The Iliad

Well, after much thought and debate I've decided to post this post to make clear my stand on why I decided not to come for my handover and all the trouble recently. What's done is done, but I just hope for my post to clarify certain matters and resolve the issues at hand, which are actually just already set in stone.

Personally, this post is going to be about the ACCO politics which plagued much of June and July, which mainly, really just divided me and the rest of the committee. Indeed, I was fighting a one man battle, and despite there being no explicit comments, many whisperings was heard of me being the leader of the Chinese gang, and causing trouble, and being an irresponsible SL and committee member and what not. All these, Meiqi and Alyssa have generously tried to hide by still being friendly towards me and such. While I was appreciative of such efforts, there comes a time when a person must indeed re-look on his vision and aims when he took up a leadership position and question himself: Did I achieve these aims? Are things going the way I envisioned them? Now of course when your aims and the aims of the community at large coincide, there is no problem, and we can work as a committee as one towards these aims, striving towards greater heights. The problem of course, comes when a divergence of aims occurs, when what you want is not what the majority wants, when you fight a lone battle. At this time, one must decide. Do I stand my ground and maintain my beliefs? Or do I give in and just follow the crowd?

Now first, I must make my stance clear. For me, my aim in CO was always to preserve CO, not just ACCO. One may ask,” What’s the difference?" Well I shall say that my aim is the preservation of CO, Chinese Orchestral music, its intricacies, the love of it, its nuances and quaint traits as a whole. My aims are not aimed at improving the situation of any particular CO, but at the whole idea of CO itself. Now last year, this wasn't a problem. The survival of ACCO meant the survival of CO to me, and I worked hard with the committee, etching out new policies, trying to recruit more members, improving our conditions, our standards of music, etc. The problem just came this year, when an influx of Barker boys came along. Now, don't get me wrong. I have no personal vendetta against Barker people. At their best, they are a kind, fun-loving, generous and loyal lot who inspire loyalty and esprit de corps in they who join them. The problem comes in the fact that their aims of CO diverge from mine. Maybe its their background, or their upbringing, but as a general observation (note I said general) many of them do not really understand the meaning behind Chinese Orchestral music, its wonder, the stories behind it, the feelings that it is supposed to emote. From my point of view, they simply join CO because, well, their friends are inside CO. Now before majority of any Barker kids who read this post protest, I would like to ask all of you a question. How many of you would still join CO if ALL your friends quit CO? How many of you would stay on, just for the love of CO music?

And therein lies my differences with the committee. The committee certainly believes it is making the right decision in its choice of successors. I don't blame them for that, for their aim is to preserve ACCO, not CO, or so I believe. They have indeed chosen people with capable leadership qualities, able to lead an organization. But CO is not just an organization. I believe that with the current leadership, the soul of CO cannot be preserved. To prove my point, I would like to ask my committee, how many of you know that the people you chose are actually PASSIONATE about CO music? That they are genuinely interested? For me, that is one of the most important criteria for leading a CO. The teachers and committee apparently think otherwise, with their election of Irvin as president. I won't deny that he has an impressive resume, and I would be the first to defend his leadership qualities, which he does possess. He has a certain musical talent as well. However, does he actually possess a passion of CO music? Does he love the songs? Does he know what music we're making? From my point of view, not really. The observations that I have made of him, as an SL of him leads me to believe he lacks what I deem an important part of a leader of a CO. But, apparently the higher-ups disagree.

Now, why is passion in CO music important you ask? Well I can explain it simply. It provides the necessary drive to recruit members into CO and just make the CO stronger. Can you imagine, for example, if the Prime Minister of Singapore was someone who is totally disinterested in political affairs? Or the principal of a secondary school is someone who hates education? It is only if you have passion for something, that you can truly push it to greater heights and convince others of its worth. Our CO can only improve, not under capable leadership, but under a passionate and visionary one as well. Passion and vision go together like bread and butter. With one lacking, the other will not materialize. And any organization without a strong passion and vision will just die out. And as I've mentioned above, I, for one, cannot believe that the Barker Boys, most of them at least, have a true passion for CO music. You may choose to rebutt, but for now this is just my point of view.

And so, my friends, this is why I've distanced myself from ACCO at large, cause I simply cannot accept the path they have chosen to do things. I always believed in my vision of preserving CO music and encouraging it at large, but ACCO apparently believes otherwise. Since our paths diverge, I cannot agree with their choices and thus, I chose to skip the handover and what not, simply because I cannot bring myself to legitimize the new committee. I hope this post has made clear my stand, and hope that people will stop referring to me as pompous and egoistic.