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."
"Such a move had triggered many unnecessary controversies and
this would also cost the BN government its image, therefore the
non-Muslims cabinet members have the responsibility to explain to the
public on their action." - Chua Soi Lek COMMENT
I have no idea why Dr Chua Soi Lek thinks that amongst a certain
section of the voting public, the BN government has an image that it has
to maintain. Most times BN seems intent on proving that it is more
interested in pandering to the far (Malay) right segment of its
component parties than in creating policies that is reflective of its
so-called 1Malaysia stance. Whatever
"image" BN had to maintain was demolished when the MCA chose not to
participate in the federal government after its disastrous performance
in the recently concluded general elections. Therefore, while the MIC is
on life support, the party, which is supposed to represent ‘Chinese'
interests in the coalition, is reduced to the role of Cassandra warning
the community of impeding irrelevance and the same time attempting to
maintain the facade of its own political relevance. All this is
extremely amusing of course because it was the MCA which was warning the
Chinese community of the possible "hudud" Armageddon or "hudugeddon" if
PAS was ever voted into federal power. Irony is too kind a word
to use here because after all it was under the Umno watch that this
country entered a phase of Arabisation that left the non-Muslim
communities seething with resentment. This is one of the more important
factors that led to a political tsunami and the creation of an
oppositional alliance that for all intents is a walking contradiction. It
is pointless blaming the non-Muslim cabinet representatives because
most probably they are of the "saya setuju" ilk that was the downfall of
the non-Malay component parties in the alliance. However, it is
pointless kicking the MCA merely because they are irrelevant and if Chua
really wants to ensure the viability of his party, he should first
start by taking care of business when it comes to his party propaganda
organs. However, this is not my story to tell and I will leave it to
others to relate that tale. No, the only image that was tarnished
in this whole fiasco was that of Pakatan Rakyat. Of course, Umno is
ever willingly to take the cheap shot (as do most political parties in
this country or anywhere in the world for that) but as usual Pakatan did
not raise to the challenge and left those of us, hoping for real and
sustained change feeling as if the same old games were being played. Tough issues involving Islam As
someone who is not interested in the easy feel good-ism of the place
Islam (or the kind practiced here) has in the alternative coalition, I
have warned that when it comes to the tough issues concerning Islam and
however one wishes to define "secularism", Islam always trumps secular
principles. The honourable gentleman from Gelang Patah, Lim Kit
Siang, said: "There should have been full discussions and a consensus
before any bill of that nature can be tabled." Well yes, ideally there
should be, and what should be disturbing to right-thinking Malaysians is
that Pakatan that is supposed to safeguard non-Muslim interest under
the Bangsa Malaysia ideal, would dither on such an important issue. What
we got is Pakatan's rather embarrassing counter attack of setting up
its own committee to "study the issue". "We have already set up a
Pakatan committee to look into this and we will meet soon," said Nurul
Izzah echoing her father who said,
"We are looking at the bill thoroughly and I have had a initial
discussion with (PAS president) Hadi Awang and also (Penang Chief
Minister) Lim Guan Eng to get some understanding before we give a public
response." Exactly what better "understanding" is there to get.
As human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar (and one of the few
individuals in this country who you could describe as a public
intellectual and not be embarrassed) said:
"I am glad that it (the bill) became controversial, but in truth, I
don't understand why it did because other states already have this
provision: one or the other; ibu atau bapa (father or mother)... "What
they tried to do recently for the Federal Territories was to make it
consistent with what the court said in the Subashini (Rajasingam vs
Saravanan Thangathoray) case as well as other states." Therefore,
while we had a few non-Muslim members of Pakatan making comments
couched in the usual "personal capacity" drag, there was no unified
stand coming from Pakatan. Indeed the most noise came from BN non-Muslim
coalition members who were vilified as either running dogs or part of a
"sandiwara" meant to destabilise the opposition. While I believe
that Umno is capable of any strategy to destabilise the opposition, I
also believe that Umno is capable of riding roughshod over its component
party members, expecting no resistance whatsoever. Perhaps
political irrelevancy has resulted in the rediscovery of whatever
fighting spirit that was leached away in the Umno years, but the fact is
that this fight was meant to be fought by the opposition and not by
political parties which have been abandoned by a certain section of the
voting public. Instead the tough rhetoric emanated from BN
non-Muslim component parties and what we were left with was Opposition
Leader Anwar Ibrahim prattling
on about "...a specific case where the Prophet Muhammad sent a child
back to the mother because the mother did not convert to Islam and only
the father did so." Defend the constitution Understand
now, that usually I would have no problem with religionists relying on
their religious dogma to come to some sort of egalitarian "secular"
compromise but in this instance, it just seemed disingenuous. The
principles are already in the federal constitution as the Bar Council
reminds us: "The Bar Council had pointed out that this is inconsistent
with the 11th Schedule, Section 2(95) of the federal constitution, which
states that ‘words in the singular include the plural, and words in the
plural include the singular' when interpreting the constitution." So
really, there is no need to for all this frantic discussion and taking
account of Muslim sensitivities. Here was a principle which was easily
defended and what we got was an alternative alliance mired in the same
kind of double speak that is characteristic of Umno. About the only thing I disagree with Malik (left)
is his contention that this is some sort of "moral victory". A victory
implies a confrontation of some kind and as far as Pakatan is concerned,
their ‘deer caught in the headlights' stance in no way constitutes a
fight. If this is a victory, it is mired in the usual Umno shadow play
or worse belongs to those who are vilified as puppets to agendas beyond
their control. Here's hoping that Pakatan discovers the "fight"
in them when it comes to changing the books on a state level when it
comes to this issue, which would be a kind of "moral redemption".
