fight against Fasad and Zulm (Evil, Transgression and Tyranny) is the utmost in Jihad

From the understanding of the Prophet's tradition (mafhum hadith):

Munkar (transgression) is not limited to khamr - liqour, gambling and zina - - unlawful sex but degrading and defiling the honour and dignity of the people and citizens is a major transgression, so is cheating in the elections, refusing to give testimony - neglecting to vote, letting government be in the hands of those who are not deserving and undesired, stealing and squandering the nation's wealth and property, monopolising the people's needs for personal gains or cronies' interests, detaining people without crime or just cause, without judgement from a fair court, torturing human beings in prison and the detention camps, giving, accepting and mediating in bribes, cowering up to, praising evil rulers, allowing the enemies of Allah and the enemies of the Muslim community to be leaders and shunning the believers - the mu'min.

These are all grave transgressions!

When a Muslim remains quiet upon seeing all of these it means that he or she does not deserve to live (is not alive) from the mafhum of al-ayat and al-hadith.

Islam requires that every Muslim has political responsibility. A Muslim is required by his Iman - faith to be truly concerned with the affairs and problems of the ummah - community, helping and defending the meek and the weak, fighting tyranny and oppression. By retreating and abstaining oneself, it will only invite divine retribution and being seized by the flames of hell (mafhum ayat).

3. Political Freedom is Our Utmost Need Today

Islam is always rejuvenated, its message spread across, its resurgence, its reverberating call heard by all even if it is given some limited freedom. Therefore the first battle is to obtain freedom to deliver the message of da'wah, the risalah of tawhid (Unity of God), spread consciousness and enabling the existence of Islamic movements.

True democracy is not the whims and desires of the tyrannical rulers or their cronies, it is not the place to jail and incarcerate its fighters and not the place to torture its proponents.

Democracy is the simplest and proper way to achieve the aims of a noble life, to be able to invite all to Allah and Islam, to be able to call others to Iman without having our souls being imprisoned and our bodies sentenced to be executed by hanging. It is the space for a free and honourable nation to have the right to choose, evaluate the ruler, change governments without coups and without bloodshed.

The theory, way and system which looks alien maybe adopted if it benefits us and as long as it does not contradict clear Islamic edicts and the rules of Syariah. We appraise, amend according to our spirit, we do not adopt its philosophy, and we do not allow what is forbidden and vice versa. We do not relinquish or compromise what is ordained or compulsory - the wajib in Islam.

The gist of democracy is that the public, the people can choose the rulers who are going to administer them; the people having the right to select, criticise and terminate; and the people are not forced to accept systems, trends, and policies which they do not agree to and they are not abused. They are free to hold elections, referendums, ensuring majority rights, protecting minority rights, having opposition, have multi parties, have press freedom and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary. But once again to constantly uphold and safeguard the principles of Islam, the firm rulings, the al-thawabit: the determined laws - hukm qat'i, the daruri - the essentials of religion and the non-ijtihadiy must not be compromised or neglected.

Syura:

Syura or consultative decision making must be followed and not just as a debating factor. By practising syura, it is closer, hence even better than the spirit of democracy. It is but the lost jewel found, the lost wisdom - al-hikmah which has been rediscovered.

Syura enables musyawarah to be conducted, obtains views and opinions, becomes the responsibility of the people to advise and counsel the government (ad-dinu nasiha) and establish amar ma'ruf nahy munkar - enjoining good and forbidding evil. Among the obligations of amar ma'ruf nahy munkar is the highest jihad (struggle) that is to voice out the truth in front of the unjust tyrant.

The State of Politics in the Ummah:

The musibah or calamity of the ummah then and now is the absence and the abeyying of the system of syura and the adoption of an oppressive dynastical ruling system. In the modern era, dictators stay in power by the force of arms and gold - power and wealth resulting in the syariah being hindered, secularism being forced upon and cultural Westernisation being imposed. Islamic da'wah and the Islamic movement being victimised, brutalised, imprisoned and hounded viciously.

4. Qur'anic Examples of Tyrannical Rulers

The Al-Qur'an denounces all powerful rulers such as Namrud, Fir'aun (Pharaoh), Hamaan and Qarun. Namrud is taghut - the transgressor who enslaves the servants of Allah as his serfs.

There is the pact or collaboration of three parties:

Fir'aun - he claims to be God, carries out tyranny and oppression throughout the land, enslaves the people

Hamaan - the cunning politician, experienced, having self interest, in the service of taghut, propping up and supporting Fir'aun and cheating the people, subjugating them.

