Each Monday, Wednesday and Friday night, I would carefully tie up the kitchen rubbish and place it in the garbage chamber at the front gate. I would stare at it and mentally ask the question, ‘Will they take it?’

If one were to examine the situation from the angle of responsibility, I pay annual taxes to the town council. I spent money to construct a garbage chamber. I purchased the ‘tong sampah’ of the currently required specifications (which changes from time to time), tough enough to withstand being thrown about. I secured the garbage bag full of domestic garbage to ensure there would not be droppings along the way while being taken to the garbage truck.

I purchased the most effective (and expensive, too) insecticide to spray on the outside of the garbage bag so it would not attract ants which might harm the hands of the garbage man when he handles it. Yet there were occasions when bits of garden refuse were removed from the same bag and left behind in the garbage chamber. Or the garbage would not be collected as there were old newspapers placed on top of it.

Now, non-collection of garbage is of great consequence to society as it may pollute the neighbourhood’s atmosphere, or worse, may result in cholera epidemic. Air pollution will go away when the rotten smelly stuff are got rid off. Cholera epidemics will, however, have far- reaching and long-lasting effects.

Will changing to a new set of ‘Honourable Garbage Men’ improve the service? The answer lies in the service structure of the task. Early October this year, US President Barack Obama launched a Service Framework because ‘People say they are interested in public service, but they have no idea what to do’. I am not surprised at Obama’s outburst.

In the example above, the public pay taxes and put in extra effort plus more expenses with the focus on improving their garbage collection service. Yet, these honourable garbage men came up with answers such as ‘Bukan saya punya kerja’ meaning, ‘it’s not my job’.

Do they know what duties and responsibilities are tied to the positions they hold? Did they read the ‘job description’ when they signed the undertaking to provide the work expected of them? I am certain that they were told to heed their relationship with the public and not to create adverse impact on the reputation of the service provider.

Relationships are determined by the tasks resulting from the person’s role, particularly those tasks that are carried out in relationship with others.

With no disrespect to anyone or any party, the MCA internal tussle for power is between groups of ‘honourable persons’ whom Dr Gerhad Falk termed them as ‘knowing how to collect for themselves the rewards earned by others’ such as their earnings through public tax. Falk went on further to elaborate that it was true that ‘they (the politicians) provide service in their capacities and offices as they served themselves’ and because of the prominence projected by the media, they tend to think and behave as if the world gyrates round them.

In the history of mankind, honourable men and women have been charged for political contempt of sorts ranging from prolonging the war elsewhere in the world to electronic eaves- dropping, to drawing government salaries but they never contributed an original idea. Minor cases are those never-ending power struggles all in the name of democracy.

Inside the framework of the democracy trilogy, political mutineers want the public to think that by driving out the current presidents, the successors will right the wrongs of the past. Sadly, history tells us that the citizenry of the Philippines and Indonesia disagreed with this trend of reasoning.

Two variables (factors) stood out: (a) selection of the successor, and (b) the timing of succession. I would like to add another - outcome of the takeover (as in mergers and acquisition analysis).

In the MCA current turmoil, the selection of a successor is dominated by Hobson’s choice with one apparent candidate. Thus leaving the members and the public to query the timing and the possible outcomes of the succession.

I remember writing in an Unesco paper some years ago that women must be given the opportunity to fail as well as the opportunity to succeed. Both failure and success are time- sensitive events. And just like the drafting and the implementation of Obama’s Service Framework, it will be a great wrong in not giving the incumbent MCA president’s ‘Greater Unity Plan’ the opportunity to succeed.

The phrase ‘principal office-bearers of a society’ appears all over the Society Act 1966. I would like remind these principal office-bearers of the MCA to stand up and be evaluated on grounds of righteousness, integrity and that they will not fail the trust the members and the public placed on their shoulders.

As leaders of the future, the public expects them to be task-oriented, relations-oriented and most important to the current times, change-oriented.

Falk once said, ‘Our politicians have no knowledge of American people. They know nothing about us except they want our vote.’ I would like to remind these principal office-bearers to think again before using slogans like ‘the public are wise and intelligent’.

What about yourselves? The question remains the same, ‘ Will they take it?’