Rudyard Kipling"
“When you're left wounded on Afganistan's plains and
the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle
and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier”
General Douglas MacArthur"
“We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”
“It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.” “Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
“The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and be the deepest wounds and scars of war.”
“May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't .” “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
“Nobody ever defended, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
The Soldier stood and faced God
Which must always come to pass
He hoped his shoes were shining
Just as bright as his brass
"Step forward you Soldier,
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't
Because those of us who carry guns
Can't always be a saint."
I've had to work on Sundays
And at times my talk was tough,
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny
That wasn't mine to keep.
Though I worked a lot of overtime
When the bills got just too steep,
The Soldier squared his shoulders and said
And I never passed a cry for help
Though at times I shook with fear,
And sometimes, God forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here,
Lord, It needn't be so grand,
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand."
There was silence all around the throne
Where the saints had often trod
As the Soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
"Step forward now, you Soldier,
You've borne your burden well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell."
However, Santino is operating under a few faulty assumptions that I hope to correct in this response.I
apologise in advance for the length of this reply but I wish to be
thorough since this is the election season and as someone whose writing
is pro-opposition, I wish to state my positions clearly and
unambiguousl The writer begins by not "faulting" me for "bias" every time I write for Malaysiakini but does not explain what this "bias" is.
For my part, it is not that my bias have been "exposed" in my columns
but rather I have declared my support of the oppositional forces in this
country and specifically Pakatan Rakyat in numerous pieces that have
appeared in Malaysiakini. A cursory reading of any of my articles would have confirmed this. From what I managed to decipher of the letter, there are four major
points of contention that the writer has of my piece (or rather me).
The
first is my characterisation of this upcoming general election. The
second, my "elitist" position as far as politics is concerned. The
third, my stance on the two-coalition paradigm and the fourth point,
the apparent contradiction in my criticisms of Pakatan and BN and my
belief in a two-coalition paradigm. Apparently, to the writer my
"confusion writ large" is my contention that this coming election is a
"grudge match" between Pakatan and BN. Santino offers two assumptions of his own (coloured no doubt by his own bias) as to why this characterisation is wrong.
The first is that this coming election would be Opposition Leader Anwar
Ibrahim's last shot at the head job in Putrajaya and the second, that
this election is for the "soul of Malaysia" which the writer then goes
on to buttress with "well-rehearsed points that have long borne the
realities of contemporary and even historical Malaysian politics" in
contravention of his own rejoinder to me.
As
for the first, what makes the writer think that this is Anwar's last
shot at the title? Anwar has made many claims and gone back on them. Going
by Anwar's history, I think it would be safe to assume that this may or
may not be his last attempt at the throne in Putrajaya and his
protestations of the former may be just political spin. Furthermore, if many others and I assume it is a grudge match, it is an
assumption that has at least some credibility since the guts of Pakatan
comprises Umno outlaws and malcontents who for whatever reasons have
joined Pakatan as a possible re-entry point into the corridors of power.
Let us not forget that Anwar himself on various occasions has stated
that his "retribution" would be against those power players in Umno and
not the regular members. To be fair to Anwar, he has on many
occasions stated that his desired goal is to move Malaysia out of this
Umno quagmire and not any personal vendetta against those who have
wronged him in Umno. In this context, I do not think it is
misleading to characterise this election as a grudge match and this is
not taking into account the revenge fantasies of partisans who at any
chance they get in the alternative media vomit out their desires for
retribution against a regime that has wronged them.People (who
the writer likes to remind us) are the vehicle of change, so I see no
problem in lumping them in with political parties of their choice.
I see no problem with this description because politics is an endeavour
fuelled by various human motivations and as always, it is up to us (the
people), to monitor the corridors of power and see to it that our
voices are heard above the din of backroom dealing. Populist policies
As
for the whole "soul of Malaysia" showdown, this is arrogant partisan
posturing that unfortunately is the rallying cry of both coalitions in
this country. It would be a credible proposition if the polices of both were completely different, which of course they are not. However, the real problem with this "soul" assumption from my side of
the political divide is that it furthers the narrative that Umno and BN
are without support and the whole of Malaysia is behind Pakatan, thereby
reducing BN supporters as "ignoramuses" who would be better off under a
Pakatan administration with all the flaws the writer himself
acknowledges.
In addition, as far as dangling the worthless
"ringgit", is the writer aware that Pakatan is doing the same thing with
all its populist policies of free education, subsidised fuel and (sic)
affordable housing? I have no idea where the writer gets the
idea that I am "ever so prone to situate politics at the elite level,
almost as if ordinary Malaysians would be untouched by all the
politics."If anything in the comments section of my pieces, I am
vilified as being too "idealistic" which I take to mean placing
principle over political expediency.
