The Chinese Are Doing Fine With NEP Part II

"If there was no NEP I wouldn't be driving this taxi". A chatty Chinese Malaysian taxi driver full of resentment once told me. He is not alone in expressing hate towards the Malaysian social program to transform the well being of the politically powerful majority Malay race.

The taxi driver might well be right about his own life without NEP. Nobody knows. In the larger context, can the NEP be responsible for the existence of all Chinese taxi drivers, or for that matter, all the Chinese underclass? The answer must be emphatically no. Look, there are still Chinese taxi drivers in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan, all successful and predominantly Chinese states.

The NEP has severely handicapped the Chinese Malaysians community as a whole, that itself shouldn't be in doubt. However, it is when faced with life's biggest challenges that humans thrive in survival. In this regard, the Chinese Malaysians work harder than the politically favoured race to compensate for the deliberate constriction of their achievement by their government. The end result is that the Chinese Malaysians continue to perform well against all odds.

As long as the politically protected and favoured group can gain wealth through government decree with ease, perhaps the stated NEP goal of handing over 30% of the nation's wealth to this group on a plate will never realise, as the disadvantaged group will always work harder to ensure their own economic survival, and in the process raise their overall wealth share ever higher. But no worries, the Malays will get their 30% or more eventually, when their population ratio increases to a level that the Chinese ratio becomes insignificant.

Tale Of The Black Cat

Once there was an old priest who acquired a pet black cat. The cat was so fond of its master that it wouldn't stay a foot away from the priest all day. It would go around the legs of the priest rubbing its fur against the master's legs. Therein arose a problem. When the priest was in the midst of conducting the mass, the cat would still be circling around the master, causing the priest and the congregation to lose concentration on the progress of the mass.

The priest then ordered that the cat be caught and caged just before the start of the mass, and only released after the mass was over. This procedure was repeated like a ritual each time the mass was celebrated.

One day the priest died. A new priest was posted to the church. The cat was not particularly in favour of this new priest and hardly ever went close to him. But the ritual to get the cat caged before the mass continued as it had become a ritualistic tradition that must be done each time before the mass.

And then the cat died. The church went about to find a replacement black cat, so that the cat could again be caged just before each mass as it was a traditional thing to do.

And the tradition continued unstopped.


What is the moral of the story?

If something has been done long enough, it can become accepted as a good practice, or if you like it another way, it is that if you tell a lie often enough, it can become accepted as the truth.

Australia Chooses

Today Australians decide which party is to govern them for the next three years. Opinion polls are predicting a 50-50 race to the finish between ruling Labour Party and the opposition Liberal Party. There is a chance of a hung parliament, or a minority government being installed with neither major party being able to garner enough seats to govern on its own.

Australians rarely elect a government with an overwhelming majority. They know that the best way to make the government work honestly and watch every step of the way is to install an effective opposition who will be put in power at the next general election should the current government make more than a few mistakes or break a few election promises.

You get the best government when the government understands it could fall the next time if it does not perform now.

Tonight there is a real possibility that Julia Gillard, our first female Prime Minister, may also become the shortest serving Prime Minister ever, and a Prime Minister never elected by the people.

It is Australia's D Day.

Tyranny and Benevolence Of The Majority

When I graduated from primary school, it was customary for graduating students to request their teachers and fellow students to write autographs. I have since lost my autograph book. But some words left in there were simply too powerful to be forgotten. Among them were one left by my Year 4 teacher, Mr Ng Moh Kuan. He said this:

待人要厚，待己要薄。Translated, it means 'Treat others better than you would treat yourself.'

In those times, it was indeed possible to find occasions when you would treat others better than you would treat yourself. I remember my grandparents and parents would reserve the best foods and drinks for guests. It was not uncommon to find chickens served only when guests came. Even as kids we were not allowed to consume those delicious soft drinks that suddenly appeared at home as they were brought in for guests only. With precious little resources, still I know my grandfather would have donated money or materials to others that we would not have given ourselves.

Then as society became better off, proportionately the community spirit of 'treating others better' waned. However, it would still be commendable if we could at least treat others as well as we would treat ourselves. And so we have the saying of treat others as you would want them treat yourself. The Chinese equivalent is 己所不欲，勿施于人, or do unto others what you want them do unto you.

