LETTER | I read with interest Selangor Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari’s use of “Romance of the Three Kingdoms” to contrast Liu Bei with Cao Cao as an analogy for the type of leadership Malaysians should embrace.
While the comparison is politically appealing, it simplifies one of the most enduring works on political philosophy and statecraft in Chinese literature.
Romance of the Three Kingdoms has survived for more than six centuries not because it identifies heroes and villains, but because it explores the complexities of leadership during periods of national fragmentation, institutional decay and political uncertainty.
It is a study of how different leaders respond to extraordinary circumstances, each possessing qualities that may be virtues in one context and liabilities in another
The question posed by “Romance of the Three Kingdoms” is therefore not whether a nation should choose Liu Bei over Cao Cao.
The more profound question is: what qualities does a nation require at a particular point in its history?
Different national challenges call for different forms of leadership. That is precisely why the novel has remained one of the world’s greatest works on politics and governance for over six centuries.
Liu Bei is rightly admired for his benevolence, humility, and ability to inspire loyalty. These remain essential attributes for any political leader seeking to unite a diverse society.
Yet it is equally true that Liu Bei ultimately failed in his overarching objective of restoring the Han dynasty.
His moral legitimacy and personal virtues, while admirable, proved insufficient to overcome the structural, military, and administrative realities confronting his state.
Conversely, Cao Cao is frequently portrayed as the novel’s antagonist, largely because the narrative adopts the Confucian ideal of restoring the Han dynasty.
However, history offers a far more balanced assessment. Cao Cao restored order after prolonged civil conflict, rebuilt agricultural production, strengthened state institutions, promoted officials on the basis of ability rather than lineage, and established an administrative system that provided stability to northern China.
Even the novel itself repeatedly acknowledges his exceptional political judgment, strategic foresight, and ability to identify and cultivate talent.
This distinction has contemporary relevance. Malaysia today faces several structural governance challenges that increasingly demand institutional capability as much as political leadership.
Concerns over the continued migration of highly skilled Malaysians, persistent questions surrounding merit-based appointments, the persistence of corruption despite repeated reform efforts, and entrenched bureaucratic practices that slow institutional transformation are notable.
There is also a continuing public debate over the relationship between religion and the administration of a plural society, and all the above point towards the need for stronger institutions rather than simply better political narratives.
These are fundamentally questions of governance capacity. They require administrative competence, meritocratic public service, institutional discipline, policy consistency and the political will to undertake reforms that may not always be immediately popular.
These are qualities that history frequently associates with Cao Cao’s model of statecraft. They complement, rather than diminish, the virtues of benevolence and moral legitimacy traditionally associated with Liu Bei.
However, the true richness of “Romance of the Three Kingdoms” lies beyond the familiar contrast between Liu Bei and Cao Cao. The novel presents an extraordinary gallery of leadership archetypes from which modern politicians can learn.
Zhuge Liang exemplifies strategic vision, meticulous planning, and unwavering public service.
Sun Quan demonstrates the importance of continuity, pragmatism, and balancing competing interests while maintaining long-term stability.
Sima Yi illustrates patience, political restraint, and the discipline to act only when circumstances are favourable.
Even Guan Yu reminds us that honour, while indispensable, can become a weakness when it hardens into inflexibility or pride.
The enduring lesson of the novel is therefore not to identify which contemporary politician resembles Liu Bei or Cao Cao. Rather, it is to understand that successful governance requires a careful synthesis of virtues.
Malaysia needs leaders who can inspire trust like Liu Bei, build capable institutions like Cao Cao, think strategically like Zhuge Liang, preserve stability like Sun Quan, and exercise patience and judgement like Sima Yi.
No single character embodies all these qualities, just as no modern leader can succeed with only one style of leadership.
Reducing “Romance of the Three Kingdoms” to a binary contest between virtue and vice diminishes one of the world’s greatest treatises on leadership and governance.
Its enduring value lies not in teaching us whom to admire, but in helping us understand the diverse qualities required to govern a nation facing complex and evolving challenges.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
