Recently, there was an article in the Financial Times about succession management. I cannot remember which day it was. But I do remember deliberating about whether or not PAS gives enough importance to succession planning and succession management.

Succession planning and succession management are not new in the business circle. The importance of managing succession is well-known and well-documented. I am assuming that the concept receives the most attention from those working in human resources management. But more recently, in the wake of many corporate scandals, those in governance are taking succession more seriously too.

So what is succession management? In a nutshell, and without wanting to get too technical, it is about ensuring a sufficient supply of successors for senior or key roles. For corporations, succession management is vital if the company wants to survive in the long run.

If this is a concept that is so vital for the long-term survival of a business, does it have any applications for a political party like PAS? The short answer is yes. But, there is a problem.

In an organisation such as PAS, many detest those who openly state their desire to be at the top. I do not understand why this is the case but most people easily come out with some 'religious' arguments why we should not give a job to those who declare their wish for the job.

I can understand not giving the job to those who want the job but are known to be incapable of performing well. But should we deny those who are capable simply because they declared their willingness to take the challenge head on? I may be wrong on this matter and I will immediately change my mind if someone can argue to the contrary, but I see hypocrisy.

Let me elaborate. We work hard to get a well-paid job. A job that can guarantee satisfaction. A job that can secure shelter and education for our family. To get the job, we write a colourful CV, boast of our achievements at university, hide our weaknesses, brag about our strengths.

At the interview, we do the same. When asked what our strengths are, we have no difficulty in listing them. When asked what our weaknesses are, we present it in such a way that would make the weaknesses seem irrelevant to the job. When talking about our abilities, we convince the interviewers that we are the best candidate for the job.

There is no worry whatsoever to blow our own trumpet as long as the job that we are applying for pays good money. The more the money, the more confident we are of our abilities, and the more eloquent we are at bragging.

But when money is out of the equation, such as when you work for an organistion like PAS, we suddenly become coy, modest and extremely 'religious'. 'Saya tak layak' is the most frequent excuse. When asked to volunteer, 'Mana boleh minta jawatan' would be the most popular reply.

So, when the job offers money, we are the most qualified. But when there is no money, we are suddenly the most unqualified.

Why is it that we only give excuses and use religious quotes when dealing with unpaid jobs? Do we suddenly forget religion when there is a chance that we will get money from the job that we do? How great the power of money.

If this attitude continues, succession planning and succession management will never work in organisations like PAS. While those in businesses plan to further their career, we in PAS seem to plan, albeit perhaps inadvertently, for the demise of the party. By refusing to face the succession challenge head on, what we are really saying is ,'I don't care about the organisation'.

Why is it so difficult for us to say, 'I want to be at the top one day' and then work hard to prepare ourselves for the bigger responsibility? If we can do it for money, why can we not do it for a more righteous reason? Perhaps money does corrupt. And this time, it corrupts in the subtlest of ways.

Not so long ago, I heard that quite a few of those who vigorously opposed 'meminta-minta jawatan' were asking about how to write a good but deceptive CV so that he could 'minta jawatan' for a paid job.

Money does change our attitude. Even religion gets pushed to one side when money comes into play.

Nazir Razak, who became CEO of Commerce International Merchant Bankers Bhd (CIMB) in 1999, once said that he dislikes the idea of succession planning if it means that people's progress in the hierarchy is rigidly pre-planned.

If person A will only replace person B once person B is gone, then person B's presence is preventing person A's progress. And, person A's development is also rigidly dependent on what happens to person B. This, as Nazir implied, is unhealthy. What really needs to happen is for the organisation to create a pool of talented individuals who are always willing and ready to take on new challenges as they arise.

The realisation that this pool of talented individuals is needed has existed for quite some time in PAS. And these individuals exist aplenty if we were to look at the right places. Young professionals are entering into the PAS circle and these people want to be challenged by their surroundings. The challenges must be coupled with trust and support from the organization.

