Law, Order, Peace, Equality, Justice, etc

The Law is the rule of the land which ensures that there is Order and Justice throughout the country. However, to ensure Peace, there must be Equality in the application of the Law.

Where there is inequality (or the perception of inequality) in the application of the law, this may lead to dissent among the people. Of course, certain quarters tend to exploit this to further their own agenda. But nevertheless, as long as there is inequality in the application of the law and more and more people are becoming aware of the injustice, the voices of anger grows louder and louder.

It is an open secret that we have corrupt people in the government administration. I believe that there are some who are not corrupt and do things by the book in for the service of the people, i.e. literally be a Civil Servant. Unfortunately, these people form the minority. Most of them, would have no choice but to be part of the corruption either directly or indirectly. Directly by taking a cut and indirectly by keeping silent on what they know, since the corruption may go all the way to the top!

Theoretically they can report the act of corruption by their superiors directly to the MACC. But the trouble is that based on the majority (or rather the public's perception) of the MACC's findings of an investigation is that there is 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute the accused. And what would happen to the whistleblower? He or she would be transfered to the 'cold storage' and that would be the end of their career in the department.

Yes, now we have the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2010, to 'protect' the witnesses. But its effectiveness is yet to be seen. We have very good laws in Malaysia, unfortunately we have very poor enforcement. Come to think of it, we don't need more laws. We need more enforcement. Equal enforcement to be exact. Not just enforcing the law on the 'little fish' but the 'big fish' as well.

The trouble with the Malaysian 'system' is that we have no confidence in our agencies. Say for example, I'm just a lowly Constable in the Police force and I have information that the Assistant Commissioner is engaged in corrupt or improper practices. And let's say that I put my faith on the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2010 and report the Assistant Commissioner's practices directly to the Commissioner or the Inspector General of Police or the MACC.

Theoretically speaking, such complaints should be taken seriously and investigated upon. But practically speaking, chances are, whoever the report goes to (or someone along the chain of custody of the report), is going to give a 'courtesy call' to the Assistant Commissioner just to inform him that he is being investigated. And the Assistant Commissioner, being in the department for so many years would have his own network to find out who exactly made the report and be able to get the identity of the Whistleblower.

The Whistleblower Protection Act, 2010 will not keep people's mouth shut. It won't prevent the leaking of information even if the document is stamped 'RAHSIA' under the Official Secrets Act. Yes, officially it is a secret, but then there is always the 'unofficial secret' which is kept between those within the chain of custody of such reports.

I find it difficult to belief that such reports can be kept confidential in Malaysia. Say if I want to trace a mobile phone number to the owner and get his or her address. Is it possible? Officially no, the mobile phone company's policy is not to give such details to anyone unless the police is involved. You can try asking yourself at the customer service centre. This is what the person at the mobile telephone operator customer service officer said. But I was still able to get the information unofficially since I have friends working in the management. This is the Malaysian way.

So coming back to our Constable, he's going to end up being transfered to cold storage and kiss his career prospects goodbye.

The trouble with corruption cases involving the 'big fish' is that most of the time there are 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute them and in the end, the 'little fish' are prosecuted, as they are the proxies used by the big fish, i.e. the paper trail would end with the 'small fish' and the trail goes cold, hence the big fish would be let off.

It is pretty obvious, if someone were to be involved in corrupt practices, he or she would think of how not to get caught. And the best way is by using proxies who get a small cut for their 'services'.

I think many Malaysians are sick of reading news of people accused of corruption, only to be set free due to the lack of evidence. I am just wondering, why don't the MACC collaborate with the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) in ALL the corruption cases?

I am no lawyer, but, I am aware of the concept of 'burden of proof' in the rule of law. In order to prosecute someone and send them to jail for corruption, the burden of proof lies with the MACC to proof that the gains were from the alleged corrupt practices. Where the MACC fails to prove that the the wealth and gains accumulated were through corrupt practices, the accused goes free.

And most of the time, this would be the case, since the paper trail just dies with the 'small fish'. However, if the IRB were to be involved in every corruption case, the burden of proof shifts to the accused!

