Category: Current Events

I may not be a theology student or a Bible-quoting expert, but I found Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ to be a powerful film—one that has the potential to bring lost sheep back to the flock.

Authenticity vs. Artistic License

Mel Gibson (not God, just to be clear) set out to make this film both authentic and engaging, and for the most part, he succeeded. However, a few historical and scriptural inaccuracies stood out:

• While Aramaic was widely spoken at the time, the Gospels were originally written in Greek, and there is evidence that Jesus also spoke Greek (as discussed in scholarly debates, including one on the American Scientific Affiliation forum). Additionally, Latin and Hebrew were also used in that era.
• Another questionable portrayal is the implication that Mary Magdalene and the adulteress being stoned were the same person—a common misconception not supported by the Gospels.

Other than these, the movie stays relatively faithful to the Gospel narratives—except for that one flashback where Jesus casually invents the dinette table. But hey, a little artistic license never hurt anyone.

Is It Anti-Semitic?

In my opinion, the film itself is not anti-Semitic. Nothing was added by the filmmakers that wasn’t already present in the Gospels. And even then, the Gospels, when read in context, are not anti-Semitic.

Yes, the New Testament mentions Jewish leaders plotting against Jesus, but Jesus and His followers were also Jewish. Saying that the Gospels are anti-Semitic would be like saying Chiang Kai-shek was anti-Chinese because he wanted to eliminate Mao Zedong—it just doesn’t make sense.

What likely irks some Jewish groups is that the Bible records that, 2,000 years ago, some Jews (specifically the Pharisees) conspired against a man who claimed to be the Messiah. However, this is historical context, not an indictment of all Jews for all time.

Unfortunately, some people take things out of context—like the pastor in Denver’s Lovingway United Pentecostal Church, who decided to put up a sign reading:

“Jews killed the Lord Jesus.”

This was a blatant misinterpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 and only serves to highlight how ignorant some so-called Christians can be. The message of Christ is about love and understanding, not blame.

What Really Matters

At the end of the day, the real question isn’t who killed Christ—it’s why He died.

That, more than anything else, is the true heart of the story.

In a year devoid of any real controversy, Malaysians will be heading to the polls on March 21, 2004. So, the question is—who to vote for?

The Incumbents: A Sure Win?

First off, the ruling party is looking stronger than ever. The opposition will have to ditch their “black book” of old grievances because, well, the Old Man has retired, and the new guy is doing a decent job so far.

And in Malaysian politics, where forgiveness is practically a national pastime, any attempt to rehash past government failures will likely fall flat with voters:

“Haiyaa, now PM also change already what, why bring up somemore?”

With a solid (if flawed) performance record, it’s hard to deny that this election will serve as a renewed endorsement for the incumbents. That said, without cronyism and corruption, we could have achieved so much more in a shorter time.

One thing I’d love to see? Some old guards losing their seats to make way for fresh blood.

The Rocket Party: A Silent Countdown to Self-Destruction?

I’ll be rooting for my favorite social democratic (or democratic socialist) party, even though their silence and absence over the past five years makes one wonder…

Did they suffer a “rocket malfunction” due to NASA budget cuts?

Or worse—are they on a collision course with electoral disintegration, set to explode into a spectacular fireworks display this election season?

Tough questions, but in an election devoid of major social issues, there’s not much to exploit.

Anwar: The Office Pakcik’s Pick for PM?

Of course, if you ask my office Pakcik, the only thing that matters is voting fairly and freeing Anwar.

To be fair, Anwar is a formidable politician—he has charisma, respect, and the ability to stir up the crowd like a pro. He’s also pro-business, which is just a polite way of saying he has his own personal business interests (but then again, who doesn’t?).

So what if he’s a poof? (His words, not mine.)

Personally, I have no issues with his alleged sexuality, but let’s be real—getting caught naked in bed and “getting jiggy” with self-righteous mullahs is just bad optics.

My suggestion? Drop the Taliban ties and focus on real issues instead of trying to be Malaysia’s Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Islamic Hardliners: The Fun Police is Coming

Ah yes, our very own made-in-Malaysia brand of religious extremists—whose declared mission is to rewrite the Constitution, transforming our moderately Islamic (but still secular-ish) state into a full-fledged theocracy.

Their big idea? Strip the country of all “vices” and impose a moral code on everyone.

Now, that might ensure them a spot in heaven, but what about the unbelievers? And where’s the fun in life if some of us can’t chomp on our favorite pork knuckles while downing a pint or two?

Let the Campaign Season Begin!

I can’t wait to attend the ceramahs—because if nothing else, Malaysian elections are always a spectacle worth watching.

As an avid movie fan, I found this year’s Academy Awards particularly interesting.

For the first time ever, a fantasy film– The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King—shattered the long-standing glass ceiling that confined such films to technical categories like Sound Editing and Special Effects. Instead, it went all the way, clinching both Best Director and Best Picture.

Kudos to the happy Hobbits, elegant Elves, gruff-looking Dwarves, wise Wizards, and humble Humans who brought Middle-earth (or, as we call it in this dimension, New Zealand) to life. And, of course, massive credit to Peter Jackson, who– once a George Lucas-ian nobody– spent nearly a decade turning Tolkien’s highly revered (but let’s be honest, stupendously dense and slow-paced) tome into cinematic magic.

