Mai luan chu seh!

What is loyalty?

Footballers change clubs as easily as they change jerseys. Even if they do not speak ill of their former clubs, it doesn’t change the fact that they will kicking the ball towards the other post.

Basketball players shoot at different hoops when a better deal comes along. Some, while claiming to no intentions of switching allegiance, admit wanting to feel what it’s like to be courted as free agents. Kobe Bryant was one of them.

MJ himself shot for the Wizards. The Bulls are no longer the Bulls since Phil Jackson left. What made the Bulls lose its identity? Phil Jackson’s transfer? MJ’s retirement? Or loyalty’s absence?

Some people are like a lost cause. No matter how hard you try, things just don’t change. But you don’t give up on such people, and you don’t simply forget about them, or replace them. But sometimes, it still happens. Some call it abandonment. Some call it nonchalance. Some call it lack of loyalty.

Loyalty seems to be linked along the lines of friendship and patriotism. But what exactly is loyalty today, and how far does it exist? Let’s check some of the ways we usually describe loyalty:

You dutifully keep up on something because it is your task to do it. That’s not loyalty. That is responsibility.

You faithfully remain on something because it has been good to you. That’s not loyalty. That is fulfilling an obligation.

You stick on with something because you have no other choice. That’s not loyalty. That’s lack of option.

You hang on with something because there is no higher bidder. That’s not loyalty. That’s taking a ride.

You stay on with something because it benefits you. That’s not loyalty. That’s an opportunist’s game.

So, how can we phrase the meaning of loyalty. Maybe we can put it together this way: You yield towards something not because you have no other choice, not because there is no higher bidder, not because of its benefits, but because you find enough reason in it. Now, is that loyalty?

Sounds highly acceptable. Even if we assume that is what loyalty really is, one question remains. Isn’t having a reason to cling on considered a factor of “benefit” in itself? If loyalty depends on reason, it is gone the moment reason is gone. Perhaps loyalty must not be dependent on any other factor, including reason, in order to remain as true loyalty.

Let’s try rephrasing its definition: Loyalty is the attitude of yielding towards something not because you have no other choice, not because there is no higher bidder, not because of its benefits, and not because you find reason in it. Now, doesn’t that sound more like foolishness? Is real loyalty more like blind allegiance then?

Allegiance. That’s another word I want to talk about. You pledge allegiance towards something because you want to see something good come out of it, even if it is not necessarily for yourself. Sounds noble. But the factor of benefit is still there, isn’t it? The opportunist’s game is still on as long as the factor of benefit is present. So allegiance doesn’t really equate itself with loyalty.

So, what do I think loyalty is? Is it about being blind? Maybe. About being foolish? Perhaps.

I think loyalty is not dependent on any factor. It has to exist independently. It is about patience. It is about waiting. It is about being stubborn.