Several months back my son looked at a used Mitsubishi Evo and he wanted to buy it. His own money was locked in a fixed deposit. So he approached me to borrow the money. I told him I also did not have that kind of cash idling in an account. He was quite disappointed. He felt that he was going to miss an opportunity of a life time. It will be too late, when his money was available.
A month ago, my son finally bought his Evo with his own money. In his own words, this used Evo is the most beautiful he has seen, even better than the one he missed out before.
When I was leaving Malaysia to go to the UK for my engineering education, I wanted a camera. I reckoned a middle low end Fujica SLR camera was probably not too much for Dad to oblige. My elder brother told me to wait, as he could sometimes find factory seconds at much lower than street price. I told him I could not wait, it would be too late. I got the Fujica.
A year later, my brother found me a Minolta second, a high end model that I very much loved to have. I sold my Fujica.
Many parents I know, typically Asian ones, are pushing their kids to finish schools as quickly as possible, otherwise it will be too late for jobs. Then some parents discover that their kids graduate from college at the wrong time, too early perhaps, before an economic recession ends, for example.
We are always in a rush to do or get whatever we need, for fear that if we wait, it will be too late.
I learned through my own experience that we can't know a lot of what the future holds for us. We don't know if it will be really too late, until it is really too late.
Is it too late, to know that it isn't always too late?
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
While Australians Are Everywhere In The World ....
Malaysians are everywhere in Australia.
A few years ago, a Malaysian born amateur singer Guy Sebastian took out the inaugural Australian Idol title.
Today an amateur chef of Malaysian heritage Adam Liaw won the coveted title of Australia's MasterChef 2010, a highly rated reality cooking competition show where the best amateur cooks compete in knock out daily TV shows over a grueling 12 week period. Adam prevailed over 23 other finalists, which included another Malaysian Alvin Quah.
Last year's MasterChef 2009 runner up was Poh Ling Yeow, also a Malaysian originally.
In Australia, where the sun shines, there are ... Malaysians.
A few years ago, a Malaysian born amateur singer Guy Sebastian took out the inaugural Australian Idol title.
Today an amateur chef of Malaysian heritage Adam Liaw won the coveted title of Australia's MasterChef 2010, a highly rated reality cooking competition show where the best amateur cooks compete in knock out daily TV shows over a grueling 12 week period. Adam prevailed over 23 other finalists, which included another Malaysian Alvin Quah.
Last year's MasterChef 2009 runner up was Poh Ling Yeow, also a Malaysian originally.
In Australia, where the sun shines, there are ... Malaysians.
Where The Sun Shines There Are .....
Chinese of course.
I can't find credit for the person who first said the above. It is so true, everywhere you go, you seem to bump into people of Chinese heritage.
Increasingly, there is a new challenger to the Chinese for the title above. Maybe not in terms of numbers, but certainly in terms of spreads and footprints. The new challenger is ... the Australians.
Have I got any evidence to back what I said? Absolutely.
In all the world's accidents, natural disasters, conflicts, terrorism activities or any situations that resulted in more than a few deaths, chances are really good that at least an Australian was involved.
Today in Germany, one Australian is among just 19 to die in a stampede at a German music festival.
Two Australians were found safe as the ship they traveled in was attacked by Israeli forces. Some deaths were reported.
Not too long ago, a small plane crashed in Nepal killing two Australians among just 18 dead passengers.
These incidents were recorded at places far far away from Australia. Many other incidents also had Australian involvements, all over the world.
That must surely proves that Australians are everywhere on this planet.
Watch out Chinese. Where the sun shines, there are now Australians.
I can't find credit for the person who first said the above. It is so true, everywhere you go, you seem to bump into people of Chinese heritage.
Increasingly, there is a new challenger to the Chinese for the title above. Maybe not in terms of numbers, but certainly in terms of spreads and footprints. The new challenger is ... the Australians.
Have I got any evidence to back what I said? Absolutely.
In all the world's accidents, natural disasters, conflicts, terrorism activities or any situations that resulted in more than a few deaths, chances are really good that at least an Australian was involved.
Today in Germany, one Australian is among just 19 to die in a stampede at a German music festival.
Two Australians were found safe as the ship they traveled in was attacked by Israeli forces. Some deaths were reported.
