MPAJA in history

I read with much interest the President of Hua Zong's remarks that 'After the Japanese surrendered, the MPAJA accepted the British order for them to lay down their arms and come out of the jungles".

Meanwhile, the President was asking the Minister of Information, Datuk Zainuddin Maidin to retract his remark that 'the MPAJA monument at the Nilai Memorial Park is erected to honour the former Malayan communists'.

Could it be that Hua Zong is trying to emulate the 'Ethnic Relations' issue which was brought up in the Parliament, ended up with the book reviewed by a special committee following Cabinet's order?

Eid Mubaraq 1427

Staff of FSPPP.













Academic members of FSPPP.

Bangsa Melayu

The Vision 2020 & National Agenda blueprints define 'bangsa Malaysia' fairly comprehensively. Now, look at what one scholar (Ismail Noor, 2003) has got to say about 'bangsa Melayu'. Maybe after this we can have a closer look at some of the self-explained definitions of a Chinese, Indian etc.

“The Malay is a practising Muslim, residing in Malaysia, whose roots go back to his ancestors of the Old Malcca Empire and of those who were sons of the soil in the other parts of the Malay archipelago, strecthing as far back in history as 3000BC. The Malay is endowed with a cultural heritage that has made him known throughout as the “gentleman of the world”. The Malay lives in a sanguine environment that is free from the vagaries of the weather and the harshness of natural calamities. The grace that God Almighty has bestowed upon the Malay has moulded him into a person who follows the path of temperence, making him a gentle and considerate person. His attributes and personality are clearly reflected even in the fine art of Malay cultural dance, whihc is expressed in slow and graceful movements depicting his affinity with the peaceful surroundings. The Malay is also a wonderful and gracious host to his guests, and this has been depicted in the writings of not a few Westerners, at times putting him at a disadvantageous position when dealing with pthers. But over time, he has also learned to manage his boundaries, be they physical or psychological, well. The modern Malay is suave, savvy, enterprising and values-driven. The globalised world will be his next battleground.”

Bangsa Malaysia?

Datuk Abdul Ghani Osman, the Chief Minister of Johor had recently iterated his view on Dr. Lim Kheng Yaik & M.Kayveas's much propagated slogan of Bangsa Malaysia. Read his view, here.

"Think"

“There are seven sins in the world:

Wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice and politics without principle.”

(M. K. Gandhi)

Leadership & Leading

The government yesterday announced the establishment of Akept - Akademi Kepimpinan Pengajian Tinggi - which emphasises on the leadership aspect of teaching staff in all public institutions (of higher learning). (Not long ago, the Star published an open letter written by a university lecturer in the Klang Valley). The establishment of the academy is indeed timely and welcomed. As a beginning, the academy is emphasising on the leadership skills of academics. In the future, the terms of reference of the academy perhaps, can be extended, focusing more on the people.

Leadership is not all about skills. It is about the quality of people that we have in ummah, in the society. Islam, as a din, regards man as the vicegerent of God on earth. Every man is entrusted onto him trust (amanah) and responsibility to rule and dominate the earth according to God’s will and purpose, as laid out by the al-Qur’an (Al-Baqarah (2): 30). In doing so – i.e dominating the earth – human must, at all time, hold on to the condition that they remain obidient to God, that is, being God’s servant, or ‘abd Allah. It is, therefore, pertinent to note that Islam views leadership as a trust that comes with responsibilities. As opposed to the Western tradition, where the trust is normally observed and emphasised in the form of organisational objectives, Islam relates leadership with the trust which is from God. Thus, it is clearly stated that the basic conception of leadership is man-centred.

The term din is not the same as the concept ‘religion’ as interpreted and understood throughout Western religious history. Here, din is understood in such a way that, all the basic connotations inherent in the term are conceived as gathered into a single unity of coherent meaning as reflected in the Holy Qur’an and in the Arabic language to which it belongs. Thus, as iterated by many scholars (e.g Syed Muhammad Naquib; Syyed Hossein Nasr), the primary significations of the term din can be reduced to four: (1) indebtedness; (2) submissiveness; (3) judicious power; (4) natural inclination or tendency.

Malay Leaders

(It is Zahier's birthday today (November 1st). Happy birthday, Zahier. God bless you. God bless us.)

Perhaps perceptions of some Malay politicans and partisan regarding leadership concept is worth considered, as narrated in the following example. Shortly after the UMNO split in 1987, the general sentiment of some Malays partisan – as reported by mainstream newspapers – were reported to be quite critical of how idealistic their leaders attributes should be. As Milne & Mauzy (1999:4) observed, the sentiment was that,“The leader must fight for the Malay cause, should not be sombong, should have tokoh (style), and preferably, should be of aristocratic birth.”Some other desirable traits or features were also mentioned, such as tradition, harmony, and peaceful succession, while disapproval of impatience and ambition was expressed.

God bless Malaysia

Yesterday's (October 30th, 2006) mainstream newspapers quoted a few politicians (UMNO) views regarding Tun Dr Mahathir's future in UMNO. Following the reports, surfers (e.g. Amri, Khoiriyah & Kamri) asked me about the recent development of Malaysian politics, the Mahathir-Pak Lah's episode, in particular. Indeed, it is not a pleasant and interesting issue to debate for some reasons. Some say that the politicians (who issued the statements) are not known for their intellectual/political insights. They became leaders simply because they were picked by the party to run in the general or by-election. In Malaysian political culture, except for one or two personalities, leaders depend much on the party's logo. Transformational leaders, then, are not common. The Deputy Prime Minister's (Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak) view on the leadership of all Malaysian prime ministers, perhaps, provides simple description of the types of head of administrator/politician in this country. His view was reported by NST, “At the right time and the right place”, September 21, 2005, p.6.

Tunku Abdul Rahman

When the Tunku led the independence movement and subsequently became the first premier, his diplomatic skills being an Anglophile helped reassure the British that granting independence to Malaya was the right thing to do. “To be given freedom without bloodshed is far greater an achievement than with the spilling of blood over the flag of independence.”

Tun Abdul Razak Hussein

He toiled the fields and put into place a major economic and societal reform – a reform that was to transform a community and a nation. “The father of Development was not only a visionary leader but a leader who had great empathy towards the people. He gave us hope and raised the stakes for all to be successful.”