When the IRB conducts a Tax Investigation on the individual accused, they would prepare something called a Capital Statement. This is a list of assets and liabilities of the accused, normally spanning over 7 years. The concept is pretty simple, any increase in net assets from one year to another would be due to the revenue earned during that year. This revenue would then be compared with the income declared by the accused in their tax returns. The difference would be income under declared.

Say for example, if the net asset in 2007 is worth RM1million and in 2008 is worth RM1.5million. The difference would be RM500,000, this (plus estimated living expenses of say RM50,000) would be the income for year 2008, i.e. RM550,000. If the actual income declared was RM150,000. The difference of RM400,000 would be the under-declaration of income. This would be subjected to tax of say 28% and a further penalty of 45% to 100% on the tax liability!

Where a Capital Statement is prepared, the burden of proof lies with the tax payer to explain the 'increase' in the net asset. If it can't be explained, therefore it is an under-declaration of income, therefore the tax liability and penalty need to be paid.

So, even if the MACC is unable to convict these people, at least the government is still able to collect the taxes due to them by these corrupt individuals.

In this case, double jeopardy would not apply, MACC is investigating for corrupt practices while IRB would be investigating for under-declaration of income. One may argue that since the income was due to illegal means it is not subject to tax. However, as decided by the case law of Partridge vs Mallandaine, the word 'income' is not limited to only legal 'vocation', therefore income from illegal means are also subject to tax.

Just like how Elliot Ness was able to prosecute and send the famous mafia boss Al Capone to jail. Not by all the illegal activities he conducted, since there was 'no evidence' to link him. In the end Al Capone was sent to jail for evading taxes. I think if the government is serious in getting the corrupt, they should assign a team of IRB officers to conduct a simultaneous investigation with the MACC.

If the MACC can't get them, the IRB will. And in a good case, they both will get the corrupt and the government will gain from the tax revenue recovered. So in terms of cost benefit, this is a win - win situation for the government in terms of revenue and perception that they are serious in fighting corruption. It is also a win for the people because justice is served one way or another!

Looking at the big picture

Why don't people look at the big picture? If everyone looked at the bigger picture, I think the world would be a better place to live in!

Lately I've been observing our PDRM hard at work, putting up road blocks or hiding behind bill boards or behind bushes to 'catch' traffic offenders. Mind you, these are not the white uniformed traffic police, but the blue uniformed ones.

So, now we have the blue uniformed police officers, the white uniformed police officers and the JPJ officers to catch traffic offenders who are driving without a licence or committing minor offences such as double parking or not waiting for the traffic light to turn green at a ridiculously positioned traffic light or someone making an illegal turn.

Why are 3 different uniformed bodies so obsessed with catching those committing minor offences?

Can we please look at the bigger picture? How about the traffic police actually direct traffic flow at Permas Jaya or Pasir Gudang during peak hour to ease the congestion?

How about the blue uniformed police do their rounds and prevent robberies at neighbourhoods or stop snatch thefts or even prevent kidnaps and missing children cases? How about the unsolved crimes?

Why don't the police let the job of inspecting driving licences to the JPJ? Why do we need 3 different authorities to regulate such a minor thing like not having a valid driving licence?

Can we please look at the bigger picture? There are bigger crimes to be solved, and yet all these authorities seemed to be doing is checking people's driving licences!

A Man's Word Is Worth His Weight in Gold

I'm a firm believer in the above statement. In fact, if you ask anyone, chances are, they would subscribe to the same belief as well. However, how many of us consciously put it into practice?

Yeah, perhaps you may make it a point to keep 'major' or 'important' promises, but what about the little ones you make and break on a periodic basis?

I heard in a seminar by T. Harv Eker (The Millionaire Mind Intensive, which I would encourage everyone to go) the following saying, which I've adopted as my 'mantra' now:

"How you do anything, is how you do everything!"

Meaning to say, you need to be consistent with your actions no matter small or trivial it is, as that would be how you'd react in a major event.

I've come across many people (especially friends and colleagues) who love to make little promises they don't intend to keep. Say for example, if you bump into an old friend while shopping, catch up a little and exchange numbers. And just before you part ways you tell him "I'll call you sometime", will you really follow up with a call? Or would you let it slide?

Or let's say he said that to you? Would you expect him to call?

If the answer is no, why make the remark in the first place? If you were sincere, then you should call him. Otherwise, don't say that you'd call. Just exchange numbers and that's it.