Not too long ago, a small plane crashed in Nepal killing two Australians among just 18 dead passengers.
These incidents were recorded at places far far away from Australia. Many other incidents also had Australian involvements, all over the world.
That must surely proves that Australians are everywhere on this planet.
Watch out Chinese. Where the sun shines, there are now Australians.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Something To Copy From
Three posts back I mentioned it is easy to make quick progress from a low starting point, by copying others who have successfully and efficiently done the same. In other words, you don't have to reinvent the wheels.
Here is something to share about.
My son sold his Toyota Yaris to a private owner. Here are the steps of the whole process:
1. My son advertised the car for sale. A buyer responded with interest.
2. The buyer inspected the car, made an offer. My son accepted the offer.
3. I downloaded a set of car ownership transfer form from the Department of Transport's website. The form consisted of two identical pages, one green and one red. The top part of the form contains the car and current owner details. The bottom part of the form contains the buyer details. Both green and red pages are to be signed by seller and buyer.
4. Buyer pays seller in bank cheque.
5. The green form is to be mailed in by the seller to the Department of Transport within 7 days of the sale. The red form is to be mailed in by the buyer to the Department of Transport within 7 days of the sale.
6. Sale completed.
Everything was done in the comfort of home, without going into the Department of Transport. No queue, no time wasted. Could be done even at night.
There was no ownership paper for the car. All the records of car ownership are maintained at the Department of Transport. The signature of the seller on the form is the only security check in the sale, just like the signature on the cheque is the only security check for fund withdrawal from a cheque account.
This sounds like a good place to start copying a simple and efficient administrative procedure.
Here is something to share about.
My son sold his Toyota Yaris to a private owner. Here are the steps of the whole process:
1. My son advertised the car for sale. A buyer responded with interest.
2. The buyer inspected the car, made an offer. My son accepted the offer.
3. I downloaded a set of car ownership transfer form from the Department of Transport's website. The form consisted of two identical pages, one green and one red. The top part of the form contains the car and current owner details. The bottom part of the form contains the buyer details. Both green and red pages are to be signed by seller and buyer.
4. Buyer pays seller in bank cheque.
5. The green form is to be mailed in by the seller to the Department of Transport within 7 days of the sale. The red form is to be mailed in by the buyer to the Department of Transport within 7 days of the sale.
6. Sale completed.
Everything was done in the comfort of home, without going into the Department of Transport. No queue, no time wasted. Could be done even at night.
There was no ownership paper for the car. All the records of car ownership are maintained at the Department of Transport. The signature of the seller on the form is the only security check in the sale, just like the signature on the cheque is the only security check for fund withdrawal from a cheque account.
This sounds like a good place to start copying a simple and efficient administrative procedure.
St Anthony, Help Me Please
My son Colin sold his car Toyota Yaris last week. When I helped him to hand over the car to the purchaser, there was one problem. My son had only one car key. He had misplaced the spare key. The purchaser wanted the spare key, and that was a fair request. So I offered to let the purchaser reduce the car price by the value of a replacement key. I thought the key would not have cost more than $100.
And then I found out the replacement key would cost $430. It cost that much because the key contains electronic code to start the ignition, and only Toyota knows the electronic code and can replace the key.
Suddenly I felt a tinge of pain, at the loss of $430.
The buyer gracefully agreed to give us a reasonable couple of weeks to see if we could find the key in the house, before collecting the $430 replacement cost from us.
For a few days, I searched through every corner, drawers, boxes and bags. No, there was no sign of the key. I was resigned to the loss of $430.
My wife joined in the search effort today. She started by saying a prayer to St Anthony. Her mother had told her before that St Anthony is frequently invoked by people who need help looking for something lost.
As she began searching, my wife constantly prayed for St Anthony's assistance. She only focused on the boxes and drawers in the study. She picked through every folders, files, drawers that I had searched hard before.
About an hour later, my wife laid her hands on a standing cut-off filing box in which we kept new envelopes. The envelopes were neatly packed and tightly held in the box, without loose spaces in between for hiding anything much less than the bulk of a car key. My wife decided to turn out all the envelopes anyway. There, at the bottom of the box was a plastic wallet marked Melville Toyota, the name of the dealer from where my son bought his Toyota. A gush of joy and hope overwhelmed her and with slightly trembling hands she removed the wallet, opened it, and found two new spare keys still kept in the sleeves inside the wallet.