Qarun - the capitalist or feudalist who takes opportunity from the unjust and oppressive laws, spending fortunes for the tyrannical leader in order to profit and amass more vast returns, bleeding and exploiting the toils of the people. The origin of Qarun was that he came from Prophet Musa's own clan who colluded with Fir'aun due to the love of worldly life and materialism.

The combination of taghut and Zulm results in the spread of mayhem and the destruction of the community, subjugating man by force and degradation.

The People:

Al Qur'an denounces the people or citizens who are obedient and loyal to their oppressive rulers. The people who remain under the tutelage of taghut are fully responsible and accountable because it is due to their attitude that brought forth these fir'auns and taghuts.

Al-Junud (the collaborators):

These are the armies and enforcers of the rule and order of the taghut. They use force, fear and repression to eliminate and subdue all opposition and dissidents of the tyrant.

5. An Example of Leadership

Balqis, the Queen of Saba' as told in the Qur'an was a woman who lead her people well, just and administered them with intelligence and wisdom saving her people from a war that was destructive and made decisions by syura-consulting them. Alas, the story ended with the acceptance of Islam. She led her people towards the goodness of the world and the hereafter.

Leaders like her are much more capable and qualified with political acumen and wise administration than most of the present Arab and Muslim 'male' leaders. (Prof. Yusuf Qaradawi purposely avoided the term 'al-rijal')

6. Pluralism and Multi Parties in Islam

The existence of various parties or movements is not forbidden as long as unification is not achievable due to differences over objectives, approaches, understanding and the level of confidence and trust. Variety and specialisation are allowed as long as they do not become contradictory and confrontational. However everyone has to be in one united front when facing the challenges to aqidah - belief, syariah, ummah and the survival of Islam. Relations between parties and groupings should be in the atmosphere of non-prejudice, forgiveness, nobleness, counselling truth and steadfastness, wisdom and engaging in healthy cordial debate.

Even when the Islamic State is established there is no reason to feel distraught at the existence of pluralism and differences.

7. Counselling and Corrective Participation in Politics

Without the shedding of blood, the most effective way as the outcome of long and painful struggles is the existence of political forces which the government in power is unable to contain or eliminate: that is presence of political parties. The ruling regime can get rid of individuals and small groups of opponents but it is difficult for them to defeat or wipe out larger organisations which are well structured, organised and rooted in the masses of society. Political parties have the platform, machinery, newspapers and publications as well as mass influence.

Political parties or political movements are necessary to fight oppression, to enable criticism, bringing back the government to to uphold truth and justice, bringing down or changing the government. These parties are capable of monitoring and appraising the government, offer advice and criticism.

8. Voting

Voting in the elections is a form of testimony. A just testimony is considered as long as one is not convicted of crime. Whoever so votes or abstains from voting in the general elections causing the defeat of a trustworthy and deserving candidate but on the other hand allows the candidate who is less trustworthy and undeserving to win, one has gone against the command of Allah concerning giving testimony.

Adapted and rearranged from the book Fiqh al-Dawlah written by Professor Yusuf al Qaradawi.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