How about keeping your appointments? Say you promise your client that you'd meet him at 10 am. I bet you'd probably make the time. If it was a big case, you'd probably be there around 9.30 am waiting for him!

If you could be on time for your client, why can't you do the same for your friend? Let's say you really can't make the time due to some unforeseen circumstances, you would at least call your client to notify him of your delay. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to your friends?

Why the double standards? How you do anything, is how you do everything! For those in the sales line, over time, you'd build a reputation with your clients. And in time, most of your clients would end up being your friends. So, once they are classified as 'friends' then you'd start applying your normal 'friends' timing, taking your client-friend for granted.

I just find it appalling that many people love to make promises and then conveniently forget it later on. It may be a small issue, say promising someone that you'd call or even a promise to buy someone dinner!

You may say it as a passing remark, but the person you gave the promise to, may not forget it. I've experienced many situations where people wanted to borrow a certain amount of cash and promises to pay me back by a certain date. And when that date arrives, there's no news of the cash. Not even a courtesy call to apologise for the delay or even a request for an extension!

I mean, the least you could do, if you are still short of cash or haven't sorted your finances yet, is to tell me so! Come on, at that time when you really needed the cash, you can call me a 100 times, send me so many smses, desperately asking me for the cash, but when the due date that YOU promised me arrives, no news! Nothing!

You conveniently 'forget' that you even owe me money. No courtesy call, no request for extension, no apology. Nothing!

Why is it you expect me to chase you for it? I find it sad that when you need cash, you remember my number, but when you have it, you can forget you owe me cash? It's not like I'm charging interest!

The above is intended particularly to 3 people who are NOT on my facebook. Just to set the record straight, this does not apply to some of my friends who owe me cash for their insurance premiums, we are cool because you guys always keep me updated. So, if you are reading this and are on my facebook, don't worry, it's not about you ;)

Anyway, back to the topic. Why can't people stick to their words? Why do people have the habit of making promises they can't or don't intend to keep? Or at least even feel bad that they can't keep to their promise?

A man's word is worth his weight in gold! If you can't keep your word, you are worth nothing!

What Do You Believe In?

What do you believe in? Some may ask what is your religion? Does it really matter? If you were to tell me you want to know just for 'talking point', then you'd better be prepared to question your own faith before you raise this topic with me.

I'd like to think of myself as an Agnostic. Unfortunately, the government of Malaysia does not recognize this category as a 'religion'. In fact, come to think of it, is it illegal for one NOT to have a religion? If you look at the Malaysian Pledge, the first pledge is 'Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan', or "Believe In God'. So, if you don't believe in God, does it mean you are not Malaysian?

Personally, I'd like it if the term 'religion' is replaced with 'beliefs' instead since 'religion' indicates a belief in a 'higher' being watching over us, while some of us don't actually believe that, nor can we deny the existence of such a being.

For the uninitiated, Agnosticism should not be confused with Atheists. Atheists are people who DO NOT believe in the existence of God. Agnostics on the other hand are more interested in the 'Truth'. Therefore, Agnostics do not reject the idea of God nor do they follow it. Of course if you Wiki the term Agnostic, they'll go into different categories of Agnostics which is just mind boggling.

For the record, Agnosticism is NOT an 'organised' religion. It is not even a religion. It is just a belief restricted to the individual. There are no teachings, nor books, nor associations, nor weekly assemblies, etc. It is basically your own belief on what is the truth about life.

Of course the religious people would call us 'fence sitters'. Some of these religious people would 'pity' us because they feel we are 'lost' and would be damned to hell since I do not prescribe to their version on what is the 'truth' about God and etc....

The other extreme would look 'down' on the 'Godless heathen' or even assume that I am the Devil's Advocate, trying to convince them away from their believe in God!

I'm a believer of religious freedom. Who am I to tell you what you believe is wrong? Being a self described Agnostic, I can't say that you are wrong in your belief. For every evidence I can put forth that you are wrong about your beliefs, you can show me a 'miracle' which proves me otherwise. So, why should I convince you that you are wrong when I am not sure whether I am right?

