fool me once, fool me twice

Voicing out concerns, pointing out flaws in a system and gently chiding others to buckle up are not the easiest things to do in a friendship.

Some friendships endure, most does not. Even for the ones that does, it just doesn't feel the same anymore.

There is a sense of apprehension within you the next time you meet that person; you're anxious to know how will the person react to it in the long run, or whether they will at point in the future, suddenly bring the matter up from out of the blue.

It is a precarious and delicate situation. Besides, it always leave a bad aftertaste even long after it has passed.

That is the reason why I usually try my best to refrain myself from immediately or openly speaking out my concerns.

Ideally, you expect the targeted individual to, at the very least, try to genuinely listen to what you have to say.

But the world is not an ideal place. Fair enough.

After all, you cannot assume everyone to be open-minded, mature and insightful, can you?

However, what bugs me most about this is when the person voicing those concerns gets the rap for speaking out.

Even more frustrating is when the person who have the right to voice those concerns are cowed into silence out of fear of possible reciprocal actions.

How then does one cope with such situations? How does one voice one's concerns to someone who refuses to listen at all?

Is it true that one have just to keep trying and trying? What's the use of banging one's head into the wall if it's clear that it will not bring it down?

I always believe that the best insight or revelation should come from within. But being humans, we cannot always rely on our conscience to direct us in the right moral path all the time.

Most of the time, we will rely on the opinions of those closest to us, those who know us well enough, those who work with us, those who are under our supervision, those who have been in our position before to be our moral compass.

How else can we hope to improve ourselves if we shut off such avenues for betterment?

I think that in denying ourselves that need to be corrected by others, we are performing a great injustice to our own self.

One may doubt another person's intention to comment and criticize us, but does the source really matter if deep down inside, we believe that the comments and criticisms are true?

Besides, not everyone spend their entire lives thinking up pointed criticisms to be thrown at others. No one is so important to warrant that much attention.

Indeed, refusing to listen to what other people have got to say about you - good or bad - serves little to preserve your image or standing; instead it reinforces the notion of how deluded one can be.

But what about those who have the right to criticize? Should be keep their opinions to themselves? Should they be silenced once and for all? Should they be flagrantly labeled as mischief-makers or a threat to solidarity?

What hope - if any - is left for them? Should they continue speaking out, praying that one day change will come and their actions will be vindicated?

It is a grim outlook and the light at the end of the tunnel seemed a very long way off.

Indeed, sometimes when I am faced with such predicaments, it makes me wonder who is the foolish one of the two actually.

responsible act as responsible do

Responsibility is a lonely word these days.

Not many people are able to understand its meaning - whole and true - anymore, much less live by it.

The past few weeks of my life have been coloured with an exhibition of a series of serious lapses in responsibilities by various people.

I think it is fair to assume that each and everyone of us accidentally neglects ourshare of responsibilities; we play when we are suppose to work, we sleep when we are suppose to study.

The bottom line is that everyone gets distracted from time to time.

But what happens when one's distraction becomes a cause of one's absence? What happens when you stopped doing the things people elected you to do? What happens when you started to betray the trust and expectation that other people have put upon your shoulders?

I believe the main reason behind such lapses is because that particular person does not have a thorough idea or inkling of what his position entails and expects him to do.

They come into the position expecting it to be a smooth, easy-going ride all the way when it seldom does. They are unprepared for the challenges, tensions and heartaches which comes with the package.

And when they find that things aren't as rosy as they have expected it to be, they either rough it or lose it altogether. Their unpreparedness might cause them to lean more towards the latter rather than the former.

Even if they choose to rough it, their perfomance may not be the best that they can give. And in certain circumstances, doing something half-heartedly is no better than not doing it at all.

The point I am trying to make is that whenever people's expectations doesn't match up with real life, the outcome will always be below par and the process of getting there will be frought with complications.

Therefore, people who take up something without a clear idea of what his job requires him to do, will often find themselves trapped in a situation where escape is a matter of infinite hope.

Often the case, they will have to go through it nonetheless, albeit grudgingly. This does not imply that the person is altogether unsuitable for the job; rather he have mistakenly choose the job which befits his interest or talents.

And I feel that such people neglects their responsbilities because they yearn to escape without realizing that they will be in the game for a long time.

People who expects to be served wine but instead receive plain water will have to realize that the plain water will never turn to wine no matter what. They might as well get used to it because that is all they have to keep them going.

There are also people who shirk away from their responsibilities to focus only on the things they like, whilst conveniently relegating his other responsibilities to somebody else.

The thing about having responsibilities is that you do not always get to do the things you like all the time. Often, you will occupy a higher position of having to mobilize, coordinate and direct others to ensure everything is running smoothly.

