MY UNPUBLISHED LETTER

Over the last few years I have sent several letters to different mainstream newspapers – none was ever published! While respecting their right to not publish my letters, I honestly believe they were not doing the public any favours by denying them some home truth, however unpalatable to some. Is it not their duty to present the views of all sides, of all shades and colours, as long as they are not total untruth or slanderous?

To make my point, I would like to share with the readers one of the letters that I had sent in to all the mainstream papers but was never published. The letter is now, of course, somewhat outdated and will have to be read against the background of events that were taking place when it was written – at the height of the Tun Mahathir bashing. The following is the main extract of the letter:

.

“I’m getting very confused with all the goings-on in the country of late – when elders, and just about every notable political personality or rising aspirant, squabble in public without restraint; when condemnations are heaped on an elder all because he insists on exercising his right. In this case he also happens to be a “very well informed elder” who wants to see (some claim, unreasonably and destructively) something wrong being put right.

Is that not something to be welcomed? Is that not, in fact, the right of all citizens? So why the seeming vendetta?

All these are very confusing to me, not having access to the “inner” thinking. Like many others I can only try to make sense of it all from the street level. I thought I would put my layman observations and views, confused as they are, in a poem to be shared with your readers.

MY LAYMAN QUANDARY

He had achieved so much – way much more than many had ever thought possible
He made us believe the feats we can do – and gave such confidence to our people
He was tireless and determined when fighting for issues that were of importance
Just as he was uncompromising and fearless in pursuing the interest of our nation

Had he really been all these? I had thought so, like so many others in the millions
When they asked him to remain in the position; chanted his virtues, his brilliance
Yet it would seem he had become so different, spewing venom at every utterance
And drawing such condemnations even from those he had tutored and championed

How could I have been so wrong to believe in him for all the great things he did?
How could he be this irresponsible and outright traitorous as the many have said?
The cheek of him to criticize with such arrogance; what right did he think he had?
He ought to be muzzled, his rights removed, expelled from the team he recently led!

It is hard for me the uninformed and unconnected to fathom all these intelligently
To feel indebted to someone so deeply only to be told he is such knave suddenly
Yet such seems to be the views of the informed, spouted with such fierce emotion
As if competing with one another to come up with the most scathing condemnation

Such strong words and emotion in our culture must come from strong motivation
For we do not lash out with blatant rudeness to elders regardless of the situation
And more so if that someone had our dizzy approval during his impressive tenure
Who had our respect, who toiled and worked endlessly to make the country better

Yet today they say he is bent on attacking and destroying our newly added edifice
Out of sheer jealousy, missing the glory, whatever, since voluntarily leaving office
All not making sense, but the competing gladiators must know what they’re saying
For like Anthony said “…Brutus is a wise man, and so are they all, all wise men”

Yet I worry when too much righteousness is assumed by wise men such as them
When logic and fairness are smothered silent with such intense and fiery emotion
When wanton condemnations are readily made without sober fair considerations
When everything is just black or white and nothing in between, allowing no options

And so I remain in this quandary – to trust these wise men or my modest instinct
Join this feeding frenzy or perhaps use my God-given faculty and for myself think
For I remember a recent poem that might have bearing on this unhappy, sad state
Strongly urging the silent many to start thinking for themselves before it’s too late”

.

There you are – that was one of the letters that never got published. Now I ask you, what was so unacceptable in the letter that it deserved to be silenced – the truth?

We, the Rakyat, need to make our voices heard on matters of concern to sometime help the leaders make better decisions and do the right thing. This is a key role of the people. And we should be able to have access to facilities for such communication, and not be shut out simply because what we say differ from the prevailing “popular” views. In any case, such a move will really not stop us from thinking. And surely we do not want to create an unthinking nation in the first place, do we? Or do we?

Shutting out my letters and not letting me share my thoughts seems to say “indeed we do”!

ONLY CREDIBLE LEADERS WILL BE ACCEPTED ...... REALLY?

In my last article (posted just a few hours ago) related to the leadership’s call to “vote only for capable leaders” I said “what might have been reassuring to hear as well was the commitment to a step-up effort in ensuring all Coalition candidates will meet these expectations.” And since there was no assurance I simply ended up with asking, “Am I missing something here?”

