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."
From Malaysiakini After the 1969 general election the late Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, then deputy prime minister, was known to have said, “MCA dan MIC nampaknya tidak mahu hidup dan tidak mahu pula mati”, using a Malay idiom ‘hidup segan, mati tak mahu’
(figuratively ‘neither alive nor dead’) to sneeringly describe a
virtually political-defunct Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA). MCA had
then been dealt its first strike in the game of politics.
Undoubtedly
May 1969 was a bad time for the MCA, losing in disastrous measures to a
loose coalition of the (original) Gerakan Party, a then very new
Democratic Action Party (DAP), the People’s Progressive Party (PPP)
(then under the Seenivasagam brothers), and even Parti Islam Se-Malaysia
(PAS). But embarrassing as it was for MCA, it wasn't its worst
moment yet, because successes and failures are part and parcel of
politics, and while depressing, we expected the MCA to pick itself up
again. And it did.
In 1985, during the acrimonious dispute for
the party’s presidential post between Tan Koon Swan and Neo Yee Pan, MCA
disgraced itself in no uncertain terms by having the then deputy prime
minister, the late Ghafar Baba and a Malay, occupied the MCA’s top
position to moderate a settlement between the two Chinese contenders. That
incident would not have been disgracefully controversial if the MCA had
been a multiracial political party. That it was, and still is, a
Chinese race-based party, in having a Malay as its head, no matter how
temporary it had been, was certainly a dubious Malaysian first, an
utterly shameful indictment on MCA’s inability to represent itself, let
alone the Chinese community.
That was the second strike against MCA.
March
2008 was merely a repeat of May 1969. As George Santayana said: “Those
who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them”, and
did the MCA? As Stanley Koh, a former MCA member said, the
party had done nothing to promote the democratic process but instead
supported Umno in the latter’s numerous constitutional amendments to
legalise and perpetuate unjust and undemocratic processes, including
harboring a questionable electoral system.
As an observer I
would like to add that MCA has shamed and angered many Chinese
Malaysians more than once because of its silent cringe when Umno issued
policies disadvantageous or hurtful to Chinese. As if its usual
in-fighting driven by individuals’ interests, drive for power, avarice
and Machiavellian backstabbing weren't enough, it now has de facto
abdicated its claim to representing the Chinese community. MCA is
repeating its shame of 1985 by calling upon and relying on a Malay to
defend its Chinese-majority stronghold of Gelang Patah in Johor.
The
Chinese community have been urging Chua Soi Lek to stand in Gelang
Patah against DAP’s Lim Kit Siang in the final fight at the Chinese OK
Corral in the way former MCA president Lee San Choon had done in 1982 in
Seremban. But all their cries have fallen on Chua's deaf ears, as had
been the case on other political issues affecting Chinese interests.
MCA’s finest hour
Thirty
years ago Lee San Choon had accepted a dare by Lim Kit Siang to contest
in a Chinese majority constituency, and chose a DAP’s hor siew
(Chinese for tiger’s lair, meaning stronghold) in the federal
constituency of Seremban. Lee won and so did MCA in 24 out of 28
allocated parliamentary seats and 55 out of 62 state seats. It was MCA’s
finest hour, but not realising it was its last hurrah. Lee San
Choon then left almost immediately after his election victory because of
differences with Dr Mahathir Mohamad, then the president of Umno, not
unlike what Lim Chong Eu did when he, as president of MCA, disagreed
with Tunku Abdul Rahman.
The perverse thing about the Gelang
Patah challenge is that the constituency is not only a Chinese majority
seat but a truly MCA hor siew (stronghold). Yet Chua Soi Lek
shrank from direct competition with Lim Kit Siang in an election battle
which will show who Johoreans in that constituency believe in and
support. In Chua Soi Lek’s refusal to contest Lim, he has
effectively announced to the world that the president of the Malaysian
Chinese Association and thus the MCA don’t enjoy the confidence and
political support of Chinese Malaysians. That was MCA’s obituary,
courtesy of its party president Chua Soi Lek.