Some people thus view their responsibilities as an opportunity to indulge in the things they enjoy. If such attitude permeates an organization, I believe that the outcome will be overdeveloped in some parts but underdeveloped in most parts.

Nothing great could come out from an organization whose leader cherry-picks his responsibilities and mixes his personal indulgences with his responsibilities.

I guess this is a crucial yet subtle point to bear in mind - the distinction between one's personal, private preferences and one's official, formal responsibilities. In an organization, the latter takes precedence over the former.

Once one blurs the distinction between the two, one risk restricting the important discourses within an organization to an elite few and at the same, alienating oneself from the rest of the organization.

Besides, how can one lead a pack of sheep if one is not fully aware of whether there are any wolves in the midst?

If that happens, it would be as if the organization is running on autopilot; it is moving but you cannot really see far too much ahead. It may feel as if one is putting lots of effort, but it does not add much to the eventual outcome of the situation.

But then again, one is lucky to still have the organization on autopilot; worse still, it could be doing a nose dive.

However, one cannot expect to know that if one is busy savouring the luxurious service and sumptuous delicacies in first class, can one?

Most of the time though, some people will tend to have this deluded impression that by performing his responsibilities, he is actually doing a great service or favor to the organization.

With that notion permanently etched at the back of their minds, they will assume that they are above any criticisms, comments or suggestions. They will automatially rebuke their detractors with the overused cliche "do not bite the hand that feeds you."

Unfortunately, they have understood everything in reverse; when one is given a responsibility, the organization is not beholden to you but it is you who are beholden to the organization.

Therefore, when you slack from doing what is expected from you, then members of the organization have the right to question and make you accountable for it. The members are not just being troublesome by doing so, they are just exercising their rights.

And if one views a person's rights as an inconvenience, then perhaps you should start by denying yourselves of your own rights.

A person who denies others their rights should not have the luxury of having one in the first place.

A person who denies others their rights so as to cover his own incompetencies and insecurities should be made to eat the humble pie.

One does not make one's candle brighter by unjustly extinguishing other people's candles; besides, even a single candle looks awfully bright in a dim room.

Being responsible goes beyond the superficiality of labels, positions and recognition. It often means working honestly, dilligently and being fair to everyone without fear or favour.

Being responsible is seldom a short route to popularity and the rewards does not come easily. It stretches your wit, tests your courage, drains your energy and saps your tact.

But for those with a clear conscience - which stems from a pure intention - and backed with sufficient amounts of willpower would find the journey personally enriching.

what you see is not what you get

"Is Malaysia a racist country?"

That was the question that was asked to start off the discussion amongst my friends at one of the gathering we had. I must fairly admit that I was taken aback by the question and it took me a while to recover my senses before I could muster enough 'strength' to answer it.

Several aspects of the question struck me as peculiar: Was he expecting a clear-cut 'yes' or 'no' answer from the rest of us? Why does he have to highlight that particular characteristic - if it is at all a valid one that is - of the country? How could he have simply make the connection between those two things - Malaysia and racism - and conveniently phrased it in a direct question like that?

My immediate response to his question was "What do you mean by the word racist?"

Silence. Dumbfounded looks from all of them.

I asked it again, "How do you mean Malaysia is - if at all - racist? Do you have a list of criterias in mind about what makes a country racist and you find that Malaysia fulfilled all of these criterias? Or do you simply make the conclusion that just because Malaysian comprises of many different races, therefore its people automatically are called racist?"

Once again, my questions are met with complete silence. They seemed to be at loss to describe what they personally understood by the term 'racist'.

And that is the problem.

You put forward a question asking whether such things have such characteristics and yet you have no clear idea of exactly what those characteristics are.

It is like driving blindly at night without your headlights on; you have no clear view of where the road will lead and you won't even know whether you have reached your destination because you don't even know what and where it is supposed to be.

Personally, I felt that the question was asked because I sounds provocative and a little cliche' to most people. Many people think it is easy to start the ball rolling on such questions, but that depends on the quality of the discussion you intend to have.

It is the kind of question which have the potential of generating a lot of interesting discussions and bringing forth a multiplicity of views but if not approached properly or phrased in the right manner, it would not bring you any closer to the answer - if there is one that is.

It is the kind of question which could be both discussed in the Parliament, at international academic conferences, written in detail in thesis papers or at the mamak stall in the corner.

Everyone can contribute their views and opinions to it. But the quality of the discussion they get out of it may differ greatly.

In the case of the discussion I had amongst my friends, I believe they were a little misguided because they insist of obtaining a 'yes' or 'no' response. The crux of the matter is that such questions often does not have such categorically neat answers.

