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."
Azam’s conduct not judged by competent authority By R Nadeswaran
Thursday, April 28, 2022
Malaysiakini : “In this matter, the facts surrounding (the case involving) Azam is
not criminal or not a criminal act, but perhaps (a matter) of misconduct
or not carrying out his duties,” Rais was then quoted as saying.
This was in January when Azam was making the headlines for the wrong reasons which were followed by street protests demanding that he step down.
The saga began in October last year when a news portal and a whistleblower site accused Azam of misconduct.
The issue grew two months later when Prof Edmund Terence Gomez resigned
from MACC’s Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel citing
inaction over the allegations and over claims the issue was swept under
the carpet.
Gomez said his three letters to panel chairperson Borhan Dollah and Abu Zahar failed to elicit any response.
Brother or not brother
Following the furore caused by Gomez’s resignation, Azam initially claimed that he allowed his brother to trade shares in his name but the Securities Commission (SC) subsequently clarified he carried out trades in his own name.
Professor Edmund Terence Gomez
This
was a contradiction of what Azam said previously but if you thought an
indictment of Azam’s conduct was forthcoming, it never did.
On the contrary, de facto Law Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar appeared to downplay the share ownership of Azam.
“The
issue which was disputed by the opposition parties has been resolved.
An inquiry by the SC decided that there is no case (against Azam).
“The
SC found there was ‘no conclusive evidence’ that Azam had breached the
Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (Sicda),” said Wan
Junaidi in a written parliamentary reply.
Even Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob joined the chorus citing the decision by SC on Azam’s trading account should be accepted by all parties.
“The
SC has made a decision… (this matter) was left to the SC as it involves
the purchase of shares. So the SC has made a decision and it says there
is no case against him (Azam). So, we accept the SC’s decision,” Malaysiakini quoted him as saying.
Really,
Mr Prime Minister? The SC merely stated that he traded on his own
account and did not nominate his brother as originally claimed by Azam.
How could it be resolved as government regulations had been breached?
The
SC’s decision just states that Azam traded in his own name – nothing
more, nothing less. Are we, law-abiding citizens, supposed to shut up?
Asset declaration
What about the requirements under Section 10 of the Public Officers Regulation (Conduct and Discipline) 1993?
The
section states that all public servants must declare both movable
properties, such as money in bank accounts, motor vehicles, jewellery,
firearms, shares, warrants, stocks, bonds, and securities, as well as
immovable properties, such as land, landed properties, and of course,
business ownerships or directorships.
Did Azam, who was the MACC
investigation director when he bought the shares in 2015, not breach
government rules when he spent more than RM100,000 for the share
purchase?
Last week, Azam made headlines again drawing flak from the legal fraternity and politicians for announcing the MACC has opened investigation papers on a judge of the Court of Appeal.
On Wednesday, Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said the judiciary should not be open to unfounded and scurrilous attacks.
She said although judges are not immune to criticism, recent accusations against judges and the judiciary, in her view, went overboard.
Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat
As
if as an act of defiance, today, the MACC read the Riot Act to those
who criticised its action by issuing a statement reiterating it has
powers to investigate anyone – including judges.
In
a statement, it said: “MACC is vested with the power to investigate
corruption offences under the MACC Act 2009, including to carry out
investigation against 'public body officers' which in Section 3 of the
act are interpreted as any individual who is a member, officer,
employee, or anyone who serves a public body, and they include members
of the administration, MPs, member of a state legislative assembly, High
Court judge, Court of Appeal judge, or Federal Court judge, and anyone
who receives a salary from a public body...”
But does MACC have
the moral rectitude to make such statements when the conduct of its own
head honcho continues to be clouded by his false statements to the
public and breaching civil service regulations?
Unless he is ready
to subject himself to an inquiry and be cleared by a competent
authority, say the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission, anything he
says or does will be viewed with contempt and suspicion.
