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."
"Diversity and independence are important because the best
collective decisions are the product of disagreement and contest, not
consensus or compromise." - James Surowiecki (The Wisdom of Crowds) COMMENT I would like to thank the honourable gentleman from Pandan for responding to my comment piece on his response to Dr Lim Teck Ghee's dissatisfaction with his (Rafizi's) stand on Titas (Islamic and Asian Civilisation Studies). As someone who has had his fair share of heckling from the comment section of Malaysiakini, the best I can offer Rafizi is to remain true to his principles and articulate his agenda without fear or favour. I
would also like to state for the record that my criticisms of this
issue should in no way be construed as an attack on Rafizi's record of
service to the oppositional forces in this country. As with most issues
in the alternative media, everything seems to be reduced to a simple
black and white duality. I may not agree with the gentleman from Pandan
on this issue but there is whole range of issues that we do agree on. Please
keep in mind that the same caveat applies to this response as it does
the previous piece; that this opinion is my own. Let me start with a
point of agreement. I do not have any issue with the idea of cross
learning in a multicultural society. The main issue of my piece was the
manner in which Rafizi chose to engage with Lim's criticisms. First off, Rafizi is right not to feel offended by my remark that his response was
"symptomatic of the intellectual poverty of many in the Malay
intelligentsia". This is because anytime the anti-Malay/Islam rhetorical
weapon is used (especially against someone with a public record of
activism on behalf of that community) it does display a lack of depth
and a willingness to engage. I choose my words carefully, I said
"many" not "all". In my pieces I have referenced Dr Azly Rahman, Dr Azmi
Sharom, Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, Dr Nasir Hashim, Said Zahari, Nurul
Izzah Anwar, Amir Muhammad, M Bakri Musa, Zaid Ibrahim, Art Harun, Malik
Imtiaz Sarwar, Burhanuddin al-Helmy (a former Kuala Besut seat holder)
and Raja Petra Kamarudin, amongst others. I may not necessarily agree
with everything they say but I have used what they say as a starting
point or (departure point) for my own perspective on certain subjects. 'Irresponsible quarters' Rafizi
may think that the choice of my words would be used by "irresponsible
quarters" to fuel the divide in this country but the reality is that
those irresponsible forces to suit their own agendas would subvert my
words and indeed any reasoned argument. This is why it is imperative
that politicians like Rafizi who wish for a better tomorrow, desist from
using the rhetorical weapons of those irresponsible quarters. Similarly,
the remarks applied to Rafizi hinting at his supposed Umno pedigree in
lieu of addressing the issues raised is the kind of partisan nonsense
that further makes dialogue even more difficult. Ad hominems like these
are the kind of bloviating excuses in the "halal" bak kut teh vein. Rafizi may think that Lim's objectivity when it comes to Titas has been compromised because of
Umno's decade's long malfeasances but it was Rafizi's own words that Lim
cited which demonstrated his crude political opportunism. In the piece,
I responded to here is whatRafizi said: "We cannot reject the subject
politically as it would create the perception that non-Muslims totally
reject Islam." I did find it odd though that Rafizi welcomed open
debate and criticism but warned component members of Pakatan Rakyat
that "to tread carefully on the Titas issue in order not to be seen as
anti-Islam. He said Pakatan should have an open stand on this matter and
not speak as if portraying the interest of a particular race." Rafizi's
response though gives me to the opportunity to add my own voice to the
chorus on this issue that was perhaps muted in my piece defending Lim.
Rafizi begins with the premise "I do not see anything wrong if we compel
our youngsters to learn more from each other and about each other."
However, his example of his tertiary level studies does not support this
premise. Rafizi chose to embark on a course that brought him
into contact with another culture. Boarding schools in England like
everywhere else are subject to their own traditions and you embrace
these traditions by voluntarily enrolling in these establishment. In
this case, Rafizi did not learn anything by compulsion by the state but
rather by his own free will. And this is really the point, in
nearly every discussion about Malaysians learning about the different
cultures that make up this land, what we get is the theme of people
learning about each other through their own free will. The narrative
that usually emerges is of people learning about each other though
everyday interactions brought upon by a specific context - either school
or work. Rafizi says that "it is dangerous to send a signal that
any move that compels or encourages the cross-learning of religions and
cultures among our young people is bad" which is a bit of a straw men
because neither Lim nor I advocated any such move.