Tun Hussein Onn

He was needed to carry out the agenda that his predecessor had put into place. “He was the rightman for the job. Just imagine, if Malaysia had a leader who was ambitious for he could have merely dismantled this social and economic reform and replaced it with something else, thereby disrupting its implementation.”

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

With the passing of a decade of the New Economic Policy, the country needed a leader who could elevate Malaysia’s sense of achievement. Dr Mahathir was that man.“He was unique, for he was both a visionary and a man of action. He was an iconoclastic leader, someone who challenged prevailling ideas and beliefs.”

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

Abdullah has become the country’s fifth Prime Minister at a most significant period of the nation. With the increasing pressures of globalisation, stronger demands for a more open and transparent economy and business environment, Abdullah’s rise to the top was timely.”

Defining organisational culture

Updated, October 3nd, 2006, 0817.


Jaques, E. (1952:251) defines OC as, "The culture of the factory is its customary and traditional way of thinking and doing of things, which is shared to a greater or lesser degree by all its members, and which new members must learn, and at least partially accept, in order to be accepted into service in the firm."

To the question "What were the reasons for the emergent of literature on 'corporate culture'?", we can simply trace back the writings of many scholars, e.g. Peters & Waterman (1982) and Pascale & Athos (1994) who popularised and coined the terminology. The reasons were:
1. The successes of management in 'strong culture' societies, e.g Japan & Korea;
2. Shift of mindset & managerial aspects, e.g. "soft" over "hard" i.e soft (culture, leadership etc) while hard (systems & technology);
3. Strong 'adaptive culture'; and
4. Culture is superior than bureaucracy.
---------------------------------------------
I received a question from Dzul (he was asking me about Van Maanen & Barley's (1985) definition of subculture).

They define subculture as "a subset of an organisation's members who interact regularly with one another, identify themselves as a distinct group within the organisation, share a set of problems commonly defined to be the problems of all, and routinely take action on the basis of collective understandings unique to the group."

(Updated: Sept 28th, 2006, 10:04)
Huntington, S.P. talks about clash of civilications in Islamica (latest edition).

What makes a leader II

Leadership is all about being in front, be it in the form of a physical body or simply in the shape of soul and philosophy. Thus, a true and an effective leader often goes well beyond followers. Otherwise, might as well he remains a follower...

Ever heard of an Arabic proverb, which is so nicely written, such as this one?
"An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep."

What makes a leader?

Some of the traits of good leaders have already been mentioned elsewhere. Since Khoiriyah was speaking about a leader's trait that is often observed as negative - i.e. easy to get angry - this saying, which I quoted from one of many Aristotle's sayings, perhaps answers her question pretty well.“It is easy to get angry—anyone can do that…but to feel or act towards the right person to the right extent at the right time for the right reason in the right way—that is not easy, and it is not everyone that can do it. Hence to do these things well is a rare, laudable and noble achievement.”

Motivation 1

Originally derived from the Latin word 'movere', which means 'to move', the term "motivation" covers various components and processes associated with how human behaviour is activated. Definitions, such as those posited by Atkinson (1964), Jones (1955) and Vroom (1964) are examples of representative definitions that indicate how the term has been used.

Schein's levels of culture

The three levels of culture as advocated by Schein (1985) perhaps can best explain the differences between organisations: Artifacts - which is visible but very often, undecipherable; Values - greater level of awareness; and Assumptions - taken for granted invisble.

Further, Schein listed & discussed dimensions of cultural assumptions which include: (1) organisation's relationship; (2) the nature of human activities; (3) the nature of reality & truth; (4) the nature of time; (5) the nature of human nature; (6) homogeneity vs diversity.

Characteristics of American Management

Updated (September 26th, 2006, 10:30am)The tradition approach of USA's philosophy & style of management are - not meant to be exaustive - :1. owners-oriented;2. prerogatives of managers in decision-making;3. stressing on short-termism, e.g performance appraisal;4. human is seen as capital as well as cost.Until recently, the perspectives of management philosophy and style have somewhat changed to - also, not meant to be exaustive - :1. more participative style;2. adapting and learning from foreign countries, e.g "serqual" such as quality-circles (from Japan);3. maximisation of profit, and more interest in social responsibility (esp. environment).---------------------------------------------Dear all (groupBA3E),It was really a good discussion we had during last tutorial. I have suggested some of the characteristics of American management the other day. Please take time to think about each of the characteristics, and let's have a more interesting discussion in the coming session. 1. Short-term orientation2. Shareholder orientation3. Higher turnover of managers4. Liberalism5. Freedom for top management6. Direct and pragmatic relationship7. Professionalism8. Class differences.and many more... (to be discussed).

Leadership & Political Culture

This is my response to Rahim's question.

Which type or style of leadership best described the first Prime Minister of Malaysia? How does a style, as exemplified by a Prime Minister, encourages the people to participate actively in a planned programme for social and economic development? Are the prime minister’s personality, beliefs and values considered as strong role models for the entire people to emulate with?

Basically, these questions are inter-related and very much relevant in a way or another with the political culture and nature of leadership of the polity since the functioning of a political system cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of the influence of political culture. A fairly significant example of this is the ethnic issue in Malaysian politics. It is an undoubted fact that dominant values in Malaysia for instance have been largely determined by the Malay-Muslim polity and culture. Thus, as can be observed at present day, the political system in this country is heterogenous in terms of having many subcultures. This was partly due to the colonial’s strategic policy of exploiting the natural resources of Malaya by bringing in foreign workers to work in the mines and plantation estates. The fact, however, is indeed recognised and over the years, since independent, has become an uncommon feature in Malaysian polity. Today, it is considered as one of the most encouraging aspects of the Malaysian scene. It is said to be truly Malaysian in its outlook, having its roots in the country of malaysia and formed as a result of a synthesis of influences which are Malay, Chinese and Indian in their origin. As one observes, the result of this growth of a Malaysian culture can be seen in many aspects, most obviously including arts, literature etc., that is the outward expressions of a people’s feelings.

Ryan (1962:xi) stated it exceedingly well by saying that,“Such a culture will be the result of compromise, fusion and synthesis; not an easy process as the main communities in the country, the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians and the Borneo peoples differ greatly from ech other.”Culture is basically looked as made up of three major elements, i.e. (i) behaviour patterns (loyalty; individualistic; etc.); (ii) artifacts (man-made objects such as buildings, banners, pamphlets etc.); and (iii) belief systems (including religion, norms and taboos).Political culture, then, is defined as ‘the cluster of distinctive shared political values, attitudes, beliefs, and orientations’. Further, the cluster can be summed up as the mores and modes of thought as well as behaviour by which people live and and institutions are sustained. The mores are those elements of a culture which are considered vital for the survival of the society.It has been asserted that to understand political culture, an assessment must be made of the parameters and social thought within which politics has meaning, purpose and value.

