iron fist or sugar plums

Leaders are the driving force for every organizations ranging from a company to a country. A leader has the innate ability to make or break an organization. Different leaders exude different styles of leadership. Some rule with fear while others rule with compassion and diplomacy. Which leader will have the best chances of success then, one may ask.

A leader that rules with an iron fist always hammer their subordinates into submission. He will always ensure that those following him will not question his authority in any way. His favorite saying “My way or the highway” will always be ringing in his subordinates’ ears. This kind of leadership might sound harsh but it is certainly not without its merits. In certain situations, dissent sometimes can cause havoc. For instance in the military, the chain of command must be adhered to at all cost no matter what. Any conflict or effort to be diplomatic can bring about severe repercussions to the extent of loss of lives. On the other hand, the iron fist way might not be beneficial in different conditions. For instance in office environment especially in projects, dissents can sometimes breed creativity. If this is curtailed, there will not be any added value ideas within the projects. For this kind of situation, the leader that rules with sugar plums can perform a better job then.

It is therefore quite a headache to engage a suitable leader in certain conditions as the analysis done above clearly shows that in different scenarios warrant a different kind of leadership. It is therefore not right to say that certain kind of leadership is better than the others as well. All kinds of leadership do have its merits and sometimes weaknesses. The next question is why do some projects or certain situations considered as total failures then? Could it be that the wrong kind of leadership is in place there? That would be difficult to determine but one thing is for certain, a leader that fails has nothing to do with his leadership style but just the plain fact that he is incompetent as a leader.

It has been shown that all leadership styles can work. Thus the only explanation is failures could be due to the leader’s own incompetent ways. A leader can adopt a leadership style but to execute it perfectly is a different story altogether. In hindsight, there could be no such excuses of contrast leadership styles that cause failures but the incompetency nature of the leader himself that is the cause of failures. How true can this be, one may wonder?

lost of confidence

We have been hearing this term more and more nowadays in the context of Malaysian politics. Elected representatives have been uttering this term right before they jump ship to the opposing faction. Come to think of it, this term is actually also quite common in the corporate world. Let’s do a similarity check on both.

Most aspiring corporate individuals that are looking to advance their careers always pitch their camps around a capable leader or a driving force. By doing so, in their opinion will further their cause much more effectively. Therefore, whenever a leader faltered, they will automatically lose confidence of that leader and usually jump ship to another leader to follow. Quite similar to the political arena, doesn’t it? However, most politicians themselves know, the rule of the thumb is they must not be seen as trying to further their own benefits as in the corporate world for this will be political suicide to them. Therefore, the usual reason will always be that they are unable to serve the rakyat better at their current position. Fair enough. But wait, hang on, didn’t the elected representatives jump ship earlier with the same excuse that they were also not able to serve the rakyat better initially before the elections? Perplexing isn’t it?

To further dissect this issue, in the corporate world, when an individual decides that he had lost confidence in his leader, he is indeed making the decision as an individual that is himself. Is this applicable to an elected representative? An elected representative is voted into office by thousands of rakyat and thus he actually represents the rakyat’s voice. Shouldn’t then the decision be collective with the rakyat that voted him into office to lose confidence in the leadership as well? By stating that you have been backstabbed, pushed out by “little pharaohs”, under the thumb of an arrogant leader etc is definitely of no concern to us rakyat. What is more important to the rakyat is our welfare is well taken care of. How in the world the elected representatives going to convince us rakyat that our voting decision will be consistent if the elected representatives keep on jumping ship on their whims. If this is the case, for the next election, how about we only vote for the party and the winning party can put in any tom, dick or harry to fill that post. Don’t think it really makes a difference, do it?

Well, we rakyat can only hope that the next generation of leaders are truly sincere in helping the rakyat rather than stage-performers of the Broadway kind. If not, we the rakyat will be the real ones that are losing confidence of our leaders. God bless Malaysia, really please.

who is an immigrant?

The following word has become quite common nowadays being uttered by various parties including politicians. This word carries great repercussions and deemed to be seditious in the eyes of Malaysian law. Yet this word is commonly used in the current globalized world whereby citizens from various countries crossing borders and settling down in foreign lands. Is not that is what an immigrant meant? According to Oxford definition, an immigrant is “a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country”.

Judging by that definition, as a Chinese, my forefather did come to a foreign country known as Malaya then from China to live permanently here. Therefore he is indeed an immigrant. His sons after him were born here in Malaya and were given citizenships. From that day onwards, the generation is known as Malaysians. That is a bit of history for my race and I bet it should be the same for other immigrant-races like Indians, Eurasians etc. Come to think of it, it is quite similar as well to the great nation United States of America. The whole country is literally built by immigrants from all corners of the world. They are citizens there as well.

The latest hullabaloo of being labeled as immigrants here in Malaysia actually constitutes to nothing serious. What is worrying here is the wider picture is not clearly seen. Let’s take the USA as example. The immigrant-races there are usually being referred to as second-generation immigrants or third-generation immigrants but the most important reference is that they are American citizens and as citizens their rights are protected by the country’s constitution. The rights include rights to vote, education, healthcare and lots more. Therefore if put that into context here in Malaysia, I actually wouldn’t mind being labeled a descendant of immigrants or even third-generation immigrant. But what concerns me most is I am a Malaysian with full citizenship and this gives me the right to vote, education, healthcare and many more benefits accorded to a citizen under the Malaysian constitution.

Therefore, to all so-called immigrants here in Malaysia, just chill and put this into mind “Call me an immigrant or what not, but never deny my rights as a citizen”. God bless Malaysia.