Dare to be different

Some people (particularly from Indo, I must regretfully admit) are just not used to being divergent in terms of opinion. It is normal for two persons in a physical meeting to be poles apart in an issue. This is fine because they can sort out the difference straight on the spot.

Alas, in a virtual meeting done via email trade, there's a good chance of A's question being not answered by B or anyone else and it is simply ignored like it was never asked at all. I can't understand the logic behind this. If silence is meant to be 'yes', it might still be acceptable. But when B is unresponsive to A's statement because B disagreed with it, why not voice it out? Why dare not be different? Is it, perhaps, due to sungkan? (sungkan = an Indonesian adjective --allegedly originating from Javanese culture-- where someone appears bashful to the extent of timorous in the face of words or action of someone else)

Regardless of the motive, not only is it unethical to pay no heed to someone's opinion, it does actually lead the whole team attending the meeting to an uncertain position as to what the final decision of the topic being discussed would be. As one put it very well, discussion without conclusion is confusion. I can't agree more with it. (EJ)