A LinkedIn post and my comments and responses

 

Here are extracts from a post on LinkedIn I commented on.

But the bank manager didn’t like it. He followed me outside to my car to tell me:

“Because you are not a member, you can’t dialogue with our customers. If you do, you can’t come back.”

At that moment, I had a choice:

i.                    React with racket energy—get defensive, blame, or fight back.

ii.                  Stay in integrity, engage for clarity, and be present to the possibility of something bigger.

 

So, I chose integrity and asked for clarity:

“Let me get this straight—because I’m not a member, I can’t bother your customers?”

“So what you’re saying is that having conversations with customers is a privilege that members have… and since I’m not a member, I am a bother?”

The absurdity of it hit me—dialogue as a privilege? Since when does engagement require a membership card?

This is where the possibility of being extraordinary comes in. Because extraordinary leadership isn’t about avoiding conflict—it’s about transforming it.

What showed up for me in this moment:

✨ Where else do we silence dialogue because it feels uncomfortable?

✨ Where do we accept limitations on possibility just because “that’s how it is”?

✨ How often do we let policies dictate connection, rather than create spaces for it?

 

I commented as follows:

 

This post reminds me of an economics lesson I attended over 50 years ago. 'When America sneezes Asia catches the flu'.

If Americans have this attitude whereby only members can complain about criminal offences committed by Lions Members, would this not affect the rest of the population in Asia, including Malaysia?

Public interest should dictate what can and cannot be complained about. The Americans are still talking about Locus Standi which is outdated in this country. 

 

The author replied:

Hi Luqman,

Thank you for sharing that intriguing perspective—it highlights the interconnectedness of our global community and the ripple effects of national policies. Your reference to Locus Standi brings an essential legal dimension into our discussion about public interest and how it’s defined across different contexts. I appreciate your insight and the historical lens you apply to these issues, sparking a broader conversation about accountability and inclusivity in global discourse.

Looking forward to more of your enlightening contributions!

The following is what I responded to.

Fatima Fernandez I’ll get back to you soon. I’ve reached out to the International President of Lions Clubs International and am waiting for his reply.

I’m also searching for pro-bono lawyers to hold LCI accountable for their inaction, especially since they claim non-members have no right to raise complaints with them. This logic doesn’t add up to me.

Consider this hypothetical situation: Suppose I sponsor 20 unemployed graduates and create a Lions Club to funnel donated funds for our gain—and I succeed. Then, let’s say you discover this and report it to LCI. They dismiss your complaint, arguing that you’re not a member and thus have no standing to object. Wouldn’t this kind of policy encourage the unchecked creation of Lions Clubs? Could this explain why a small place like Kota Kinabalu has so many clubs?