Kiki vs Khoo

(Source: Free Malaysia Today)

I believe Kiki Kamaruddin needs no further introduction. She is famous (or infamous) enough because of her actions four months ago

Khoo, however, is the new “Kiki Kamaruddin” if you will. He damaged another driver’s wiper and side mirror, as well as spat on her windscreen because she honked at him for changing lanes recklessly.

How he felt he is in the right is beyond my comprehension. On top of that absurdity, he is 58 years old, and one would reasonably expect him to have been more skilled when it comes to driving.

Anyway, the reason I am writing this is because there are netizens accusing a certain group of Malaysians of practicing double standards. They say that mainly because that group of people were more vocal in Kiki’s case

Prima facie, both situations have a material difference. Kiki was being a racist road bully towards Uncle Sim. Just a recap of some of the things she said:

“you think you are Chinese that you are bigger and better than us!”

“tak, dia cina, saya tahu dia punya intention” (no, he’s Chinese, I know his intention)

Khoo is obviously a road bully too, but he did not racially abuse Alisa. Perhaps if he uttered derogatory/racist words to Alisa, the backlash would have likely been bigger

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that what Khoo did was justified and should not be objurgated because he did not racially abuse the other party. I believe both Khoo and Kiki were legally wrong, and as such, should be punished heavily as a deterrent for themselves and others

All I’m saying is that we should not turn everything into a racial issue. Regardless of the race of the road bully or the victim, the perpetrator must face the legal consequences of his/her actions.

As Malaysians, let us unite to condemn road bullying. Let this be a future lesson to all existing road-bullies and road-bullies-to-be that their behaviour is not tolerable and WHEN they are caught, they WILL face the full brunt of the law

*Check it out at The Malaysian Insider, Malaysian Chronicle, and Free Malaysia Today


Back At You Joker

“What r u writing about? If all ministers r judged to be only competent if they hv the relevant ‘technical’ skills, then who is qualified to be PM? Is there a uni degree for “Country Management”? Meritocracy is allowing the deserving to succeed like u mentioned. We r a democracy. We vote ppl into Parliament.”

“The ones with most votes wins. That means most Msian think he/she is the best person for that post. Is that unconstitutional? Abt scholarships, meritocracy can be practiced if the award of scholarship is given to the best students from the poor and East Malaysia. This will be in compliance with the constitution too”

That was the exact comment by Malaysiakini user “Joker” on my article entitled “The Constitutionality Of Meritocracy” First of all, I have to apologise as I forgot to mention in my article that the system of meritocracy I was referring to was an “absolute meritocracy”

An absolute meritocracy would mean NO quota regarding scholarships, positions in the public service, etc. Hence allowing the top Malaysian students (regardless of race) to receive a scholarship.  An absolute meritocracy would be unconstitutional as it contradicts Article 153(2) of the Federal Constitution.

It is regrettable that the user got an entirely different idea of what I was trying to say. However, your points are feeble and shall be rebutted by yours truly 

First of all, I would suggest that you (Mr/Ms Joker) learn how to type in proper English. Using short forms only show your lack of respect for the beauty of the English language as well as highlights your utter laziness

Besides that, I’m not sure if you know, but our current PM also happens to be the Finance Minister. It would be useful for a PM to have a degree in Business Management, or a degree in Accounting and Finance, or a degree in Economics. A degree in sarcasm would be irrelevant.

Furthermore, you are right when you said we vote people into Parliament. However, you clearly erred when you said, “That means most Msian think he/she is the best person for that post.” The rakyat votes for the politicians they feel best represent their voice in the Legislature.

And NOT because the rakyat feels the politicians are “best for that post.” In actual fact, Cabinet members are chosen and appointed AFTER the elections. NOT during or before. A little word of advice, before you try being a smart aleck, do your homework.