In many communities around the world, the ability to treat others, particularly those vulnerable sections of the community, fairly has become the benchmark for a great community. Throughout history, many great people have said something to the equivalent of this,

"The greatness of a nation is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

And who are the weakest members of a community? There are many possible ways of identifying them. A good way is to determine if they have any representative voice in the larger community. The weakest members are usually those without a voice, as they are often the minority class and therefore lacking in representation.

When we are in a position of power, when we are the majority, it is easy for us to look after ourselves. How we treat those minority amongst us is what measures us apart.

There can be tyranny, or benevolence, of the majority.

The difference between a pariah and a great nation. So said great people of the past.

God Why Do These Things Happen?

Today I attended a students' work exhibition at my children's school. One of the work books my daughter showed to me was her religious education activity book. As a student of a Catholic school, religious education is part of the curriculum that my daughter learns.

On page one of her work book, my daughter wrote these words. "God, why do you allow tsunamis to happen and kill so many people?".

I was quite curious as to why my daughter asked this question. So I asked. She said her religious education teacher talked about God's love for us. However, there are times when we do not know why certain things happen that appear to show otherwise. Still, we must not lose faith, and we can remember these situations when God's love appear to be missing us so when we meet Him face to face one day, we can ask Him such questions.

I get a lot of mixed feelings from my daughter's response. However, what strikes me the most are two feelings. The first is to persevere in faith in the face of adversity. The second is to confront what we do not know head on, instead of hiding behind untenable explanations to support our own interpretations of the situations.

Such as this one, tsunamis victims have to die because they live in sins. What a load of rubbish.

I would rather accept that I don't know my God, than to act as His interpreter.

Know-who, Know-how And Now-how

Many years back a retiring executive of Telenor, a Norwegian telecommunication company which held substantial shareholding in the Malaysian telecommunication company Digi, made this interesting observation about how businesses were conducted in Malaysia. He said that many business people were keenly aware that to do business in Malaysia, you first need the 'know-who' to win the business, and then followed by 'know-how' to get the work done.

This executive had just returned from Malaysia after his posting at Digi. He concluded, through his observation, that the Malaysian way of conducting business did not follow closely the 'know-who' to 'know-how' sequence as people would like to believe. It was more like a 'know-who' then followed by 'now-how'.

So what is the difference between 'know-how' and 'now-how'? For a start, 'know-how' suggests that the company getting the business from 'know-who' would still know how to go about getting the work done. As for 'now-how', the company that just won the business from 'know-who' would probably be praying for some divine guidance on how to get the work completed.

Go figure the difference.

The Chinese Are Doing Fine With NEP

A successful Chinese Malaysian entrepreneur developer claimed that the Chinese Malaysians are doing 'much better' with NEP (New Economic Policy of Malaysia which discriminates against the non native population in favour of the native Malays). Implied in his message is that the Chinese should not be demanding more from the majority Malay race. He quoted statistics showing that eight out of ten richest Malaysians are Chinese, and the majority of the small business people are also Chinese. One such successful 'Chinaman' even bought a house from this developer and spent a further RM40 million on improvement. All these prove that the Chinese are doing better under the NEP. He said it in response to recent Chinese demand for the much abused NEP to be abolished.

The businessman's statement lacks credibility, and is also wide off the mark.

Coming from the mouth of someone who is already successful in making use of the current warped system, it could be understandable that he prefers not to rock the boat. This reminds me of a time during the mid eighties, when Asians began to migrate in large numbers to Australia. This caused sections of the Australian community to resent the changing demography and a hot debate about whether or not Asians should be accepted in Australia broke out in the newspapers. The debate raged for weeks. I followed with keen interest every argument presented by both sides of the divide. One piece from an Asian Australian caught my attention. He too was against Asian immigration, he felt that Australia was better off if it remained European in character.

I was quite bemused with the writer's shallow argument. And so I decided to respond by writing to the editor. I simply quoted the Asian's writing and said this: "Can I suggest that the writer who supports a ban in Asian migration demonstrate his real support for his view by leaving Australia voluntarily?"

The editor gladly published my reply. I remember it was placed as the top piece of the day under the Asian Immigration debate section.

Yes. Such is the hypocrisy of people who are comfortable with a wrong policy simply because it has benefited them.

Coming back to the Chinese developer entrepreneur's argument on why the Chinese should not demand more. I say this argument is utterly flawed.

