The Redemptive Message of 'The Kite Runner'

Rarely do I come across a film that is emotionally and intellectually moving, interweaved with the joys, the shadows and the turning points of childhood. The Kite Runner, directed by Marc Foster and based on Khaled Hosseini’s famous first novel is one of those rare films that works on our minds and hearts without pretensions.

At a different level, the story has enormous depth in the echoes and parallels to the family history of Abraham-Sara-Isaac on the one hand and Hagar-Ishmael on the other hand. In fact, (for those who have seen the film or read the book), I believe there is a redemptive meaning of this story for the present geopolitical Judaeo-Muslim conflict. Every political problem comes from an inner family conflict and every relational family conflict stems from a spiritual problem.

The Kite Runner is a story that hints at a spiritual drama behind the complex family history of the father Baba having a child – Hassan - with his servant’s wife. But instead of banishing the servant’s son from his household, it is Amir, his legitimate son who deceptively banishes Hassan out of their household. The rest of the story basically tells of the redemption of Amir from his past guilt (of not helping his best friend Hassan and of falsely accusing Hassan of theft.)

This story is amazing because it could be based anywhere in the world. We may live in a peaceful and prosperous country but if we are not vigilant and spiritually strong, we too may destroyed by external forces or internal forces.

It is not a coincidence that, in the story, the invasion of Afghanistan by the Russians happened after Amir’s betrayal of his servant friend and his lying to his father. The departure of Hassan and his servant father from the Baba household is the beginning of the end of Afghanistan. Hassan, by the way, comes from the Hazara tribe, a despised minority group.

Would it be safe to say that the beginning of troubles for any nation on earth invariably starts when the rich and powerful injure and mistreat the weakest and defenseless minority? The Kite Runner starts with child-like hope which leads to a tragedy and ends with redemptive hope.

Likewise, it is my belief that our country Malaysia is close to coming to terms with her past (and present) sins and the hope of redemption is waiting at the door. A line that echoes throughout the film is "there is a way to be good again."

I highly recommend people, especially Malaysians, to see the film or read the book if not for the sheer enjoyment of a well-written, political-family thriller.

The Swing Factor That Tipped The 12th Election

In the wake of the 8 March 2008 General Elections (GE), we asked a prominent Singapore political analyst what was the one main factor that pushed Malaysians to vote for the Opposition? Was it a protest vote (push factor) of voting against the Barisan Nasional or a pull factor of voting for the Barisan Rakyat (as the Opposition was called then)?

Surprisingly, the political expert sounded as shell-shocked as everyone else. In his opinion, he said it was a combination of factors such as discontent over widespread corruption in the system, the rising crime rate, the perceived erosion of right of religious freedom, the political marginalization of the Chinese and the Indians, the NEP, Lingamgate etc.

In many ways, he was right but surely there must have been one tipping factor that tipped the 12th election outcome to swing into the Opposition with the gaining of five unprecedented states under their administration.

Until today, I am still looking for that one tipping point factor if there is one because I don’t believe people are so different that they can be motivated by a wide range of reasons.

Perhaps the BR did a great job through the new media. But was it Tony Phua who said, post 8 March, that even a cow would have won if it stood against the BN?

A decision-making framework I formulated before voting has helped me to understand and clarify the reasons behind my voting decision. In fact, I wrote a piece in Malaysiakini’s letter column called “Will You Swing Your Vote?” three days before the GE.

Looking back, as a first time voter, I voted for the BR because I wished to deny the incumbent BN a two thirds majority. This is described as the Strategic Vote. In my pre-election hypothetical case study, I assumed that the average Malaysian will attach a 30% weight to the strategic vote.

Now, after talking to friends and reading several blogs, I believe that the strategic vote counted more prominently with a 50% weight (and the balance 20% accorded to the political candidate and 30% for his/her policies).

If this was the key tipping point factor, then we can now better deal with the post-election issue of a potential change in the government through Pakatan Rakyat (PR) obtaining more state and parliamentary seats through “cross-overs”.

Since I did not vote for an outright change of government, why would I be in favour of the PR’s strategy to gain power through cross-overs, which is ethically questionable? My skpeticism about the timing of this formation of a new government is based on concerns that the PR party is not ready to form a unified, cohesive government with a consistent set of economic, social policies for the country.