The wallet had undoubtedly laid in that box for a long four years, unseen and untouched since the day the car was bought. Somehow it slid from a standing position and laid at the bottom of the box as we piled other stuffs over it.
My wife thanked St Anthony profusely.
St Anthony, the Saint you need when you are looking for lost stuff.
And then I found out the replacement key would cost $430. It cost that much because the key contains electronic code to start the ignition, and only Toyota knows the electronic code and can replace the key.
Suddenly I felt a tinge of pain, at the loss of $430.
The buyer gracefully agreed to give us a reasonable couple of weeks to see if we could find the key in the house, before collecting the $430 replacement cost from us.
For a few days, I searched through every corner, drawers, boxes and bags. No, there was no sign of the key. I was resigned to the loss of $430.
My wife joined in the search effort today. She started by saying a prayer to St Anthony. Her mother had told her before that St Anthony is frequently invoked by people who need help looking for something lost.
As she began searching, my wife constantly prayed for St Anthony's assistance. She only focused on the boxes and drawers in the study. She picked through every folders, files, drawers that I had searched hard before.
About an hour later, my wife laid her hands on a standing cut-off filing box in which we kept new envelopes. The envelopes were neatly packed and tightly held in the box, without loose spaces in between for hiding anything much less than the bulk of a car key. My wife decided to turn out all the envelopes anyway. There, at the bottom of the box was a plastic wallet marked Melville Toyota, the name of the dealer from where my son bought his Toyota. A gush of joy and hope overwhelmed her and with slightly trembling hands she removed the wallet, opened it, and found two new spare keys still kept in the sleeves inside the wallet.
The wallet had undoubtedly laid in that box for a long four years, unseen and untouched since the day the car was bought. Somehow it slid from a standing position and laid at the bottom of the box as we piled other stuffs over it.
My wife thanked St Anthony profusely.
St Anthony, the Saint you need when you are looking for lost stuff.
A Father's Love Letter
Our RCIA class resumed yesterday after a two week school holiday break.
Father George spoke on God the father. He said that the Old Testament gave an image of a God who was angry with His people when they disobeyed His commands, of a God who unleashed a flood to wipe off all the people who sinned. It was an image of a God whom the people feared.
The New Testament portrayed a different God. A God, in the person of Jesus, who loved His people, and was forgiving of their sins when they seeked salvation through Jesus.
The different images of God was a result of the experiences of the people during the times of the Old and New Testaments.
During the group discussions, we were asked a few questions about the images of God, and our views on the Holy Trinity, a Christian belief that God is one as well as three persons, of God, the son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
For the last question on Holy Trinity, nearly all the participants, including the priests, expressed that they can't understand the concept. It remains a mystery and they just have to accept it on faith alone.
I was slightly surprised by the group's response on the Holy Trinity. I mean there were a few other issues that were difficult to explain logically, and not just this Holy Trinity alone. However, the participants seemed more relaxed with the other inexplicable issues, including one we briefly touched on the people's free wills, but were more troubled by this Holy Trinity concept.
I am of the view that the Holy Trinity isn't a subject to worry about. We do not even need to try to explain it. God lives in another world, which is obviously a super set of our own. In that other world, the physical laws may operate differently from ours (And God is probably not subject to any physical laws anyway). What is impossible here may not necessarily be impossible in God's world. So why try to explain the concept of the Holy Trinity?
Take for example, the concept of time in our world. It is a significant physical law that operates and affects everything in our world. We are all locked in a time slot, the present. We can't be in the past or in the future, now. Scientists believe that traveling at or faster than the speed of light is the key to unlock time. As an object travels faster and faster approaching the speed of light, time slows until it stops totally at or beyond the speed of light. As I understand, God is everywhere. This does not appear to be disputed by anyone. So we can say that God travels faster than light. And so God is not locked down in time. He is present at this moment here, in the past and in the future.
To me, this is a far more significant concept about God, that He is everywhere in time, than the concept of the Holy Trinity.