Who's in the driver's seat?
In
the context of Rafizi's analogy of "it is akin to objecting the use of
car because it carries a risk of accident!", my issue (and Lim's) would
not be objecting to the use of the car but rather who is driving the
car. For example, the state has already in place a mechanism for
young people to learn about each other's culture. I am referring to the
History (sic) subject as taught to our young people. Various academics
and researchers have shown that the subject is riddled with
inaccuracies, distortions and the hidden narrative of fulfilling certain
poltical agendas. As I said, it is not the car but the driver. If
Pakatan has trouble influencing policy decisions on a federal level,
what kind of scrutiny could they give on a vast subject like this? As it
is the implementation of this subject in private educational
establishments, came as a response to religious provocations that are a
creeping phenomenon in this new partisan landscape. The idea that
the state would like to spread its influence into this private sphere
should be worrying not only to the average Malaysian but also to anyone
who believes that smaller government means a more independent citizenry. The
fact is that I have read the syllabus as it is implemented in public
higher educational institutions. Students, lecturers and professors have
sent me copies of the syllabus and it does on the surface seem
innocuous. However as one academic pointed it, it serves no purpose.
Nobody takes it seriously. As I stated in my previous piece, the course
lacks intellectual and moral weight. For instance, as far as
Islamic and Asian civiliations is concerned and fidelity to cross
learning in a multicultural society, what is PKR's stand on the issue
(as far as Islam is concerned) with the inclusion or exclusion of
Shiites influence, Sufism and the numerous other extremely important
Islamic concepts/ideologies in the Titas syllabus. Considering
the recent banning of Shiite teachings in this country, how does this
fit into the general philosophy about learning of Islamic civilisation,
not to mention historical integrity. In other words, nobody is
approaching this in good faith, neither the people proposing this course
nor the students who are supposed to benefit from it. Rafizi may
lament the fact that in my response or Lim's original piece, we did not
contribute any of our ideas to the idea of cross learning, but this was
not the aim of my piece. However, in my opinion "cross learning"
happens naturally every day, which Malaysia despite the perceived
polarisation, is one of the few success stories of "multiculturalism". I
might add that this concept seems to be going out of favour in many
parts of the world, simply because governments wish to impose specific
values on their rakyats. Promoting divisiveness The reality is that young people in Malaysia have been extremely open-minded about learning about each other's culture. What
has hampered this process is when the state attempts to impose a very
specific value system on young people or Malaysians. These
indoctrination programmes like the BTN (Biro Tatanegara) courses,
state-sponsored media and numerous other initiatives have been created
to remind Malaysians of their very specific roles in the pecking order. Rafizi
may think that in order to decrease the level of racial polarisation in
this country, the government of the day should "interfere" with private
institutions. However, this begs the question of how effective has this
course been in reducing the level of racial polarisation in this
country since it implementation in public universities? Furthermore,
why is it that the definition of "young people" always mean those
carrying out their tertiary level education? Surely, the size of this
demographic is insignificant when compared to the size of young people
who for whatever reason do not qualify for tertiary level education but
are in the formative stages of making their way in the working world. By
all accounts, what hampers racial cohesiveness when it comes to the how
the educational system promotes racial unity is the various racial
quotas system that reminds Malaysians of their race. Alternatively, the
championing of the vernacular school systems that are part of the racial
social contract perhaps is something that should be reconsidered.
What
the state should do if it really wants to encourage cross learning is
to rein in organisations that promote divisiveness such as the various
religious departments, ensure that laws are not applied selectively,
allow dissenting voices to be heard without sanction, privatise communal
educational imperatives and encourage a plurality of voices. In
my experience most often when we talk about racial polarisation, it is
normally in the context of some agenda-driven demagogue hoping to spark
off a clash of culture and the public fall out that occurs. This
naturally happens in a democracy but this does not mean that the state
should indoctrinate its citizenry into responding in a certain way. In other words Rafizi, for the most part the kids are all right. S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy.