Today’s The New Straits Times, 23rd January, carried an article “Abdullah: Only Credible Ones Will Be Accepted”. During a two-hour closed door meeting with aspiring UMNO leaders, the UMNO President and Prime Minister, among other things, purportedly told the delegates that “the BN candidates in the coming general election would be those who were willing to work for the people, regardless of their race, and were not self-serving and corrupt”.

This was seemingly the kind of assurance that I said was missing with the leadership’s earlier call to “vote only for capable leaders” – thus the need for this immediate chaser. What should now be determined is how credible an assurance was that report and how much it might actually allay the concern, disappointment, and sense of being let-down enumerated in my previous article. Offhand, I can make three points for deliberations.

Firstly, this report was made at a closed-door meeting and only picked up by the papers based on what was said by the delegates. It was, as such, not a first-hand report. So, why does it matter as long as the report was accurate? Why it matters is that it was basically an “internal procedural clarification” clearly designed to achieve some internal party objectives (repositioning the mind-set and managing expectations of party members most likely). It was therefore neither an assurance given to the electorate, nor a declared commitment towards ensuring the achievement of this stated new standards.

Secondly, this “new standards” was needed because “research by three organisations showed voters were more discerning about the quality of candidates fielded by a political party”. The move, as such, was primarily motivated by the need to win votes – not because of a genuine realisation of the need for it or the sincere motivation to better serve the interest of the electorate. If at all, perhaps only secondarily. A severe conclusion to arrive at perhaps, but the logic stands – why else was this move (be it just mere statement at this stage) not triggered earlier?

Thirdly, this is a statement of intent the realisation of which will be a real challenge – the challenge to ensure that all BN candidates are completely honest and sincere, ethical and capable, trustworthy and reliable, putting the interest of the Rakyat and the country above everything else always in each and every case. What a challenge this is; make no mistake. And if we are really serious, the effort will need to be grounded on, and supported by, a massive process and procedural redesign and internal policies revamp. And it will take time to develop and implement!

Anything short of a concerted effort will not even scratch the surface of what is now an ingrained culture, and the promise of bringing about the much hoped-for change will remain yet another unfulfilled promise. Given that the election is around the corner, and there is nothing to suggest any such effort to bring about this new performance culture is in place, is it realistic to even remotely assume it can come about?

Am I missing something here too?

VOTE ONLY FOR CAPABLE LEADERS

The Deputy Prime Minister called on the electorates (The New Straits Times, Saturday 11th January) to vote only for “capable leaders” who can do the job. This is very sound advice – as sound as the Prime Minister’s appeal to “not allow any form of extremism to destroy our nation and to speak up and make our voices heard and fight against all excesses”. Both comments basically lead to the same exhortation – for the Rakyat to think carefully and do what is right.

I suggested (see my previous story on “MODERATES MUST LEAD”) that Pak Lah’s comment be taken in its totality and in the widest possible context, ensuring always of course, they are in the interest of the nation. Similarly I would also suggest that Dato’ Seri Najib’s statement be likewise received, especially the interpretation of the phrase “capable leaders”.

When it comes to “Wakil Rakyat” the need to interpret the phrase “capable leaders” in its broadest sense becomes all the more necessary given the more all-embracing role they have to play. After all, they are the representatives of the people. The confidence and sincere respect of the people for them must be their most important Key Performance Indicator, if not one of the objectives itself.

The word “capable” must therefore be defined to not just reflect efficiency and effectiveness in getting the job done (all too often conveniently and narrowly interpreted as bringing about development) but also the way they go about it – the honesty and sincerity, the trustworthiness and reliability, moral integrity, ethics, values, the wisdom and humility etc., etc. in the individuals elected and entrusted by the people to do the job. The word “leaders” reflects the leadership positions, emphasizing the need for these attributes, and whatever else expected of leaders. I’m sure this was what was actually intended by the Deputy Prime Minister when he used the phrase “capable leaders”.

If that was the case, what might have been reassuring to hear as well was the commitment to a step-up effort in ensuring all Coalition candidates will meet these expectations. Without that assurance, it can only mean it is very much “business as usual”; meaning the Coalition is satisfied that all their candidates are already at that level. The question then is whether the electorates really believe that – have all the elected representatives been what they should be? Have they all been completely honest and sincere, ethical, trustworthy and reliable, putting the interest of the Rakyat and the country above everything else always, in each and every case”? Have they all indeed been the “capable leaders” as defined above?