I told the discussion group I believe and have no problem with the concept of the Holy Trinity. The group was quite surprised. Usually I am the odd one out, digging out a few issues that can't be explained away. In Buddhism too, there is a Buddha that is a Trinity, of the past, present and the future (过去现在未来佛). In Taoism, there is also the Taoist Trinity (三清). So Trinity exists in other religions too.
God is unknowable. Any limitations in explaining about God is simply due to the limitations of our own knowledge and physical laws. So why bother to rationalise everything?
Father George showed us a beautiful slide show, about a father's love letter. I enjoyed it very much, and thought I would share with you.
Father George spoke on God the father. He said that the Old Testament gave an image of a God who was angry with His people when they disobeyed His commands, of a God who unleashed a flood to wipe off all the people who sinned. It was an image of a God whom the people feared.
The New Testament portrayed a different God. A God, in the person of Jesus, who loved His people, and was forgiving of their sins when they seeked salvation through Jesus.
The different images of God was a result of the experiences of the people during the times of the Old and New Testaments.
During the group discussions, we were asked a few questions about the images of God, and our views on the Holy Trinity, a Christian belief that God is one as well as three persons, of God, the son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
For the last question on Holy Trinity, nearly all the participants, including the priests, expressed that they can't understand the concept. It remains a mystery and they just have to accept it on faith alone.
I was slightly surprised by the group's response on the Holy Trinity. I mean there were a few other issues that were difficult to explain logically, and not just this Holy Trinity alone. However, the participants seemed more relaxed with the other inexplicable issues, including one we briefly touched on the people's free wills, but were more troubled by this Holy Trinity concept.
I am of the view that the Holy Trinity isn't a subject to worry about. We do not even need to try to explain it. God lives in another world, which is obviously a super set of our own. In that other world, the physical laws may operate differently from ours (And God is probably not subject to any physical laws anyway). What is impossible here may not necessarily be impossible in God's world. So why try to explain the concept of the Holy Trinity?
Take for example, the concept of time in our world. It is a significant physical law that operates and affects everything in our world. We are all locked in a time slot, the present. We can't be in the past or in the future, now. Scientists believe that traveling at or faster than the speed of light is the key to unlock time. As an object travels faster and faster approaching the speed of light, time slows until it stops totally at or beyond the speed of light. As I understand, God is everywhere. This does not appear to be disputed by anyone. So we can say that God travels faster than light. And so God is not locked down in time. He is present at this moment here, in the past and in the future.
To me, this is a far more significant concept about God, that He is everywhere in time, than the concept of the Holy Trinity.
I told the discussion group I believe and have no problem with the concept of the Holy Trinity. The group was quite surprised. Usually I am the odd one out, digging out a few issues that can't be explained away. In Buddhism too, there is a Buddha that is a Trinity, of the past, present and the future (过去现在未来佛). In Taoism, there is also the Taoist Trinity (三清). So Trinity exists in other religions too.
God is unknowable. Any limitations in explaining about God is simply due to the limitations of our own knowledge and physical laws. So why bother to rationalise everything?
Father George showed us a beautiful slide show, about a father's love letter. I enjoyed it very much, and thought I would share with you.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
When You Are Not The Best
I like to tell my children that, when you are not the best, it is not really that difficult to move forward. How so? Just copy and follow what the best does. Then when you are close enough, and confident enough, you can try to overtake the best. Even if you eventually do not become the best, by staying close to the best, you do become one of the better ones, at least.
This technique is best illustrated in a racing or speed sport. If you are not the fastest yet, to win the race you must first keep pace with the fastest, and be ready to seize the chance when presented.
And so it should be the same for countries aspiring to be in the ranks of the best. The developing countries could move forward really easily, by first copying and following those countries that are already developed. Japan and South Korea did that, and now China is doing the same.
Malaysia aspires to be a developed country by 2020, in ten short years. Apparently the only yardstick the Malaysian government uses to measure the development status of the country is economic, how much income the nation produces per capita. Everything else does not seem to matter much for the country to consider itself developed.
If economic prosperity alone is the measurement for advanced nation status, then rich oil producing countries would be considered developed during times of high oil prices, and undeveloped otherwise.
