Rudyard Kipling"
āWhen 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 soldierā
General Douglas MacArthur"
āWe are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.ā
āIt is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.ā āOld soldiers never die; they just fade away.
āThe soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and be the deepest wounds and scars of war.ā
āMay God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't .ā āThe object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
āNobody ever defended, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
āIt 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."
Plagiarism: Much more than storm in Tee-cup by Lim Teck Ghee
Monday, November 25, 2013
From Malaysiakini : COMMENT The case of prominent Utusan Malaysia columnist, Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, who has been accused of plagiarism, should be of public concern for several reasons.
Firstly,
within academia, there are few worst sins than plagiarism. The term
āsinā may appear to be too strong but Ridhuan who, regularly from his Utusan
pulpit, dishes out his pseudo-intellectual views on developments in the
country from a supposedly Islamic perspective probably will understand
better the use of this term in the context of the wrongdoing he is
alleged to have committed. Or then again, perhaps he does not.
Generally,
students enrolled in any university in the world - whether reputable or
not - are taught right from the start that they cannot simply lift or
copy the work of others without acknowledging and citing the source.
This is cardinal rule Number 1 - the need to differentiate between oneās
own work and that of others.
The rule is rigorously enforced not
only to encourage the student to engage in fresh and original work that
stems from his own thought processes but also to protect the
intellectual property rights of others whose works, ideas or words have
been borrowed.
In the case of the allegation against Ridhuan,
apparently he has copied not only entire paragraphs but also the
grammatical errors which appeared in the original blog article.
According to the initial report on the allegation, UTM lecturer Airil Yasreen Mohd Yassin (right)
claimed that Ridhuan's individual assignment for the Grade DS51
Efficiency Level Assessment coursework, conducted from May to June 2010,
contained paragraphs he had written in his blog in 2009.
The penalty for plagiarism is always severe so as to punish the offender and to discourage others from engaging in it.
If
the work is an essay or a project paper and the plagiarism is proven,
this below is an example - according to a handbook for its freshman
composition course that all undergraduates are required to take - of the
penalty imposed by Harvard University.
Harvard policyrequires
instructors to report all suspected cases to the dean of the college,
and most such cases are ultimately adjudicated by the administrative
board.
If the majority of board members believe, after
considering the evidence and your own account of the events, that you
misused sources, they will likely vote that you be required to withdraw
from the college for at least two semesters.
Since a vote of
requirement to withdraw is effective immediately, you lose all
coursework you have done that semester (unless it's virtually over),
along with the money you have paid for it.
You must leave
Harvard; any return to campus will violate the terms of your withdrawal.
You must find a full-time job, stay in it for at least six months, and
have your supervisor send a satisfactory report of your performance in
order to be readmitted.
Finally, any letter of recommendation
written for you on behalf of Harvard College - including letters to
graduate schools, law schools, and medical school - will report that you
were required to withdraw for academic dishonesty. If you are required
to withdraw for a second time, you will not, ordinarily, be readmitted.
No action by the authorities
In
response to the renewed disclosure of his alleged wrongdoing, Ridhuan
has accused his critics of ācharacter assassinationā and challenged them
ācome and face me upfrontā.
This matter is not whether one side or the other has the telur (cojones)
to confront the other and slug it out. It is one in which stakeholders,
who should be concerned about the integrity of our academic system,
will need to take a position so that the charge is resolved once and for
all, and repetition of such instances is deterred.
There is a
second cause of concern. A serious charge of academic dishonesty has
been allowed to remain unanswered since 2010 when the authorities were
first notified about it. Apparently nothing has been done by the
university authorities or the Higher Education Ministry. Worse still,
the alleged guilty party has been promoted rapidly in the university
system.
Now what do these developments say about our university
system? That plagiarism is perfectly acceptable among academics, in
particular those writing in the national language in the university
system? That the National Defence University does not view plagiarism as
a serious issue?
Or that plagiarism is so pervasive in the
university system that it is of little use in trying to fight it? Or
that if plagiarism stems from an academic who is waving the Islamic or
racist battle flag that favours the ruling party, it is somehow deemed
to be acceptable?
Perhaps the authorities have conducted their investigations and have arrived at findings which have found Ridhuan (left) not
guilty of the allegation. Or perhaps he has admitted to making an
honest mistake in reproducing the excerpts and passing them off as his
own words.
If so, the authorities need to come out with a
statement and full explanation in the interest of transparency and
accountability, as well as in ensuring justice to Ridhuan.
And lastly what does it say of Utusan,
the national newspaper recently lauded by the prime minister for being
āin the forefront of reporting in this country and shaping the mindsets
of the peopleā as well as ābeing a symbol of the Malay struggle and a
representation of the achievement of the Malay communityā?
Any
other respectable newspaper would have suspended its staff or columnist
who has been accused of plagiarism and would not have permitted the
errant person to continue writing until the charge has been proven to be
without substance.
In the case of Ridhuan who has set himself up
as the champion of true Islamic values and ethical behaviour, one would
have expected the paper to be concerned about abiding by journalistic
ethical norms and of avoiding being seen as guilty by association.
But then perhaps the word āplagiarismā is not found in Utusanās dictionary
or there is no one else that the paper can turn to who can produce the
erudite commentaries that flow from Ridhuanās pen?
Stakeholders taking an interest in this case should not only be political parties such as MIC and the DAP. They
should also be members of the committee that screened Ridhuanās paper
and promotion, and the vice-chancellor - all of whom have remained mum
over the three years since this issue was first raised as well as the
larger community of academics.
The public whose taxation monies
are used to finance our universities need to remind the authorities that
this is not just any storm in a teacup but one that reflects on how
serious we are about upholding international standards. LIM TECK GHEE is director of the Centre for Policy Initiatives.
According to the initial report on the allegation, UTM lecturer Airil Yasreen Mohd Yassin (right)
claimed that Ridhuan's individual assignment for the Grade DS51
Efficiency Level Assessment coursework, conducted from May to June 2010,
contained paragraphs he had written in his blog in 2009.
Perhaps the authorities have conducted their investigations and have arrived at findings which have found Ridhuan (left) not
guilty of the allegation. Or perhaps he has admitted to making an
honest mistake in reproducing the excerpts and passing them off as his
own words.