You are obviously barking up the wrong tree when you said, “is that unconstitutional.” You are in serious need of reading glasses as I said, meritocracy regarding the appointment of cabinet ministers and deputy ministers “would not be unconstitutional, but it would be a bit

It is undeniable that meritocracy is used when it comes to the award of scholarships. However, I was referring to an absolute meritocracy, your final point is not worth rebutting as you were operating under a mistaken belief

You Cant Please Everyone

Am I the only one who realises that DAP is often in a catch-22? When they field a Malay candidate for a by-election, they get accused of using a Malay to bait for Malay votes. However, if DAP were to field a Chinese politician for a seat with a Chinese-majority, they get accused of being a racist party.

Katie Couric once said, “You can’t please everyone, and you can’t make everyone like you.” Quite rightly so, DAP being the epitome

The statement that, “DAP is a party dominated by one race” is a verisimilitude. Prima facie, DAP is dominated by the Chinese. But upon further inspection, one would realise that it’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) consists of Malaysians of all races. DAP’s doors are open to Malaysians regardless of race and religion, unlike their fastidious political rivals

The high positions of power in DAP are not just limited to the Chinese. Further proof being that the previous Chairman of the DAP is the late Karpal Singh. Last I checked, a Singh is not a Chinese. The Tiger of Jelutong was not a puppet of the Chinese in DAP. He got to where he was because of his capabilities as well as his determination. Unfortunately, those from the other side of the political divide have successfully made Malaysians envisage DAP as a racist party

My tirade ends here. I simply want to commend DAP for their propriety. Even if Dyana fails to win the Teluk Intan by-elections, it is a step forward for DAP as it shows merit trumps racial heritage

Who Is The Holy Spirit?

In this article I aim to provide an insight about the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, not many people explain on this, hence leaving a lot of people confused

*This is the general Christian belief. If your religion tells you otherwise or differently, stick to your beliefs. This is just for your enlightenment

A. The existence of the Holy Spirit

1. Matthew 3:16-17

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.
17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

My point (MP): Here we can see that the Holy Spirit came down from heaven in the form of a dove, thus proving his existence in the Bible. He is part of the Trinity

2. John 15:26

26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the
Father—he will testify about me

MP: The Holy Spirit exists and is sent by Jesus to us from God the Father

B. The Holy Spirit is God

1. Acts 5:3-4

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and
have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

MP: Read carefully and you will realise that the Holy Spirit = God. This further confirms the doctrine of the Trinity

2. 1 Corinthians 3:16

16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

MP: God’s Spirit is referring to the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit = God

C. The major names of the Holy Spirit

1. The Holy Spirit

– Refer to verses above

2. The Spirit of God/God’s Spirit

1 John 4:2
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

3. The Spirit of Christ

Romans 8:9
You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

4. The Comforter

John 15:26 [refer to the 2nd point of A.]

5. The Spirit of Truth

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come

D. Activities of the Holy Spirit

1. He teaches us

John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you

2. He testifies of Jesus

John 15:26 [refer to the 2nd point of A.]
– The “me” in John 15:26 is Jesus

3. He glorifies Jesus

John 16:13-14
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
14 He will glorify me (Jesus) because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you

4. He helps in our inabilities

Romans 8:26
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

5. He searches the deep things of God

1 Corinthians 2:10
these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

6. He gives spiritual gifts

1 Corinthians 12:11
All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

The Constitutionality Of Meritocracy

Meritocracy can be defined as “an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth” as well as “leadership by able and talented persons.” It basically means giving something to those who deserve it.

Some people have suggested that Malaysia should be operating on the system of meritocracy as it ensures that only those who are capable & deserving receive the benefit, job, etc. I agree it is a good system, but I want to analyse it from a legal viewpoint

Is meritocracy unconstitutional? The answer is, it depends. Depends on what? It depends on what you want meritocracy to apply to.

Let’s say you suggest that meritocracy apply in terms of the awarding of scholarships and placements in universities. Article 153 talks about the reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak. Article 153(2) expressly mentions “scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government.” So yeah, if regarding ‘quota’s and scholarships’, meritocracy would be unconstitutional.