di curi dari wuns blog - sori kawan, ambil tak minta kebenaran

Now, even with seemingly limited influence and no power in the administration of the government, he has single handedly brought down his hand-picked successor just as he brought down his Deputy in 1998. Bravo old man, you still have it in you.
First he thought Abdullah is the right man for the job; this thought-to-be innocent government worker for life, who before this was over looked for the fact that he was the Home Minister that used the ISA to detained many Malaysians involved in anti-establishment acts.
Then Mahathir regrets. He regrets hand-picking this man because he saw his influence wane somewhat. He saw his projects falter and his vision of Mahathir-Malaysia going down the drain. He saw, reforms being 'planned'. Reform is a slap on this guy's face because reforms indicates, his perfect legacy of success in Malaysia is not perfect after all.
In fact he knew it wasn't perfect. People have told him many times before: You breed cronyism, you corrupt the judiciary, you intervene in institutions you are not supposed to intervene, you are sacrificing the education to raise zombies and yes mans, you ignore the rural folks, you do this and that (negative). These comments bleeds his ears thus he shuts these critics up.
The harshes critic which he failed to shut is Abdullah, but that only happened later. Through the promise of reforms, Mahathir is seen to be corrupt in the public eye. If not him then it is his skidmarks. What he left behind, his legacy.
At the time he planned his retirement, Mahathir had no one to choose from. His best worker was jailed by his own doing. The only other person is Najib who was young and had not done anything during his tenure in the many posts he held. So he had to go with Abdullah.
Then Najib turns his back on Mahathir. Ignoring his pleas to step up his own efforts to bring down Abdullah. Najib as usual, followed his superior,not wanting to take risks so as not to jeopardise his slow but sure rise in government.
Mahathir began his freaking crazy and non-sensical endorsement scheme. He endorses everyone who even says a word of discontent towards Abdullah. Muhyiddin was his pick, Rais Yatim and also Ku Li his former nemesis turned pawn. Heck if Tsu Koon were Malay and in UMNO Mahathir would have endorsed him.
His efforts and endorse crazy attitude, though at first seemed like a senile old grumpy man trying to shoot like crazy, was in fact a plan to destablize the mentality and loyalty of Najib. With Mahathir having a big influence in UMNO still, Najib knows it is Mahathir whom he has to please.
The only problem with Mahathir endorsing the other candidates is that the other candidates were too afraid to challenge for the top post. Najib does not feel threatened. But with Mahathir openly endorsing the Ku Li-Muhyiddin team at one point in time, Najib knows a challenge is at hand. Ku Li have always stated his intention to fight for the top post. Najib felt threatened.
Najib talked to Pak Lah, and now Pak Lah wants to retire. Probably he knows that with Najib not backing him up, or unable to back him up, his days are numbered..
Mahathir won.
Now he endorses Najib and Muhyiddin as the top two in the country. Just months ago he said Najib was not fit to be the Prime Minister. Even saying Rais Yatim is the better candidate. Just months ago he said Muhyiddin is the best, and now he only puts him second best. He endorsed Ku Li before, and now doesn't even consider his existence. Sorry Ku Li, you've been punk'd!
Mahathir have always vacated that seat for Najib after all. It is Abdullah's reform that side tracked him a little. His grand plan of Mahathir-Malaysia might still be on track. With Najib at the helm, expect the same. When was the last time Najib spoke about reforms? He speaks Mahathir. He walks Mahathir. He plans Mahathir.Now Mahathir says, “There are several former MPs and experts whose advice he should seek to run the country”.. Translation: I'll gladly be your adviser (behind the door dominator) should you get the chance to run the country.
With Mukhriz looking set to land the top youth post, expect the same Malaysia for another 30 years.
However, Abdullah's delay in retiring from his post is good because it gives ample time for Anwar to complete his promised toppling. Here's hoping it happens.
Peace :)

Friday, October 10, 2008

Last article by Kalimullah

kah kah kah. woi che det dan muka sembab muhyiddin... kalimullah dah kutuk hangpa berdua....balas la balik.....kah kah kah

KALIMULLAH HASSAN: It doesn’t pay to be a nice guy


IT was not an easy decision for Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to make.
Particularly when the democratic norm — as practised worldwide, save perhaps in Zimbabwe and countries like that — was that he led the party that won by a comfortable 58-seat majority and, therefore, he was the winner.

But in Malaysia, the democratic norm is to win by more than a two-thirds majority, thus having the ability to amend the Constitution whenever you want, and using that legitimacy to make even unpopular decisions as much as you want. Using that principle as a basis, Abdullah had failed.

He lost four states more than previously. He lost the two-thirds majority by eight seats and, therefore, he had lost and should resign. What was the choice before him? He could fight to defend the presidency of Umno but that would have come at a cost. An already fractured party would have become even more split. And for Abdullah, who has always been loyal to Umno, that was not an option. So, despite much pressure from his ranks, he decided not to hand his successor Datuk Sri Najib Razak a party more racked with internal dissension than he could. He decided to retire.

For Umno and for the Barisan Nasional, he made the right decision. And by making that decision, he learned the hard way. In Umno, loyalty to the leader has one important caveat and that caveat is “as long as you are powerful”. For as long as he was powerful, the Umno ranks, especially those in the supreme council, would bend over backwards to be seen as loyal.
But the moment the chips were down, they would abandon the “sink - ing ship” and run to where they saw the power shifting. And so it was with someone he trusted, like his vice-president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who was among the first to call for his resignation. When Muhyiddin saw that the supreme council seemed to be backing Abdullah for the so-called transition programme which would see him in office until June 2010, Muhyiddin backed off, in deference to the party and his “loyalty ” to the party.

But when Umno lost the Permatang Pauh by-election, Muhyiddin once again saw an opportunity and chose Singapore in which to express no confidence in his prime minister, the man who appointed him international trade and industry minister.

