Owh the place these people go...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Let us not try to justify the rights or the wrongs of options, few in number. After all, rights and wrongs are one-sided. It sides the story teller; the winner. Because a matter is indefinitely right or wrong before its outcomes, the question of what SHOULD be put to motion and the weighing of RICH options are more eminent.


Many’s the time when the richness of options precedes the richness of justifications of options, the right options being put to motion result in ‘predicaments’. What should be meant by ‘predicaments’, in politics (Malaysian politics, at least)? Momentary confusions which do not add up to what should rightfully be? Here’s what it is:

1) ‘The arrest of a tuition teacher at Esplanade of Georgetown’. The headline reads somewhat like that. What a good skimmer wouldn’t know is the fact that she is the organizer. And how would her students / other teachers, nationwide, think had she not been arrested?

2) Abu Zahar’s remark about Malaysian-Bar-for-hire playing politician. Islam and the special rights of Malay are somehow entangled together in the Constitution. You want to know it, your forefathers signed it.

"Would that he had been able to endure prosperity with greater self-control and adversity with more fortitude!"

How about "Would that WE had been able to endure prosperity with greater self-control and adversity with more fortitude!", for a change?

As long as we go through these predicaments like concern citizens (unlike Ivy Josiah or Lee Wei San, a self-proclaimed anarchist), we would never have to use the term ‘Would that’. :)