In view of this, Leeds (1981: 194) suggests a two-way process, i.e. (i) the underlying political culture provides many of the key assumptions that govern political behaviour and the development of institutions; and (ii) in the reverse direction, the existing political system acts as a conditioning factor, influencing the boundaries in which the political culture esists. A person’s individual political beliefs, then are a response partly to his own personality and partly to the total socialising influence of the environment and over-all political culture.

Leeds reiterates further that such attitudes affect the kinds of demands made, the way they are expressed, and the responses of elites and the government. An example of this is provided by an observation made by Bowring (2004). In one of his articles, Bowring remarked how 2004 was the year that witnessed more Malays in Malaysia participated in a ‘reasonably free and fair national elections than will vote in the U.S. presdiential election in November.’He goes on to say that ‘of the four predominantly Malay nations, with a combined population of some 300 million, only the tiny rich oil sultanate of Brunei cannot pass as a democracy’.It is apparent, as Bowring had observed, that the three nations, i.e. Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Phillipines, are usually thought of in terms of either their religious differences – Muslim, Christian or a mix – or the different governance systems that have grown out of foreign rule – British, American, Dutch. However, as he observes more closely, Bowring notices that there is a shared common cultural heritage which predates the arrival of the West, of Christianity and of Islam.He states further that, “It is found in many social attitudes and behavioral norms and often transcends religious and national differences. There is also the basis of a shared language – before English, Malay was the lingua franca of Southeast Asia.”Although deemed to be inconclusive, it seems more or less clear, as Bowring had recently observed, that political culture does has a considerable part in stabilising a state’s political system and leadership. Accordingly, it is quite interesting to observe the differences in attitudes as Leeds and Finer (1970) have rightly pointed out so in their references to some political cultures in different countries. Both the writers indicate, in general, that attitudes and political culture are inseparable. The interlocking connection between attitude and political culture thus impact the political processes in one way or another. Leeds’s (1981) examples of differences in attitudes of Mexico citizens are often alienated from the policies of government but they are loyal to the system because of its identification with the emotive symbol of the Revolution. Britain, unlike West Germany, more emphasis is placed on informal personal bargaining and negotiation between government representatives and others via committees than on adherence to decisions made by an impersonal, institutionalised bureaucracy. United States. The culture is more egalitarian compared to Britain. People are more inclined to an attitude of ‘deference’ or passive acceptance to government policies. Classification of political cultureMature, or participatoryPeople are orientated positively towards most aspects of the political system, like in Britain, the United States, Norway and Sweden. The level of political culture, at this stage, is high when the political formulae by which rulers claim right to govern are generally accepted. The basic criteria then, are:1. degree of public approval for th eprocedures for transferring power from one government to the next; 2. degree of public recognition as to who or what comprises the sovereign authority; and 3. degree of public involvement in politics and in organisations such as churches, businesses, trade unions and political parties.

Subject

This type of political culture exists in countries where the citizen is expected to have a passive or obedient relationship to the system, as in dictatorships and under systems of authoritarian rule.Minimal, or parochial. Here the average individual hardly relates himself to politics and is unaware of its existence, as in traditional societies and parts of Latin America, Africa and Asia, especially in geographically remote areas. In some states, as Finer suggests, two or all of the above may be found. The Soviet Union, for instance, has been described as a participatory-subject political culture.

A prime minister's roles

Dear all,

here are some suggested roles and position of a prime minister. I believe this is timely considering the fact that the prime minister has recently made a public statement - which was well covered by almost all mainstream media - that there was no issue of 'lost control'.

Head of Government

The Prime Minister is Head of Government.

Chief Executive

To the Prime Minister fall the constitutional charge to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Chief Administrator

He administers the system that uniquely governs a multi-ethnic society.

Chief Diplomat

He has prime responsibility for the conduct of Malaysia foreign policy

Chief Legislator / Head of Policymaker

The Prime Minister plays a decisive role of guiding legislation in its law-making and public policy activities.

Voice of the people

He is “the leading statesman and spokesperson for the Third World.

Protector of Peace

In the face of challenges, domestic as much as foreign, the Prime Minister is expected to promote national security and tranquility.

Manager of Prosperity

The Prime Minister is expected “to foster economic growth, to avoid economic fluctuations and to maintain employment, production, and purchasing power,” This is evident for instance during the economic crisis of late 1990s which eventually, the Prime Minister introduced and implemented the pegging of Ringgit.

Islamic / Third World Leader:

More than just chief diplomat of Malaysia, the Prime Minister is expected to perform his role as a leader for the wellbeing of Islamic and other Third World states and for international affairs globally in general. This is done via various institutions such as the OIC.

Issues & Questions

Dear all,

please have a look at the questions below. Think about the issues that surfaced. Have fun thinking.

How is leadership generally defined?
Distinguish between political leadership and general management.Explain the difference between traits theories and behavioural theories.What are some of the important qualities that a successful political leader should posses?
Outline some of the main principles of transformational leadership.
Discuss some of the main features of traditional Malay concept of leadership.Describe the main roles of Malaysia’s Prime Minister.
What is a constitution?
Explain what is meant by “constitutional” government.
What are the purposes and origins of (a) New Economic Policy; and (b) Vision 2020?

Management in the USA

Dear all,

Here are some pointers on American management. Consider the followings:

(1) The first business school in the world - Wharton, Univerity of Pennsylvania, 1881; and
(2) London Business School, 1965.

By 1950, business education in the USA was a mass phenomenon and a matured one.Consider the fact that management in the USA is influenced by the America's very own world view, which include, for example:(i) active (and proactive); (ii) oriented to current times; (iii)the belief that human being can and must shape his/her future; (iv)equality of opportunity; (v) efficiency driven.

As such, American tend to: (i) be aware; (ii) work-out-how; (iii) formulate, wherever possible; (iv) teach, or pass it on. Consequently, Americans invented, for instance; (i) mass production; (ii) marketing; (iii) corporate strategy.

