Reflections on a Slap

     "Slap!" Everyone looked in the direction of the sound and saw that Hou had slapped her deskmate An across the face. An immediately burst into tears.

    "Hou, why did you slap him?" the teacher asked sternly.

    "He touched my test paper!" Hou said defiantly.

    "Even if he touched your test paper, you can't hit him! You should know that only his parents have the right to treat him like that, and besides, this is in the classroom!" To seek justice for An and to teach the other students a lesson, the homeroom teacher continued, "Don't you think about how everyone will see you for what you did?"

    "I hit him to show everyone! Who told them not to vote for me!" Hou practically roared.

    Having served as class monitor for a semester, Hou was consistently arrogant and domineering. Relying on her good grades, her position as class monitor, and her role as the head of the school's Young Pioneers, she always acted superior and never respected others. She would either ridicule or physically abuse classmates who made mistakes, and many students suffered at her hands. Although she was very organized and strict with her students, they had many complaints about her but dared not speak out. To unite the majority of students and educate her personally, the homeroom teacher held a complete re-election of the class committee at the beginning of the new semester. Naturally, because she lacked the support of most students, Hou # ultimately lost the election. Losing the class monitor position did not make her realize her mistakes or change her ways; she remained arrogant and self-willed.

    As is customary, the school awards outstanding Young Pioneers and counselors every year on Children's Day. Just yesterday, at the school's all-teacher meeting, four outstanding counselors were elected by secret ballot. Today, it was time to select outstanding Young Pioneers for the class, and the homeroom teacher followed suit, using the same method—secret ballot. After a tense voting and counting process, the top three students were selected as outstanding Young Pioneers based on their vote counts in descending order. Because Hou # received significantly fewer votes than the top three, she lost again. This public selection process once again left the self-righteous Hou# utterly defeated, leaving her speechless and unable to refute the argument. It seems the principle of "those who act justly gain much support, while those who act unjustly find little" remains relevant even after thousands of years.

    Let's take a look at which students this class selected. Predictably, all three students are, without exception, mild-mannered, quiet, tolerant of their classmates, and "good guys" who never want to offend anyone. This is the ideal student in the students' eyes, an outstanding Young Pioneer worthy of their recognition and praise! Afterwards, the homeroom teacher exchanged opinions with other subject teachers regarding the selection results. Those teachers confidently stated that in terms of academics, organizational skills, and class management abilities, no one could surpass Hou#. However, it was precisely her outspokenness and willingness to discipline that offended many classmates, leading to her thankless efforts and being sidelined.

    Leaving aside the fact that Hou#'s slap was an act of venting anger, expressing dissatisfaction, and strongly protesting... This slap in the face also reminded me of the selection method we often favor and use in our work—the fairness and rationality of anonymous voting. On the surface, this form ensures everyone's participation and exercise of rights, and the selection result naturally reflects public opinion and is beyond reproach. But in reality, it contains many perplexing aspects.

    First, are the selected "excellent" individuals truly excellent, or are they just people who rack their brains, form cliques, and exclude others, all for the sake of cultivating so-called "interpersonal relationships," while being incompetent and unmotivated in their work?

    Second, "a tree that stands out in the forest will be felled by the wind; a mound that rises above the bank will be eroded by the current; a person who excels above others will be criticized by the masses." Especially after the implementation of performance-based pay in various units, "egalitarianism" has become increasingly favored and accepted. Why is it that everyone works in the same room, "working at sunrise and resting at sunset," yet some people receive more and higher pay than others? Therefore, in order to achieve "equal distribution of benefits," people are very likely to exclude those who are truly excellent during the selection process.

    Thirdly, since it's an open and democratic election, why not count the votes and announce the results on the spot, instead of only having everyone vote anonymously and then telling you the results the next day? Can this practice of telling you the results the next day be considered to reflect openness, transparency, fairness, and the will of the people? Or does it only represent the leaders' opinion of who is good? Logically, leaders should reward and punish fairly, encourage genuine excellence, set a positive example for colleagues, and inspire their fighting spirit and potential. However, if nepotism occurs, and people are divided into different classes based on personal relationships, then imagine who will be willing to work hard and be pragmatic in future work? It will likely only cultivate a group of sycophants, flatterers, and bootlickers.

    If every selection insists on this anonymous voting method, then ask yourself: can everyone cast their vote for the excellent with a fair heart, carefully and principledly? A fair heart is the principle and foundation of voting. If even this basic principle cannot be guaranteed, how can we prevent the emergence of people in our work who only care about forming cliques, engaging in favoritism, and manipulating the system, while disregarding diligence and selflessness? Furthermore, even if everyone has a fair heart and casts their solemn and sacred vote for the best during elections, but no one witnesses the crucial steps of vote counting and verification, and the results are only announced by the leadership the next day, can this be considered true democracy, openness, and fairness? It's no wonder it raises suspicions of behind-the-scenes manipulation!