In the absence of any commitment to bring about a real change in the performance culture of these elected candidates, it means we are expected to accept and be satisfied with the Coalition candidates’ quality and performance continuing as they are today – evidently being their benchmark of “capable leaders”. In effect, therefore, when we are asked to “vote only for capable leaders”, we are being asked to vote for the same-mould candidates (with the majority even likely to be current incumbents) and the promise of the continuing exact same culture, performance, and scenario!

Am I missing something here?

OF YOUTHFUL IDEALISM AND IMPOSSIBLE DREAM

The young man, looking like he was still in his late teens, seemed to know exactly what he wanted to be and do in life – not doctor, or lawyer, or accountant, or architect, but a politician, and God-willing, the Prime Minister no less. His motivation was simple – he believed many things were not as they should be in the country and that he could do a better job of handling it.

I was impressed, very impressed – impressed by the calm confidence, his matter-of-fact demeanour, the certainty in his voice, and most of all by what he articulated.

“I would ensure all the races are at the same performance level with about similar performance capacity, strong work ethics, and a common value system. I want to make sure corruption is wiped out and there is a blossoming of trust and goodwill all round. I would assume direct responsibility for the effort and the entire machinery myself to ensure that everything is run fairly, efficiently, and effectively. I would work to get the support and trust of the entire nation and use our total wisdom and energy for the effort, while ensuring everyone understands, adheres to, and works within the existing established ground rules until the objective is fully achieved”

Wow, I said to myself, all that sounded so, so good!

I was so tempted to believe in him and all that he planned to do but, understandably, my mind almost immediately dismissed all that as mere fancy words and youthful idealism. After all we have had many noble-intentioned, high-flying, well-positioned, capable, young party aspirants with such all-fired idealism who have sidetracked along the way. And, of course, the real question is “Is it possible to achieve all that?”

As if in a "fast-foward" and as if reading my mind, he calmly said, “Of course – don’t you realise that we have actually achieved most of them since I actually took over? We have become more efficient as a nation; corruption is way down and on its way out; our delivery system is one of the best in the world; our leaders are the very epitome of what is honourable, fair, honest, sincere, wise, knowledgeable, and committed, with the interests of the people and the nation at heart and above everything else, always – and the Wakil Rakyat are all now behaving and performing in Parliament the way Wakil Rakyat should. See for yourself!”

And, somehow, we were suddenly at the Parliament House (at the visitors’ gallery in the Dewan Rakyat, in fact), and I could actually see what he meant – the House was full; the Wakil Rakyat were virtually in full attendance with everyone properly and impressively dressed; and they were conducting themselves with such decorum and dignity; and the lively debate was civil and dignified, truly impressive and of such high quality… I just could not believe what I saw and heard! They were conducting themselves exactly as in my poem “Trust and Expectation” (see my first posting).

“How did you manage to do all these?” I turned to him and asked. He smiled and replied, “I’m the Prime Minister and I only have to sincerely and honestly …” but just at that instant the alarm clock went off and I woke up – ending what was really a wonderful, wonderful dream. I couldn’t help being impressed by the articulate teenager who believed and calmly argued he could run the country better than it is being run today. Not only was I convinced, I actually saw what could possibly be achieved and I actually felt reassured.

The trouble with dreams is that we cannot count on them – at least not for certain. And not unless we do the necessary to make them happen!

INFORM US FIRST......

I started with being mildly amused by the suggestion that we should first inform the Indonesian authority every time we want to use anything associated with culture purportedly originating from what is today Indonesia. Thinking about it a bit more, I became quite annoyed – and then actually worked myself into a real state of utter disgust, feeling thoroughly incensed at the sheer audacity of the suggestion. And we talk about being “serumpun”! What BS. What double BS!

Can Malaysians of Bugis, Javanese, Sumatran etc. ancestries not claim their heritage and continue to practice them here? If they can, why can we not acknowledge that as part of the country’s many and varied cultural practices, no matter where they originate from? What if, say, a substantial number of Kadazans were to emigrate and settle down in, say, Tarakan or Pulau Bunyu (although I cannot imagine for a moment why they would want to do that) and bring along their Sumazau? Is Indonesia saying it cannot acknowledge this as one of the cultural practices of their people? And that if, in some way, they wish to do so, they will have to first inform the Malaysian government each time?

Stupid doesn’t even begin to describe the suggestion!

If we agree to this ridiculous and pompous suggestion, I suggest we also inform India, China, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Philippines, the Middle East countries, etc., etc. whenever we want to publicly perform anything originating from those countries. And once we get on to this slippery slope we might as well also inform the Portuguese Government whenever we want to have a Ronggeng display.