The USA in particular, had monopoly over (i) creative management thought; and (ii) effective and efficient management practices; (iii) management theory & practices which are all universal.

Do you agree that, currently such views are considered by many? That, they are:

(i) ethnocentric, i.e the belief that one's cultural views and customs are superiorto all others; and (ii) parochial, i.e a narrow view of world and inability to recognise differences in people. Take this for example: in the area of language, the unwillingness of native English speakers to learn other languages.

Think about that. I'll get back to you later. Have fun reading.

IFTDO 2006, KLCC
Taking a break during the conference of IFTDO 2006, August 22nd-25th, KLCC. From left: Nasrudin, Yarina (standing), Nooraini, and Rozalli at the faculty's booth.

"If God Permits"

Note: Today is Nasiha's birthday. God bless you. God bless us.

The National Day is just round the corner. As usual, citizens are all busy displaying the Malaysian flag somewhere within their own home compounds, at all time making sure their Jalur Gemilang are always waved. Always as it is, every year the federation public holiday is a day that people always look forward. To some, the day is indeed a much awaited moment. It is looked as something which is significant in recalling the great moments of joy. Moments when the almarhum Tunku proclaimed enthusiastically with his strong and firm voice, “Merdeka!” for seven times on August 31, 1957 at the Merdeka Stadium in Kuala Lumpur.Recalling the historical episode, the Federation of Malaya Agreement (1957) – which was signed by the High Commissioner, Sir Donald MacGillivray, on behalf of the Queen, and the Rulers, in Kuala Lumpur on August 5 – marked the end of Malaya’s connection with Britain ever since Malacca and Penang were under the Crown for more than 150 years.The preamble to the Agreement said representations had been made to the Queen and to the Rulers that “fresh arrangements should be made for the peace, order and good government of the territories within the Federation.”Article three says:“As from August 31, 1957, the Malay states and the settlements (11 states) shall be formed into a new Federation of states by the name of Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, or, in English, the Federation of Malay.”Consequently, the treaty of 1948 that resulted in the formation of a Federation was revoked and the Queen ceased to exercise sovereignty over Penang and Malacca. At the same time all the power and jurisdiction over the Federation came to an end.The new Constitution - in the form of Perlembagaan Persekutuan or federal Constitution today – is based on Parliamentary democracy, with a bicameral legislature. It also lays down that Islam is the religion of the Federation, while Malay is the national language.Under the Constitution, the Yang Di Pertuan Agong is a constitutional ruler. His Majesty must act on the advice of his Ministers with two important exceptions, i.e.: he acts in his discretion in appointing the Prime Minister; and he may withhold consent to a request for the dissolution of Parliament.As agreed, the Parliament will consist of two Houses, the Senate (Dewan Negara) and the House of Representatives. Subjects for legislation are set out in a Federal List, a Concurrent List – on which the Federal and State Legislatures may legislate – and a State List. Federal law will prevail if inconcistencies arises. Residual legislative power, however, lies with the States. Currently, the areas or subject matters that fall within the authorities – Federal, State or Concurrent List – are provided by the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.The Declaration of Independence which was adopted on August 31, 1957 had announced the birth of a new nation within a Malay-Muslim polity system, which is part of the Nusantara, that is the Malay archipelago. More importantly, the Declaration also set forth a philosophy of nationalism. Prior to the “Social Contract’ agreement which was agreed and signed by all community leaders, the entire nation then hold the special characteristic of nationality with which they identify culturally, economically and politically.The fact that this nation relies heavily on this unique condition is very well noted in the early history of Malaya. Swettenham (A History of Selangor 1766-1939 (1998) Kuala Lumpur: MBRAS Monograph No, 28) and Gullick (Malay Society in the late Nineteenth Century – the Beginnings of Change (1987) Singapore: OUP), two of many influential figures in Malaysian history have rightly pointed out that the political landscape of the Malay-Muslim world has indeed been harmonised by the integration of multi-ethnic social and political values that has nevertheless promoted awareness and understanding of each other’s sensitivity.They state further that such an understanding has not only brought about peace and order in the Malay-Muslim world, but also sowed and nurtured seeds of tolerance among the entire community. As such, sensitivities of people of all races were observed, noted and recognised. An understanding of each others sensitivities then, served as an invaluable recipe in safeguarding and preserving the foundation of the nation polity.Certainly, this is one of the critical ingredients that led the country to independent. At times where uncertainties seemed to be the main issue in the political landscape of the nation, the policy of ‘togetherness’ remained to be practically adopted by all people in the state. In other words, it is the local way, ’the Malay-Muslim polity way’ – which is based on tolerance and understanding that has been observed functioning as a precious mechanism in maintaining the country’s stability and peace.Today, it is the same policy and spirit that governs the country’s polity system. As such, it would be a very sad thing if there is just any one individual who does not understand and appreciate the history of the Malay-Muslim world has the nerve to question its relevancy out of his or her ignorant, as Diane K. Mauzy (1988:213) concludes it exceedingly well,”While the formal processes of politics, namely elections and parliamentary rule, are based on the Western democratic model of majority rule, the informal processes have always been guided by the ”Malay way”. This has been so within the dominant party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) and its relations with its predominantly non-Malay coalition partners. It has served to soften the steely aspects of the real world of political fights, and has made ethnic accomodation, under the dominance of the Malays, possible.”The moment independent was achieved, the rising and future development of this newly independent state so-called Malaya and later on, Malaysia (in 1963), was observed closely not only by its own people, but also its neighbouring countries. We have had problems with our neighbours over some issues such as ideological differences. But we managed to overcome almost all of the difficulties, thanks to the wisdom of our forefathers.In view of this, one of the issues during the initial set up of the country’s government was the role and responsibility of prime minister. A full independent granted to Tanah Melayu was perceived not without mixed feelings from the people. Among Malay leaders themselves, there were some who were quite skeptical of the idea of having a full independent. Reasons were varied. Some believed that it was simply not the correct time for the Tanah Melayu to be left unguided to venture into the journey towards self-government for the people were not ready to be on their own, not without British guidance and protection. As such psychological inferior was all that matters in the course of transforming the Tanah Melayu into a nation.Questions pertaining to the ability of the main components of government – the prime ministership in particular – to carry out several fundamental tasks of ways of governing the country according to ‘Tanah Melayu way’ were nevertheless, disturbing. For instance, should the Prime Minister of Malaya assumes roles such as those carried out by the Prime Minister of Britain? Or perhaps is the office of the President of the U.S.A serves as the most suitable model that Malaya should consider emulate from? It is perhaps useful to compare, though briefly, between roles of a president with that of a prime minister. In the US, presidential responsibilities are numerous and diverse and said to be ‘very real and demanding’ that it has become almost virtually certain that no occupant of the office will ever perform all of them well. In principle, the roles of a President are revolved on his or her ability to act as ‘the great leader’ that only “Superman” can actually surpass him. The roles, as outlined by Everett Carl Ladd in his book, “The American Polity” (1989:215) are many, which include the President role as the ‘world leader’!The prime minister, who is appointed by the Paramount Ruler – the Yang Di Pertuan Agong – serves out his five-year term until the coming of the general election. Provided that the governing party secures victory with clear majority in that general election, the prime minister’s term will be extended for at least another five years and continues to be so until he decided to step down or if the party fails to secure a clear majority votes in the general election.The prime minister is invariably the leader of the largest party in the Dewan Rakyat, the elected lower house of Parliament. He heads the Cabinet of Malaysia, whose members are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the prime minister's advice. Since independence in 1957 the prime minister has been from the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the largest component party of the Barisan Nasional or National FrontSince independent, all the prime ministers roles continued to be very challenging and demanding. The prime minister, in general, plays the largest part in the national prime development agenda of maintaining or extending the nation’s economic well-being. He serves as the head of government and take charge of as many roles as possible concerning the nation’s security as a whole within his capacity as the Chief Executive of the government. Thus, the prime minister not only looks after the economic and social well-being in general, but also as the chief administrator of the Federal Government who administers the system that uniquely governs a multi-ethnic society. Apart from that, the prime minister is also expected to perform many other roles that can be regarded as an extraordinary array of leadership skills such as the external political skills, effective campaigner as well as a great communicator.Today, this nation has a population of more than 26.64 million. The outstanding characteristic of Malaysia’s population today is its highly variegated ethnic mix that makes it one of the prime examples of an ideal multi-racial society in the whole world. Consisting of the Malays, Chinese, Indians and other indigenous groups, with its multiethnic composition of the population, Malaysia’s culture and religious practices remain diverse. Even though different cultures and religions exist, except for the ugly dent in the form of a multiracial conflict in 1969, Malaysians have all put up with each other and developed a very tolerant society. Today, everybody appreciates and shares each other’s differences and similarities.

