Another Blessing In Disguise!

I had another encounter with another rude applicant this evening, during my dinner!  It was through text messages and voicemail.

To cut a long story short, this one was in cohorts with the previous one, so both are out now.  It’s best they seek help elsewhere.

I do reflect deeply when such things happen and I look inward to see if I had done wrong, whether the matter could have been handled more diplomatically, without having to endure the heartache, stress, hostility and verbal abuse from them. And if I could have handled it differently…

Here’s what happened, or at least a part of it.

It was over the “no third party claims” clause again. This clause has been in place since Day One. I do wonder why some people find it so offensive.

We have valid reasons for not allowing third party claims because we need to inform our donors just WHO exactly has received our funds (the donated money).  We cannot be giving our funds to these “agents” to conveniently claim for other people. It just isn’t right. There won’t be accountability and transparency when this happens.

Even with such policies in place, some dishonest applicants still fall through the cracks. As mentioned before, one was caught running a whole cottage industry by becoming an “agent” (proxy) to claim for other people’s animals and goodness knows how much she made on the side, into her own pockets. We refuse to be made use of in such shady and unwholesome ventures.  She has since been banned for life.

So, this morning, we found there was an “agent” again and no doubt there was no “cottage industry” going on with this one, rules are rules. It’s written in the policies.

And her argument was that she “did not know”.

Our defense would be that the policies are sent to every applicant EVERY single time (no matter how many times they have applied before).  Partly too because over time, there would be policy changes.

That got her angry and she said goodbye, which was most welcome.

Then, the news got to her friend, who is also attempting to claim from us. Now, I don’t know if this friend is also acting as an agent, but this friend had been rude from Day One and I wished we had the “zero tolerance for rude people” then, but we did not. So, we had been helping her.

She heard about this “no third party claims” and insisted she too did not know about it.

I’m beginning to think that there is a cultural incoherence here. To these people, if they did not bother to read the policies and hence, they did not know, THEY cannot be faulted.

Huh?

How does that work?  In my culture and upbringing, if there are rules, they have to be respected and followed and if I break the rules, I pay the price.  It’s as simple as that.

But this principle obviously does not work for them.

So, you see how it is a total waste of time and effort trying to make them see your point because they simply cannot see it.

In their books, I am in the wrong.  If they don’t read and hence, they didn’t know, I should not fault them.  I am wrong in insisting that they abide by our rules.

Then, the conversation got ugly and numerous voicemails were shot in my direction. The attack got personal. The accuser said that if I were a genuine dog-lover, I would not have insisted that they abide by the rules.

Huh?  Why even make rules if they don’t have to be followed?  Rules are there for a reason and for uniformity and accountability of funds disbursed. This type of people do not understand this reasoning. They would just do whatever THEY want, regardless.

By now, I have already grown quite weary of such people, their entitled attitudes and their total zero respect for rules.

When it gets ugly and there is no more civility, that’s when I draw the line and tell them politely that we won’t be entertaining their claims anymore.

On reflection, I’ve come to several decisions now:

1. I must learn to recognise this brand of people.  Yes, they are recognisable. For my own sanity, I shall avoid dealing with them.  They can always apply to other organisations.
2. When I started AnimalCare, my policy was “Animals first”. In doing so, I landed myself into the quandary of dealing with dishonest and downright nasty and rude people. I told myself to plod on because the animals came first. No matter how nasty the human applicant is, as long as an animal is helped, we should entertain the human’s application and tolerate her ill behaviour. But I’m afraid this cannot go on anymore now. If it does, I will lose my sanity. To be fair, my well-meaning friends did advise me to consider the human factor. I did not see their wisdom then. I do now. Thank you, dear friends.
3. No more entertaining those who insist on writing in Chinese or using voicemail. I allowed this previously only to help them because they didn’t know how to send an email or speak or write in Bahasa Malaysia. No more. It’s this brand of people who have this tendency. They come from an entitled culture.

Now, the human applicant DOES matter. If the human applicant is dishonest, rude and nasty, out she goes. She can easily source elsewhere for funds.

Reminder to self: For every nasty applicant, there are ten more nice ones waiting in line. So, help the ten nice ones!

Goodbye, nasty humans.

Welcome onboard, nice people!!

Source: https://myanimalcare.org/2019/05/05/another-blessing-in-disg..

Tweet

AnimalCare

AnimalCare is a registered society that promotes caregiving to street animals and helps in their neutering and medical needs. AnimalCare has a Medical Fund, Food Fund and Education Fund.

More Articles   |   Pets For Adoption   |   Website