23/04/2026

THURSDAY | APR 23, 2026

11

Hidden consequences of burning bridges A PERSON can be highly competent, experienced and even respected for years. One poorly handled exit is often enough to redefine how they are remembered. Reputation is shaped by repeated behaviour over time. A single incident may pass. Over time, patterns shape how others respond to you. The cost does not arrive as open rejection; it appears as an absence. because it is what others respond to. Once that perception settles, it is difficult to reverse. T H E M

declines. A sustainable exit requires deliberate control. Three questions create clarity at the point where decisions matter most. What is the long-term cost of how this situation is handled? Who else is connected to this relationship? How will this action shape professional identity beyond this moment. These questions refine action without delaying it. Maintaining a bridge reflects strategic awareness. Boundaries can be set with precision. Disagreement can be expressed with composure. An exit can be firm and still preserve professional regard. This approach protects future options and supports long-term positioning. Burning a bridge creates a sense of closure. It also defines how others choose to engage with you going forward. In tightly connected environments, that definition travels. Long after the moment has passed, the pattern remains and it continues to shape what becomes available to you. DrPraveena Rajendra is the author of Mindprint: Engineering Inner Power for Growth, Purpose and Regeneration. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com Cruelty of glue traps WHEN asked about the most merciless thing we encounter at Peta, the answer is often surprising. It isn’t some abstract or obscure form of abuse; it’s something still openly sold on store shelves: glue traps. In Malaysia, glue traps are widely available and commonly used, yet many people are unaware of the extent of suffering they cause. Glue traps cause prolonged and extreme agony. Animals caught on these sticky surfaces panic and struggle, tearing away their own fur, feathers or skin. Some break bones or even chew off their limbs in desperate attempts to escape. Many die slowly – from dehydration, starvation, shock or suffocation – sometimes after being discarded alive in some garbage bin with the trap itself. These devices are indiscriminate, ensnaring not only mice and rats but also birds, bats, reptiles and companion animals. Peta routinely hears from distraught members of the public who stumble upon this cloaked form of cruelty. Beyond their barbaric cruelty, glue traps also fail to address the underlying conditions that attract rodents in the first place – such as exposed garbage, improper food storage and poor waste management. As a result, the problem persists while animals pay the price. Even in places struggling with large rat populations, glue traps offer no lasting solution. Around the world, awareness of glue traps’harm and ineffectiveness has led to decisive action. Glue traps have been prohibited in many places, including countries such as England and the Netherlands, as well as in large parts of Australia. Major retailers globally have also acted, with companies such as AliExpress in the US and EU, Target and Walgreens removing these products from their shelves. In contrast, Malaysia is lagging behind, with major retailers still freely selling this cruel and ineffective device. Malaysia has an opportunity to join their global counterparts by removing glue traps from store shelves and choosing humane, effective solutions instead. If we recognise glue traps for what they are – one of the most violent devices still confoundingly, legally available – there is no ethical reason they should remain on responsible stores’ shelves. If you see glue traps for sale, speak to the store manager, share the facts and explain that glue traps cause extreme torment and distress, and urge them to stop selling these merciless products. Compassionate conversations save lives.

Sustainability is often discussed in environmental terms. In a professional context, it refers to continuity, trust and the ability to remain relevant within evolving environments. Careers develop through repeated interaction within networks that extend beyond a single organisation. When a bridge is burned, continuity is interrupted, trust weakens and pathways that once existed no longer open in the same way. The Mindprint framework explains how this pattern takes hold. People do not remember your intentions; they remember your patterns. Behaviour under pressure reveals more than performance under stability. A controlled response builds credibility. A destructive exit leaves a trace. Others respond to that trace with caution. There is also a strategic loss that often goes unnoticed. Relationships provide access to information, perspective and alignment – inputs that systems thinking depends on. When a relationship is removed through conflict, access to these elements is reduced. Visibility narrows and influence follows. The ability to operate within complex environments

