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."
In Tamim's world, law is negotiable By Mariam Mokhtar
Saturday, March 21, 2026
Malaysiakini : At first, such incidents may appear isolated, but what we are
witnessing here is not a one-off controversy. This is a clear
progression, where the events escalate step by step.
Second, the amplification: the act is filmed, uploaded on social media, and widely shared.
A screenshot of Tamim Dahri Abdul Razak stepping on a soolam
Third, the justification. After the public backlash, explanations emerged, with claims of ignorance that the object was mistaken for scrap metal, or that the site was not recognised as religious.
Finally, the escalation emerges in the form of demands, most notably a conditional offer to surrender tied to the demolition of temples deemed “illegal.”
Dangerous line
In short: provoke first, justify later.
If this situation is allowed to fester, compliance itself becomes conditional, and that is a dangerous line.
On
the “Tanah Malaya” social media account, Tamim said he would return to
Malaysia and surrender to the police only if the authorities demolished a
list of allegedly “illegal” Hindu temples.
He wrote: “We, the
strategists of Tanah Malaya, come from technical backgrounds instead of
arts, and thus we are familiar with only one thing: problem solving.”
This
framing goes beyond activism. It turns a legal process into a
negotiation, where compliance with the law is tied to political demands.
Calling
themselves “strategists of Tanah Malaya” and saying they deal only in
“problem solving” sounds confident and technical, but there is irony
here. You cannot solve a problem if you are the one defining what the
problem is in the first place.
When that definition is disputed, it begins to sound less like problem-solving and more like self-praise dressed as expertise.
The
attempt is to make compliance with the law conditional. It links a
personal legal situation to an ideological demand, introducing a
precedent where the law is treated as negotiable under pressure.
Tensions not new
This is not the first time Malaysia has faced such tensions.
In the case involving convert and controversial preacher, Zamri Vinoth, public perception was that early inaction allowed tensions to build, with enforcement only coming later when the risk of escalation had grown.
Whether
that perception was entirely fair is secondary. What matters is the
lesson it offers: delays in acting on sensitive, provocative incidents
do not calm situations. They often inflame them.
Hesitation creates space for anger to grow, for narratives to harden, and for communities to feel unprotected.
If there is one lesson to be drawn, it is this: timely, consistent enforcement is essential.
When provocative acts are seen to gain attention or receive delayed responses, others may feel emboldened to act.
The demolished Hindu temple in Rawang Perdana
They
do so not necessarily out of malice, but from the belief that they are
defending legality, identity, or justice. This is how vigilantism begins, not as defiance, but as misguided justification.
Once individuals begin to take matters into their own hands,
believing the law will bend or delay, the consequences become harder to
contain. Recent incidents involving religious desecration have already
set a public expectation: that action must be swift, enforcement must be
firm, and standards must be equal.
If one case is handled decisively while another drifts, the issue is no longer about law.
It becomes about whose sensitivities are protected, and whose are not.
That perception alone is enough to fracture trust.
Ruleof law cannot be conditional
Malaysia’s Federal Constitution, under Article 11, guarantees freedom of religion. It requires the state to:
protect all religious communities
act fairly and impartially
prevent acts that inflame tensions
Enforcement cannot bend to the pressure of any kind. Once it does, constitutional protections begin to feel conditional.
At
its core, this issue is simple. No person alleged to have broken the
law can be allowed to set conditions for compliance or hold enforcement
hostage to demands.
The balance of authority must remain with institutions, not individuals negotiating with the law.
That is a line a functioning state cannot blur.
This
is where leadership is tested. There will be pressure to manage
sentiment, to avoid backlash, to respond tactically, but leadership is
not about managing outrage. It is about upholding principles.
Politicians must act in accordance with the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection to all Malaysians.
This moment demands clarity. Not rhetoric. Not delay. Not negotiation.
The
rule of law cannot be conditional. Provocation cannot be rewarded, and
no individual can be allowed to hold the nation to pressure or make
demands. We should draw the line now, clearly and firmly, because if it
is not held here, it will be tested again.