The Malaysian governance is a puzzle to the outsiders. The country's leadership sets a goal for the nation to become developed by 2020, and that is good. Everything else the country does, however, betrays this objective. Its education system is sliding backwards. It is losing hordes of human resources through emigration. In fact it frequently tells its best and brightest citizens to go back to wherever their ancestors came from. It has laws that apply to ordinary citizens but not to the powerful and the privileged. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor is the widest in Asia. Despite not being a rich country yet, tellingly the richest men in Malaysia are each worth up to twice more than the richest equivalent in Australia, a country with two and half times more GDP per capita, and therefore higher consumption power. Malaysia also practices perpetual and discriminatory policies, often conveniently referred to as affirmative policies, in favour of the majority race. Corruption among the powerful are at an anemic level, with government procurements completely shrouded in secrecy. Anyone who dares to question the authorities can be harassed with the country's notorious Internal Security Act, an archaic act with unlimited detention power designed to contain terrorism but now used conveniently to silence civil oppositions. There are no real civil liberties and citizens' rights under the constitutions are frequently violated by the same people sworn to uphold them.
In every key aspect, Malaysia is a country spiraling uncontrollably towards the likes of Zimbabwe, but thinks it is steaming dizzily towards the likes of South Korea.
There are few signs to show that Malaysia copies, or intends to copy, from other successfully developed countries. If it is even trying, it wants to become a developed country on its own blue print. What sort of developed country would Malaysia be in ten years?
The problem is, even when Malaysia finally achieves that economic status which should rank it in the rich country list, it will not be regarded as a developed country by the rest of the world. But why does that matter? The Malaysian leaders are well known for self aggrandisement. If the rest of the world won't agree with Malaysia's developed country status then, they can always go back to whichever planets their ancestors came from.
This technique is best illustrated in a racing or speed sport. If you are not the fastest yet, to win the race you must first keep pace with the fastest, and be ready to seize the chance when presented.
And so it should be the same for countries aspiring to be in the ranks of the best. The developing countries could move forward really easily, by first copying and following those countries that are already developed. Japan and South Korea did that, and now China is doing the same.
Malaysia aspires to be a developed country by 2020, in ten short years. Apparently the only yardstick the Malaysian government uses to measure the development status of the country is economic, how much income the nation produces per capita. Everything else does not seem to matter much for the country to consider itself developed.
If economic prosperity alone is the measurement for advanced nation status, then rich oil producing countries would be considered developed during times of high oil prices, and undeveloped otherwise.
The Malaysian governance is a puzzle to the outsiders. The country's leadership sets a goal for the nation to become developed by 2020, and that is good. Everything else the country does, however, betrays this objective. Its education system is sliding backwards. It is losing hordes of human resources through emigration. In fact it frequently tells its best and brightest citizens to go back to wherever their ancestors came from. It has laws that apply to ordinary citizens but not to the powerful and the privileged. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor is the widest in Asia. Despite not being a rich country yet, tellingly the richest men in Malaysia are each worth up to twice more than the richest equivalent in Australia, a country with two and half times more GDP per capita, and therefore higher consumption power. Malaysia also practices perpetual and discriminatory policies, often conveniently referred to as affirmative policies, in favour of the majority race. Corruption among the powerful are at an anemic level, with government procurements completely shrouded in secrecy. Anyone who dares to question the authorities can be harassed with the country's notorious Internal Security Act, an archaic act with unlimited detention power designed to contain terrorism but now used conveniently to silence civil oppositions. There are no real civil liberties and citizens' rights under the constitutions are frequently violated by the same people sworn to uphold them.
In every key aspect, Malaysia is a country spiraling uncontrollably towards the likes of Zimbabwe, but thinks it is steaming dizzily towards the likes of South Korea.
There are few signs to show that Malaysia copies, or intends to copy, from other successfully developed countries. If it is even trying, it wants to become a developed country on its own blue print. What sort of developed country would Malaysia be in ten years?
The problem is, even when Malaysia finally achieves that economic status which should rank it in the rich country list, it will not be regarded as a developed country by the rest of the world. But why does that matter? The Malaysian leaders are well known for self aggrandisement. If the rest of the world won't agree with Malaysia's developed country status then, they can always go back to whichever planets their ancestors came from.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
One Little Red Dot. One Little Red Smudge
Many residents from the South East Asian countries of Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia would know the "little red dot" refers to Singapore. It is a way of expressing contempt, preferred by Indonesian and Malaysian leaders, at the tiny state that just won't kowtow to its bigger neighbours. Despite its relatively small size, Singapore's ability to survive and compete more successfully than its bigger neighbours is perhaps the key point that infuriates leaders (out of jealousy perhaps?) of both Malaysia and Indonesia. If there is nothing more you could do with that success, it is gratifying, at least, to mock that the tiny state is nothing more than a little red dot.