Much of Pakatan Rakyat’s social economic objectives (apart from the debatable issue of lowering fuel prices) sounds great and the party may eventually and hopefully transform Malaysia into a more accountable, transparent and efficient country. But why the hurry in 2008? Is it because BN is imploding under its own weight? Or is it because Anwar Ibrahim is just impatient to form the next government?

Essential Differences Between Views & Values - Part 1

How should we judge a person – by the views he holds or by the values that are dear to him? Views and opinions can be changed and are held together by a combination of intellect and emotions.

However, values are seen to represent what we are made of and what our characters represent. These values may be publicly accepted values such as integrity/sanctity/righteousness on the one hand or private values such as security, power and wealth on the other hand.

We attach greater importance to values because our values are ultimately what we are willing to risk our lives for and what we are willing to go to war for (or not go to war if you are a pacifist). Values seem to appeal to our spiritual and nobler inclinations such as cherishing life and helping those in need. However, despite the distinction between values and opinions, the two are often substitutes for one another.

Our views often reflect our values, regardless of how much we try to be politically correct or neutral on certain issues. They say that one man’s meat is another man’s poison. This refers more to values than opinions because values are as important to our lives as food is to the body. But would it be correct to say that one man’s opinion is meat to him but poison to others?

Opinions and views are exchanged more frequently and they are subject to improvisations, innovations, mutations and alternations. In reply to accusations of being inconsistent, the economist John Maynard Keynes famously said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" However, values are more sticky and, hence, harder to change even if the facts no longer support the values.

For instance, many politicians still believe that subsidized pricing is an effective way of keeping inflation under control. Little do they see the fact that subsidized pricing maintained over time will distort the allocation of resources by encouraging consumers to consume more of the commodity (e.g. fuel, rice, bread) that is in limited supply.

Finally, I shall conclude by asking a question that is on many Malaysians' minds in recent months: "How do we judge the character of a charismatic, eloquent and internationally well-respected politician like Anwar Ibrahim?" Are his values more important to him than his methods and policies? Would he use questionable means (e.g. cross overs to gain a backdoor entry into power) to achieve a fair and just end (A new Malaysia)? A wiser politician - under scrutiny from a discerning public - would be equally careful in shaping his opinions, policies and tactical methods as he would be in forming his long-term goals for the nation.

This brings us to another related and important topic: Is it ethical to use unjust means to achieve a just end? We often hear of Deng Xiaoping's quote that it does not matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mice. Well, I beg to differ. If you get a hungry tiger to catch a mouse in your house, you may well end up getting mauled.

In conclusion, unsound methods may reveal much about a person's values. (Let's be clear, I try to be as apolitical as much as I can in this blog. There may be reasons why drastic measures/means are sometimes used to save a nation from disaster. That is why political problems are best resolved by an intelligent trade-off analysis.)

This discussion of ends and means in regard to Malaysia will continue in Part 2.

Safe Harbour in A Turbulent World

For the first time in the history of mankind, the 21st century will probably be the era of the greatest changes for our generation. We have reached a point where the consumer can not only choose which good or service to purchase but, amidst the increasing materialism and stresses of modern capitalist society, what spiritual values to hold on to.

Those who espouse and champion freedom of choice without any obligation to anchor their desires to a set of ethical values will find their element in this century.

But at the same time, this is the century of change in the widest sense of the term. There will be changes in the weather, changes in the economy, changes in international relations, changes in politics, changes in the family and most importantly, changes in the spiritual life of man.

When we choose to take the wrong path, either unknowingly or willingly, we are faced with consequences that are many times more powerful than we could imagine. Why so? The reason is quite simple. For the first time in history, we have more knowledge at our disposal, a broader range of choices to make and more demands on our limited resources and time on earth. Invariably, greater knowledge comes with greater responsibility.

Where are our hearts and minds focused on, 24 hours a day, in wakefulness and in sleep? Is it in the pursuit of happiness, the hope of wealth, the waiting for God’s provisions or the seeking of something which can fulfill the thirst in our souls? How do we know whether we have chosen the wrong path or are walking in the right one?

It is said in the Bible that to know a tree, we are to know its fruits. We know whether we have taken the right path by not only reaching the destination but also by what we experience along the way. Is it a walk of quiet joyfulness, of endurance and painstaking perseverance or is it a walk through a dark forest filled with strange entertainment, confusion, false promises, temptations and ultimately a walk to the gates of perdition?