Kekwa oh Kekwa – what have we done that we should be so unflatteringly accused of stealing other people’s “flowers”? We have not, in our exuberance, tried to rename them all Kekwas on the quiet have we?

WHY DO I BLOG?

Hi Tok & Nek ... I miiiiiissssshhhhh you ...

.

.

After visiting my blog, a close and dear friend asked, “What do you really think you can achieve – do you think anyone will care? Will whatever you write serve any purpose? What do you actually hope to get out of it?”

I knew that the questions and the way they were asked were not meant to be unkind, or to ridicule me or my blog in any way. Perhaps he was just trying to be empathetic believing (and most likely rightly) my effort would not make an iota of difference to anything. Perhaps they were also an extension of his frustrations and disgust, and possibly a sense of helplessness, arising from that conviction. And then again, perhaps he was sincerely and simply trying to find out what I really might be thinking.

These were questions that I had not seriously thought about, and his very dismissive tone had actually caught me by surprise. Going more by instinct, I said to him, “What I know I have achieved is that I have made me feel good in voicing, for what they might be worth, my sincere views on some issues in the country – as for anyone caring, some might, I hope. Does it serve a purpose? It does for me – I feel as if I am offering a tiny little something to share with my fellow Malaysians, with the hope that some might feel as I do and begin sharing their thoughts as well”.

And for completeness I added, “... it really started as a means of keeping in virtual touch with my 2 year-old cucu in Toronto!” That obviously could have no possible argument, and definitely satisfied him. Thanks Sasha – I miiiiissshhh you too!

FREEDOM WITHOUT REAL EXPRESSIONS

Contrary to some opinions, I sincerely believe the freedom of expressions in this country is more than adequate. In fact, I think it is under-utilised.

When it comes to public expressions, there is really no such thing as freedom without limit. There must always be limit. The disagreement, very often, is really about where the limit ought to be – and it should not be a global one-size-fits-all application. The answer should be where it provides the most benefit to the country allowing for healthy and meaningful majority feedback but not too liberal giving unnecessary space for creation of wasteful distractions. In other words, the limit at any point of time should be where it can best serve the interest of the majority and the nation.

In a sense it is quite analogous to managing a meeting – ensuring enough opportunity for everyone to contribute and generate ideas while effectively managing those who overly dwell on issues beyond what is necessary. The meeting must have constructive and meaningful input but not unnecessary distractions.

Sticking with this analogy, this is how our meeting goes – a large number are dutifully nodding and agreeing with everything said by the Chairman; another group actively and energetically muttering issues under their breath among themselves but not putting them on the table; and a small group saying anything and everything all too passionately while insisting they should even be allowed “to dance on the table”.

Clearly we are not managing our meeting well at all.

Those dutifully nodding should be asked what exactly they were vigourously nodding their heads for, what exactly they were agreeing with, why, and what further added-value ideas they can contribute. Those muttering under their breath should be asked what they were busy muttering about and have their views or ideas openly discussed. Those saying anything and everything and still insisting on being allowed to “dance on the table” should be quickly put in their place and “made to be more reasonable” – clearly their conduct had become too much of a distraction undermining whatever good ideas they might have tried to put forth.

How would they view their “freedom to express themselves” at this table?

Those dutifully nodding their heads most likely felt they had complete and total freedom – to agree with anything and everything the Chairman said. Those muttering under their breath had something to say but did not (probably unsure or had not adequately thought through the issues and were consequently hesitant) but grudgingly felt the Chairman was to blame for not being more encouraging. Those saying anything and everything and insisting they even be allowed to “dance on the table” felt they had no freedom to express themselves (their views, thoughts, feelings, emotions, personal interests – and dance skills).

I said at the beginning that freedom of expressions in this country is “under-utilised”. I say so because I think the majority of us in this country fall under the first two categories at the table. We have not really become fully engaged – contributing only, at best, to a modest and still unclear majority views (although many quarters claim their views are the majority views). The extent of running space and limit on freedom of expressions in this country has thus never been fully tested by a truly responsible majority voice.

To a certain extent, this situation can be blamed on the haughtiness and dismissive stance of those in authority and their limited tolerance for differing viewpoints, and the very partisan nature of our communication media. But these are only derivative causes and minor ones – the real reason, I sincerely believe, is that the majority of us have chosen to adopt the more convenient role of “cheerleaders”.