But what annoys me is that when people come to talk to me with the intention of 'convincing' me to believe in their religion, but they themselves are not open to accepting my views. So, how is it fair that I must keep an open mind and listen to YOUR version of the truth and try to accept it, while you are not willing to do the same with MY version of the truth?

So what is the truth? Actually, no one is certain. No one can guarantee 100% that their beliefs are 100% true. Why not? Because there is no concrete evidence. No solid proof. Some may say that their Holy book(s) which was written thousands of years ago is the truth, because it was written thousands of years ago or because that particular book says it is the truth! I mean, just because something is old or it says it is the truth, doesn't mean it is!

If I am able to build a time machine (assuming it is really possible to do so) and I am to go back in time and leave the Star Wars series in the hands of some guy 2 to 3 thousand years ago, I'm willing to bet there would be many believers in 'The Force' and the Star Wars series would actually be a 'documentary' instead of a movie! Get my point?

Since there is no way to 'prove' 100% beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the truth, there is a word which is used with all religion. It is called Faith. Faith is a belief, not upon evidence, but by your instincts (or gut feeling) on the truth.

So, if you have faith in what you believe in, who am I to take that faith away from you? On the same note, since you have faith in what you believe in, who are you to deny another person's belief?

If you wish to 'share' your beliefs, then be prepared to open up to another person's beliefs too and be prepared to change your beliefs at the same time.

As for myself, I am no religious scholar. I'm just an accountant, trying to get a nut in this world. But I have done my fair share of learning about the various religions such as Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Bahaism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Jainism, Judaism, Taoism, Wicca, Voodoo and other 'Pagan' religions to name a few. I'm willing to bet that some of you have never heard of some of the religions I've mentioned above!

So how much do you know about the 'other' religion for you to actually 'criticize' that their followers are 'wrong'? What makes you think that you are right?

If what you believe in is the truth, why are there so many other versions of the 'truth'? There could only be one truth. When there's so many versions, surely something is not right? Or could it be they are all right?

Personally, I'd like to think of all these religions as different paths leading to the same destination. It's a matter of choice and no one person has the right to say to another that their choice or path is wrong. At the end of the day, we would only know the truth when we are no longer alive. So, in the meantime please respect another person's beliefs even though it differs from yours ;)

Relationships..... -_-

These past few months I've been faced with relationship issues. Most of it, are not my own, they are my friends'. Yeah, I guess EVERYONE says that, "it's not me, my friend". No no, I'm NOT in denial here.

Now let's get things straight here. I'm no psychologist nor a relationship 'expert' here. I'm just a squirrel trying to get a nut in this world who happened to stumble across these issues quite a fair bit for some reason or another. And to further qualify my 'expertise' I'm the most 'single' guy among my group of friends, as I've hardly been in any 'long term' relationship with anyone (If you are wondering why I am the most 'single', perhaps my thoughts on relationships in this blog may give you an idea)

I've decided not to name any specific issues of my friends as the purpose of this blog was not to discuss THEIR issues, but rather to give MY two cents worth on relationships in general. I've seen one too many relationships fail due to expectation and compatibility issues. Be it a 3 year relationship or a 10 year marriage. And when it comes to relationship matters, it is one HUGE emotional roller coaster ride with 3 possible outcomes:

1. The continuation of the relationship stronger than before
2. The continuation of the relationship same or worse than before
3. The ending of the relationship

With the first outcome, the couple with problems discover the issues together and collectively improve themselves to facilitate their partner's needs. Of course it takes time to improve or change one's habits or character. One should also realise that this is a never ending process as there is no such thing as perfection. In time, your preference/needs would change and so would your partner's, thus arguments would creep up time and again, but by 'giving' and 'taking' things will always work out.

With the second outcome, the couple would expect the other party to change first instead of looking into themselves to change. The arguments would be more intense the next time round because the 'issues' weren't really settled in the first argument. It was merely 'delayed' for the sake of 'being tired of arguing' or just 'having peace'. Unfortunately it is not a lasting peace as it would creep up again (unless the argument is about a very minor and trivial matter). But why would a couple avoid the issue just for the sake of having 'peace'? ....it is because of the hormones known such as endorphines, dopamine, oxytocin, etc which gives us the 'feel good feeling' that we call love. So, literally, love is a drug, we get hooked on thus willing to do 'anything' for it and 'loving' someone for no 'logical' reason...."I'm willing to do anything for love"....familiar term??? So, they avoid prolonged confrontation or any outstanding issues so that they can continue to be hooked on these 'feel good' hormones.