As with Muhyiddin, also sneaking away were people who had backed Abdullah to the limit, even when his decisions were perhaps worthy of more critical analysis and opposition.
People like Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein who, perhaps, should realise that March 8 showed that Malaysians, including Malays, are not impressed with kris-waving leaders.
It has happened before. To a man like Tun Ghafar Baba who did not have a mean bone in his body. To people like Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Tun Musa Hitam. And to people like Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

To the ordinary man with ordinary assumptions of what loyalty means, what happened to Abdullah would be seen as treachery. But in his world, it’s called realpolitik.
To be fair, Abdullah paid the price for the wrong decisions he made, for the promises he could not fulfil. After the March 8 general election, his position had become untenable.
He took responsibility for it. Yet, all those who had backed him previously conveniently slunk away, allowing all the blame to be heaped on one man — Abdullah.
But yes, that’s politics. Not much honour there, as we all know, no matter what your stripe.
Still, it is an exercise in behavioural science to try to fathom how different the political lexicon is from that of ordinary folk.

Take for example Abdullah’s predecessor, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
He says he is happy for Umno that Abdullah is quitting and that “Umno can now be rebuilt”.
In ordinary circumstances, that would mean that Dr Mahathir loves Umno and cares for Umno.
In the same breath, Dr Mahathir described Najib as “incompetent” and says he is “not impressed with Najib’s performance as deputy prime minister now”.
And why is Najib incompetent in Dr Mahathir’s view? Because Najib “did not have his own stand and was always following Abdullah’s advice”.

If anyone has forgotten, Dr Mahathir backed Musa as his deputy when he became prime minister in 1981. He chose Ghafar as his deputy when Musa quit over “irreconcilable differences” with him in 1985. Dr Mahathir backed Anwar in 1993 when that ruthlessly ambitious man who would later become his nemesis took on Ghafar in what was one of Umno’s most corrupt party elections. When he sacked Anwar in 1998, he chose Abdullah as his deputy.
Five years later, Dr Mahathir said he was retiring and that Abdullah was ready to succeed him. Dr Mahathir chose Abdullah — as he did Musa, Ghafar and Anwar. And barely months later, Dr Mahathir started the attacks on his successor, just as he had on all those he had chosen and thrust upon Malaysians before.

Almost his whole family got in the act. His sons Mukhriz and Mokhzani and his associates made numerous unsubstantiated and slanderous allegations against Abdullah and his family, friends and aides. Even Abdullah’s late wife, Datin Seri Endon Mahmood, was not spared Dr Mahathir’s sharp tongue. And just before the general election, he publicly urged Malaysians not to give the BN a strong mandate. And when the BN indeed failed in that, Dr Mahathir urged Najib to fight Abdullah. Then he asked Muhyiddin when Najib refused (for which Dr Mahathir called him a coward).

One has to go back to Dr Mahathir’s 1996 Umno presidential address to see what he thought of Muhyiddin. (Muhyiddin lost his bid to be re-elected vice-president that year.) But today, he backs Muhyiddin for Umno deputy president. What will he say about Muhyiddin when Muhyiddin does not listen to him any more? When everything he tried failed, Dr Mahathir quit Umno. And he says he loves Umno.

Dr Mahathir has not been charitable to many people. His family and close friends are perhaps the exception. When he was not attacking the United States, Margaret Thatcher, the West, the Zionists and the Jews, George Soros, Singapore and currency speculators, it was his own Umno members, the Malays “who forget easily” (Melayu mudah lupa), non-governmental organisations and the judiciar y.

At least Dr Mahathir believes that no one is perfect. Well, almost… One thing Najib will not have to worry about is a predecessor breathing down his neck slandering him, his cabinet, his party colleagues, his family, aides and friends. Because, for all his weaknesses, Abdullah is a decent, religious man. Hopefully, Dr Mahathir will also give him a break. Perhaps the only person who can rival Dr Mahathir in invective and tenacity to condemn others is, ironically, Anwar, his onetime protégé-turned-nemesis.

Najib will have enough on his hands trying to fend off Anwar. If there is one thing Najib should learn from the politics of the last three decades, it is that he must have competent, able people who will give him frank and honest views and back him fully when he makes the right decisions and stick with him when the chips are down.

Reform still needs to be done. And Najib must do it. It will also be inevitable that many will clamour for the old ways to remain, but the truth is Malaysians rejected the old ways on March 8. Najib must accept that if he is to succeed in revitalising Umno and the BN. It was not the pull factor of the opposition that made people vote for them. It was the push factor of a BN and Umno which just refused to change.

No more racism and religious bigotry, even at the lowest levels, no more cuddling up with businessmen already charting their paths to Putrajaya, no more shadowy awards of contracts and licences other than on merit. Like it or not, Najib has to make unpopular decisions because the rot set in long ago... long before Abdullah became prime minister.

Abdullah could not, and did not, make the changes that people expected of him. For that, he paid the price. That is the way it should be.

There are two other lessons that Najib can learn from Abdullah. One, that the openness and freedom Abdullah allowed cannot be turned back; and two, that it does not pay to be a nice guy in politics.