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."
Malaysiakini : COMMENT | Prime Minister Anwar
Ibrahim’s poor choice of the word “victory” in the temple and mosque
controversy was highly irresponsible and dangerous. He seemed oblivious that his war-like rhetoric has probably sown more mistrust and hatred.
Claiming “victory”
invites the suggestion of a clash of different cultures, or religions,
between non-Muslims and Muslims, or in this case, between Hindus and
Muslims – “them and us”. Anwar’s self-proclaimed “victory”
probably went unnoticed by the federal ministers and his supporters at
Masjid Madani’s groundbreaking ceremony. His remark should have rung
alarm bells throughout the nation.
Whilst
it is true that the word “victory” can be used in several different
contexts, for instance, when overcoming a personal challenge like an
addiction, or when it's used to indicate success in a game like a
football, more often than not, “victory” is often used to signify the
defeat of an enemy in battle.
For someone who claims to be a uniting factor in Malaysia, Anwar did not do himself any favours. He
praised various federal ministers and many others who were involved in
the temple standoff. He claimed that their victory “was not borne out of
arrogance”.
He said, “This victory is because we were able to demonstrate the wisdom, strength, and nobility of Islam - not arrogance.”
Did he or his Madani team think the temple representatives lacked wisdom, were weak and did not possess any noble values? He
claimed victory had also been achieved because the Muslim had set a
good example for others and that this "showed the Muslim's good
character - compassionate, caring, just.”.
What is he trying to
suggest? That the temple people involved in the negotiations did not
exhibit similar good qualities displayed by Muslims?
THE TEMPLE With due respect to PMX, his view that the status of the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman temple is “illegal” is as insulting as it is inaccurate. It is sad that he is implying that we Indians are the descendants of those who indulged in illegalites and crooked things. We resent such insinuations. To trace its history of origin, the said temple was given permission to be built on “No Man’s Land” by the then colonial administration who were in power some 130 years ago to the Indian workers who toiled day and night in construction and infrastructural works for our nation. So where on earth is the “illegality”? As a law graduate (with equivalent CLP) I was taught at Law School that when someone gets into occupation of such a land without let or hindrance to develop it, then that party accrues rights in it. If subsequent conventional laws are passed relating to the said land, then such laws are overseen by the Law of Equity or “fairness”. The law of equity provides legal remedies for cases wherein the common law is inflexible and cannot fairly resolve any disputed legal matter. Equity law supersedes common law and statute law and comes into play when disputes arise. For Dato’ Seri’s information what this means is that you simply cannot evict or transplant the occupier just like that. The land on which the temple sits had been sold clandestinely to a third party without notice to the sitting occupier. Here’s where the law of equity steps in on behalf of the occupier to remedy the faux pas. According to the law of equity the occupier must be given the first option to purchase the said property at market value which was not done. And now to ask the occupier to move out is grave injustice as such a demand is not only illegal but immoral. Dato’ Seri reinforces his argument for the temple to be re-located by alleging that the temple committee had “agreed” to do so. In a David and Goliath confrontation on the said issue surely the word “agreed” must be interpreted in the context of inverted commas. When two parties agree on everything, rest assured only one is doing all the talking. Dato’ Seri must realise that moving a sacrosanct structure of worship that stood majestically in its place for over 130 years is not the same as moving a piece of furniture from the dining room to the kitchen. This temple is not only a national icon but doubles up as national heritage and should be left undisturbed for all posterity. Certain parties wanted to bring this issue to the Courts for resolution (which should have been the proper thing to do) but for reasons best known for the powers that be, this was prevented. In a genuine democracy it is the duty and obligation of the majority to protect the interests of the minority and not to diminish it. Dato’ Seri, needless to say, the power to do anything or whatever lies in your hands but please exercise that power with discretion and wisdom. We, on the other hand, are mere earthlings as a minority group and our only remedy lies in our vote at the polls. Come next elections we hope not to see PMX converted to XPM. Dr A Soorian LLB (Aust.) Post Graduate Diploma in Law (Lond.)
Specifically to PMX!!
Press Release
THE TEMPLE
With due respect to PMX, his view that the status of the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman temple is “illegal” is as insulting as it is inaccurate. It is sad that he is implying that we Indians are the descendants of those who indulged in illegalites and crooked things. We resent such insinuations.
To trace its history of origin, the said temple was given permission to be built on “No Man’s Land” by the then colonial administration who were in power some 130 years ago to the Indian workers who toiled day and night in construction and infrastructural works for our nation. So where on earth is the “illegality”?
As a law graduate (with equivalent CLP) I was taught at Law School that when someone gets into occupation of such a land without let or hindrance to develop it, then that party accrues rights in it.
If subsequent conventional laws are passed relating to the said land, then such laws are overseen by the Law of Equity or “fairness”. The law of equity provides legal remedies for cases wherein the common law is inflexible and cannot fairly resolve any disputed legal matter. Equity law supersedes common law and statute law and comes into play when disputes arise. For Dato’ Seri’s information what this means is that you simply cannot evict or transplant the occupier just like that. The land on which the temple sits had been sold clandestinely to a third party without notice to the sitting occupier. Here’s where the law of equity steps in on behalf of the occupier to remedy the faux pas. According to the law of equity the occupier must be given the first option to purchase the said property at market value which was not done. And now to ask the occupier to move out is grave injustice as such a demand is not only illegal but immoral.
Dato’ Seri reinforces his argument for the temple to be re-located by alleging that the temple committee had “agreed” to do so. In a David and Goliath confrontation on the said issue surely the word “agreed” must be interpreted in the context of inverted commas.
When two parties agree on everything, rest assured only one is doing all the talking.
Dato’ Seri must realise that moving a sacrosanct structure of worship that stood majestically in its place for over 130 years is not the same as moving a piece of furniture from the dining room to the kitchen.
This temple is not only a national icon but doubles up as national heritage and should be left undisturbed for all posterity.
Certain parties wanted to bring this issue to the Courts for resolution (which should have been the proper thing to do) but for reasons best known for the powers that be, this was prevented.
In a genuine democracy it is the duty and obligation of the majority to protect the interests of the minority and not to diminish it.
Dato’ Seri, needless to say, the power to do anything or whatever lies in your hands but please exercise that power with discretion and wisdom. We, on the other hand, are mere earthlings as a minority group and our only remedy lies in our vote at the polls.
Come next elections we hope not to see PMX converted to XPM.
Dr A Soorian LLB (Aust.)
Post Graduate Diploma in Law (Lond.)