The leaders of Malaysia are incredibly arrogant, and powerful, but only in Malaysia, that is. Save for a few other despotic regimes sprinkled across the third world, I don't remember any first world leaders having that kind of corrupted powers conferred upon their Malaysian counterpart. The leaders of the western democracies have only the power to lead, they can't decide on matters out of line with the wishes of the elected representatives or the general public. Try that and the exit will be quickly shown to you. Try harder and the leaders may even end up in jail.
The Malaysian leaders, although elected, lord over the people like they are his slaves whose only required function is to re-elect the government elections after elections. They are not to question the actions, behaviours and capability of the government. The people are often told how well Malaysia features in the world. Apparently stupid foreigners have yet to discover how brilliantly Malaysia has been ruled by the government.
Over the last few days, something embarrasing happened. Never before has the Malaysian government, and its usually compliant and efficient law enforcing agencies (or should I say law non-enforcing agencies if we stick to the letters of the law) found that they could not deal with a simple pain in their neck. This pain of course refers to the persons of Raja Petra Kamaruddin (popularly known as RPK) and private investigator Balasubramaniam. Both the Malaysians are wanted by the Malaysia government and the police (strangely, the government and the police are usually one and the same) But no, the police can't lay a hand on them because they are not in Malaysia but the UK, which protects people on the right side of the laws, unlike in Malaysia which usually does the opposite. From there, RPK and Bala have been taking aim and firing at the Malaysian government leaders, in particular the Prime Minister. They claimed the Prime Minister and members of his family might have been involved in a complex scheme of corruption and murder. Of course, in Malaysia the law enforcing agencies comprising the police, prosecutor and anti corruption commission would act only if the crime suspects are the opposition members.
It seems the Malaysian police can't do a thing about removing RPK and Bala from their now bigger world stage in the UK, short of illegally abducting or silencing the pair. Despite much sabre rattling by the Malaysian authorities, their UK counterpart hardly moves an eyebrow. The much hyped respect accorded to Malaysia by the rest of the world dissipated. Suddenly the Malaysian authorities find themselves in a naked and unfamiliar position, there is yet something that they are not able to accomplish.
It may be satisfying to thumb at the little red dot sometimes. Just remember that to the UK, and the rest of the world, Malaysia is no more than a little red smudge.
The leaders of Malaysia are incredibly arrogant, and powerful, but only in Malaysia, that is. Save for a few other despotic regimes sprinkled across the third world, I don't remember any first world leaders having that kind of corrupted powers conferred upon their Malaysian counterpart. The leaders of the western democracies have only the power to lead, they can't decide on matters out of line with the wishes of the elected representatives or the general public. Try that and the exit will be quickly shown to you. Try harder and the leaders may even end up in jail.
The Malaysian leaders, although elected, lord over the people like they are his slaves whose only required function is to re-elect the government elections after elections. They are not to question the actions, behaviours and capability of the government. The people are often told how well Malaysia features in the world. Apparently stupid foreigners have yet to discover how brilliantly Malaysia has been ruled by the government.
Over the last few days, something embarrasing happened. Never before has the Malaysian government, and its usually compliant and efficient law enforcing agencies (or should I say law non-enforcing agencies if we stick to the letters of the law) found that they could not deal with a simple pain in their neck. This pain of course refers to the persons of Raja Petra Kamaruddin (popularly known as RPK) and private investigator Balasubramaniam. Both the Malaysians are wanted by the Malaysia government and the police (strangely, the government and the police are usually one and the same) But no, the police can't lay a hand on them because they are not in Malaysia but the UK, which protects people on the right side of the laws, unlike in Malaysia which usually does the opposite. From there, RPK and Bala have been taking aim and firing at the Malaysian government leaders, in particular the Prime Minister. They claimed the Prime Minister and members of his family might have been involved in a complex scheme of corruption and murder. Of course, in Malaysia the law enforcing agencies comprising the police, prosecutor and anti corruption commission would act only if the crime suspects are the opposition members.