That said, I can’t help but feel a tiny bit disappointed that Bill Murray didn’t take home Best Actor for Lost in Translation. His performance was brilliant—subtle, melancholic, and deeply human. But at least the film didn’t go home empty-handed, with Sofia Coppola winning Best Original Screenplay.

As for her speech, let’s just say her on-stage aloofness was either due to a terminal case of bashfulness or she was still mentally recovering from her ill-fated role in The Godfather Part III.

Either way, not a bad night for film history.

After months of chest-thumping declarations that weapons would be found, the two giants—the U.S. and the U.K.—have finally admitted that faulty intelligence was to blame. Yet, despite this admission, they continue to insist that invading Iraq was still the right thing to do.

The hunt for Iraq’s WMDs has produced nothing but hot air.

Just yesterday, CIA Director George Tenet stated that the agency never claimed Iraq was an “imminent threat.” This, of course, contradicts the relentless rhetoric leading up to the invasion, where the phrase “grave and gathering danger”was used like a drumbeat to justify war.

For those who still stand by Bush’s and Blair’s after-the-fact justifications, even though no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, I’ve heard a few common arguments—each more flawed than the last:

1. “We can’t really blame them. It was faulty intelligence.”

Wrong!

Hans Blix’s reports provided clear evidence that contradicted the intelligence used to justify war. Even more damning, we now know that neither the CIA nor MI6 had operatives on the ground in Iraq.

So why, then, were Blix’s findings ignored? Why did the march to war continue despite credible doubts?

2. “It’s okay because this was an international effort, and most of the world agreed with it.”

Not quite.

Mr. Bush, please remember that the world is bigger than just the Coalition of the Willing. Every time you claim “global support”, keep in mind that your coalition represented only 10% of the world’s population.

And even if the entire world had agreed, does that somehow make a modern-day lynching acceptable? Civilization should have evolved beyond that.

3. “Saddam had to go. He was evil. If we allowed him to stay in power, he would have become another Hitler.”

If that were truly the case, don’t you think Europeans—who actually suffered under Hitler– would have been the first to sound the alarm?

Yes, Saddam was a dictator, but he was also a has-been. He lacked a powerful army, he had no mass ideological following, and he was isolated even within the Arab and Muslim world. Unlike Hitler, he didn’t have the means to wage a global war, let alone defend himself when attacked.

4. “I don’t like Saddam’s face, and no matter what, I’m glad he’s gone—even if the war was based on false and unjustifiable reasons.”

Well, my friend, if that’s your argument, there’s probably no way to convince you of the magnitude of this wrongdoing.

But remember this: One day, Bush and Blair—or leaders like them—may use the same pretext to invade another country of their choosing.

Pray very hard that it’s not ours.

Colin Powell has admitted to reporters flying with him that, well… there may not have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S. invasion.

And just like that, Powell’s grand pre-war Security Council presentation—packed with “proof” and “irrefutable evidence”—comes crashing down faster than a house of cards in a wind tunnel.

One can only imagine the hours spent meticulously crafting that PowerPoint masterpiece, not to mention the tireless efforts of the “creative” intelligence team tasked with drawing connections between Iraq, WMDs, and Al-Qaeda—all of which resulted in a presentation fit for Hollywood. Specifically, the kind of Imminent-Threat-Coming-So-Hero-Briefs-The-Council-But-Council-Won’t-Listen scene we’ve seen a thousand times before.

We all remember those chilling moments when Powell, in his most serious “trust me, I’m a credible statesman” tone, presented “intercepted” Iraqi radio transmissions featuring faceless, evil Eye-Rack-EE commanders ordering their soldiers to hide weapons before the arrival of UN inspectors.

We were also shown grainy satellite images of what we were told were missiles, factories and makeshift WMD labs, lovingly annotated by intelligence analysts in a game of color-by-numbers for warmongers.

And now?

Turns out, all of it was built on lies, half-truths, and creative storytelling.

Adding insult to injury, David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (the team tasked with actually finding these so-called WMDs), resigned—which, if we were in a movie, would be the part where the scientist dramatically removes his government badge and walks out.

As his parting shot, Kay flatly stated that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Amazingly, just days before, President Bush had quoted Kay’s report, cherry-picking and recontextualizing his words into the vague claim that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction program activities.”

(What does that even mean? No one knows. But hey, it’s in the State of the Union address, so it must be true!).

And so, the infamous WMD “smoking gun” may turn out to be as real as a mirage in the Iraqi desert—except this one cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

When I first became aware of the world around me—somewhere around the age of five—the Prime Minister of Malaysia had always been Datuk Hussein Onn. One of his most distinctive features was his recognizable parrot-nosed side profile, made famous by Lat in his Scenes from Malaysian Life collection, which even included a step-by-step guide on how to draw all three Malaysian Prime Ministers (up until then).

When Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister and Hussein Onn retired (later becoming Tun), my worldview was shaken. To me, Hussein Onn was a quiet and unassuming figure. He seemed like the kind of leader who would remain calm even under immense pressure. His laid-back and peaceful aura, in my young mind, was what Malaysia itself represented.

But my initial impression of Mahathir wasn’t really my own—it was second-hand, a collection of opinions I had absorbed from the adults around me. Growing up in a liberal but Chinese household, there was suspicion about a Malay ultra taking the reins of government. Some relatives worried that Chinese businesses, education, and way of life would be significantly affected.

Naturally, I was concerned.

Then one day, a Chinese classmate told me, quite confidently, that Mahathir would be good for the country. I disagreed. Our animated debate quickly attracted a crowd of students—Malay, Chinese, and Indian alike—who joined in the discussion. Primary school political debates are probably the most politically incorrect forums imaginable, with children often parroting whatever their parents say at home. But in many ways, they also reveal the underlying sentiments of society.

From that discussion, one thing was clear: no one knew what to expect. And that pretty much defined Mahathir’s tenure—people never quite knew what he would do next, but they knew that whatever it was, it would be big.

Mahathir and His Obsession with Time

The first opinion I formed about Mahathir on my own was that he was fascinated with time.

Why did I think that? Well, first, he took an hour away from Malaysia—moving our clocks ahead of Thailand and Singapore so that East and West Malaysia could share the same time zone. Next, he introduced punch cards in government offices, a system that later trickled down to private organizations.

I still remember the impact of those changes. Growing up, RTM used to publish TV schedules with exact timings, down to the second. A show like The Six Million Dollar Man might be scheduled for 8:07 PM on a Wednesday—43 minutes after a cartoon. The problem? RTM could never keep up with its own scheduling, and shows always aired either early or late. After Mahathir’s push for better time management, RTM adjusted its schedules to round numbers (though actually adhering to them remains a work in progress).

Looking East and Buying British Last

Then came one of Mahathir’s boldest moves: the “Look East” policy.

At the time, most nations looked West—to the United States or the USSR—for economic models, investments, and aid. But Mahathir challenged Malaysians to emulate Asian success stories instead, particularly Japan and South Korea. This was a radical shift, especially considering the colonial admiration many Malaysians still had for the British. To make his point even clearer, he spearheaded the “Buy British Last” campaign.

Privatization and Malaysia, Inc.

Then came the era of privatization, along with those Filem Negara short films about Malaysia, Inc..

I remember watching these films (I watched a lot of TV back then) on a lazy Friday afternoon, struggling to understand the message. At one point, I even wondered, Are they turning Malaysia into a corporation? Does this mean we all get salaries from the government?

But while some of Mahathir’s economic policies were met with skepticism (and plenty of complaints—Malaysians do love to complain), they persisted. And as a result, Malaysia transformed in ways we never could have imagined.

Big Things, Big Ideas

Under Mahathir, big things kept happening.

• Malaysia started producing cars. The first model, the Proton Saga, was… well, aesthetically challenged. I still remember the cringeworthy TV commercial jingle:

“Pro-Ton SAAAA-GAAAA, ke-ja-ya-an Ma-lay-SIAAAA!”

Thankfully, Proton improved with each new model, and my first three cars were proudly Malaysian-made.

• Infrastructure development skyrocketed. I don’t recall a time when I wasn’t seeing the construction of a new overpass, bypass, or underpass. Malaysia was being tarmacked and wired up like never before. This not only connected the country but also connected Malaysia to the world. Even now, I still get chills every time I depart or arrive at KLIA—not from the air conditioning, but from the sheer grandeur of the place.

• The NEP was softened. While the New Economic Policy (Dasar Ekonomi Baru) remained a contentious issue for non-Bumiputera communities, Mahathir subtly shifted towards a more open capitalist economy. This led to the rise of a new class of tycoons and, more importantly, the Vision 2020 speech—his blueprint for a progressive, united, and economically robust Malaysia.

Where Mahathir Fell Short

That’s not to say I agreed with everything Mahathir did.

My biggest criticism? The Anwar Ibrahim debacle.

It remains one of the darkest stains on his leadership. He likely miscalculated the groundswell of support for Anwar, and his government’s heavy-handed approach sparked unprecedented public protests. The real reasons behind Anwar’s sacking may never be known—at least, not during Mahathir’s lifetime—but let’s just say I never bought the corrupt homosexual narrative.

Secondly, Mahathir had the power to accelerate liberalization—economically, politically, and socially—but he didn’t go far enough.

He could have implemented transparency reforms across government bureaucracy, just as he did with punch clocks and nametags. Small changes create big cultural shifts, and had he taken this step, corruption at all levels—ranging from petty bribes to major corporate scandals—could have been significantly curbed. Mahathir had the right moment and the right authority to plant that seed, but he didn’t.

Mahathir’s Lasting Legacy

Love him or hate him, Mahathir redefined Malaysia.

More than anything, he instilled in us a confidence we never had before—the belief that, if we work hard enough, we can achieve anything. His legacy, both good and bad, will always shape Malaysia.

And for that, I thank Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. The Malaysia we know today would not exist without him.