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."
Loh's lawyers: Maips a 'busybody' trying to intervene in divorce proceedings By Hidir Reduan Abdul Rashid
Friday, April 29, 2022
Malaysiakini : During today’s hearing before civil court judge Evrol Peters
Mariatte, Loh’s counsel A Srimurugan submitted that Perlis religious
state enactment does not empower Maips with jurisdiction in other
states.
The lawyer submitted that the divorce proceedings between
Loh and Nagahswaran are a civil court matter and not a Syariah Court
matter that permits Maips any right to be a part of.
Srimurugan
argued that the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) governs
marriage and divorce matters involving non-Muslims, thus barring the
involvement of an Islamic state council.
The Perlis state law in question is the Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006 (Perlis).
Malaysia practices a dual legal system split between the Syariah laws and the secular civil laws.
‘Maips merely carrying out duty’
The
lawyer contended that the case laws that Maips is relying on to
intervene in Loh’s divorce matter actually state that only interested
parties directly involved in the non-Muslim divorce - such as individual
family members - have the right to intervene.
“My friend’s (Maips’ legal team) case authorities were on parties linked to the marriage, not to an outsider and busybody.
“They (Maips) cannot come to court and try to vary the custody order to tell (Loh) how to raise her children.
“It
(LRA) does not include corporate or religious entities. The word
‘interested persons’ (in LRA) must be interpreted strictly for the
interest of the child,” Srimurugan said.
Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla
Maips’
lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla then objected to the labelling of
the state religious council as a ‘busybody’, saying that as it is merely
carrying out its legal duty to ensure the welfare of Loh’s three
children.
The lawyer stressed that Perlis’ state enactment empowers Maips with jurisdiction to provide for the religious education of any mualaf (new converts to Islam) registered in the state, even if the converts are currently residing in another state.
Loh and her three children are currently living in Selangor.
“Maips has a statutory duty and they did not wish to be busybodies.
“We
should not be focusing on the right of the father or mother, but the
right of the children. Time and time again that is the common law (from
the United Kingdom) basis that the LRA emphasises,” Haniff argued.
The
lawyer contended that Maips is concerned with the children’s welfare as
past news reports indicated that the children are still practicing
Islam even when under the present custody of non-Muslim Loh.
Heated arguments
The
atmosphere in the civil court took a heated turn when both legal teams
began touching on the issue of the unilateral conversion of Loh’s
children.
Haniff had submitted that Maips should be allowed to
intervene as the issue of the children’s conversion to Islam on July 7,
2020, was not before the civil court then, when it granted full custody
of the children to Loh.
The civil court granted full custody on March 31 last year, and decree nisi (to annul the marriage) on Sept 23 last year.
Nagahswaran,
who is currently serving a jail sentence in Kelantan over a drug
offence, was alleged to have run away with the children and carried out
the conversion in July 2020.
The conversion was allegedly done without Loh’s consent and knowledge.
However,
Haniff’s submissions attracted a fierce response from Loh’s other
lawyer, Shamsher Singh Thind, who countered that the intervener
application should be dismissed as Loh’s separate bid to challenge the
children’s conversion is pending before another civil court.
Shamsher
urged the civil court to consider the element of prejudice that may
befall Loh if Maips is allowed to intervene, as the single mother was
allegedly the target of online attacks on social media over the
religious issue.
“There are a lot of attacks on Facebook (against Loh) that claim that they (Loh’s three children) are Muslim children.
“There
would be prejudice (against Loh) if the (civil) court allows the
intervention, as a unilateral conversion is illegal and they (Maips)
never questioned the unilateral aspect of the conversion,” Shamsher
contended.
The lawyer then relied on the landmark 2018 Federal Court decision in M Indira Gandhi, which declared as invalid the unilateral conversion of her children by her former husband, who previously converted to Islam.
Evrol
then urged both legal teams to calm down, reminding them that the
present case does not involve religion but the interest and welfare of
the children.
“It is not about religion. It is about the rights of
the child. Here, the children are minors, and their rights are being
exercised by the parent (Loh), while the religious council (Maips)
contend they have the right to exercise (their duty to the children),”
Evrol said.
The judge then fixed June 15 for a decision on whether to grant leave to Maips to intervene in the divorce proceedings.
If
the state religious council is granted leave, then it would take the
next step of applying for an order to vary the custody order.
Loh’s
separate bid to strike down her children’s conversion is fixed for
hearing before another Kuala Lumpur High Court on May 17.
On Feb 21, the Kuala Lumpur High Court (criminal jurisdiction) allowed her habeas corpus application to be reunited with her three children.