It seems the Malaysian police can't do a thing about removing RPK and Bala from their now bigger world stage in the UK, short of illegally abducting or silencing the pair. Despite much sabre rattling by the Malaysian authorities, their UK counterpart hardly moves an eyebrow. The much hyped respect accorded to Malaysia by the rest of the world dissipated. Suddenly the Malaysian authorities find themselves in a naked and unfamiliar position, there is yet something that they are not able to accomplish.
It may be satisfying to thumb at the little red dot sometimes. Just remember that to the UK, and the rest of the world, Malaysia is no more than a little red smudge.
Friday, July 2, 2010
He Who Has Not Sinned
Years ago a non Christian friend was told by her Christian friend that if she did not believe in Christ, she would be in hell after death. She felt extremely offended by her friend's words.
I have heard this method of evangelism in various forms, including one in the simplest form which says believe in Christ and you shall have salvation (Therefore, no salvation if you don't believe).
I had the opportunity to discuss this at RCIA last night. So I asked Fr George two questions:
1. Would someone who believes in Christ as the saviour but at the back does not practice according to Christ's teaching gain ultimate salvation?
2. Would someone who happens to practice according to Christ's teaching, but does not know or believe in Christ gain ultimate salvation?
Fr George was very forthright and firm in his answers. He said, according to the church (Catholic Church, or the Vatican) a person who believes in Christ but does not act according to Christ's teachings will not gain salvation. A person who practices according to Christ's teachings but does not know or believe in Christ the person will still be offered salvation by God in the end.
I like the answers by Fr George. It really confirms to me what would have been common sense really.
During the time of Jesus, he was already preaching that no one should be judging others' past or future. When Jesus prevented the stoning of Mary Magdalene, he had this to say, "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." It is as clear as daylight that none of us human weaklings can claim any moral authority to say to anyone else that they will go to hell.
Entry to heaven or hell is the exclusive decision of God, so let's leave it to Him to decide where I should go.
Let's look at it another way. The most powerful evangelist convinces non believers by the way he leads his life. After all, if you do not become a better person as a result of your religion, how could you claim that your belief is the only truth? No evangelist could be more powerful than Jesus himself. If Jesus has not converted the whole world yet, by his words and his deeds, what makes a mortal evangelist think he could so easily save the world with his simple words of "go to hell if you don't believe in Christ"?
Most non believers would be quite happy with a reply of "so I go to hell, it is none of your business"
If he has not sinned, he can cast the first stone.
I have heard this method of evangelism in various forms, including one in the simplest form which says believe in Christ and you shall have salvation (Therefore, no salvation if you don't believe).
I had the opportunity to discuss this at RCIA last night. So I asked Fr George two questions:
1. Would someone who believes in Christ as the saviour but at the back does not practice according to Christ's teaching gain ultimate salvation?
2. Would someone who happens to practice according to Christ's teaching, but does not know or believe in Christ gain ultimate salvation?
Fr George was very forthright and firm in his answers. He said, according to the church (Catholic Church, or the Vatican) a person who believes in Christ but does not act according to Christ's teachings will not gain salvation. A person who practices according to Christ's teachings but does not know or believe in Christ the person will still be offered salvation by God in the end.
I like the answers by Fr George. It really confirms to me what would have been common sense really.
During the time of Jesus, he was already preaching that no one should be judging others' past or future. When Jesus prevented the stoning of Mary Magdalene, he had this to say, "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." It is as clear as daylight that none of us human weaklings can claim any moral authority to say to anyone else that they will go to hell.
Entry to heaven or hell is the exclusive decision of God, so let's leave it to Him to decide where I should go.
Let's look at it another way. The most powerful evangelist convinces non believers by the way he leads his life. After all, if you do not become a better person as a result of your religion, how could you claim that your belief is the only truth? No evangelist could be more powerful than Jesus himself. If Jesus has not converted the whole world yet, by his words and his deeds, what makes a mortal evangelist think he could so easily save the world with his simple words of "go to hell if you don't believe in Christ"?
Most non believers would be quite happy with a reply of "so I go to hell, it is none of your business"
If he has not sinned, he can cast the first stone.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)