Let’s say you’re talking about meritocracy regarding positions in the public service. Article 153(2) covers “positions in the public service (other than the public service of the state).” Therefore, it would be unconstitutional to demand for meritocracy for that as well

How about meritocracy regarding the appointment of Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers? Meritocracy would not be unconstitutional, but it would be a bit impractical. According to Article 43 and 43A, the YDP Agong appoints them (the ministers & deputy ministers) on the advice of the PM. However, the PM is only allowed to choose from the crop of members of either House of Parliament [Article 43(2)(b) and 43A(1)]

If we practiced meritocracy, none of the MPs may be qualified for the position of Minister of Defence as most (if not all), do not have any military background. The next best choice might not even be suitable for the job. Hence we would be back to square one (having incompetent ministers). The only solution would be for the political parties to field candidates from all walks of life. Then at least the talent pool is greater and more diverse

* This article can also be found at Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider

Is Malaysia An Islamic Country?

This is a point of contention every time the question of hudud pops up. Those all for hudud say, “Malaysia is an Islamic country, therefore we should have Islamic laws” while those against hudud say “Malaysia is a secular country and Islamic law has no place in it”

In actual fact, I think Malaysia is neither an Islamic country nor a secular one. We are an extremely unique country in the sense that we are UNDEFINED

“An Islamic state ( Arabic: ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ al-dawlah al-islamīyah ) is a type of government, in which the primary basis for government is Islamic religious law” as per Wikipedia. In Malaysia, our Federal Consitution is the basis for government, hence we do not fulfill the primary requirement of being an Islamic state

At this point, all the pro-secular country advocates are rejoicing. However, as per Wikipedia, “secular states do not have a state religion (established religion) or equivalent.” As we all know (or should know), Article 3 of the Federal Constitution states that Islam is the religion of the Federation. So Malaysia cant be a secular state by virtue of having an established religion

In Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosector, Tun Haji Muhammad Salleh bin Abbas (former Lord President of the Federal Court of Malaysia) said that the laws of Malaysia are secular. Many have misconstrued his statement to mean that Malaysia is a secular country. After all, it is logical that a secular country would be governed by secular laws. However, as I rightly pointed out, we are not a secular state as we do not fulfill the requirements to be one

Tunku Abdul Rahman once said that “The country has a multi-racial population with various beliefs. Malaysia must continue as a secular State with Islam as the official religion”. Tun Hussien Onn reaffirmed it when he said,  “The nation can still be functional as a secular state with Islam as the official religion.” In 2001, then Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad openly declared that Malaysia is an Islamic country. Despite being the PM then, it was not in their power to declare Malaysia as a secular state/an Islamic state as even they (the PMs then) are subjected to the purview of the Federal Constitution.

No matter what individuals may say, Malaysia remains an ambiguous state until the glorious day when the Constitution is amended to expressly state whether Malaysia is an Islamic state or a secular state. In conclusion, Malaysia is NOT an Islamic state but neither is it a Secular state

* Read it also at The Malaysian Insider

Is Hudud In The Bible?

I was in serious shock when I read a few articles saying hudud is in the Bible. One of it is found at DUN N26 Bangi, Selangor’s blog while there is another at My Journey Of Faith’s page

Both articles quoted the same Bible verse which is from Matthew 18:8-9

Matthew 18:8-9
8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.
9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell

Let me first clarify that the Bible is not always read literally. Otherwise, according to Matthew 16:24, we would have to deny ourselves, literally take up a cross and follow Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus spoke in parables in the Bible, which should at least indicate to you that not everything is literal in the Bible.

Jesus in Mattthew 18:8-9, spoke metaphorically. When the phrases ‘cut it off’ and ‘gouge it out’ was used, Jesus was NOT referring to self-mutilation. What Jesus meant is that the root cause of the sin must be cut off and gotten rid off. Matthew 15:18-19 tells us that the root of the sin lies in the heart.

Matthew 15:18-19
18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual
immorality, theft, false testimony, slander

Does it now mean that we have to cut the heart out?! Obviously not. In order to cut off the root of the sin, one must change his/her attitude (e.g. the behaviour that causes the person to sin must stop). In conclusion, hudud is NOT in the Bible. The only reason people get such an idea is because they read the Bible out of context. Which is unacceptable!