I refer to the article Accused as criminals better than being evil .

A few years ago, while watching some religious forums on the national television channel, a Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar who was very eloquent in Islamic ideology often caught my attention. It was not so much his diverse background that fascinated me but rather that he was very focused, passionate and energetic in his deliveries. His eyes were sparkling with thoughts whenever he put a point across.

What I took away from the forums was that if we enjoy what we are doing, the sky is the limit. The Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar was in the right place, right time and in front of the right audience preaching what he knew best. Today, I read an article from the same Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar. I regret to say, he was preaching something totally out of his area of expertise. Worse still, he was doing it in the wrong place, wrong time and in front of a much wiser audience.

He has gone too far in what he said. His analysis was shallow, his views were biased and often subjugated by religion and racial stances. The most reproachful thing about his thoughts was that they were not appropriate for the present times. As a whole, the Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar has become an ‘ultra-Kia See’ (literally means ‘afraid to die’) individual. Let us revisit some of the thoughts that were conveniently thrown at the minority groups by this Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar.

Whenever possible, in a humble manner, let us rebuff his incorrect thinking. The Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar brought in the subject of the ‘social contract’. However, as he rightly pointed out, this contract was established 52 years ago. His formula to apportion the rights, festivities and celebrations based on racial ratios is merely sustainable outwardly but unquestionably requires some fresh logic and reasoning to cater for today’s needs.

The predicament here is the present federal government dominated by racialist leaders who are using the ‘outdated’ social contract as an instrument to threaten the other ethnic groups into submission. The racialist refuse to wander outside their secluded shell, often claiming this is due to their ‘not ready’ status. They rather remain as the ‘Kia See’ group than to go for change. They even warn others not to violate their rights.

In reality, fear has prompted these racialist to try hard to monopolise everything within their sight. This is absolutely not hearsay as many parties have evidences that the racialist together with their alliances are going against what had been originally agreed upon. As a result of their greed, many social and economic disparities and ills have set in.

On the subject of Islam which is close to his heart, the Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar claimed that virtually by being Muslims, this majority group should be placed in a ‘special position’ so that this group’s rights are protected. Let us reiterate resolutely that the minorities are not questioning the rights of the Muslims. The minorities are not going to get involved in any legal wrangle over the rights of the majority.

The minorities are only seeking for openness, fairness and justice when the federal government puts into practice the country’s policies. Somebody has used the university places allocation as an example which touched on the element of fairness. Let’s say due to the racial ratio proportion, out of the ten places offered in a government university, six should be given to the majority and four to the minority groups. While no one argues about the six places reserved for Muslims or the indigenous scholars, the education ministry and the university concerned should be elastic in their selection process.

Instead of using ethnic groups as the sole criteria for admission, there should be other measures used in the selection such as meritocracy (not other dubious criteria like ‘extra curriculum subjects’ or ‘articulary skills’). Furthermore, the university’s policy must be open to allow other minorities to take up university places if the majority quota is not filled and vice versa. To conclude, if all the ten places are filled with the best and yet some of the qualified individuals are still being omitted, the university should take the proactive move (and not wait to be asked) to open more places to absorb these ‘best brains’.

Practise such firm and fair policies in the selection process would ensure that competitiveness and high standards remain within the university’s framework. Most significantly, no one would dare to question the system as entrance is not based on what is your skin colour but on how good you are. As of now, the minorities are often faced with the challenge of not being able to put their ‘best brains’ into the universities due to the inconsistent and flawed selection process. It is most unfortunate the government universities habitually repeat this ‘flawed exercise’ every year.

The answers given for this are unconvincing and hilarious. Why is this happening? Is there any abusive of power in the selection process? Every year, many bright students have to ‘fight’ their way to enter a university. It would be interesting to see how the Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar reacts to these questions and also his comment on the ‘new’ selection process described above which is not based on religion or racial stands.

On the issue of the government using public funds to expand Islam’s reach, it would be fascinating to be able to engage the Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar to discuss this. Firstly, based on the 60:40 race ratio advocated by him, the funds allocated to build places of worship are definitely not correct. There is a great disparity between what the majority and the minorities are getting.

The Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar must get his quantitative calculation correct before blindly throwing in his formula. Can the Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar enlighten us as to whether the ratio of RM748.26 million: RM9 million equals to the 60:40 race ratio comparisons? If these figures are true as disclosed by member of Parliament of Taiping, would the Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar care to explain his contrary statement that the number of non-Muslim places of worship overwhelmingly exceed their ratio?

Secondly, the Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar needs to understand the qualitative measures when planning for places of worship. Like him, we do look around as well. Some mosques are located in areas where at least 60% of the mass population are the minorities. How does one justify this? The minorities are not so na ï ve. At times, we could understand that mosques were built in such areas of minorities due to the availability of land or for the convenience of our Muslim brothers. However, did the federal government provide the same kind of infrastructure or convenience to the minorities as well?

If yes, how does one explain the differences between the funds allocation ratio (of RM748.26 million: RM9 million) and the racial ratio (60:40)? Was there any foul play involved in such a low allocation to the minorities? It would be interesting to get feedback from the Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar - with supporting figures, please.

On the subject of Muslims in this country who are very tolerant. I must say that I concur with the Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar that most Muslims are friendly, loving people except for those pro-government racialist leaders who were insensate with their rhetoric and ‘cow head’ demonstrations. These kinds of actions are both disgusting and horrendous.

When the Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar talked about funerals, road congestion and graves, I sense there is a great feeling of trepidation within him, worse than he ever knows. The ‘Kia See’ mindset has certainly drowned him. He was trying hard to make a mountain out of a molehill over things that are part of the custom, practice, and culture of another race (or maybe of his own race?) He was going into a dead end and inviting unnecessary condemnation.

In his column, the Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar also concurred with politicians on issues such as non-Malay immigrants, ‘Utusan Malaysia’s’ outburst and the May 13 riots. His ‘eye for an eye’ tactics and name-calling exposed the insecure and inferior sentiments of this Islamic scholar who is of Chinese ethnic origin. Perhaps this got to do with his ‘confused’ identity.

Like the racialist leaders, he is seeing all things along a religion and racial line rather than from justice, fair play and most significantly, from being open to change. He is way behind time in his thoughts and does not share the happiness of others easily. Frankly, a person of his ‘dubious’ identity should keep their thoughts to themselves else they would end up in a ‘no-win’ situation.

From his writing, one can clearly see who is putting race above the national needs. The Chinese ethnic Islamic scholar is his own worst enemy.