With the third outcome, the couple (or one of them) would realise that they are just not compatible since they can't agree on many issues. Most of the time, to these couples 'compromise' means the other party 'compromise to my needs' and not the other way around. Normally, outcome 2 precedes outcome 3.


COMPATIBILITY:

I believe that there needs to be a certain level of compatibility for any relationship to work. In the olden days they used to look at astrology, date, time of birth to determine that and unfortunately there are still many who use it to determine their compatibility.

But of course, nowadays, the astrologer would offer 'solutions' to overcome the astrology incompatibility for a 'small fee'. Personally, I don't believe in the astrology compatibility mambo jambo. I've seen several marriages which is atrologically compatible with 'added' blessings by doing 'special prayers' during the marriage ceremony and the mariages ended up in separation or divorce within 3 years.

To me, the compatibility criteria are as follows:

1. Personality
2. Philosophy


PERSONALITY:
Personality refers to a person's character. There are many ways you can categorise individuals and there are many different categories under different context. In the context of relationships, I categorise people into 3 types:

1. Someone who prefers to take care of things
2. Someone who prefers to be taken cared
3. Someone who prefers an equal and independent relationship

But it should be kept in mind that people actually fall somewhere in between the 3 categories with varying degrees of each category. But they would generally fall in one more than the other.

A person under category 1 has an emotional need to be 'in charge' and to 'take care of everything'. So by letting this person handle things you are actually giving him or her 'satisfaction' in the relationship. This person also prefers to have the 'final say' in any major decisions.

A person under category 2 has an emotional need to be taken cared of. He or she wants to be 'pampered' and 'fussed' about, i.e. treated like 'royalty' in the extreme case. In making decisions, this person would rather leave it to their partners as they do not want to be bothered with making difficult decisions.

A person under category 3 is quite independent and would like everything on a fair basis, 50:50. From paying for dinner, chores and responsibilities around the house and even making decisions.

So, a combination of catergory 1 & 2 and 3 & 3 are very compatible, as both of them would fulfil eachother's emotional needs. However, a combination of 1 & 1 or 2 & 2 is a disaster.

As for 1 & 3 or 2 & 3, there are several things that need to be worked out and compromised for the relationship to work. Otherwise, it is also doomed.

On the topic of 'compromise' and change, I believe in the 80:20 ratio. 80% of a person's beliefs, characteristics, habits, etc cannot be changed. The other 20% can be changed given time, patience and effort. So, if you are in a relationship, please don't try to change EVERYTHING which annoys you or which you don't like about him or herself, because it would be an impossible task. You only have room to change about 20% and that is also after a very long time.

And a very important aspect of changing that 20% is that you too have to change yourself to meet him or her halfway. If you feel you don't need to change, please, forget the idea of changing your partner. The 'change' also needs to happen within you, as you need to change your tolerance level, beliefs, principles, etc to 'accept' his or her 80% which cannot be changed.


PHILOSOPHY:
Your partner and you should share certain philosophies and goals in mind. It need not be 100% but there must be several common philosophies shared by the two. Otherwise, there's going to be a big issue in the long run because it was 'over looked' in the short run due to 'hormonal issues'.

For example, you cannot have one partner who is deeply religious (where God comes first) with an atheist who doesn't believe in God. Because in the long run, one partner would try to convince the other to be a 'believer' in order to 'save' his or her soul, while the other would be trying his or her best to prove that their partner has been wrong all the time.

Another example is children. One may want to have many while the other may not want to have any or at most only 1 or 2, hesitantly but are very contented having cats and dogs instead. This is also not a good sign.

Other issues to consider are family relations, career goals, etc. Some may feel it is perfectly alright to put their aging parents in an old folks home (be it their own or their partner's) while their partner may want to take care of them in their own home.

Others may have no problem in telling a lie or breaking promises, while their partners have a different view point.