By asking for the NEP to be abolished, the Chinese are not demanding for more share of the economy. They are demanding for fair treatment, which isn't the same as asking for more share of the economic pie. They want the government policies to be fair, transparent, free of corruption, accountable spending, raise the education standard, freedom of religion, equality for all people, rule of law and a just judiciary. In short, the Chinese want a functioning democracy. The same Chinese people would still demand the same of their government if they were in a 100% Chinese country and thus have 100% ownership of the economy.

If having a functioning democracy means the Chinese as a group gets less than the current share in Malaysia's wealth, so be it. Why would the Chinese accept a lesser proportion of nation's wealth? Because having a functioning government system means that every citizen gets treated fairly. There can be no complaint of unfairness. And if you are treated fairly, you are likely to be more motivated to work harder for your community and your country. If there were transparency of government then you can take or plan actions which you know will lead to a predictable outcome. If there were no corruption, the people's tax money can be spent productively to improve public health care, education and infrastructure. If there were rule of law, the Malaysian public would feel less vulnerable, knowing that the laws are on the side of those who are right. And if the judicial system were fair, the people and the investors can take comfort that their rights will be properly protected. As a result, Malaysia is likely to be more prosperous economically and intellectually, which means every citizen actually gets richer. A smaller percentage of a bigger cake means more than a bigger percentage of a shrinking cake. Malaysia can and indeed will be more prosperous, just like its better governed southern neighbour Singapore.

In short, if Malaysia can be a proudly run democracy, the Chinese can truly be richer even if their share of the economy is smaller in percentage.

I suspect, in a truly democratically governed country, the richest few may be hit harder. There is no more short cuts and know-whos to build more and quicker wealth. A caring democratic government may also and indeed should protect the working class more. Needless to say, at the expense of the richest class.

No, the Chinese Malaysians do not want more share of Malaysia's wealth. They want, and are entitled to, a fairer treatment by their government.

I Am Not Playing With You Anymore

When I was small, I played all sorts of games with friends or neighbours. As with all games, there were rules to follow. When someone broke the rules consistently, our retort would be "I am not playing with you anymore."

Today my son and daughter play together. When one of the them breaks the rule, the other would also say the same thing. "I am not playing with you anymore."

It seems the requirement for fair play in a game has never changed, and will never change. When rules are set up, players are expected to stick by them.

The rules in Malaysia are the same as the rules in many other countries. For a long time already, some players in Malaysia have not been following the rules. These cheaters insist that the game be played on, and those not on their side are still expected to stick by the same rules.

A case in point is the coroner's inquiry into the death of Teoh Beng Hock, a political aide of a senior state politician targeted by the infamous Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission over a measly $800 expenditure and who died mysteriously during questioning session by the Commission. Apparently the Attorney General's Office would have us believed that a suicide note was found two months after the death of the aide, and then another ten months later its authenticity is finally verified.

There are far too many cases of such flouting of the rules in the games the government are playing with its people. One rule for you, and one rule for me.

It would appear to me that, in the games with their government, citizens of Malaysia are getting perilously close to that time honoured call of "I am not playing with you anymore."

Too Much Of Good Stuffs

Australia is in election mode, again. In all the western democracies, Australia probably have the shortest government tenure, of just three years. So it seems elections happen every year. If it isn't for the federal election, we have to elect state and local governments.

In a developed society such as Australia's, the politicians assume that the electorate is intelligent, and therefore they want to know everything the political parties stand for. And so the politicians oblige by churning out tonnes of head spinning information, of what they will and will not do if elected. It is like watching two versions of the same soap operas on stage. Only that, I observe, the seats below the stage are hardly filled. People on the streets are hardly aroused. Most of them are still as clueless as ever on which party is the better party. It is not uncommon to hear conversations such as "which idiot are you voting for?"

I take this to mean that there is really little to pick between the two major parties. They are both equally good, or equally bad depending on who you ask. When left to compete freely and fairly, ultimately all competitive products become like one another, checking and balancing each other. If one party achieves a higher score, for now, the other party is bound to strike back and go one up.

Take Mercedes and BMW as an example. They compete in the same market. Because of the competition, they have to keep producing new and latest technologies as though we, the consumers, are really asking for each individual item of technology. The truth is, the Mercedes or BMW of ten years vintage would probably be good enough for the vast majority of people. But the competition pushes these companies to keep going one up on the other. And they keep boasting about their new technologies, as if we, the consumers, are listening intently.

