Today, I had consultation with Ms Suhaili and I think that was the best move I made this year.
Other than that, school was rather humdrum except for the activity given us for Civics. We were shown photos of 'leaders' and asked to identify them, after which we were supposed to say what made them leaders and what qualities they possessed. Some things were said that made sense, some things inevitably provoked. Of course, they were said in a well meaning form.
If I had said anything, first of all it would be my grousing about how they so want us to become leaders and all. Now for that I have a lot to say.
School wish to develop this class of people. Companies seek out such people when interviewing. The world lives to revere such people. Why are leaders given more credit than due? If one were truly a leader, and possessed humility, then the world would be wrong to blow up their status to such a revered state. I know many leaders who have explicitly stated that they never want any recognition. I believe Buddha is one of them. I find this absolutely ironic. A good leader never does his work for glory, but then why do we give it to them? Perhaps it is good in the sense that it exposes us to their strengths and qualities, which is fine. But coupled with the overhype that society places on leaders, it seems that leaders throughout history become like gods. I'm not comfortable with that.
I always wonder, if everyone were a leader, then who is led? Of course, there are many answers to it. One can be a leader specialising in a certain talent and lead others to achieve the goal pertaining to the talent the leader has. In that sense, everyone has their own niche in being a leader.
What I'm saying is that I'm not a cynic preaching against leadership. I cannot fathom the superficiality at which it is taught. The menial positions offered in school such as subject reps can't even convince that one is a leader. In saying these are leadership positions, does it mean that doing 'sai gang' is leadership? Such posts can never bring out the leader in you. Even if one primed oneself up and said they'd be the best Chemistry rep ever, there isn't much they can do other than collect notes, distribute them or relay messages to and fro teachers. They could have initiative and photocopy extra notes, say, but who does that please tell me.
Secondly, I profess I am super cynical of leadership programmes and workshops. They can indoctrinate, preach, give you all the jargon, but they'll only fill the head and not the heart. The way I see it, only life can make you a leader. Mahatma Ghandi didn't attend any leadership class, but probably from young he developed himself, and had a moral upstanding so pure, characteristic of a leader, that it came out naturally. His heart was heavy for the alienated and suffering native people of India. I've seen so many students go for such courses only to see them end up in trouble and absolutely losing it. It never works because some people probably won't dare to choose to be a leader.
For that reason, I believe that a CCA is mega important in school. Nurture and develop character in school? How do you do that while lecturing cell structure? Perhaps punctuality, consistency and non-procrastination are useful qualities that can be learnt, but other than that, the most fundamental things can be learnt in the crap that happens in a CCA. Why does the college want to advocate leadership so much when from the last few days I've heard so many instances of CCAs being controlled by the school administration and teachers-in-charge? The CCA leaders are stolen of the chance to develop their leadership qualities if they can't act as leaders and have to come under the absolute authority of someone higher. Leadership is a farce in the college. Things must change.
Other than that, the situation in the middle east was pre-ordained to occur. They've been fighting for generations, since biblical times. If you think that thousands have died recently, probably a hundred millions have died in total since the begining of time. In our near-sighted morality, is it right to say to put our foot down and say that the fighting must stop because lives are being lost? I think people who make such statements are sad cases. I cannot help but feel that their claims are selfish. They don't want the fighting to happen because they don't want to see people die, that's all. They don't really care about the lives lost; to them the death toll is really a statistic. Perhaps, they even find it a thrill to make noise and create trouble by moralizing the whole situation till it is disfigured and people don't realise what they say, just because they want to appear moral and stop the bloodshed. They criticise the leaders responsible for it. You know what convinces me to believe that such people who so blatantly fault leaders under the premise of loss of lives or whatever are being selfish? The fact that after making all that noise, they don't care at all about what has happened. Instead of politicising the whole thing, bl**dy get your *ss in that country and save the dying people! We seem to be solely capable of blabbering more than we do...
There are a few things people cannot understand about world leaders. Whatever they do is, right, and whatever they do is wrong. George Bush may have stayed back with some kids upon receiving news about 911. What makes you think he had to stay because of something meaningfully important, or how do you know he didn't have anguish pierce him upon receiving the news? Then again, if he hadn't invaded Iraq, we'd never know what Saddam the madman might have done these last three years. Perhaps he really didn't have WMDs, or maybe he had no intention of being evil (sure, after the Kuwaiti invasion all he could say was that he wanted to keep his troops busy..). Although there is still much violence in that region, it's only because fundamentalists are trying their best to take over the country and reinstate an absolute rule once again, otherwise why else would they fight when US is trying so hard to establish democracy? Also, it's due to some zealous fanatics convinced that the capitalist devils are trying to exploit their resources, and are bent on destroying the Islamic world or whatever. Is that fair? And must we blame the US for not having the people's support when it's so hard to get it. It's wrong to say that people aren't happy: so many went crazy with joy when Saddam's statue fell. They're only unhappy because of the continuous insurgency.
People aren't able to see two ways. Leaders are normal human beings who can make mistakes, and cannot come up with the solution to everything. UN till now hasn't fully achieved its purpose of keeping peace in the nations. Freedom of speech has allowed people to get plucky enough to defy their governance intellectually, yet the government is the one that usually encourages this freedom of speech. It gives people more say in a more enligtened world. Take away this enlightenment and imagine what happens if we were still in the monarchic times, when the king was the one and all, or if you were ruled by a dictator. How would we be now? Not only will our voice be taken away, we'd be suffering. We never actually do give thanks for our leaders, do we? We're only capable of putting them down.
People waste their time talking instead of doing. I don't want to associate with such hypocrites and that's why I normally remain silent during such discussions.