At this point, it is perhaps appropriate to reflect, yet again every time August is here, the moment when almarhun Tunku, after coming back from the London agreement in February 1956, decided not to use the formal words “if possible” when he proclaimed independence in Melaka. Instead he opted to say “If God permits”. The following day (February 21, 1956), The Straits Times newspaper frontpaged this: “M-Day 1957 August 31 ‘If God pemits” and “’If possible’ clause not mentioned’.

The Behavioural Theory

Dear all,

I have this for your reading pleasure. I know one group has already presented their view on this. The other group, however, will present theirs, next week. So please have a look at the short article below, think about it, and see what happens.As some researchers (e.g. Blake & Mouton, 1964,1978; Steers et al, 1996) perceive it, the apparent failure of trait approaches to the study of leadership has nevertheless led researchers to adopt a new focus for further investigation in the 1950s. Leadership was later on perceived to be something more than just personality given the fact that it is essentially a human process at work in organisation. It is therefore, deals with human behaviour. At this point, researchers turned to a rather different attention, that was to investigate how leaders behave towards their followers and other elements rather than to focus only on leaders personality traits.Accordingly, two significant works focusing on the study of leader behaviours are worth mentioned: one, studies done by the Ohio State University in the late 1940s; and two, the University of Michigan studies which were completed in 1950. The Ohio State researchers investigated and subsequently identified two sets of behaviour that influenced leadership, as illustrated in Figure 3. Generally, two sets of different behaviour, namely, initiating structure and consideration were identified. Initiating behaviours are basically task or producation oriented as opposed to the considerate behaviours which are more towards employee-centred. Accordingly, behaviours that fall under the initiating structure are identified as: (1) Establishing policies, rules and procedures; (2) Making sure that deadlines and schedules are met; (3) Communicating goals and work assignments; (4) Emphasising the need to keep on schedule; (5) Recommending ways to improve performance; (6) Emphasising need for high-quality work; (7) Delegating necessary authority to accomplish tasks; (8) Exerting pressure on subordinates to perform to capacity; (9) seeking more efficient ways of doing things.The other set of behaviours, which fall under the ‘considerate behaviours’, are: (1) Praising and rewarding employees for good; (2) Exhibiting friendliness and willingness to listen; (3) Staying informed about employees’ needs and concerns; (4) Encouraging social relations in the department; (5) Keeping employees informed about the department; (6) Helping members resolve job and interpersonal conflicts; (7) Making people comfortable in the leader’s presence; (8) Asking for group’s opinions and suggestions; (9) Giving prior attention to employees who are new or feel neglected; (10) Explaining the reasons for decisions; and (11) Allowing employees to do work in their own way at their own pace.

Trait Theories

The Trait approaches (Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959; Gardner, 1989; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Gardner, 1989) were considered the first theoretical framework in the scientific study of leadership. Considered as the traditional approach to leadership, trait theory in general suggests that the person who emerges as a leader in a group does so because he possesses certain traits. The traditional perspective of leadership type, Charismatic, is an example of leadership that is observed through trait approaches. Derived from a Greek word, charisma[[1]], meaning ‘divinely inspired gift’, was used by Weber (1947) to describe a basis of power or influence grounded in followers’ perceptions that a leader is endowed with exceptional personal qualities.

From the perspective of trait theory, a common set of personal attributes that distinguished leaders from followers or effective leaders from ineffective ones were identified. The personal attributes of leaders – in terms of physical, mental and social e.g. physical vitality, courage and resolution, self-confidence, assertiveness, honest, competent, forward-looking, inspiring and intellligent – became the focus of analysis.

During the 1930s and 1940s, hundred of trait studies were conducted world-wide. However, as pointed out by researchers, in general these studies were rather unsophisticated, both theoretically and methodologically (Steers et. al, 1996). The results of much of this research were brought together in a classic review by Stogdill (1948) which examined over one hundred empirical studies of leader attributes covering 27 recurring characteristics. Interestingly, one of the main findings shows that of the numerous attributes examined by researches, only intelligence and height seemed to distinguish leaders from followers.