We pick sides on practically every issue based on emotions, self interests, and affiliations – and on immediate or short term considerations. Whichever side has our support (the many interest groups, agitators, opposition, disgruntled politicians, those in authority, the government) we readily and energetically cheer them on – and often also skillfully add our own spin to make the cheering more colourful. The much needed value-add step (thorough, impartial, and sincere scrutiny of their ideas, actions, and conduct; and equally sincere and constructive feedback) is seldom, if ever, carried out.

Freedom of expressions must support the majority interest and must be exercised by a thinking and responsible majority. Until we learn to become fully and constructively engaged in the interest of the nation on a non-partisan basis, a meaningful majority voice cannot emerge. And our freedom of expressions will remain “freedom without real expressions”.

WE CAN DISAGREE WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE

I briefly watched both Obama and Clinton give their respective speeches immediately after the New Hampshire primary a short while back.

Obama was looking young and fresh, Clinton slightly less so; one made his speech to look off-the-cuff, the other referred off-and-on to a prepared text; one upbeat and rousing and filled with catch phrases, the other slightly more subdued and measured – but both said they wanted to bring change while assuring the American people a bigger role in running the country. Obama repeated his stand on the key issue of US troops in Iraq while I didn’t hear Clinton touch on it. Otherwise, and apart from personality and style, the message were not too different.

What I did find really interesting though was that both picked on a slogan that we Malaysians have made our unique rallying call for almost two decades – “Malaysia Boleh”. Both Obama and Clinton used the phrase “we can”. In the case of Obama, he repeated it over and over, seemingly making it another of his rallying catch phrases for the rest of the campaign. He also talked about making the moon the frontier, and conquering the highest mountains. We have been pushing our young people to conquer the poles and Everest, sail the high seas, and recently sent someone into space. I wonder if both, especially Obama, have been eavesdropping and watching what we have been doing!

To be fair, we must therefore also pick a few learning for our own from them. Both asked the people to be more involved with the affairs of the nation, as Obama said (perhaps somewhat clichéd) “what you, the people, can do to change America”. Perhaps we, all Malaysians, should also ask ourselves and honestly examine what we collectively can do to make this country a better Malaysia.

Obama also said “we can disagree without being disagreeable”. This is a great phrase underlying so much common sense wisdom yet so difficult to sincerely practice.

For us in Malaysia, given some of our peculiar and unique features, it can only become that much more difficult, but we need to start working towards making that our culture and the accepted norm. We need to learn to disagree and yet not be disagreeable. This is the only way for us to bring about a truly genuine and meaningful majority voice and gain from the potential richness of ideas and contributions – even within our existing framework and structures.

Hey, let’s not let Obama and Clinton copy from us without us getting something back!

STATING THE NEGLECTED OBVIOUS

I thought Dato’ Dr. Mohd Tap gave an extremely good and interesting interview on the subject of the standards of conduct expected of leaders (The New Straits Times, Sunday 6th January). He was articulate, forthright, and totally honest – every bit true to the trust he holds in his position as the President of Integrity Institute Malaysia.

I sent him a note (SMS) saying as much. He responded by saying that he was just stating the obvious. My reply to that was “which is needed since we are very good at ignoring the obvious”, which I sincerely think we are – starting from the little everyday things to matters of national importance; from the men in the street to leaders in high positions.

I found the many points made by Dato' Dr. Mohd Tap, especially his strong reiteration that leaders must lead by examples and must be beyond reproach, a real welcome reminder. A fundamental test of leadership is understanding oneself and one's own capacity - does one have the ability and sincere willingness to do what one is supposed to do, to act the way one is supposed to act, to live by the values and principles one is supposed to live by? If at all one is a leader (no matter how big or small, as supposed to being something else) these are the honest qustions one should sincerely ask oneself in deciding whether to offer one's service to be a leader or not.

What Dato' Dr. Mohd Tap did not say, and did not have to, was that for those who cannot live up to that principle then they really have no business occupying their high positions, or fighting so hard to get there in the first place.

NATIONAL SERVICE AND MY DAUGHTER

Our youngest daughter left last Sunday for her three-month national service training – at Junaco Park Camp in Sibu, Sarawak.

When she received the notice of her selection for the training she was devastated, and desperately tried to sweet-talk us into finding ways to get her out of it. We made it clear to her that we were extremely happy and thankful that she got selected – we also made it equally clear that once she was selected she had to go, that’s it, period.

