Representatives

Representatives


I was just wondering if a representative is a leader. You see, I've been the class representative for quite a number of times and invariably people look to me to lead the class. Not only that, the school looks at class representatives as leaders.

Representative: a person chosen to act or make decisions on behalf of another person or a group of people.

The meaning of representative definitely has a feel of leadership but notice the language. I am supposed to make a decision on behalf of them and not FOR them. You might ask what is the difference. The difference is clear in that only people who have power(ie leaders,parents etc) can make decisions FOR you and not necessarily on behalf of. On the other hand, I make a decision only on behalf of them, meaning i have no power whatsoever and i have to get majority's consensus before i can make a decision.

This bring me to the next point on being identified as a leader by the school. The school seems to be caught between two minds on whether class representatives are leaders. On one hand, the use 'representatives' rather than 'chairperson' or 'leader' indicating a want to share class duties/authority amongst the entire class and not having the clout on one person. But the other vests us with power to be leaders. How can a non-class leader be a school leader? It equates to calling a pawn, a rook(in chess terms) Although there is that potential to become a leader, it does not quite make sense to jump the gun.

Also, I believe a class representative should be the embodiment of the class(spirit). This means that the class is essentially represented by the epitome of it. Thereby, it must a person everyone can identify as a class, ie something like a mascot but not as useless.

Ok...so what exactly is my point?i can't be saying this for no reason right?unlike the last post which required you to think, let me give you the reasons.

1) People in the class do not take ownership of the class. I'm not sure if it's restricted to only my class and i'm pretty sure it isn't BUT the class seems to be over reliant,looking at me for directions most,if not all, the time. They expect me to be doing things for them, such as planning class outings and events. This is clearly not the way to go for class advancement. Because there is this lack of participation, there can be no class spirit or identity formed. With only a select few people helping me, it is clear the class has been isolated to only the few of us. The class as a whole chooses to take no part in decision-making for the class, rather wanting me to feed them. Thereby, a class representative has actually become a slave. And this is often true for other classes as well. The rest of the class takes no ownership at all, declining to help at every instance(for example for a class tee,celebrations)

They might claim it is due to me not telling them anything but i have told them before and still they decline to help. Perhaps, the best example is my vice class representative passing several duties which are easy to do to me and instead of requesting me to do it,she simply expects me to do it.

If i were a leader, i would just take it all on my back and carry it. Yet, I'm only a representative and my powers are limited. I am not asking to be a leader(I already am) but rather the class taking ownership of itself. By having a sole person take responsibility, it does no help for the class as a whole.

2) I think this is a bigger worry: the promiscuous use of words by S'poreans. I believe my statement says it all. S'poreans use words very liberally and interchangeably. 'Representative' and 'leader', 'few' and 'couple' are just some of the few examples. If it is an occasional slip in usage, it is still understandable. Who doesn't make the occasional slip-up? Throughout this post, I've probably made quite a number. But what i do not understand is schools making such mistakes over and over again. Is there no English department to identify the difference between a class representative and a leader? If there is, would someone kindly highlight this?

Schools should be decisive on who are leaders and who are not. Leaders should not only lead from the front but also the back. My school is probably the most liberal in the usage of the word 'leader' and as a 'leader' myself i feel ashamed. More than a third are identified as 'leaders' and the numbers keep increasing. But are we all really leaders? Aren't we flogging the word 'leader'? A lot of people cannot qualify to be a leader(myself included) but this liberal usage has led many to live in self-delusion that they are really leaders. Most of us are taught to be servants to the school,assisting out in projects. True enough, a leader must also serve. But the other dimension of leadership, making decisions, is left out most of the time. If this is the case, how can we be considered leaders?

Perhaps, I am too calculative over this but it is my belief that 'leader' is a very special word and can be placed on only those deserving of it. The liberal usage defiles and makes mockery of it. Indeed, many people in my school are already waking up to this idea. After all, if there is the student council,leaders and students and most students are leaders, isn't it equivalent to just naming students leaders for that ego boost? This certainly isn't the way to get participation. I have helped out at events not for the title 'leader' but rather i believe it improves myself. I need no ego boost. Everyone has confidence in themselves but giving them this false impression may backfire and quash their confidence.

Perhaps, our shameless use of words should be highlighted. No doubt it is probably a lesser evil compared to rudimentary errors but the bottomline is: it is still an evil. And the sooner we eliminate it the better. I am a strong believer in leaders leading by example and no Tom,Dick,Harry can be a leader. Yes, leadership can be cultivated but until a person is a true leader don't distort its meaning.