What's In A Name

Mei Yee thinks that getting anonymous comments is nothing to be agitated about. But I automatically get annoyed with deliberate anonymity. Here's why:

Firstly, going back to Public Speaking and Speech Writing 101. Why are introductory speeches important? In any decent seminar or conference, the chairperson takes great lengths to properly introduce the speaker before he speaks. He elaborates on the speaker's background, his status, his accomplishments, etc. Why is that necessary? Because a good and proper introduction validates the credibility of the speaker.

Granted, it's the content matter that counts. But the credibility of the speaker speaks volumes of what he is going to say even before he opens his mouth. If he is who he is reputed to be, you'll take in what he has to say with much more respect. If you know that the speaker is far from impressive in the field he is in, you'll take whatever he says with a pinch of salt. Would you take a person speaking on "Corporate Ethics" when he has been famous for harassing people in his workplace?

Yes, it will put either a bias or a prejudice on the speaker. But I say it's a good bias, and a wise prejudice.

So if you want more respect, do not shy away into anonymity. When your talk matches your walk, you have nothing to hide. People will give you respect.

Secondly, anonymity doesn't work. If Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses on the north door of Castle Church in Wittenberg and signs off as "An Unhappy Theology Professor", do you think anything would've happened? Nope. He put his name on it.

Anonymity doesn't work because people cannot identify with nameless, faceless entities. But if the writing comes with a name and a face, people will realize that "Hey, here's a real story! This is a real person! What he says is true!" The public will realize that the issue, and the propagator of the issue, is for real. People will either rally behind you, or directly oppose you. Things will happen.

But if you submit an anonymous letter, it's not hard at all to put it into the trash can.

Thirdly, the motive of anonymity doesn't work too. If indeed technology is so advanced and investigators are so efficient to tap into phone lines and put bugs on the internet, you don't even need a name to be found out.

Once, in a feedback form that my Christian Fellowship collected, an anonymous person focused his/her dissatisfactions directly on me. (The Exco Board of 2005/2006 would know what I'm talking about) It only took elementary deduction to make out who the writer was.

Firstly, it's obvious that the writer lied in his/her identity. He/she indicated that he/she was a postgraduate. But he/she couldn't tell the difference between an Exco member and a Cell Group Leader. So obviously, he/she is a freshie, not a postgraduate. Also, there are only so few postgraduates around. Ummm... Sadat? Nah, I don't think so :)

Secondly, it's not too hard to narrow down who talks like that. Usually, a person's sentence structure, choice of vocabulary, and maturity of thought is reflected in his/her writing.

Thirdly, all I had to do is dig up some old forms that the CF members have filled before. It doesn't take long to match people's handwriting.

However, although I cannot stop mental acrobatics from happening, I didn't allow myself to finish step 2. The Exco Board means it when we say that anonimity in feedback forms will be respected. Exco people are smart people. But we use it for good, not for evil. Cunning as serpents and harmless as doves, are we :)

The point here is, it's not difficult at all to narrow down the identity of anonymous writers. But I chose not to know. Anyway, if the writer is reading this, rest assured that although there was only a small pool of people to guess from, I still do not know specifically who you are, and I did not allow it to happen. And I don't hold anything against you. I believe in handling criticisms professionally, at work or at play.

So, if anonymous writers are going to be found out anyway, why not just be man about it.

Coming back to the issue...

Fourthly, being not anonymous works! Many people already know about how my story was featured on the first page of the Sun not too long ago. With name, face, quotations and all. But what not many people know is... I was the first KPM scholarship holder to get a posting before any other scholarship holder did. If NST's anonymous version was all the Education Ministry had to go by, I don't think even a feather would have been ruffled into action.

Fifthly, hiding behind anonymity is rude. Why is it that you don't like it when someone talks to you with his sunglasses on? Why do you feel reluctant to respond when someone talks to you while wearing a mask? It's because you do not know to whom you're speaking to. The man behind the mask knows to whom he is talking to, but he doesn't give you the privilege the other way around. That is rude.

Sixthly, anonymity is cowardly behaviour. Sometimes, you have something to say. You got a matter to deal with. But you don't want to confront the personality. So, you resort to ways of sending the message across without having to deal with the personality. Maybe it's because that personality is a force to be reckoned with. Maybe it's because you don't want to deal with the backlash after saying what you have to say. Maybe it's because you just want to say whatever you feel like saying, and you want to get away with it. Whichever way it is... That is cowardly.

Sometimes, don't you think it's improper when someone has something important to tell you, but he'd rather SMS than call? It makes you feel that the other person has something to deal with. But he doesn't want to talk to you.

So, in conclusion... If you got something to say, put your money where your mouth is. Or, in this case, put your name where your writing is.

And be responsible for what you write.