Make no mistake about it, even if we are not really interested in all the political talks, we do know how to pick out a winner in a competition. And, we will not refuse to accept something better than bread and butter, even if we have never asked for them.

Hence, while we are not paying attention to the political shows playing out on stage, they must nevertheless continue.

In a truly free and competitive world, we, the consumers, the electorate, are the real winners.

I Will Not Die For You

I skimmed this conversation from facebook between two young lovebirds.

He said, "I love you so much I am willing to die for you." (Shades of Romeo)

She said, "Are you sure? I hope you speak the truth." (No, not in the least like Juliet)

Many young men feel good, or even heroic, about being Romeo. They all think they are Romeos. However, they don't understand one very important issue. You can't be a Romeo unless the one you love wants to be a Juliet. If she is not Juliet, then you are just a stupid fool, nothing close to being a Romeo.

Love is a delicate balancing act. I always thought that it does not matter how much you love the other person, but if you are loved more or less equally, then you probably have a great and lasting love story. If it is not in balance, ultimately it will cause any pretending Romeos, or Juliets, to break down. They will realise, finally, that they would have paid too much in love, and it is seldom worth it.

Romeo is Romeo, only if Juliet is Juliet.

This Is The Truth

I am about one third way to become a Catholic. The Catholic church has an RCIA process for anyone wishing to join the faith. RCIA takes about one year to be completed, culminating in the baptism of candidates during Easter period.

RCIA is a frank and open discussion platform about Christianity faith and other faiths in general. There are no right or wrong answers. Everything can and should be put out for discussion.

I do have a lot of questions that I like to ask, as a way of finding out about the thoughts of Catholics and Christians in general. However, I do feel reserved about probing too much, as I realised there are not necessarily answers available.

One question that has unsettled me quite a bit is the views of Catholics towards other faiths.

I know Christianity, like other monotheistic faiths, holds the view that it is the truth, and perhaps the only truth. Therein lies my problem. Although it may sound illogical, I have no problem with anyone declaring their faith to be the only truth. However, I become uneasy when someone declares the other faiths are not the truth, or even outright false or fake. In that case, I am quite tempted to call for proofs.

Let's say I claim that my wife is the most beautiful woman on this planet. Can anyone convince me otherwise? Hardly. Because I define how a woman is to be considered beautiful. If, however, I say that my wife is more beautiful than yours, then I think we both must firstly agree with the definition of what is beautiful.

And so when an RCIA participant wondered why followers of other faiths do not come to believe in Christianity when it is the only truth, I was quite peeved. It is perhaps even ironical that I do not agree with the view that Christianity is the only truth. I think I will throw this question to Daniel, who has completed his theology course and waiting to be ordained a priest.

Daniel has said that one can't believe in Christianity based on reason alone. It also has to be based on faith. Pope John Paul II said that reason and faith are like two wings of a butterfly. You need both wings to flap for flight to take place. Since faith can not be rationalised, therefore you only have reason to back your belief in any debate with others. How is that going to stand up?

The movie Kung Fu Panda has touched me quite a bit, in philosophical and spiritual sense. When Po the panda was finally given the dragon scroll that will make any man (animal?) a top kung fu expert, he was shocked to find it completely blank. After much meditation, it dawned on him that the secret was to have faith and belief in himself. This story coincides with a traditional Chinese saying that The Book of Heaven is wordless (无字天书).

The truth must be discovered by yourself. There can not be one truth only for everyone. As we can see, even Christians sharing one Bible have different understanding of the truth.

My Child, I Am Not Hungry

Tonight I cooked chicken curry for dinner. The chicken is a little smaller than usual, plus chicken curry is my children's favourite, so naturally my children wanted more than what was put in their plates. Rebecca asked me if there was anymore chicken in the pot. I took a piece of chicken from my plate to give to her. She looked at me for a couple of seconds, as if asking if I really wanted to give her the chicken. I then said to her "yes you can have it, I am not hungry." She started digging into the chicken.

Then I remembered I had heard before the exact words I just said. I had heard it so many times before, from my own mother.

Whenever I needed more, Mum was always ready to provide. She could have done with the food herself, but she gave up for me. And to make me feel good about it, she lied.

Mum, it took me a long time to know some of the things you have done for me. I may not know everything you have done for me, but I do know that you have done a lot, and more.

Sometimes it hurts to know that there is so little I have done for you in return.

Mum I am sorry ... I did not understand many things you did for me when you were with me.