Of course we didn’t quite leave it at that – we needed to make sure she would go to Sibu a happy and reasonably motivated trainee, not a sulking unhappy teenager with a closed mind. So we quickly embarked on an aggressive national service promotion in-house. I was very confident that our effort would make her come round to accepting it more positively before the training start-date. I was wrong – the bias must have been more deep-seated than I had thought. Izadeana was unconvinced right up to the time we waved her goodbye as she sat teary-eyed on the bus at Bukit Jalil on her way to KLIA for her flight to Sibu.

Her last SMS to us before surrendering her mobile phone to the camp on arrival that night was “I want to go home”.

The thing of it is, ED (as we usually call her), is very much an outdoor person with a lot of friends – the kind of teenager that I thought would have really looked forward to the National Service experience. She had gone for a two-week camping on a farm in Perth with her class-mates (organized by her former kindergarten) when she was 11, camped at an Orang Asli settlement at 14, climbed Mount Kinabalu (picture) and did white-water rafting in Jeram Besu at 15. She had always been ready to try new things, and had always enjoyed herself at our modest farm in Behrang. So, what had caused this very strong aversion for the National Service training?

And if the number of no-shows at Bukit Jalil on that Sunday was any indication, this reluctance was not just confined to the like of my daughter. Of the 97 scheduled to leave for Sibu from the Klang Valley, only 52 turned up, a no-show of over 46%. This might only be for the Klang Valley-Sibu group and the overall percentage could be less alarming – but still such a waste!

I sincerely believe our National Service Programme is an excellent project. Could it have been better planned and managed? Most definitely – but it is now in place and moving on. As it is, the programme is already in its fifth year and functioning smoothly compared to when it was first hurriedly implemented. We have to keep on working at it until we have the perfect product. Given positive and genuine support of the whole country, it can become a very powerful integration and nationalism nurturing tool – but the people must truly believe that first.

We clearly need to “sell” the National Service Programme more effectively to really win the “hearts and minds” of the whole country (parents and children) convincingly once and for all. I suspect it is currently more a case of “grudging acceptance” with most parents praying really hard for their children not to be selected – and the children shouting “Amen” at the top of their voice!

I hope ED will come back in March a total advocate of the National Service Training and prove me right.

DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T

Have you noticed how many more blind beggars are working the public places these days? Only recently, at a SriHartamas open eating joint, I counted five begging teams, the last pair working the round at 2am just before my group left. Obviously they work till very late – I’ll give them that. And very diligently too (my brother-in-law said on one occasion he was approached by the same pair of blind gentleman and his lady assistant twice in one night at the same table, an hour apart).

To be fair, it is not totally correct to say they are out-and-out begging because nearly all of them also offer reciprocal “gift” items of sort – small packets of tissue, book markers, tiny note-books, wise-word stickers, or the like, in return for the “donations”. This arrangement, I’m sure, makes them feel somewhat less of a beggar and gives them a greater sense of legitimacy for what they do.

Clearly, quite a lot of preparations would have gone into getting to that stage – to decide on the areas to work on and the time-table and routine (different places on different days), the routes to take, the needed logistics to get to the target operating areas (they probably don’t live anywhere near SriHartamas, for example), to select and acquire the products (in bulk to get them at the cheapest possible), to arrange for an assistant to accompany the principle player, and possibly quite a few other things.

It doesn’t take much to figure out that what we have here is a slick “business” – planned, organized, and managed by those who are clearly willing to trade in the misfortune of the less fortunate and the compassion of the public. Although this realisation can only undermine the goodwill and compassion of many would-be donors yet, somehow, this does not seem to impact the “collection”. The public continue to give, but probably with less “keikhlasan”, including me!

So, what’s the point I’m trying to make? I really don’t know. I do know I get irritated (from mildly to immensely) whenever I’m approached by these “sponsored” teams. I quietly rebel inside yet reluctant to be judged by the neighbouring tables or my children, or risk starting my wife’s “aaah…biar lah………………”, and being made to seem petty and small!

The closest I can equate my quandary in such situation is to leaving the mosque after Friday prayer making haste to catch a particularly urgent meeting, only to find the car blocked by another car, double-parked, and whose owner decided to have an extra lengthy wirid. Do I make an issue of it when he finally arrived or do I just ignore it? I still have not quite worked out the better approach – I still feel damned either way!