Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

FMT shared an edited clip that did not do justice to PM's full response. Hear the full response below - he spoke the truth. Yes, the truth sucks, but it is what it is. He treated the student as an adult, and did not insult her intelligence. He did...

3,015,372 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

10 Kommentare

Profilbild von Luqman
Luqmanvor 3 Jahren

and the worst part is when they keep on identifying her as a “kid”. She’s no longer a kid although she looks like one. Kawan tu dah old enough to vote kot. time PRU, “mereka dah cukup dewasa untuk memilih.” tapi bab nak bantai PM, “kesian dia budak lagi.” hipokrit af.

Profilbild von Shaitan
Shaitanvor 3 Jahren

PMX spoke the truth, and sometimes reality is tough to accept. His response to the question was acceptable, but when he spoke about the implications of PAS and Bersatu governing, it came off as somewhat menacing. I believe his communication skills could be improved.

Profilbild von Michael Hoh
Michael Hohvor 3 Jahren

Fully agreed. Tuth sucks but which PM before him even dare to come out and give a detailed, lengthy response like that?

Profilbild von handy
handyvor 3 Jahren

Sebab tu PMX selalu pesan kpd anak muda, mesti cari maklumat. Bukan baca tajuk sahaja

Profilbild von fahmi
fahmivor 3 Jahren

She’s an adult, asking an adult question hence deserving an adult answer. I was asked about the meritocracy thing during my pre-uni itv and got grilled by the interviewer becoz they don’t like my answer 😂 That was then, now u can talk with PM about it. Things will get better🙂

Profilbild von Paracetamol
Paracetamolvor 3 Jahren

Aku dulu pun memang tak support hak bumiputra. But bila kita faham keperluan hak bumiputra ni, aku mula sokong sebab memang wujud keperluan. Cuma tu la, the sad truth is hak ni dah berpuluh tahun, jurang ekonomi masih besar. Its helping but not really do much.

Profilbild von Error404
Error404vor 3 Jahren

I have to say, PM beri jwpn yg sgt jelas & fair. Siapa yg berani sentuh psl isu ini? Atok98 hr2 dok tweet psl kaum. Midin? Sentuh psl ni, dia akn hilang votes yg byk & kalah semua kerusi majoriti melayu. Nmpk mrh, yes, sbb dia pernah jwb & ini isu sensitive.

Profilbild von Wakandabay
Wakandabayvor 3 Jahren

I am coming from rural delapitated schools. Went to Matriculation College by quota, I agree with PMX..without those quota I cannot compete against those from SMSains, MRSM or any urban schools yang mostly budak2 semua orang berada and their schools are top tiers.

Profilbild von Abd Faiz Malik
Abd Faiz Malikvor 3 Jahren

Dia igt semudah petik jari nk ubah. It takes time, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Profilbild von Vinodh Selvarajoo
Vinodh Selvarajoovor 3 Jahren

At least he made it clear, no one can provide a better answer than that.

Ähnliche Videos

1. I've seen some pushback from a few monarchists, or possibly fans of KC, who complain that people will never be satisfied, or that people are 'wanting blood', or 'wanted things to change yet are still complaining'. My issue with all this is not only that Andrew was the one to make the statement, and frame it the way he did (including speaking for His Majesty), but also that these changes aren't changes. Not really. Yes, people can explain the semantics of titles and abeyance and wherever else, but what is clear to many people is that nothing more will be, or can be, done. That the 'status' the gave him the opportunity to carry out these immoral (and possibly criminal) decisions and actions cannot be taken away. He was born a prince, born with a place in the LoS, and that will remain. He has status afforded to him that cannot be removed. The rest is just shuffling words around in press releases and conflicting headlines. And because of the very public actions of the Californian celebrities, we know how meaningless it is. 🤷🏻‍♀️ so we're told nothing more can be done. Or doing more involves parliament, which beings some risk for the monarchy. Which means, to protect itself the institution should not push any further. And that we should be satisfied with press releases that suggest change but we know don't actually mean change. 🤷🏻‍♀️ The problem I have is that this goes against my own views and values. About people in senior positions of power in any institution or dynamic, whether it be a family, a local supermarket workplace or a monarchy, using that position to exploit or victimise others. Yes, this is Roya. But most commentators are acknowledging it.