Ultimately, do we walk with God or do we walk alone? Do we start our days with a list of what we want or ask God what He wants? Do we handle unexpected crises and challenges with what we know or what God declares in His Word? Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only security we can find who will not cheat us and whose friendship will not fade with time or age. The Holy Spirit is the boat in which we can find refuge while on earth and which will take us to safe harbour in our eternal home in heaven.

Baking A Bigger Pie for The Nation To Share Equally Among its People

Despite 50 years of race-based politics and a disastrous social economic policy (NEP), many Malaysians have still not woken up to the meaning of the political changes that we saw on 8th March 2008.

There are still many Malaysians - from the highest to the lowest levels of society- talking about special privileges based on race and warning about the dangers of upsetting the status quo.

The idea that there will be political instability when one race becomes economically poorer than another in a multiracial society is filled with fallacies, especially in today's world of electronic communications and global dialogue.

First, on a matter of human principle (all men & women are created to be treated equal with equal rights), the legalisation of political and economic privileges based on race is something that the world has struggled with in the past, and we know the victors were those who favour humanity and equal rights (the fall of legitimised racism and white nationalism in South Africa, the failure of Fascism in Germany, etc).

So as a matter of principle and even as a matter of practice, the promotion of superior rights for any race, be it minority or majority, will actually lead to instability, either from the inside which happened in Malaysia, or from external forces (which is reflected in the marginalisation of Msia's economic health versus its stronger neighbours - Indonesia, Thailand, Spore etc.)

The truth is that the winds of change have come to Malaysia. And it is God's divine will that all unjust laws and corrupt practices will eventually be blown away by new forces of change. Anwar himself may be an opportunist as some people may say, but he is definitely used by God to change Malaysia for good and transform this country into a model of civilisation. If we are wary of his true intentions (who can trust a politician anyway, especially one who is not repentent over his track record), make sure there are checks and balances and ensure neither Barisan Nasional nor Pakatan Rakyat gets two thirds majority.

There is hope in a meritocratic society: as Malaysians learn to respond to incentives to enhance their abilities without crutches or government aid, they will be able to compete globally with the very best. At the educational level, those of us who are more efficient or capable can take time to teach and guide the ones who are less capable (e.g. the Finnish model of education is one example of a successful education system).

Friendly domestic competition based on mutual trust and respect will lead to a greater economic pie for everyone, regardless of race, to share. Let us all work for a real future and a vision we can all share and work against the idea that the baker will always be there to cut a bigger slice of the pie for some sections of the populace. Baking a bigger pie is always better than slicing a big portion of a cupcake.

A Truthful Speech In Parliament from Unexpected Quarters

On the morning of 30th April as I was driving to work, I prayed to God for several things to be raised during the nation's historic 12th parliamentary session: The end of corruption, the restoration of the independence of the judiciary and the removal of unjust laws that infringe on the basic rights of all law-abiding citizens.

When I read the headlines in the two mainstream media the next day, I was at first sorely disappointed that the session was marred by disputes over points of order and name calling between the two parties.

Didn't God answer my prayers as He usually does? Reading further (and we need to look hard for the real news buried in the manistream media though less so with the new media), I was surprised to see that Ong Ka Ting made a terrific speech about the one of the most important issues that turned the heavens against this nation's administrators: that is the unfair subjection of non-muslims (former converts or either parents who converted) against their free will to Shariah laws versus civil laws in several cases in recent years. This was the speech I expected the Opposition to give as the most powerful attack against the government, who is ultimately responsible for the erosion of religious freedom and rights as enshrined in the constitution.

I can see why Ong is motivated to stand up forcefully for the religious rights of the non-muslims, perhaps for the first time in his career. Let us now see whether he or the other MCA leaders will pursue these important issues that are dear to the hearts of many worshippers in this great country.

However, a speech will remain a mere speech unless it is followed up by committed action. He certainly has stolen the thunder from the opposition while BN and PR were entangled in a war of words.

If MPs like Ong can continue to stand up for the people regardless of partisan political affiliations, my prediction for Malaysia in the next six months is that we will have a new era of political language. And the Rakyat and God will be the judge as to whether these reformist impulses are sincere and effective in protecting citizens from unjust laws and a unfair judiciary.

The best line from the new cartoon film Horton is: "A person is a person, no matter how small." Can Malaysia live up to the principle of equal rights for all citizens or are some persons more important than others because of their colour, their politics or their religion?