D

I

N

N

In Malaysia, careers move through people. Across Asia, a large proportion of mid to senior roles are filled through referrals, internal recommendations and informal networks. Reputation functions as infrastructure within this environment. Once damaged, recovery is slow and uncertain. People rarely announce this shift – they simply stop considering you. Bridges are often burned when control feels threatened. The response becomes louder, sharper and more final. In that moment, expression overrides consequence. The individual may feel closure, but the consequences extend well beyond it. Professional ecosystems in Malaysia are tightly connected, especially in academia, sustainability and policy-linked environments. People move across institutions, collaborate across organisations and carry observations with them. M I B Y D R P R A V IT takes only 29 seconds to shake public confidence in a system. A short video showing a suspect pinned down with an officer’s foot on his head has sparked more than outrage. It has fed a quiet, growing fear: If in public – under watchful eyes and recording phones – what happens behind closed doors, in lock-ups or interrogation rooms? The police response was swift and clear: force must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. This is not a mere ideal; it is the foundation of legitimate policing. Policing is undeniably difficult. Officers face real dangers – armed suspects, unpredictable behaviour and situations that can escalate in seconds. Precisely because they hold significant power, restraint cannot be optional; it must be built into the system. When force continues after a suspect is subdued, it ceases to be control and becomes punishment – a critical line. The law permits reasonable force to make an arrest; it does not permit humiliation or retaliation. Once policing feels punitive, it loses its moral authority. The larger problem is how these incidents ripple outward. A viral video becomes the lens through which people interpret what they cannot see. If excessive force can occur in broad daylight, in full view of bystanders, what assurance is there for detainees in closed rooms? That is where suspicion grows – and trust erodes. Reassigning the officer to desk duty during the investigation is a procedural step, not accountability. Malaysians are no longer asking whether there will be an investigation; they are asking whether its outcome will be transparent, independent, and meaningful. Without that, internal reviews risk being seen as cover-ups. The creation of IPCMC (Independent Police Conduct Commission) is a step forward but questions remain about its power and reach. For oversight to be effective, it cannot merely observe; it must also be able to act – investigate, compel evidence and recommend prosecution. Independence is not a slogan; it is a structural requirement. Lock-ups cannot remain black holes. Continuous CCTV, mandatory medical checks on arrival and automatic inquests for custodial deaths are not luxuries – they are basic

You are no longer part of early conversations where opportunities take shape. Your name no longer surfaces in decision-making rooms. Referees turn neutral – and at senior levels, that is often enough to close the door. Collaboration becomes cautious, then selective. Over time, access closes without explanation. People do not always say what they think – they act on what they remember. Those who burn bridges rarely see it that way; the decision feels justified, even necessary. A strong internal narrative of fairness, recognition or correction takes hold and focus turns inward. The individual evaluates the situation through personal experience; others judge it through observable behaviour. This gap is where misjudgement occurs. What feels like standing on one’s ground can read as loss of control. What feels like honesty can be received as hostility. In tightly connected environments, perception carries more weight than intention D R A J E N D R A

E

E

A

N

LETTERS letters@thesundaily.com

Rebuild trust in Malaysian policing

Officers face real dangers - armed suspects, unpredictable behaviour and situations that can explode in seconds. However, because they carry so much power, restraint cannot be optional; it has to be built into the system. – BERNAMAPIC

complaints and disciplinary outcomes is a powerful step toward transparency. What gets measured gets managed and what gets shared builds trust. At the end of the day, the issue is not whether the police should have power – they must. The real question is whether that power is exercised within clear, fair and accountable boundaries. Public trust, once broken, is difficult to rebuild, but not impossible. It begins with recognising that perception matters as much as procedure, that accountability must be visible and that dignity must be preserved – even when arresting someone accused of an offence. Ultimately, a nation’s policing is not measured by how forcefully it can act but by how wisely it chooses restraint.

safeguards. When the system is visible, speculation gives way to trust. Technology can help. Body-worn cameras, used consistently and managed independently, provide a reliable record of interactions between police and the public. They protect officers from false accusations and citizens from abuse. In a world where perception often outpaces facts, evidence should lead the story. Gadgets and policies alone won’t fix what is, at its core, a cultural problem. Policing must shift from a force-first mindset to a professionalism- first one. De-escalation should be instinct, not the exception. Training must emphasise judgement under pressure, respect for human dignity and the simple reality that every action will be seen – not only by superiors but by the public. The police force itself has a crucial role to play. Publishing data on use-of-force incidents,

Jason Baker President Peta Asia

K.T. Maran Seremban