18 September 2011:
Tomorrow, the new Sec 1s are coming into SC.
And there is no reason for me to get excited. Sounds cynical and depressing? Hear me out.I was present at the EXCO meeting where we discussed about this. I can't actually describe the process, but I can say that it is a very unfair process. And if I'm not wrong, it has been in place for a few years at least. This process, without doubt, breeds bias for some juniors. It is a no-brainer as to why that would happen once you knew what it was like. To maixmum ironic effect, TK told us not to be biased against any junior.
How do we achieve that with the kind of process there is in place? But, I don't blame TK. It's probably not her fault, or even of the Top 6, for having such a flawed system. No matter how you argue for it, this system will breed biasness.
Probably the most fatal flaw that Student Council has is that we are not bonded. I might sound like a cynical dissident about this, but yes, I strongly believe that we ain't bonded. The board has 6 sections (excluding Section 0). To be honest, I don't even know some Sec 2s from other sections, even though they have been in the board for almost a year.
The only time that we get together as a board is when there is full-board meetings. Yet, in full-board meetings, only the Top 6 addresses us, and that does nothing to help in the bonding process. Bonding. I find this word highly over-used within Student Council. Yes, we strive to achieve this, but have we ever been near it? No, our state of "bondedness" has been spoilt by prejudice and biasness that is ubiquitous within the board.
Yes, there are camps to, hopefully, bond with people from other sections. Most of the time, it is mandatory that people be grouped with others from other sections. The intention is clear and simple. Yet, the result might not be as expected. I suppose it's human nature: people do stick within their comfort zones. The best thing facilitators of the camps could do is to purposely arrange for people who don't know each other well to complete tasks together.
This is forced and unnatural. Personally, I don't see how this will work. While I don't deny some councillors getting to know each other through camps, I think all these camps just make close councillors closer, and the distance between some not as welcomed councillors will be dragged wider from bunches of councillors.
Within councillors, there are cliques. Or shall I say, coteries. Does that constitute being bonded? Absolutely not. B once said - and I totally agree - "A class is not bonded if there are cliques within it." (Although the context was in terms of a class environment, it works as well for Student Council.) I'm not against cliques, but they hinder being bonded. It is again human nature: people in a clique would stay closer to each other. Who would want to venture out of their comfort zone with their "besties" and talk to unfamiliar people?
A truly bonded Student Council would be one that is able to have cliques, yet these cliques overlap each other. Meaning, everyone is more or less thoroughly mixed within different groups, so at the end of the day, everyone really does talk to and interact with everyone else.
It seems that I may have drifted from being biased to not being bonded. Back to the former. Being biased is very present in North Korea+. People within it are affected. This has been present for at least 2 years. I wonder how many batches does it take to get rid of such a practice. It seriously breaks the links between section members. And also, no to purging++.
I'm nearly not optimistic about the Sec 1s. I know who is coming into my section, and I already do not like one of them. I know this probably sounds very contradicting, since I advocated so much about being impartial towards juniors. In my defence, I will try to be as open-minded as possible in the time to come when dealing with juniors. I'll form my opinions of them at a later date.
TK and others have repeatedly told us to be more careful of what we say and what we do from now on, since the new Sec 1s are entering the board. While I understand the reason behind it - we want to show a good impression to the juniors, so that they will follow suit - I think of it almost as a pretence. Probably everyone does it. When there are guests, visitors, or someone of importance, our attitude changes and we become prim and proper. Colin Goh from the Sunday Times recounted how one father started talking to his son in perfect English when the latter saw the former in lawyer attire.
It's about the same thing. My point being: why do we perk up only when there are people coming? Is it to show that we value them? No, we can show that through different ways. This only shows that we are actually all aware that our behaviour is not all that perfect during this period. So now that the new Sec 1s are coming into the board, we are afraid they follow this behaviour, hence put on our best, and hope that they will follow this set of behaviour instead. Rather pathetic, eh?
And by pathetic, I mean that to everyone, including myself. I admit, I am such a person too. I admit that I have not done my best as a councillor throughout these years, and that I probably perform best only when there are newcomers to the board, like last year when the current Sec 2s entered, and tomorrow when new Sec 1s enter too. What we should actually be doing is to already meet tip-top standards, and continue to uphold that even after they have entered.
I'm sure the Sec 1s are not all that ignorant. I'm sure they would probably have spotted our mistakes, be it during duties or just in school during normal times. Word would easily spread from an observant new councillor about the "double standards" we have, and depending on how it is interpreted from there on, at worst it could be seen as, like I said, rather pathetic.
I do admit that, I too am powerless when it comes to solving all the above problems that I have talked about. I'm sure people within the board are more or less aware of these problems, since some are probably even victims of it. So far, there does not seem to be a clear-cut resolution to actually tackle all of these. I suppose, day-to-day runnings of the board are already tiring enough for everyone (I mean the EXCO here), so we generally not do much. Of course, I'm sure there are some who just prefer to close an eye.
Which makes me recall of one problem that we do face too. The actual reason why anyone comes into the board. I remember when I interviewed the Sec 1s previously, most of them wrote things like "I want to help my class, my teacher", etc. There was a "trick" question asking them if they would still be a councillor if they had no more points starting from their batch.
All of them said yes. Of course, who would have the guts to say no? They would probably find another reason to push off being a councillor if they are really selected, so as not to be perceived as a mercenary. Yet, there are some councillors who are in mostly for the points. From their attitude, it is evident that they do not enjoy or take pride in daily duties, they just do it because it is a trade-off for an advantage in points. I am in no position to judge people on how much leadership potential they have, but I can sense that some choose not to be a leader, rather than because of the lack of skills or experience.
The worst I heard was a said councillor telling juniors to get in because they are a lot of points. I won't want to pinpoint who that actually is, but that is by far the worse thing to say to a junior. It probably corrupts his mind, and from then on he will start to do things only if they are benefits.
Yes, you're probably saying that I am like a retard in this fast-paced world, where you'll get thrown off the social bandwagon if you don't have such traits like being mercenary. But, must all things be done this way? Student Council's purpose was to have a group of students helping to lead others. If everyone within the board does things because of the points, I can foresee our ratings fall to the point of sin(270).
That's all I have to say. It's such a depressing and cynical post, ain't it? Well, I'm just saying what I really feel. In all irony, tomorrow, I would be addressing the new councillors along with HL with a very positive message.
+ "North Korea" refers to a particular section within the board. If you have a rudimentary understanding of North Korea, I'm sure you can infer what this section is like.
++ I suppose my target audience would surely understand this phrase, since the said audience takes History.
I am almost certain that our batch of EXCO is unable to create significant change enough for the board. I don't know how many batches it'll take.