roadblock

Once we hear the word “illegal rally” the nightmarish vision of roadblocks that cause tremendous traffic comes into mind for the average road users. This seems to be the standard operating procedure of the authorities in their reasoning that only by doing so they will be able to protect the rakyat at large from violence and danger. How far this is true, one may wonder.

Let’s take a look at a roadblock as an example. The roadblock is set right in front of a traffic light of a busy intersection famous for being congested during rush hour. A road of about 5 lanes being transformed into a single lane “miraculously” by police checkpoints. The check involved, the police just stand there and look at the motorists trying to outdo one another to move into the single lane to pass. Well, we heard about how we mild mannered Malaysians can instantly turn into road monsters in the blink of an eye once behind the wheel and wouldn’t this event spur their anger more? For us average Joe not only has to be saved from “violent demonstrators”, we have to be contented with extra-fueled-rage of road bullies as well!

It can’t be denied that the rallies sometimes do cause inconvenience to the public at large judging from the rallies we see on television happening in other countries. Most of us actually don’t know what the rallies’ objectives are all about to be frank but since the authorities are going to this length to squash the rallies, it just spark a curiosity in our mind that does this mean the authorities have something to hide from the public? Since the rally organizers did propose to hold the rally in a confined location, wouldn’t that be better since the authorities can keep them in check while not having to set up roadblocks that virtually put a siege to the city. But on a strategy side, it seems like a good idea to paint the organizers as public enemy number one for causing the massive traffic to the average Joe.

No matter what’s the reasoning for this nightmarish event, hopefully the criminals don’t get funny ideas of thinking that in future illegal rallies, they will be able to carry out their “operation” since police manpower are virtually used to the optimum at roadblocks, looking at motorists trying to out-maneuver one another to get into the moving single lane. This will be the biggest roadblock to nation development. God bless Malaysian motorists.

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.