Instead of doing a
Lee San Choon, Chua Soi Lek is instead doing a Ghafar Baba by imposing
on, perhaps even imploring upon Abdul Ghani Othman, the current Johor
menteri besar, to stand in the MCA seat against Lim Kit Siang. In
fact, I dare say it’s a MCA disgrace far worse than the 1985 leadership
debacle, because today Chua Soi Lek cannot claim the MCA in Gelang
Patah is caught in an acrimonious leadership struggle and requires only a
non-Chinese to step in to help. What the MCA in Gelang Patah is
actually suffering from is a total lack of top leadership, full stop!
MCA, your president has delivered your third strike, and as the game says, three strikes and you’re out.
But
does this mean Chua Soi Lek in his unwillingness to square off with his
principal nemesis, is eyeing another ‘safe’ seat for himself. If he is,
he ought to consider how his already tainted personal reputation could
affect his party, the party that’s supposed to represent Chinese
Malaysians. But I suppose such considerations for party interests would
be too far above his thinking. It’s lamentable that Chua refuses
to take on Lim Kit Siang in Gelang Patah in what could have been a show
of morale-boosting confidence for BN in general and MCA in particular.
If he wins like Lee San Choon he will be a hero; if he loses he will at
least go down in glory, not unlike the medieval samurai warriors who
were even prepared to commit seppuku for their personal honour.
Visualise
a Chua Soi Lek preparing for his final battle in Gelang Patah knowing
he will probably lose (I know it’s difficult but let’s try anyway). He
drinks three cups of wine as gestures of apology to his god(s), family
and especially to the Chinese community for the sins of MCA, and pens
his final political poem a la the 5-7-5 syllable haiku: In our summer of glory Hibiscus flowers once bloomed for my people They now wither equally well
But alas, Chua has effectively Paraquat-ed his hibiscus plant by clinging on to the hem of an Umno man’s sarung.
Pathetic begging
You
know, Donald Lim, the MCA chief in Selangor, had recently begged
Selangoreans to help his party avoid total political devastation, in a
similar shameful appeal (or begging) as Ong Ka Chuan had done in Perak
prior to the 2008 general election. There is a two-word Penang
Hokkien retort to such pathetic begging, hor kh’or, which in the context
of MCA’s poor performance can be interpreted as: What and why did MCA
do or neglect to do to come to such a state of beggarly imploring to the
voters?
The moral of that two Penang Hokkien words is that MCA
could have avoided such shameful begging if it had exercised its
principles, righteousness and courage as the claimed leading
representative of the Chinese Malaysia community. Well, it's now too
little, too late! And what about the new Ghafar Baba that MCA has pushed forward to stand against Lim Kit Siang? There
has been incorrect posturing of Abdul Ghani Othman as a courageous and
well-liked person among Chinese because of his so-called moderate
politics and humble self.
Firstly, there’s nothing courageous
about his candidature. Abdul Ghani in the Umno scheme of things is
already expendable cannon fodder to make way for Umno’s new rising stars
in Johor. Without involving mention of the palace, every political
observer knows Najib Abdul Razak wants a corps of younger Umno
technocrats to run Johor and the all-important Iskandar Project. He
already has in mind a younger Umno man to replace Abdul Ghani. I
dare say Abdul Ghani is being ‘volunteered’ [grin] by his no doubt
smirking Umno colleagues. If he wins by the grace of Allah swt and of
course more mundane ‘forces’ [a nudge and a wink], they will of course
claim credit and pat him on his back. If he loses they will hail his
perwira spirit, give him a golden handshake and put him out to pasture.
