First Scenario
When the writer was in Court one morning, he saw some lawyers were queuing in front of the Senior Assistant Registrar’s (SAR) room. The queue was quite long. There were four lawyers queuing patiently in front of the SAR’s room. Suddenly there were a few lawyers appearing behind of the queue and requested the first lawyer (who queued in front of the SAR’s room) to let them enter first. Without asking the second, third and forth lawyers who were queuing, the first lawyer allowed one of the lawyers to enter first.
Second Scenario
When the writer was queuing at the traffic lights leading to the Jelutong Expressway, a lot of vehicles like to cut the queue from the right outer lane into the left (middle) lane. Those who cut queue normally did not indicate any signals. They would just wait for the opportunity and cut themselves in. Some did indicate signals. The writer finds that those who indicated signals would be given space to cut the queue.
Third Scenario
When the writer was queuing for a movie tickets in the other day, the writer witnessed this: there was a guy in the first of the queue had given up his “first place” to his friends(a couple). He then became the second in the queue. Those who were queuing behind this guy were quite unhappy about the cutting queue by his friends. However, no one stood up and voice out their unhappiness.
From the three scenarios mentioned above, the writer thinks that cutting queue is a culture of Malaysians. People will try to get advantage from their friends and/ or those who willingly given their “place” to the others. The writer is wondering if this cutting queue culture is correct. Well… The first person willingly gave up his queue, could those queuing behind the first person question his consent and/ or voice out their unhappiness? Is this “allowing queue to be cut” act approve by those who were behind the first person?
This leads the writer to think on the structure of a Company, Organisation and/ or Political Party. It seems that it is quite normal for the superior to appoint his successor before his retirement. Did the “superior” take into consideration the views of his subordinates and/ or members of the particular Company/ Organisation and/ or Political Party?
In this era of democracy, do we really listen to voice of the majority? If so, when people is unhappy about you giving up your place to others, are you able, ready and willing to turn down the request of cutting queue by others? On the other hand, if the majority wants you to give up your place, are you able, ready and willing to do so?
The writer keeps thinking: Is the act of “giving up your own place” and/ or “appointment” associated with pleasure or pressure?
Any idea?
