who is an immigrant?

The following word has become quite common nowadays being uttered by various parties including politicians. This word carries great repercussions and deemed to be seditious in the eyes of Malaysian law. Yet this word is commonly used in the current globalized world whereby citizens from various countries crossing borders and settling down in foreign lands. Is not that is what an immigrant meant? According to Oxford definition, an immigrant is “a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country”.

Judging by that definition, as a Chinese, my forefather did come to a foreign country known as Malaya then from China to live permanently here. Therefore he is indeed an immigrant. His sons after him were born here in Malaya and were given citizenships. From that day onwards, the generation is known as Malaysians. That is a bit of history for my race and I bet it should be the same for other immigrant-races like Indians, Eurasians etc. Come to think of it, it is quite similar as well to the great nation United States of America. The whole country is literally built by immigrants from all corners of the world. They are citizens there as well.

The latest hullabaloo of being labeled as immigrants here in Malaysia actually constitutes to nothing serious. What is worrying here is the wider picture is not clearly seen. Let’s take the USA as example. The immigrant-races there are usually being referred to as second-generation immigrants or third-generation immigrants but the most important reference is that they are American citizens and as citizens their rights are protected by the country’s constitution. The rights include rights to vote, education, healthcare and lots more. Therefore if put that into context here in Malaysia, I actually wouldn’t mind being labeled a descendant of immigrants or even third-generation immigrant. But what concerns me most is I am a Malaysian with full citizenship and this gives me the right to vote, education, healthcare and many more benefits accorded to a citizen under the Malaysian constitution.

Therefore, to all so-called immigrants here in Malaysia, just chill and put this into mind “Call me an immigrant or what not, but never deny my rights as a citizen”. God bless Malaysia.

constructive rivalry

Rivalry is not uncommon to us as human beings. We tend to experience it at some point of our lives if not throughout our entire lives. We have seen rivalries between political leaders, corporate executives and even siblings. However, rivalry can be seen differently in different situations. Some rivalries are good while some are bad. How do we decide then, one may ask?

Let’s take a scenario to put this issue under a microscope. There is one coveted post within an organization and this post is being eyed by two individuals. The first individual’s strategy to increase his chances is by highlighting his competitor’s weaknesses and even to the extent of spreading malicious lies to attack his reputation. By doing so he will be able to gain an upper hand by projecting himself to be stronger in comparison. The second individual’s strategy however is to observe his competitor’s moves and actions to identify his weaknesses and what makes him ticks. Upon identifying these characteristics, rather than magnifying them, he trains and improves himself in order to be much more competent in comparison.

Both individuals no doubt exude different types of strategies to achieve their objectives. For the first individual, his strategy can be seen in many psychological warfare whereby the main objective is to undermine your opponent and destroy his standing in the public view. This strategy is quite malicious in nature but undeniably it does work. Once your opponent’s reputation has been destroyed, one can move over him easily. However, he will always be labeled as a conniving and scheming individual. For the second individual, his strategy is more towards self improvement and empowering himself with extra skills or talents to overshadow his opponent. This individual is shrewd and to some extent can be considered honorable for he takes the fight to his opponent face to face.

The next question is which of these rivalries considered good or constructive? Before we answer this let’s put the whole situation into perspective. Imagine what if either one of them fail to get the coveted post. The first individual will have nothing to boast about other than his conniving ways while the second individual would have enhanced his competitiveness with added skills and experience to fight for future opportunities. Guess the answer is plain to see now.

righteous vs diplomatic

Throughout the history of the world, the course was always charted by charismatic visionaries and leaders. These leaders exude different characteristics and had their own individual styles of leadership. However these leaders actually shared a common trait that is not widely acknowledged. They are either a righteous or diplomatic leader. How do we see whether a leader is righteous or diplomatic and what is the difference between these two traits one may ask.

A righteous leader always stands at a higher moral ground. In his eyes there is only right or wrong and grey areas do not exist in his dictionary. He will never hesitate for a second to crush any actions that are deemed evil or of unmoral standards. No matter who committed these acts, even by someone close, he will always uphold his principle and will not falter. A diplomatic leader on the other hand stands by the principle that everyone has the same rights of argument and always takes the middle ground in resolving any disagreements and conflicts. By such analysis alone we actually can come to a conclusion that righteous leaders advocate rule of law while diplomatic leaders advocate human rights. Let’s do some further analysis to justify that concept.

As said, a righteous leader will definitely crush any injustice and no matter who committed such injustice should be crucified in their eyes. This clearly follows the doctrine rule of law since most injustice contravenes some law, either legally or morally. For a diplomatic leader, he follows the principle that every person involve in a conflict must be given equal chance to present their case and a solution should appease all parties without putting any emphasis on a morally-inclined solution. This clearly follows the doctrine of human rights whereby every human should be accorded with freedom to act according to their wishes. An aspiring leader should therefore choose which type of leader he would like to be. No doubt it would be ideal if he can be of both pedigrees but it is actually quite impossible to pull that off. Let’s do a simple experiment to justify that fact.

Scenario, a corrupted businessman amassing humongous wealth using unscrupulous methods but in the meantime donating huge sums to charity to help the needy. As a leader how should one act towards this businessman? To put things into perspective, let’s complicate the matter by saying one of the needy person helped by the corrupted businessman is the leader’s own mother, life and death situation. Now how the leader’s next action will clearly define the type of leader he is. If he is a righteous leader, he will proceed to crucify the businessman without hesitating to consider that his actions might put his mother’s life in danger. To him, injustice must be corrected and the life of his mother is a price to pay for it, so be it. Whereas, for a diplomatic leader, he will gauge the seriousness of the situation to come out with an acceptable solution. To him, a life of a person is important and this is his own mother’s life in fact. So his mother’s rights to live must be respected. The businessman’s rights to accumulate wealth no matter how unscrupulous his methods are must also be respected since it is his freedom to do so. Besides he is helping the needy and their rights for aids to survive must be respected. However, he must also respect the rights of the prosecutor and police to indict the businessman if the chance arises. A diplomatic leader might be less effective than a righteous one in this sense but there are always two sides of a coin. What if the good done by the corrupted businessman outweighs the bad? He is actually a true advocate of human rights since he strives to protect every individuals rights, good or bad.

Both types of leaders have their own strengths and weaknesses and definitely there is not one better than the other. However, the worse kinds of leaders are those that try to be both at the same time. These leaders are hypocrites since based on the scenario given above, it is quite impossible to be two types at the same time. These two-faced so called “leaders” lack the principles and clout to preach. They will never be given due respect ever. It is also much easier to preach with a “holier than thou” mentality when one is not in power but when in power and involves someone close, it is a whole different ball game altogether. For those aspiring leaders from the younger generation, make up your mind, either be a righteous leader that crushes injustice or a diplomatic leader that protects human rights, but never a hypocrite two-headed one.

Happy Independence Day. God bless Malaysia.