A group or a society has different kinds of people. Accordingly, their minds and wishes differ from each other. Uniformity can bring about dual effects—good and bad. Saying thus, this statement can tantamount to be a pessimistic view. It needs explaining. Let’s assume that two men are given a mango and an apple, and both want to have the apple. It can be called a problem of uniformity. In this regard, I suddenly remembered a paragraph which appeared in the introduction of the reader 9, titled “Looking at the children of other lands” when I was in the standard 8. It reads: Can you imagine what it would be like if the climate were the same all over the world? All the flowers and the trees would be the same. Then, the animals might be the same, and the same crops would be grown in the ground. This would mean that the people would all be alike. They would look alike and dress alike and they would all eat the same food. What a world that would be!
Here is another example with an opposite meaning—a benefit of uniformity. Supposing that we have different views either on building a school in the village or on constructing a bridge spanning the river, what will we do then? First of all, we need to consider which matter is to be prioritized to reach a uniform decision. Suffice it to say that uniformity can bring about sometimes good effects, sometimes bad ones. But it is not an insoluble problem. Had we faced such a case that we could not solve ourselves, we are required to find a person who can solve it for us. He or she is none other than a leader that will lead us to the right solution.
We all know the meaning of the word, “leader,” very well. “Oxford Advanced American Dictionary” defines that a leader is a person who leads a group of people, especially the head of a country, an organization, etc. Around us, we are seeing leaders, called in different names—class-monitor, team leader, team captain, head, chair-person, president, political leader, national leader, world leader and so on. A leader needs to be endowed with qualifications to lead a group, an institution or a country they will lead. Our parents are also leaders of our families—the most familiar and lowest level leaders. A house-holder takes responsibilities of management for all. In our environment we see some find it difficult to manage their families’ affairs. By assessing difficulties and hardships experienced by a simple family at the basic level, we can easily guess a nation that can be likened to an enormously great extended family which has tremendously big problems.
As known to all, our country was left with a legacy of problems—bribery and corruption, increasing volume of unemployment, skyrocketing commodity prices, enforcing rule of law, public failure to abide by rules and laws, subversive activities of destructive elements from home and abroad, moral bankruptcy and so on. In fact, these are deep-rooted and chronic diseases which our country has been suffering for several decades. These cannot be cured in a moment just by saying a magic word like “Abracadabra”. It will take time to remove these problems. Now the incumbent government is trying its best by marching towards a modernized Federal Democratic Republic, hand in hand with the Tatmataw. For healing diseases, the government will never administer any palliatives. We need not grope in the dark any longer on one condition—that we are supposed to follow the leadership of our leader. We now have a globally recognized leader, who can be said to be like a Godsend leader, the type of leader who can give inspiration, courage and valuable guidance to the younger inexperienced generation of Myanmar youths. We now have a leader capable of leading us to our desired goal. Myanmar is no longer a leaderless country.