In a more recent studies, Gardner (1989) prepared a list of traits that are thought to be central to leadership. Basing his study on a large number of North American organisations and leaders, he listed examples of leadership traits which he concluded as qualities or traits that did seem to mean that a leader in one situation could lead in another.

Gardner’s (1989) list of personality traits of a leader

Physical vitality and stamina
Intelligence and action-oriented judgement
Eagerness to accept reponsibilty
Task competence
Understanding of followers and their needs
Skill in dealing with people
Need for achievement
Capacity to motivate people
Courage and resolution
Trusworthiness
Decisiveness
Self-confidence
Assertiveness
Adaptability / flexibility

Note:

[[1]] Charisma is also referred to a movement of spiritual renewal, said to be rooted in Pentecostalism, which takes a variety of forms in Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox Churchess. It emphasises the present reality and work of Holy Spirit in the life of Church and the individual. It is sometimes accompanied by speaking in tongues. Crystal (1994:237).
[[2]] A study done by the University of Minnesota in 1940 looked at 20 experimental investigations into leadership and found that only 5 per cent of the traits appear in three or more of the lists. Another example of such research is shown by a study of which a questionnaire-survey of 75 top executives, carried out by the American business journal, Fortune, listed fifteen executive qualities, i.e. (1) judgement; (2) initiative; (3) integrity; (4) foresight; (5) energy; (6) drive; (7) human relations skill; (8) decisiveness; (9) dependability; (10) emotional stability; (11) fairness; (12) ambition; (13) dedication; (14) objectivity; and (15) cooperation. It was found that nearly a third of the 75 said that they thought all these qaulities were indispensable. The replies showed that these personal qualities have no generally-accepted meaning (Adair, 1984:8).

Leadership - revisited (Tutorial 3)

Dear all,

Ive indicated earlier - though briefly - the concept of leadership according to Islam perspective. As has already been emphasised in tutorial 3, question b, perspectives on leadership are varied. You are expected to indicate your understanding of the concept of leadership from two different perspectives, i.e (i) according to Islam; and (ii) Western view. An article on the concept of leadership according to Islamic view has been posted earlier - August 9th, to be exact - and I believe it helps you understand the topic better. Western view of leadership are explained by many theories. The general conceptualisation of leadership as perceived by Western researchers and practitioners is that leadership is understood as a social influence process through which one individual exerts influence, intentionally, over others to structure the behaviours and relationships within a group or organisation (Yukl, 1981). It is described as a dynamic process in a group whereby one individual influences the others to help achieve group tasks.

Further, researchers believe that if matters involving leadership are closely observed, there are always three elements or variables emerge on the surface, i.e. (1) the leader qualities of character or personality; (2) the situation; and (3) the group or followers’ needs and values (Adair, 1984:26; Cole, 1990:215). One among many definitions of seeing is to regard it as a position within an institution, or an organizational function (Seligman, 1950). When leadership is positionally defined, it is primarily associated with rights, duties and obligations associated with a level or a position in a hierarchial structure, or an informal, stratified collectivity (Edinger, 1975). Likewise, leadership may also refer to formal roles or positions, or types of activities or actions, or to the result of such actions (Olsen, 1980).Thus, to sum it all up, in general, leadership is defined and conceptualised in terms of;1. personal traits; or personality2. individual behaviours;3. interpersonal influence; and4. situational factors. Have fun reading.
Questions for Discussion:
1) In what ways might the following influence a leader's style of leadership: (i) Task?; and (ii) Subordinates?
2) Basing your discussion on the Islamic perspective of leadership, explain why is it often unhelpful to talk about leadership in terms of personal traits or personalities?

Leadership - Islamic perspective (Still, Tutorial session 3)

Dear all,

Tutorial 3 will focus on leadership issues in terms of Islamic perspective; sources of power; and the traditional malay concept of leadership. I will start with a simple section on Islamic perspective of leadership. This will take no more than 1 hour, excluding Q&A. Please seek as many views as possible regarding this topic. Then, I will proceed with 'sources of power'. I believe you have studied this before. Finding the correct books or articles should not be a problem to you because this topic is not new. After that, I will briefly discuss the traditional Malay concept of leadership. Please look for "Malay Political Leadership" by Shome (2002) in the library. Otherwise, Mahathir Mohamad's "Malay Dillema" is commendable. Have fun.Islam’s Perspective of LeadershipWith much emphasis given to the roots and fundamental of its principles in a well-ordered system where polity is laid firmly on the foundations of sovereignty of God (instead of the State) and the vicegerency (or Khilafah) of man, Islam indeed placed leadership as one of the critical components of its main tenets. It is one of the factors that helps leading the ummah (society) to the straight path, as clearly mentioned in the Al-Qur’an (1:5).Scholars even go further, stressing on the importance of ummah as a whole by giving meaning to leadership, as one says,“What we need to understand is that the political leadership of the Ummah as well as its political institutions and processes need to reflect the true nature and thought of the Ummah. Otherwise, no leadership or public political institution can ever hope to prosper, develop, or survive.”

Leadership is considered central to the Islamic personality and has been greatly exemplified by the Prophet s.a.w (Ismail, 1999:7). It is mentioned in many ways in the al-Qur’an and hadith (the sayings of Rasulallah saw). In view of this, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “All of you are trustees, and each is responsible for those entrusted to his care.” (Bukhari) and “Any superior who misrules his followers shall go to hell.” (Tabrani).

Islam, as a din regards man as the vicegerent (khalifah) of God on earth. Every man is entrusted onto him trust (amanah) and responsibility to rule and dominate the earth according to God’s will and purpose, as laid out by the al-Qur’an (Al-Baqarah (2): 30). In doing so – i.e dominating the earth – human must, at all time, hold on to the condition that they remain obidient to God, that is, being God’s servant, or ‘abd Allah.

It is, therefore, pertinent to note – though repetitively and over and over again – that Islam views leadership as a trust that comes with responsibilities. As opposed to the Western tradition, where the trust is normally observed and emphaised in the form of organisational objectives, Islam relates leadership with the trust which is from God. A leader, therefore, must at any time, adheres to the rules and regulations as stated clearly by the al-Qur’an and the Prophet’s hadith and sunnah.