But
I want everyone to recall late 2006, a mere 6.5 years ago when Abdul
Ghani Othman rejected the concept of Bangsa Malaysia as totally
unacceptable because he openly stated that a national unified identity
was a threat to his cherished Ketuanan Melayu, or Malay supremacy. He
saw the vital importance of continuing Malay political dominance and the
special position provided for them in the constitution. He
dismissed the Bangsa Malaysia notion as fostering a rojak of races in
the country, though we Malaysians know that rojak tastes a whole lot
better than each of its constituent components. But obviously Abdul
Ghani in his preference for racial purity had thought differently.
He
warned ominously that the Bangsa Malaysia concept, if subjected to
abuse, could threaten national stability, but he failed to define what
he meant by ‘abuse’. Abdul Ghani would only grudgingly allow use
of the Bangsa Malaysia term provided it was only applied with the
Malays as the pivotal race of the peoples of Malaysia - essentially
upholding the non-negotiability of Ketuanan Melayu and its Aryan-like
concept of Malay supremacy. Thus to him, there could be a Bangsa
Malaysia and a bangsa malaysia, with the former capitalised to indicate
his pivotal race while the latter in lower case would be the 'nons'.
Separated and stratified
We
may thus take it that he wanted and we may assume, still wants the
races in Malaysia to continue to be separated and economically and
politically stratified. As if that was not bad enough, Abdul
Ghani then followed that up by insulting the hallowed memory of the most
esteemed late Onn Jaafar when he launched the five-day Datuk Onn
(Johor’s most illustrious son) National Conference at Persada Johor. He
said that if people understood why a Bangsa Malaya was rejected during
Umno founder Onn Jaafar’s leadership they should also realise why any
concept akin to it could not be accepted. That was sheer nonsense because the late Onn didn't propose that.
Here
was how this man twisted the events of history, by extrapolating a
pre-independence Umno in the 1950s not wanting to open its doors to all
ethnic groups as proof that 21st Century Malaysians also did not want to
merge into a united nationality. Then he said pointedly: “It is about everything being equal and this does not capture the hearts of Malaysians.” Well, what can one say? According to Abdul Ghani Othman, Malaysians (rather than Umno members) do not want ‘equality’.
And
then without batting an eyelid, he had the gall to aver: “We, as
Malays, and even the non-Malays, should admit that Datuk Onn’s idea of
kenegaraan should be inherited and practised. This is the idea that has
united the Malays, and also the same idea that has given privileges to
other races to be citizens, live together and share power and
prosperity. Datuk Onn has left a heritage which is priceless and should
be used as a guide for all generations.”
Abdul Ghani showed
utterly no shame in twisting a good man’s vision, and insulting his
exemplary name, to support his bigoted concept of a pivotal race, and
blasphemed the illustrious name of the late Onn Jaafar, a man who left
Umno, a party he founded and headed until August 1951, because he was so
disgusted with Umno's communalist policies in refusing to open its
membership to all Malayans and for Umno to be renamed as the United
Malayans National Organisation.
That was one occasion when I wanted Hishammuddin Hussein to draw his keris to defend his grandfather’s honour and true policies! Now, which Chinese had said Abdul Ghani Othman is seen by many Chinese Johoreans as a moderate Umno leader? Could
it be Liew Kin See, the property developer who claimed Chinese have
fared well under pro-bumiputera policies such as the New Economic Policy
(NEP). Mind, I personally don’t recall benefiting from a seven percent
discount when I bought my first house. I dare say I would have ended up,
together with many other non-Malays, subsidising instead the seven
percent enjoyed by bumiputeras buying houses under the NEP.
Or could it be Vincent Tan, or Francis Yeoh or young Jho Low?
So
when the voters of Gelang Patah go to the polls, just remember who the
real Abdul Ghani Othman is, the man who doesn't believe Malaysians
should be equal and that the Malays must remain the supreme pivotal
race. K TEMOC is a Penangite who enjoys being an independent
blogger and loves to share his opinion on Malaysian and world affairs
without fear or favour, though currently is politically inclined towards
DAP, only because the political party has thus far shown faithfulness
to its promise of competency, accountability and transparency.