CONCLUSION:
I believe that in any relationship we need to set expectations as well as let our partners know of this expectations instead of 'springing' these expectations when a situation arises. Also, we also need to be mindful of our partner's expectations and be prepared to 'compromise' our expectations of our partners (bearing in mind the 80:20 rule). I believe we all need to have a set of 'criteria' and match our potential partners or change our 'criteria' to match our partners ;)

But relationship decisions are never easy as the emotional impact is quite bad on an individual. It would be like a drug addict suffering from withdrawal. As love (and it's related hormones) is (are) a very powerful drug(s) which clouds our judgement. So, if you are ever faced with a conflict between your 'heart' and your 'head', follow your 'head', even though it is the 'painful' option. As your mind would make logical decisions which would be for your long term benefit. Your heart would only give you 'short term' pleasure, but long term suffering.

As for myself, I try my best to put into practice what I've mentioned above. And despite 'knowing' how these things work, I still find it hard in making decisions when it comes to the heart vs head conflict. But I would eventually 'force' myself to follow my head although my heart says another. This is because I've been 'fooled' by my heart many times. So, as the saying goes, Once beaten, twice shy. Twice beaten, never try!

Sorry 'heart', you've struck out ;)

Are you a racist/bigot?

It's a pretty sensitive question, to which most people would want to disassociate themselves from. Since, by admitting that you are a bigot people tend to give you the 'evil eye' as if they are free from sin.

Bigotry comes in many forms, the obvious one would be racism. Are you a racist? Ask that question and the immediate response you get from most people is that they are not and they would start arguing that they have many friends who are of different race, etc trying hard to 'prove' that they are not!

It's a simple question, a yes or no answer would suffice. So why would people go to great lengths just to 'prove' they are not by sighting examples of their un-racist behaviour? If I were to ask 'Are you hungry?' will you go to great lengths to 'prove' that you are not hungry, or will you just answer yes or no? So why the 'extra effort' to deny that you are a racist?

Is it because deep down you know that you are a racist and you feel you need to prove that you are not?

I've met some people (whom I 've just met), who tell me that they are not racist and that they have many Malay, Indian, Chinese friends. The trouble is that I didn't even ask whether you are a racist or not, nor did I ask about how many Malay, Chinese or Indian friends you have! But for some reason they felt they needed to tell me they are not racist!

But, if you were to categorize your friends as Malay, Chinese or Indian, doesn't that make you a racist? Friends are friends. Period. No such thing as Indian friends or Chinese friends or Malay friends or Melanau friends. Just friends, that's all.

For those who deny that you are a racist, take a look around you. Who are your 'close' circle of friends? If they are the same ethnicity as you, then you may be a racist (but not necessarily). What about the people you date? Do you only date people within the same ethnicity? Do you REALLY treat everyone equally or is it that 'some people are more equal than others'? Do you give everyone equal opportunities? Or do you sideline some people due to your own biasness (be it race, religion, etc)

But then, it is inbuilt within our natural instincts to 'stick to your own kind', hence the reason why your 'close' friends may be the same ethnicity as you. The trouble is that subconsciously you didn't 'give the opportunity' to people of other ethnicity to prove their worth. So, how would you know whether you are a racist or not? There are no set rules or test to decide. It is your mindset. Consider the following scenarios:

Scenario 1:
If you were to meet 2 strangers, one is the same ethnicity as you the other is not. Who would you PREFER to trust and befriend first?

Scenario 2:
Again, you meet 2 strangers, both are of different ethnicity, one is 'fair' skinned while the other is 'dark' skinned, who would you be more inclined to trust or befriend? Or can you trully say that you can be objective enough to treat both of them equally?

Scenario 3:
Again, you meet 2 strangers, both are of similar ethnicity, but one is 'good looking' the other is not. Who would you PREFER to befriend?

Try to find the reasoning behind your answers.

But racism can't be helped. We all grew up with it thanks to our upbringing as well as our politicians who keep it live and well in this country. Society is such that we tend to associate certain 'traits' to certain races:

Malays: Lazy, easily bribed, religious extremists, etc.
Indian: Drunks, thugs, wife beaters, etc.
Chinese: Involved in illegal business, gangsters, can't be trusted, etc.

I really hate it when people assume that I like to consume alcohol just because I am Indian. There are several occasions when I go to my friends' house for a visit where the parent would ask whether I'd like a beer or other form of liqour. Why the assumption that I like to drink? If I came over for a visit due to a celebration, I would understand for such an offer. But there wasn't any celebration. I just dropped by to visit your son/daughter and not to celebrate anything.