mrc 🦇

20,926 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. Why Does Evil Dominate the World? — John MacArthur // March 4, 2007 If God is not in total control of evil, if He has not ordained it – listen - and if He does not have it under complete control at every millisecond of history, then this universe is out of control at the most crucial point. If God is not in control of this completely, then how and when will He get the knowledge and the power to get it under control? And I would ask you this: would you rather have a God trying to get control of evil, or a God completely in control of it? Take your choice. But the God of the Bible is in complete control of evil for His own purposes. It is really heresy to say that the world is full of evil apart from a predetermined plan and purpose by God that is far above the willy-nilly choices of people. So, what do we know up to now? Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. This is critical: He had a purpose for evil. What is that purpose that God had for evil? Before I answer that question - and that’s the fourth in our little outline - let me read the Westminster Confession from the 1700s; some great theologians and biblical scholars put this together. Listen carefully: “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:“ Yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second-hand causes taken away ... sinfulness proceeds not only from the creature; proceeds only from the creature and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither ... can be the author and approver of sin.” But then, says the Westminster Confession, all that God decrees and all that God providentially brings to pass is all to the praise of His glory - and they got it right.The reason for God ordaining evil is for the praise of His glory. Let me ask you a simple question to help you answer the question - the bigger question: is God more glorious because of sin existing or less glorious? Pretty easy question to answer, isn’t it? That really is the ultimate question. Throughout all the eons of eternity, will God receive more glory from His creatures because sin existed or less? And, friends, that’s really all that matters, is the eternal glory of God. So, it’s fourth down, and we’re on the ten-yard line, and I’m pulling out the winning play and we’re going for six for the victory. Turn to Romans 3 - and I want you to track with me a little bit; can’t take time to develop all of this, but I’m going to give you a good start. Wish I could build context; we don’t have time. But let’s look at chapter 3 and verse 5. Opening statement: “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say?” Grab that phrase: our right - unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. And Paul uses the first of a series of verbs; this one happens to be sunistēmi, translated demonstrates in the New American Standard. It is a verb that means to disclose, to reveal, to put on display, to show. Our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. Another way to say that would be, would you really understand the righteousness of God if you didn’t understand unrighteousness? Isn’t there something to be gained by the contrast? Paul has been showing that God is faithful to His promises to Israel, and their sin and unbelief cannot alter God’s covenant, cannot alter God’s faithfulness.

Terri Green

24,466 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This weekend, a meeting of Illinois' African Descent-Citizens Reparations Commission (ADRC) featured a presentation from Chicago pastor Jonathan Brooks, aka "Pastah J," where he calls reparations "soul work" to redistribute wealth AND intangible feelings like "dignity." "We will be told to study a little bit more, to wait just a little bit longer, to move cautiously before we make decisions. But let's be honest, delay has always been the language of denial. Justice delayed is not neutral. It compounds the harm. Every year without repair is another year where the wealth gap widens. Another year where opportunity is denied. Another year where the consequences of past injustice are only carried into the future. There comes a time when the only faithful response is not more conversation, but as our commission has showed us, it's action." "Reparations are not about dividing people. They're about making reconciliation actually possible. They're about creating the conditions where trust can be rebuilt, where dignity can be affirmed, and where communities can begin to heal. But everybody, let me help you understand that this is not just policy work. This is soul work. See, this moment is bigger than policy. It's about identity. Who are we as a state? What do we do when the truth is undeniable? Because future generations won't ask whether we had enough data. They will ask whether we had enough courage." "The prophet did not ask for permission to speak truth. So, let me declare it the way that they did in prophetic times. Let me declare this plainly. If harm is done, it must be repaired. If wealth was stolen, it must be restored. If dignity was denied, it must be affirmed in tangible ways. This is not radical. This is not ridiculous. This is righteous. Reparations are not rewriting the past. They are about refusing to let injustice have the final word. Do you believe? Do you believe? Do you believe? Then let justice roll down like a mighty river. Not just in rhetoric, but in repair."

Breitbart News

23,676 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

Hopewell Chin’ono

62,366 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten