Day by day, I try to make sense of the world that I am living in - Malaysia. It can be quite a depressing affair to read the news. At times, I wonder why it has also become a funny world in which we live. News items reveal to us how desperately some people want badly to succeed whilst others derive much delight to see how others fail. The problem of one-upmanship is evident in the political landscape.
Wikipedia defines one-upmanship as the art or practice of successively outdoing a competitor. The term originated as the title of a book by Stephen Potter published in 1952. The term refers to a satiric course in the gambits required for the systematic and conscious practice of "creative intimidation", making one's associates feel inferior and thereby gaining the status of being "one-up" on them.
There are many definitions of one-upmanship. Some see it as the situation we all encountered in elementary school: "my pencil's bigger than yours". In the field of politics, the competition grows and the stakes become greater - and we saw this in the HS and Sibu by-elections when the BN offers of $ for the constituents grew in millions in the famous I help you-you help me speech.
Now the problem occurs when people cannot compare themselves based on issues and begin to rely on their own traits and abilities. In doing so, some people are bound to lag behind. Once they realize that they are losing out to the others, they fight back by clawing and pulling others down to a lower level, perhaps hopefully to theirs, so that they can feel better about themselves. We see this happening very often in the statements that politicians make about one another.
I surmise that for some politicians, because it is difficult to change or control their parties, perhaps it is sometimes easier to control others. I have always said that it is easier to see the log in our brother's eye than the log in our own. A good example is Perkasa that is perpetually being confrontational in their statements. Instead of taking the time to look at their own attributes and deficiencies as to how they are being unsupportive of the PM, they concentrate and accentuate what they perceive to be others inadequacies e.g. the NEM is not good or Chinese are unappreciative etc...
By doing so, it is easier to put others down than to face up to their own inadequacies. But then again, it almost seems that it is their main occupation - they do not really focus on self-development activities but will readily do what they can to bulldoze others to do their will, think they way they do to get what they want for others to conform to their expectations or worse still to cast aspersions on others.
Any one-upmanship overture/statement reveal one's insecurities, lack of self-esteem, lack of inner-strength, and lack of direction which propels them to bash out or try to bash their enemies or to undermine the success of those who are deemed to be a threat to their position. Thus, we can see that one-upmanship is the practice of outdoing, out-manoeuvring, out-flanking and outwitting a competitor.
In our political scene, it is clear that some players have not only taken one-upmanship to unacceptable lengths of politicking, but have elevated it to a political ideology and a tool of policy making and governance.
If indeed our society has morphed into one of one-upmanship, it falls on us to create an environment which is conducive to harmonious and peaceful coexistence. This is indeed a Herculean task. Current trends in scandals, defections etc seem to imply that amongst a sea of people to be given some credibility for one’s merits, one-upmanship is a powerful catalyst in one’s life. I believe it applies in the daily mundane chores, to achieve one’s personal achievement or in a larger perspective that of the country, the world or humanity.
With that comes a sense of competition which may lead to a spirit of ruthlessness where mutual sympathy or any compassion for the other and the atmosphere is rare. Competition taken to extremes is the spirit of one-upmanship and it certainly an unhealthy trend because it inculcates the negative feelings of always wanting to outdo the other sometimes even in unethical aways.
Essentially, one-upmanship is a negative trait that does not contribute to a harmonious social order. It is a powerful, deeply entrenched and old-fashioned principle that one's advancement is accomplished by crushing others. You can read this article Losing the plot over futile one-upmanship for a local example.
I opine that one-upmanship must not be practised! It is destructive in nature and breeds a negative ambiance in the political scene. Instead of focusing so much on the weaknesses of rivals, concentrate on self-improvement. For example, at the recent PKR Congress, Malaysiakini reported HERE that PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim declined today to divulge any more details on his allegations that millions of ringgit were offered to some of the party's defected lawmakers, saying he is “enjoying” the media buzz on the matter. The article quoted him as saying “I want to see. I want to see the behaviour of the parliamentarians who hopped out. I enjoy it this way.” Frankly, such a move does little to assure PR supporters of confidence in PKR because it reminds them too much of BN practises, at least to me.
Instead of such statements, I surmise that PKR would have done better to tell us that they have concrete plans to sweep stakes in the next elections. For instance, they could declare their successes in registering voters, or ground won in East Malaysia or even how they have succeeded in forging stronger ties with existing members to prevent defections or how the current brood or representatives intend to better serve their constituencies.
At the end of the day, I believe an intelligent electorate would vote for ONE PARTY and its candidate based on the legitimacy of their promises, claims, potential and willingness to serve the rakyat and NOT because the other party is weak. We made that mistake in the last GE, so did PKR in the way some of the candidates who stood for office did NOT pass the litmus test and jumped ship to the other side. Definitely, a more intelligent and informed electorate want more than dirt about the other side - we want to see what good they can offer us so that we can make intelligent, rational and logical choices for the betterment of the constituency and for the nation. Down with one-upmanship! Let there be men and women of honor, integrity and of high repute, potential and commitment who serve this country!