Again,
a cursory reading of any of my articles would confirm my vox populi
stance. If the writer had bothered to do some research, he would have
discovered my support for grassroots level movements like Hindraf, PSM,
my criticisms of the Umno system of patronage, the MCA and slowly
(emerging DAP) plutocracy, the crass reactionary politics of urban
middle-class voters, the impact of Islam on the average Muslim (my
disdain for the separate but equal Pakatan stand with regards to hudud
is well documented), not to mention the holiest of holies, my
no-holds-barred (some would argue, reckless) criticisms of the Royal
Malaysian Police (PDRM), etc. points to the exact opposite of the
writer's contention.
If anything in most of my articles, I have
been raging against the "elitism" in politics and the plight of the
disenfranchised that, political elites use as talking points in their
political campaigns, a rather unfortunate reality of democracy. The writer than goes into a long ramble about my preference for a
two-coalition paradigm central to which is his dismay of the state of
"third world democracies".The writer does not define what he
means by "functional democracy" and his rejection of so-called "third
world" democracies like India and Indonesia, is puzzling since he
neither gives reasons why they are dysfunctional nor does he elaborate
on how "substantial changes" in South Africa and Fiji, does not
accurately reflect the will of the people.
To be honest, I have no idea what point the writer is attempting to convey. There
seems to be some confusion on the part of the writer of the concept of a
two-party paradigm or rather his conflations of the form of democracies
and the post-colonial realities of the countries he cites. All
a two-party paradigm ensures is that conflicting forces through the
ballot box influences the way in which the system operates through
cyclical elections. Substantial changes are only possible if a
discriminate electorate tames the vested interests within these
conflicting forces.
If Pakatan is sincere in reforming the
system and they possess the necessary parliamentary mandate to carry out
such reforms, it would be incumbent on BN to reverse such policies if
(unpopular) when they return to power and if they possess the necessary
mandate. Is this a perfect system? Not by a long shot but the writer does not suggest an alternative. On
the other hand, maybe he does. May be he would prefer it Pakatan has a
monopoly on "change" for decades? I really cannot tell. Blind loyalty
The writer has trouble understanding what my "beef" is and goes on to whine that I "can't have it both ways". Does anyone else see the problem with this? First, the writer accuses me having "bias" which he does not define. Then he claims that my criticism of Pakatan and BN is somehow having it both ways. Moreover, how does being critical of both coalitions and subscribing to a two-party paradigm, incompatible? If
anything, by assessing the agendas of the two coalitions and making an
informed choice not predicated on blind loyalty, this would ensure that
the two-party system works.
The problem here in Malaysia, is
that we have never attempted to allow another coalition (for various
reasons) the opportunity to lead this country but more importantly, Umno
cannot rely on its track record or at least this is my thinking as an
opposition supporter. However, the punch line is the writer then
goes on listing his own criticisms of Pakatan and BN regurgitating the
same examples I have used in my various comment pieces.
The Perak
fiasco, the Kedah shenanigans, "Umno's bribery", the Selangor quagmire,
Pakatan "turncoats", PAS and its "coy Islamic agenda", Anwar's Sept 16
debacle... nearly every issue on his list with regard to BN and Pakatan,
is something that I have written about before and a couple in the very
article the writer finds so problematic. So, dear reader, who is the one
"re-boiling" boiled eggs, now? The writer says it is crunch time for Pakatan and BN. This was explicit in my comment piece.The
writer singles me (and by the way, it is "the old commander" not
commodore) out for rehashing old issues, which is ironic because
rehashing "old issues" sometimes happens in the echo chamber that is the
alternative press, not to mention what BN and Pakatan often do.
It would have been beneficial to me, if the writer elaborated on those
policies issue of BN and Pakatan that he thinks should be dated and that
I may have missed, but what I got was a confusing polemic in which the
writer could not even follow his own advice. As
far as me not dwelling on critical policy issues, perhaps if the writer
had done some research, he would realise that policy issues be it the
demands of Hindraf, losing the secular battle, the nature of press
reforms, affirmative action policies, Pakatan and BN reactionary
educational polices (with regards to the PTPTN debate, for example), the
armed forces, are front and centre of my pieces.
The writer
obviously disagrees with the piece but the question is, is it something I
wrote or is it something he is projecting on the piece? Santino's makes many assumptions about my political leanings and my writings in Malaysiakini but offers no evidence to substantiate his claims. For
someone who takes a shot at columnists' inability to recognise the
"truth", I was hoping the writer would provide some enlightenment as to
where most of us writers go wrong.
The truth is, I get more honesty from the commenters of my regular pieces than this particular writer.The
writer ends his letter with a quote from my piece he finds confusing.
What can I say? It seems perfectly clear to me and to many others who
read the piece. Go figure. Malaysiakini
