ic malaysia night 2006

We're breaking many new grounds this year with this production...

Brave new world indeed!

as we beat on ceaselessly

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out.

Sometimes you just have to keep trying and trying and trying in the hopes that change will eventually come.

Indeed, there is no confusion like the confusion of a simple mind.

And even when the situation seemed bleakest, you must have faith that common sense and fair reason will ultimately prevail over myopic and selfish viewpoints.

It is a despairing task but someone has to do it, right?

shhh, quiet please....

The smooth running of an organization depends mainly on the belief that everyone else in the organization will try their very best and exhausted every means in order to accommodate each other.

It runs - albeit paradoxically - on a clear demarcation of one's roles and responsibilities but at the same time glued together by the notion of respect and trust on other people's competence.

Therefore, one needs to know precisely when to interfere, to make demands on other people and when to back off and leave someone to his task alone.

Failing to look after each other or turning a blind eye to other people's failings and flaws could drive the organization to its untimely demise. In this case, ignorance is nothing but a short-lived bliss before the impending doom.

On the other hand, trying to control too many aspects of an organization would strectch one's limits dangerously too far, too thin. At the end of the day, one may end up running the entire organization oneself, disposing off the need for the other members altogether.

But I guess at the very basic level of any organization is the notion that everyone when given a task will do his or her best to execute it; it is the belief that everyone will do their task fairly, dillgently and with the fullest commitment.

Even when the other principles are thrown away, at the very root of any organization is the belief that you can trust someone to do a task just as good, if not better, as you would yourself.

After all, isn't that the point of forming an organization in the first place right?

However, when certain quarters felt that that particular trust have been misused and the matter is not honestly adressed, it will only lead to increasing exasperations, silent grumblings and eventually the slow rot within the organization.

An organization with a rigid and unbending hierachy will not be able to withstood the oncoming onslaughts of change nor could it refashion itself fast enough to adapt to the ever-changing trends around it.

Rigidity and dogmatism used to be related to strength and survivability but the new catchphrase of this new era is flexibility and transmutability. The former concepts now belong to the rubbish bin of history.

The stuffy, stale and closed atmosphere of the previous decade have been replaced by an airy, fresh and open one, illuminated primarily by the light of an increased proliferation of and greater access to information.

An organization thus could not afford to blindly hold on to its old practice; an unbiased and clear reflection of its strengths and weaknesses must always be made in order to ensure its survival.

The organization must be restless in a sense that it must always seek new ways to improve itself; after all, not all who wander are lost.

Its strength is not measured in terms of for how long a particular strategy it came out with manage to last; rather it is now measured in terms of how many good strategies it is able to come up with in a particular period of time.

To do that requires the organization to muster all of its resources, to carefully evaluate the potential of its member and make full use of their relevant talents and to ensure the succession to the top positions are not mired in elements of favouritism or elitism.

An air of honest openess, transparency, accountability and genuine respect for others must permeate the organization which gives everyone their share of self-worth.

That said, it is certainly a huge shame for any organization - no matter how great or small - to

crumble just because of the failure of its leaders to do something as simple as to openly listen to the dissenting voices within it.

Indeed, the ability to listen is sometimes a more profound measure of a person as compared to one's oratory skills.

who watches the watchers?

The recent flare up over the treatment (or rather mistreatment) of 11 elderly men by the police whilst in detention is just but a series of issues which have significantly risen the already tense and delicate political climate back in Malaysia.

It seeemed that Malaysians are treated to more and more of such ridiculous theatrics, bumbling misjudgements and grave oversight lately.

The situation would not be so worrying, if only it doesn't involve issues pertaining to religous conversions, deteriorating competence in governance and financial accountabilities.

Personally, I am appalled and sick by the treatment given out by the police towards these men. True, their game of mahjong during Chinese New Year might have been a valid cause to round them up but taking the liberty of shaving their heads are truly uncalled for.

It is even more worrying to hear the police chief's justification for such acts: so that the detainees will have a positive look and remember, so that they will not return to the lock-up.

If that is case, then why don't I see every single person who have been released from lock-up have had his head shaved?

Even if the police wish to inculcate a positive image, does the severity of their crime (if it qualifies to be one, that is) really warrants it?

What positive image does the police wish to create upon the detainees and the public if the detainees are forced to spend their Chinese New Year in lock-up without proper access to basic amenities then have their heads shaved without their consent?

Indeed, I believe that the police should worry more about their own positive image rather than trying to impose it on others, given the pervading less than complimentary perception which the public have towards them.

It is certainly troubling to think that when you are under detention by the police, you might come out with your dignity stripped away, your physical characteristics changed and your basic rights trampled.

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the police supposed to be upholding and preserving the law?

Sure, the police argued that the right to shave hair is a mandatory procedure under Section 9A of the Lock-Up Rules 1953 but that does not give them an absolute green light to simply do so, right?

I am sure that when the lawmakers proposed that procedure, they have expected the police to exercise some good and reasonable judgements and discretions of their own.

Blindly following the law to the last letter without comprehending the context and circumstances of the situation is no better than having no law in the first place.

When one is required to follow the procedures outlined by the law, it does not mean that one 's sense of good judgement and sensitivities could be simply thrown out the window.

One should never put one's conscience and considerations on hold in the name of following procedures; public officials who put their so-called 'duties' ahead of their own conscience is putting their country on a short route to disaster.

Doing so will lead to the transgression of rights, widespread anarchy and a crisis of confidence.

Even if the police force does not think as far as being accountable to their own conscience, they should have realized that their actions, given the recently abated 'squatgate' case, does nothing to improve the public perception towards them.

Furthermore, given the importance of the police force as the backbone to the security and harmony of the country, their image in the eyes of those whom they are sworn to protect matters greatly.

Any lapses of judgements or deviations from their expected behaviour bode ill to the well-being of the country, eventually affecting the forward strides made by the country.

It is a simple issue of trusting others and being trusted oneself; once that trust is betrayed, it will take some time for it to be restored - provided that it could.

Indeed, these actions by the police have been viewed by some as a form of retaliation by the police towards the recommendations made by the Royal Commission coupled with mounting criticisms directed towards the police force lately.

Does the feeling of superiority permeates the whole hierachy of the police force to the extent that they think that they themselves are way above the law? Do they seriously think that they are beyond criticism wherever it is due?

The police force should not feel victimized by the flood of comments and criticisms they have received lately; they should not think that they are being singled out among all the public offices or being intensely prosecuted by the public.

True, it is not uncomfortable for one's actions to be closely scrutinized, one's intentions dissected but the very position of the police force within the Malaysian social strata itself means that such things are inevitable.

Therefore, rather than insulating themselves from criticisms and showing open resistance to change - which is akin to trying to hold back a oncoming storm - they should just take them with stride, openly and honestly.

Only with an unbiased and sustained reflections and efforts for improvements from both inside and outside the police force can they come out of this storm they are in at the moment with as little damage to their standing as possible.

After all, how can we expect the police to protect the public if they could not even bring themselves to face up to and exorcise their own demons in the first place?