Wikipedia defines one-upmanship as the art or practice of successively outdoing a competitor. The term originated as the title of a book by Stephen Potter published in 1952. The term refers to a satiric course in the gambits required for the systematic and conscious practice of "creative intimidation", making one's associates feel inferior and thereby gaining the status of being "one-up" on them.
There are many definitions of one-upmanship. Some see it as the situation we all encountered in elementary school: "my pencil's bigger than yours". In the field of politics, the competition grows and the stakes become greater - and we saw this in the HS and Sibu by-elections when the BN offers of $ for the constituents grew in millions in the famous I help you-you help me speech.
Now the problem occurs when people cannot compare themselves based on issues and begin to rely on their own traits and abilities. In doing so, some people are bound to lag behind. Once they realize that they are losing out to the others, they fight back by clawing and pulling others down to a lower level, perhaps hopefully to theirs, so that they can feel better about themselves. We see this happening very often in the statements that politicians make about one another.
I surmise that for some politicians, because it is difficult to change or control their parties, perhaps it is sometimes easier to control others. I have always said that it is easier to see the log in our brother's eye than the log in our own. A good example is Perkasa that is perpetually being confrontational in their statements. Instead of taking the time to look at their own attributes and deficiencies as to how they are being unsupportive of the PM, they concentrate and accentuate what they perceive to be others inadequacies e.g. the NEM is not good or Chinese are unappreciative etc...
By doing so, it is easier to put others down than to face up to their own inadequacies. But then again, it almost seems that it is their main occupation - they do not really focus on self-development activities but will readily do what they can to bulldoze others to do their will, think they way they do to get what they want for others to conform to their expectations or worse still to cast aspersions on others.
Any one-upmanship overture/statement reveal one's insecurities, lack of self-esteem, lack of inner-strength, and lack of direction which propels them to bash out or try to bash their enemies or to undermine the success of those who are deemed to be a threat to their position. Thus, we can see that one-upmanship is the practice of outdoing, out-manoeuvring, out-flanking and outwitting a competitor.
In our political scene, it is clear that some players have not only taken one-upmanship to unacceptable lengths of politicking, but have elevated it to a political ideology and a tool of policy making and governance.
If indeed our society has morphed into one of one-upmanship, it falls on us to create an environment which is conducive to harmonious and peaceful coexistence. This is indeed a Herculean task. Current trends in scandals, defections etc seem to imply that amongst a sea of people to be given some credibility for one’s merits, one-upmanship is a powerful catalyst in one’s life. I believe it applies in the daily mundane chores, to achieve one’s personal achievement or in a larger perspective that of the country, the world or humanity.
With that comes a sense of competition which may lead to a spirit of ruthlessness where mutual sympathy or any compassion for the other and the atmosphere is rare. Competition taken to extremes is the spirit of one-upmanship and it certainly an unhealthy trend because it inculcates the negative feelings of always wanting to outdo the other sometimes even in unethical aways.
Essentially, one-upmanship is a negative trait that does not contribute to a harmonious social order. It is a powerful, deeply entrenched and old-fashioned principle that one's advancement is accomplished by crushing others. You can read this article Losing the plot over futile one-upmanship for a local example.
I opine that one-upmanship must not be practised! It is destructive in nature and breeds a negative ambiance in the political scene. Instead of focusing so much on the weaknesses of rivals, concentrate on self-improvement. For example, at the recent PKR Congress, Malaysiakini reported HERE that PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim declined today to divulge any more details on his allegations that millions of ringgit were offered to some of the party's defected lawmakers, saying he is “enjoying” the media buzz on the matter. The article quoted him as saying “I want to see. I want to see the behaviour of the parliamentarians who hopped out. I enjoy it this way.” Frankly, such a move does little to assure PR supporters of confidence in PKR because it reminds them too much of BN practises, at least to me.
Instead of such statements, I surmise that PKR would have done better to tell us that they have concrete plans to sweep stakes in the next elections. For instance, they could declare their successes in registering voters, or ground won in East Malaysia or even how they have succeeded in forging stronger ties with existing members to prevent defections or how the current brood or representatives intend to better serve their constituencies.
At the end of the day, I believe an intelligent electorate would vote for ONE PARTY and its candidate based on the legitimacy of their promises, claims, potential and willingness to serve the rakyat and NOT because the other party is weak. We made that mistake in the last GE, so did PKR in the way some of the candidates who stood for office did NOT pass the litmus test and jumped ship to the other side. Definitely, a more intelligent and informed electorate want more than dirt about the other side - we want to see what good they can offer us so that we can make intelligent, rational and logical choices for the betterment of the constituency and for the nation. Down with one-upmanship! Let there be men and women of honor, integrity and of high repute, potential and commitment who serve this country!
Anonymous We are going absolutely crazy!