Thus, it is clearly stated that the basic conception of leadership in Islam is man-centred. It goes therefore, that, in Islamic perspective, studies on leadership aspects should first concentrate on the mission of prophets which is to propagate, disseminate the teachings of Allah (swt) and establish the divine guidance in this world by building the basic foundation of the social and moral system. In fact this was the mission of all divinely inspired Prophets who appeared in succession ever since man’s habitation on earth up to the advent of Muhammad (saw) (Khurshid, 1982:149).The basic principle of Islam, then, in view of leadership, is that human beings must – individually and collectively – surrender all rights of overlordship, legislation and exercising of authority over others. This basic principle is going along consistently well with the philosophical foundations of Islam which include, though not meant to be exaustive, principles such as:

(1) The belief in oneness and unity of God and all that is in the universe are His alone (Tauhedd uluhiyyah). Man is just a trustee of resources found on earth and must undertake upon himself to allow its benefits to be shared and distributed equitably among mankind, as the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:“All of you are trustees, and each is responsible for those entrusted to his care.” (Bukhari)

(2) The belief that God alone determines the sustenance and nourishment of His creation and will direct those who believe Him towards success (Tauheed rububiyyah);

(3) Man’s role as God’s vicegerent on earth (Khilafah). The believing man must undertake responsibility of illustrating a model example for other men to follow. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:“Any superior who misrules his followers shall go to hell.” (Tabrani)

(4) The growth and purification of man as a necessary prerequisite before man undertakes the responsibilities laid out to him (Tazkiyyah an-nas); and

(5) Understanding the concept of success; that any success achieved in the life on earth will contribute as a succes in the hereafter as long as the worldly success had been achieved within the guidance of God (Al-falah).The fact that Islam views leadership as an everyone’s responsibility on earth is very much reflected in the way leaders and subordinates in any forms of organisations should behave in performing their jobs, ideally. In other words, Muslim leaders and subordinates display personal attributes that are quite different with those traits as identified and suggested by Western scholars and researchers through various theories that had been developed regarding leadership. In contrast to Western’s view of leadership, like for example the universal trait theories, Muslims are, at all time, regulated by specific guidelines as laid out in the holy Al-Qur’an and guided further by hadith (the sayings of the Prophet). The Al-Qur’an for example mentions personal traits that are considered vital to effective and meaningful leadership.

The attributes of leaders-administrators for example, are specifically mentioned, which include(1) Trustworthiness (Al-Nisa (4): 58);(2) Sincerity (Al-Zumar (39):14);(3) Accountability (Al-Zalzalah (99): 7-8); Al-Fatir (35): 18);(4) Dedication (Hadith – Al-Bayhaqi); The tradition of the Prophet has stated that Allah loves any person who has devoted towards one particular job until he is able to muster the works;(5) Gratefulness (Al-Baqarah (2): 172; 151);(6) Moderation (Al-Furqan (25): 67);(7) Cleanliness (Al-Maidah (5): 100);(8) Discipline (Al-Saff (16): 4);(9) Cooperation (Al-Maidah (5): 21);(10) Patience (Al-Qur’an (94): 6)

Another useful perspective is offered by Ismail (1999:36). He observes that the Prophet s.a.w. leadership is basically based on five tenets of excellence, i.e.: Personal integrity; Enhancement of relationships with people; Leadership efficacy; Ethical conduct; Moral uplift through spiritual knowledge.

These are all but inexaustive personal traits which are highly commendable according to Islamic’s view of leadership. The quality of a leader is observed in such a way that he is able to perform his responsibilities according to what God has laid out in the Al-Qur’an. By virtue of the trust that is bestowed upon him by God, not only a leader must guide his subordinates or followers, but to a certain extent he must be there at all time, protect and treat them fairly and with justice.

Notes:[[1]] AbdulHamid, A.A. (1993: 132).[[2]] “You who believe, obey Allah and obey the Prophet and those of authority among you” (Al-Qur’an, 4:59).[[3]] The term din is not the same as the concept ‘religion’ as interpreted and understood throughout Western religious history. Here, din is understood in such a way that, all the basic connotations inherent in the term are conceived as gathered into a single unity of coherent meaning as reflected in the Holy Qur’an and in the Arabic language to which it belongs. The primary significations of the term din can be reduced to four: (a) indebtedness; (b) submissiveness; (c) judicious power; (d) natural inclination or tendency. Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas (1992: 2). Islam. The concept of religion and the foundation of ethics and morality. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka.[[4]] Seyyed Hossein, N. (2002: 13). The heart of Islam. Enduring values for humanity. New York: HarperCollins.[[5]] The role of human and its contribution to a meaningful development in Islam is discussed in many publications. The principles as outlined in this section – which are not meant to be exaustive – are contained in a book, authored by Aidit Ghazali, entitled Development: An Islamic perspective (1990: 23). Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk Publications.[[6]] Some of the attributes are mentioned in a book, “Islamic values and management”, Syed Othman & Aidit (Eds.) (1994: 27).

Leadership Theories - Week 3

What is leadership?

Well, much have been said and discussed about the concept of leader and leadership. For example, there are terms and concepts advocated by many researchers, such as charismatic leadership (Wright, 1996); organizational leadership (Katz & Kahn, 1978); ethical leadership (Fluker, 1998:11); heroic model of leadership (Badaracco, 1994); altruistic leadership (Ismail, 1999); servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970); educative leadership (Ibrahim, 1996); value-based leadership (Kuczmarski & Kuczmarski, 1995); transactional leadership (Burns, 1977); transformational leadership (Burns, 1977); political leadership (Bolman & Deal, (1991); and many more.

Likewise, many generalisations are drawn from various sources. Whether the generalisations are taken from books on psychology, business administration and so on, which are sometimes platitudinous, the definitions, conceptualizations and generalisations had nevertheless provided points of departure for anyone to think analytically about leadership. Apparently, there is not one definition that can be accepted as a precise definition in describing leadership. Considering the fact that the term leadership has been used not only to characterize individual skills – but also used interchangeably with some other terms such as situations, power, authority in relations to institutions, groups, and also managerial skills – leadership, then, is often confused and misunderstood by many. A manager, for example, is often misunderstood when he is referred to as a leader simply because a manager, by virtue of its position and post, has its own subordinates and posesses some degree of power and authority granted by the institution. It is at this point that some researchers distinguish between a manager and a leader in terms of their roles and responsibilities. In one perspective, leaders are looked as inspiring visionaries, always concerned about substance, while managers are considered as planners who have concerns with processes (Zaleznik, 1977). Bennis (1989) on the other hand, suggested some distinctions between a manager and a leader, of which he felt that,

1.Managers administer, leaders innovate.