To insist on answers of such nature is akin to trying to plug a square peg into a hole; you can invest a huge amount of effort trying to answer it but you are actually getting nowhere near the answer.

I truly despise people who have a tendency to frame everything into black or white without even considering the possibility the grey area in between those two extremes.

They ruthlessly reduce the complex interdependency and the delicate interplay between the different elements of an issue into simple, neat 'rightist' or 'leftist' groups. For them, if something is not in A, then it must be in B, assuming that A and B are the only groups available.

I realized that to a certain degree, all issues require that kind of reductionist treament but to frivolously apply it to the extent that you lose your sensitivity to the minute and fine details is slowly leading you into an intellectual dead end.

In this case, my friends have applied such treatment to the issue of race in Malaysia. It is like trying to limit a person's whole vocabulary in his daily communications into just several words.

And to do so does nothing but to bring in more confusions, introduce weak presumptions and create divisions where there are initially none into the matter.

Done enough times over and this will eventually be considered as the only way to view the matter. Worse, some people might even make the damning leap of faith to assume that that is the true nature of the matter.

And when you have people who conveniently compartmentalize their views into clear cut categories without even stopping to think of the other possibilities, streotypes, prejudices and generalizations begin to flourish.

Opposing views are scorned upon and restricted. The diversity of opinions are frowned on and suppressed. The intellectual landscape eventually becomes sterile.

I think in Malaysia, we are sometimes inadvertertly and unwillingly lead into this kind of thinking. Every social, political and economic issues affecting the general public are cast in such a way that the distinctions between the victims and the culprits are overly highlighted to the point that it is second nature for us to swiftly point the finger of blame to someone, without even looking at the big picture or critically examining the matter.

The routine are always the same each time: an issue crops up, the media will highlight it, government officials will give their 'formal' response, someone will become the sacrificial lamb (often not the ones who deserved it) and after a few weeks, the issue will die down.

The whole thing plays out like it was scripted to the very last letter. And we simply allow ourselves to be washed away by the excitement of the moment and did not reflect or look deeper into the matter.

We do not take heed the calls for or allow room for intelligent discourses on the issue which might have offered us with a more lasting solution rather than a knee-jerk response Malaysians are so famous for.

In short, we allow ourselves to be taken for the ride.

Similarly, in the case of my discussions with my friends, most of them thought it was an exciting and exhilirating topic to talk about. And did they talk like their lives depended on it, fiercely defending their own views and trying to force them into each other's throats. But at the end of it, nothing truly profound and memorable comes out of it.

They made the mistake of finding and coming up with the answer that wasn't there to begin with. They made the mistake of trying to simplify the racial issues which have been plauging Malaysia for so long into a simple clear-cut black-or-white issue.

They fail to comprehend the complexity of the subject and by doing so, they have neglected a large section of the argument which eventually leads them astray.

I often think that people who have a tendency to make such simple categorization did so because their minds cannot comprehend the fine details or aspects of the issue. The subtleties of the argument and the little nuances in the words used are lost in them.

I must admit that it is frustrating speaking to people like that. You cannot seemed to get them to understand that there is more to the matter than just black-or-white; they do not appreciate the intricacies of the matter or the problem at hand, the different sensitivities which needs to be taken care of and simply bulldoze their ideas through no matter what.

They stubbornly hold on to their views and refuse to hear any word against it. In some cases, they will even go as far as to censor you altogether. And when that happens, there will be collateral damage; people silenced, editors sacked and media impotent while the instigator scurry away freely.

It is true that it is frustrating having to deal with people like that; but then again, if they prefer to remain in their cloistered, monochromatic world which barely mimics real life, who are we to coerce them to get out of it, right?

However, these people are the same people who will accuse those who accepts and appreciate the diversity of views present as being wishy-washy, an idealist or too theoretical. One of my friends even called my thoughts and writings about Malaysia social, economic and political problems as 'building castles in the air'.

These people are so keen to protect their own views, the purity of their opinions so much so that they begin to attack other people's views. It is a cowardly thing to do actually - attacking others to make oneself look good.

I mean, even a single candle will look bright in a dark room if it is the only candle present.

Besides, idealist we might be to them but deluded we are not.

As for my friend's discussion, it might be interesting to note that everyone in that discussion were Malays talking about what is obviously a Malaysian question. Then, it comes as no surprise that they end up proposing the formation of a Malay discussion group to tackle such issues.

A truly one dimensional answer to a complex three dimensional problem I think.

After all, one's mind may be simple, naive and straighforward but our lives are not necesarily so.