If you have these three factors (challenge, trust and support), then the young professionals will thrive. I have met several individuals who told me that they see no real challenge in PAS-related works. I disagree with them on this point. I believe that the challenges are there right in front of us. But trust and support from the organisation are still lacking.

Let me give one simple example. Let us take a look at the concept of 'kepimpinan ulama'. For many (not all), this concept means that only ulama can take the helm of our organisation. Automatically, this rules out those who did not go through the Islamic education system. And unfortunately many of the younger generations were not formally educated in Islam. Therefore, they are discriminated against when it comes to the top leadership line-up.

(Before going any further, I want to clarify one point. I do not disagree with the concept of 'kepimpinan ulama'. I believe that the concept can work well and it can also ensure that our organisation is working within the Islamic boundaries.

But, as someone who believes that the concept can survive critical scrutiny, I want to see it dissected, debated and updated if necessary. If we are able to debate and discuss the concept in a frank and open manner, then we can be confident that it will survive the test of time. I for one believe that it will.)

The current leaders seem to acknowledge that unless something is done, the younger generations will continue to be discriminated against by the concept that they (the current leaders) once introduced. There are already efforts to prepare the next leadership line-up who will have the qualities of ulama. But these efforts are, at best, haphazard.

The schools that we run are by far inferior to other private schools in the country. The 'madrasah' do not produce people who can manage organisations the size of ours. PAS once established Ilham but there is not a lot that can be said about it now. PAS has 'usrah' and 'tamrin' but even these do not have a properly defined methodology.

There are a certain undefined and unwritten expectations about what the characteristics of our next generation of leaders are, but the efforts to instill these characteristics are haphazard. The support system does not work effectively.

And it is not infrequent that anyone who starts thinking or talking about the need to improve will be asked to produce physical results. This is even more unfortunate because it means that we have failed to distinguish between thinkers and doers. Just because one is a good thinker does mean he is also a good doer. And a good doer is not necessarily a good thinker either.

To confuse between the two usually lead to statements like 'Dia tu pandai cakap saja, bila suruh buat kerja sikit pun tak jalan' or 'Apasal dia tu buat kerja bagus tapi merancang lemah sangat?' Do not confuse between the two. Remember that a well-articulated proposal is a tangible result in itself.

Needless to say, to stay relevant in this new era, there is a need for a change of attitude at all levels.

Those at the senior party management level should realise that it is time to allow everything, including yourselves, to be challenged. If there are possibilities that the younger generation will one day challenge your position, then what you should do is support them so that one day they will be able to challenge and replace you. If the younger generation says that they disagree with you, then you should encourage that disagreement to be debated openly so that the best idea will come out.

Most importantly, as you climb the hierarchy, you should 'un-learn' the word 'wala' (commitment). Instead, learn the word 'trust'. Learn to trust those who look up to you. Let us at the lower levels talk to each other about 'wala' while you can rest assured that a capable leader will command our greatest respect, without the need for you to even mention the word 'wala'.

Teach us what 'wala' means but also know that imposing it forcefully is the quickest way to lose it. If you trust us, you will get our respect without even having to ask.

For those at the middle and lower-level of the party, they need to want to become the next generation of leaders. If the opportunity is not there, then create the opportunity. If creating opportunities are not easy, then ask to be given new responsibilities and new challenges. The mentality that we do not want to ask for responsibilities no longer has a place if we were to move forward.

'Tiada beban batu digalas' should not be understood as 'if you do not have any responsibilities, then do not ask for one.' Rather, it should also be read in the affirmative that if you do not have any responsibility in the party, then you should ask for it.

(In fact, the actual construct of the phrase is already in the affirmative but somehow we Malays managed to transform it into a negative).

You should go out there and get the 'batu untuk digalas'. After all, the 'batu' is always there. Turning a blind eye does not make it disappear. You would simply force others to 'galas' it for you. And, if you do not voluntarily offer yourself to take the challenge, then the status quo the 'older' generation will be forced to remain at their place.

If they continue with the 'older' way of management which is not necessarily wrong, just 'old' - you have no one to blame but yourselves for the situation in your party.