A true leader - a leader respected for his words and integrity - when making an important speech would usually generate lots of discussions, analyses and comments from among the people. There will be contemplation of the points made. Even if things said are outlandish and new, the people would generally welcome them as new challenges.

When a leader has lost his credibility and self-respect, usually whatever said, no matter how profound and significant, would have become irrelevant and a bane to most people.

How do we assess whether a leader is talking sense or nonsense? How do we know whether a leader is exercising his leadership or indulging in parochial hogwash? How do we know whether a leader is anticipating the future or reiterating the past? How do we know whether a leader is telling the truth or merely engaging in endless polemics and rhetoric?

We can quick easily assess all these by the manner his major policy speech is received and accepted.

The worst form of insult is when a leader’s speech is largely ignored by the populace or by his political opponents. It is like a theatre without audience, if you know what I mean. The speech is made with great pomp and pageantry, but there is hardly any impact or response. The people are not stirred by it. No one of substance has talked or commented on it seriously.

The speech generates no interest nor commands effort to response. The speech is treated as one of the ‘run of mill’ things, nothing new, nothing significant or profound.

The second form of insult is when the people just laugh about it, like water over a duck’s back. The speech is nothing new but the same old treacherous rhetoric targeting at the leader’s own survival rather than the well-being of the nation. There is no expounding Malaysia’s future but everything on selling whatever we have, from bauxite, timber, oil and gas to railroads, seaports, energy generation and the jewels of our real estates.

The people could feel the sense of indignation and yet they are willing to let it go because arguing further would be fruitless. Put simply, the people are not looking to the speech for solutions.

The third insult is when the speech is received with one uniformed censure by the populace. Not a single neutral party has ever said that the speech provides new insights, is anticipative or inclusive. Instead, everyone has more or less the same view - the speech is hateful, threatening, divisive, self-serving and self-glorifying. Even his own supporters are seemed pretending to clap and cheer him on. No one impartial party could ever relate to one single good thing he has said.

The inherent attributes of leadership are just too important to ignore. A leader with credible attributes will command support from among the people even though his ideas may not be the best that are available. The support makes good the deficiency in idea.

On the contrary, a leader with no credibility has nothing left. Even his good idea will be looked upon with contempt and consternation.