2.Managers ask how and when, leaders ask what and why.

3.Managers focus on systems, leaders focus on people.

4.Managers do things right, leaders do the right things.

5.Managers maintain, leaders develop.

6.Managers rely on control, leaders inspire trust.

7.Managers have a short-term perspective, leaders have a longer-term perspective.

8.Managers accept the status-quo, leaders challenge the status-quo.

9.Managers have an eye on the bottom line, leaders have an eye on the horizon.

10.Managers imitate, leaders originate.

11.Managers emulate the classic good soldier, leaders are their own person.

12.Managers copy, leaders show originality.

Now, what next?

Public Delivery system

The Prime Minister has already mentioned about this a few times the moment he got into office. The fact that the public delivery system is receiving much attention by the government is clearly shown by the Prime Minister himself especially when the issue was again, highlighted during the tabling of the Budget 2006 October last year.

My personal opinion on this issue is available at: (1) the KPKT website; and (3) JPHPK's website.

Separation of Powers

Generally, a Prime Minister is the Chief Administrator or Chief Executive for the executive branch in a parliamentary democratic government. In Malaysia, however, besides being the Chief Administrator, the Prime Minister is also functioning as the Head of Policymaker for the legislative branch. This is so due to the fact that Malaysia is using the British Parliamentary system as its model of government. The British Parliamentary system requires that the executive, i.e the Prime Minister and Cabinet, must be members of the legislature. This is quite unique in Malaysian political setting as far as the Montesquieu’s theory of Separation of Powers is concerned where the political doctrine advocates a complete separation of the three branches of government i.e legislature, executive, and judiciary. Separation of powers is a political doctrin associated with the 18th century philosopher Montesquieu who argued that, to avoid tyranny, the three branches of government should be separated as far as possible, and their relationships governed by checks and balances. The US Constitution in particular is often regarded as a practical example of an attempt at separation of powers whereas parliamentary systems such as that of the UK do not have a complete separation (Crystal, 1994:997). And how about education, e.g. the universities? Should the Government leave universities alone, as suggested by some people, such as this one?

Leading

Leadership – in whatever forms it is defined – involves some degree of skills, trust, power, authority, responsibility and making decisions. Political leadership by no means, involves all of that. However, as it is dynamic in nature, leadership is getting more and more new perspectives. The way leadership is conceptualised is gradually revisited and revised. Over time, people start questioning whether a leader really needs, say for example, certain skills that would enable him to be a better political leader. Are there particular personal traits that help a leader emerge? Are height and intelligence in particular – as far as the classical view of leadership is concerned – adequate enough for a person to be qualified as a leader?

Note: We'll discuss about motivation, next week (August 8, 2006).

Political Leadership of Malaysia's Prime Ministers

I have just completed this manuscript about a few weeks ago. It contains approx. 170 pages. At the moment, it is still under 'cooling off period', perhaps I can add a few more sections within one week or so from now. Then, maybe I'll send it to the varsity's publishing unit next two weeks so that my ADS509 class can have a look at it before too long. This book is written with two intentions in mind: (i) To provide additional reading materials for the students in the Faculty of Administrative Science & Policy Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM); and (ii) As a personal appreciation of the contributions rendered to the people by all Malaysian premiers since 1957. There are not many books available on the history of Prime Ministers in Malaysia. Since 1957, the people of this nation have witnessed only 5 Prime Ministers. Being a new nation, not much can be said about the leadership history of all Prime Ministers. Unlike in the United Kingdom for example, where the first Prime Minister was elected in 1887, or in Indonesia, when its first President came into office in 1945, Malaysia has only a few political episodes on the history of its prime ministers which are narrated in a relatively few publications.The young generation of this nation need more books with local contents for their reading pleasure. Thus, this book is written with this awareness in mind: that not much has been written about the leadership aspects of all the nation’s premiers. One of the books however, is commendable. Authored by Anthony S.K. Shorm (2002), the book, entitled “Malay Political Leadership” perhaps can be considered as most comprehensive accounts of the leadership aspects of Malaysian prime ministers. Likewise, there is a substantive amount of works devoted to the analysis of Tun Dr. Mahathir’s thoughts. For example, a series of Encyclopedia of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad are available on the market. There are also publications produced by various publishers, including those produced under the Collection of Mahathir’s Mind, a joint-programme between Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) and Utusan Publications & Distributors. Apart from that, the Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) has also established a special centre in the Tun Abdul Razak’s library – the Dr. Mahathir’s Collection – which is opened for everyone for academic devotion. One significant effort, I must say, would be the Faculty of Administrative Science’s (FSPPP) involvement in designing the Malaysian Premiership Studies syllibus as one of the elective courses offered to the UiTM’s students. Although the course is focusing more on the contributions of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, it also provides considerable discussions of the former Malaysian Prime Ministers since the Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra’s era. It is my sincere hope that this book benefits its readers in terms of their awareness of the undying efforts of all the Prime Ministers. The Prime Ministers have all given their very best leading and helping the people develop our nation. This book, perhaps, is my little contribution in acknowledging their good deeds to the whole nation. And I pray that Allah (SWT) returns their good deeds accordingly, InsyaAllah.In this book I have made a small attempt at discussing some aspects of political leadership of Malaysia’s prime ministers. In the beginning sections I took a brief look at the concept of Malaysian polity. I went on to consider some of the issues and theories on leadership in general and it's applications in political leadership studies. Some perspectives on the leadership of prime ministers were then discussed. I then moved on to touch, though briefly, on the leadership of each of the prime ministers.I must admit that the issues which I have elaborated in this book are not meant to be exaustive. As this book is written with ‘leadership’ in mind, I thought by giving some differing perspectives would help, in one way or another, my students in particular, to gain some understandings of what leadership is all about. I have included – some are discussed at lengthy – topics on Malay-Muslim and Malaysian polity so that students know exactly the reasons why the current Malaysian polity is indeed very unique. In doing that, I think it is perhaps adequate to limit the coverage of this book on a few selected topics so as to help achieve the main objective of this book, i.e as an additional reading materials that is meant for student in the faculty.