Two Stalemates: Stonewalling, Backfire, and the Cost of Clinging to Beliefs

 

I’ve been mulling over two frustrating matters while weeding in my garden—two situations where people seem to dig in rather than deal with the issues at hand. First, why aren’t the developer and architect in the Vistana Heights case taking the easy way out by buying back my property at market value instead of dragging this to court? Second, why is Lions Clubs International (LCI) not acting against the Lions Club of Kota Kinabalu Centennial Club when I’ve openly pointed out their failure to hold an election meeting, which violates the LCI Constitution? The same question applies to District Governor Annie Ho, who has thrown up hurdles to stop PP Chin Chee Thau from meeting for the Club Dispute Resolution Procedure (CDRP). Let’s unpack these one at a time, exploring how stonewalling, the backfire effect, and a stubborn refusal to think might be at play.

The Vistana Heights Case: Stonewalling as a Shield

For over two years, I’ve offered the developer and architect a simple solution: buy back my unit at market price. They’ve dragged their feet, stonewalling me despite public pressure on my blog and social media. Together with a few house buyers, I requested a meeting with the developer and LPPB (Lembaga Perumahan dan Perbandaran), but their lawyer threw up a ridiculous barrier—demanding we rent a hotel room, bring our own lawyers, professionals, and newspaper reporters, or no meeting. Naturally, it never happened. To the developer, this lawyer’s obstruction is a win, a sign he’s “doing a good job” by delaying accountability.

Why do they stonewall like this? It’s not just stupidity or emotions—it could be self-interest, bureaucracy, or a belief they can wait me out. Stonewalling is emotional withdrawal, a defence mechanism against feeling overwhelmed, avoiding conflict, or dodging criticism. But there’s more to it. Could the backfire effect be at work? When I push with facts—market value offers, public exposure—they don’t budge. Instead, they double down, seeing the lawyer’s tactics as proof of success rather than a reason to rethink their approach. It’s like the Chinese proverb “xiao dong bu bu, da dong chi ku”—a stitch in time saves nine. By sweeping this under the carpet, they’re setting themselves up for bigger trouble.

I’m done waiting. Those who know me know I don’t bluff—I took on a Public Listed Company in 2017 and got the Lions Club of Kota Kinabalu Host deregistered after fights that lasted over two years and one year, respectively. I’ve been hammering this publicly for over two years with no movement, so legal action is the next step. There’s a time limit—October 2025—to file, and I’ll make it their problem by June this year. When this blows up, the developer, architect, LPPB, Lembaga Juruukur Sabah, DBKK, the surveyor, and others will look bad. They’ve had their chance to play nice. 

The cost of stonewalling? We’ll find out soon.

The LCI Case: Clinging to Rules Over Reason

Then there’s Lions Clubs International (LCI) and the Lions Club of Kota Kinabalu Centennial Club. I’ve been vocal: the club hasn’t held an election meeting, which breaches the LCI Constitution. Yet LCI does nothing. District Governor Annie Ho adds to the mess, placing hurdles to block PP Chin Chee Thau from using the CDRP process. LCI’s legal department clings to two lines: “clubs are autonomous” and “non-members cannot complain.” It’s a wall I keep hitting.

Why this stonewalling? It’s not just inaction—it’s a refusal to engage. Studies show people often cling to beliefs like life rafts, doubling down when faced with contradicting facts—a phenomenon called the backfire effect. When I challenge LCI with evidence of constitutional violations, they don’t adjust; they grip tighter to their rules, as if my push threatens their identity or worldview. It’s belief perseverance—maintaining a stance despite clear evidence against it. Emotions, biases, and identity outweigh logic here. Reason isn’t even playing the same game as their feelings.

Could it be, as I often quote, “many people would rather die than think”? LCI’s legal team and the District Governor seem to prefer rigid defences over rethinking their position. My pressure might make them dig in harder, shutting down instead of opening up. It’s frustrating, but it’s a pattern: present someone with uncomfortable truth, and they’ll build a fortress around their comfort zone.

The Bigger Picture: Why Stonewall, Why Dig In?

These cases raise a question: Why do people stonewall during arguments, and could it be tied to the backfire effect, where pushing them with facts or pressure makes them dig in harder, shutting down instead of opening up? In Vistana Heights, the developer’s lawyer turned a meeting into a circus of demands, stonewalling us while the developer cheers him on. In LCI, the legal department hides behind autonomy and membership rules, unmoved by evidence. Both show a refusal to face the issue—a vibe of “rather die than think.”

People react defensively when their beliefs are challenged, viewing new information as a threat. It’s not always about smarts; it’s about what feels safe. But stonewalling and the backfire effect have a cost—legal battles for the developer, reputational damage for LCI. I’m not here to argue with someone who’s already decided the truth is whatever makes them comfortable. I’m here to make them face the heat until they can’t ignore it anymore.