There are even occassions when I go and meet up some of my old friends where they'd be surprised when I decline alcohol. Hence putting the 'pressure' that since I'm Indian, I must be a good drinker! So, I need to drink just to meet their expectations? And by doing so, I'd then prove that Indians are indeed good drinkers. And the circle goes on and on.

So who's to blame if Indians are drunks? Here I am trying NOT to be a drunk and there's peer pressure (from my non-Indian friends) as well as people offering me alcohol when I go to visit based on the assumptions that Indians are drunks.

Since this happened/happens to me, what more the other Indians? And not everyone is strong willed to resist peer pressure. Hence, society itself creates such polarizations among the races and then they feel vindicated when a person of a particular race behaves just as they predicted! What they faill to realise is that it is their bigotry that caused the other to behave as such! It's a vicious cycle!

Well, the above are just 'mild' forms of racism I've experienced. I have experienced worst forms of racism, which I do not wish to discuss as it would only incite more hatred. But since I am a 'victim' of racism, that justifies me to be a racist against another race right? It wasn't fair to me to be a victim of racism, so why should I hold back and stop being a racist especially against that particular race who treated me unfairly?

But if I were to treat someone unfairly as retribution for me being treated unfairly before, wouldn't that create a 'new victim' who'd pass on the 'torch of racism' to the next generation?

Look at our political parties, the majority are race based parties. Why is there a need 'to defend' one's own race? Why can't these parties and NGOs defend everyone's rights as a whole?

Bigotry is not only limited to racism, there are other forms of bigotry such as based on religion and class. Some people tend to be more religious than others and have this 'holier than thou' attitude. Others feel that they are from the 'upper class' of society and hence don't mix with people from the 'lower class'. Some only mix with 'smart' people and shun the 'stupid' people.

So how do you know whether you are a bigot/racist? You won't. It is the people around you who would know. It is your actions that would determine it, not what you say or feel.

So, am I a racist/bigot? I'll let my friends be the judge of that ;)

I F@*k on the first date

Alright, alright, I don't do that. Just thought that it would make an interesting blog title to get your attention.

But then, the title is related to an incident which happened yesterday, 31st August 2009. My sis in law got her bonus and wanted to give us a dinner treat. She suggested we go to a new cafe that just opened up at Jalan Layang, Perling called 'Bamboo Cafe' or something like that.

So, myself, mom, dad, bro, sis in law and my 2 baby nieces got all dressed up and made our way to this new cafe in 2 cars.

As I parked my car, I noticed that the Cafe had retained the previous owner's decor (I think it was Anjung Warisan or something like that). It was more of a Malay-Balanese wood decor. As we got out we noticed that we were the only ones to be there (bad sign).

Of course, I gave them the benefit of the doubt that since they were new, not many people know about them.

As we got out of the car, we were greeted by the smiley faces of several staff dressed in brown uniform with black caps.

Standing at the enterance of the shop, beside the staff was a guy, probably in his late 20s or early 30s wearing a white singlet and jeans. On his singlet was printed in big, bold blue letters "I F@*k on the first date" (please note it wasn't sensored on his singlet). I thought to myself that he must be customer as well as an asshole for wearing such a singlet at a 'family' place like this.

But I found it odd as to why the customer was also smiling and greeting at us and counting how many of us was coming in. Then my dad asked the singlet guy whether he was working here and to which he said yes. My dad got offended by what was written on his singlet and started scolding him!

He then asked for the boss and the singlet guy said that HE was the boss! My dad immediately said to us that we are leaving and he refuses to eat at a shop where the boss doesn't have any respect for the customers. So we just walked out!

What a moron right? Here is this guy who is supposedly the boss. He spent so much money in acquiring the place doing some renovation, getting the uniforms for the staff and create a supposedly 'classy' environment, but he himself dresses in singlet with the words 'I F@*k on the first date' imprinted and he stands in front to greet the customers! What a moron!

Well hopefully after the 'bamboo' from my dad, Cafe Bamboo's so called boss would have learnt his lesson! I bet the staff would have a field day over the incident! Merdeka!