Loyalty to the Nation First
To reiterate the point on loyalty, it is interesting to know that actually there is no such term of loyalty to the ruler at all. Rather, the common saying is that of loyalty to the nation. Thus, one’s loyalty is always pledged to the nation and not to a particular ruler, king, emperor or political figures like the prime minister, president, ministers or mentris besar.
Now, when a general’s loyalty is to the nation, he will have the interests of all parties at heart i.e. his army, the people and the sovereign and not be indebted or biased to any particular group or individual.
However, when a general is not clear on what loyalty implies, it could lead to dire consequences. A good example is General Yue Fei of the Chinese Song Dynasty (960 AD to 1280 AD). When Yue Fei was a young man, his mother tattooed the four Chinese characters “Loyalty to the Nation” on his back. Yue Fei later became a very famous and outstanding Song General and he was responsible of repelling the invaders at the Chinese borders.
Unfortunately, owing to the evil plots of the corrupted Song prime minister who is controlling the weak and indecisive emperor, thirteen imperial edicts were issued to recall General Yue Fei from the war zone at the most critical point of the battle. At that time every one of General Yue Fei’s officers’ corps, including himself, knew victory was at hand and even if they had persisted and disobeyed the emperor’s orders. But it was most unfortunate, General Yue Fei was blindly loyal to the emperor and got himself misunderstood the concept of loyalty.
He made a fatal error of returning to the capital and he was subsequently executed on false charges of treason. In his critical moment of decision, General Yue Fei forgot the four characters engrave on his back read “Loyalty to the Nation” and not “loyalty to the emperor”. If he had stayed on to fight the battle, he would have won the war and more than likely to obtain an imperial pardon or perhaps even a promotion. Unfortunately, by making the wrong decision, he not only lost his life, but jeopardized the safety and welfare of his people and interest of the nation as well.
The Song Dynasty was subsequently defeated and conquered by the invading Mongolian troops who later established the Yuan Dynasty from 1280 AD to 1368 AD. This is a clear example, why we said there is no such term of loyalty to the ruler at all, as such loyalty is considered blind and would jeopardize one’s nation if the ruler is subject to a group of corrupted officials or if the ruler himself is a weak and an indecisive leader.
And let us refer to the Perak constitutional crisis. Umno wanted to paint the “loyalty to the subject” more than the “loyalty to the state and constitution”. Anyone who spoke on the “loyalty to the state and constitution” were all branded as “derhaka” or treason. Umno is confusing the people and had used the “subject” to protect their unconstitutional move to topple the elected Perak Pakatan Raykat state government on last February, by mobilizing the nation’s security forces to back their coup d’etat against the Pakatan Rakyat’s administration.
And what did the DAP National Chairman and Member of Parliament for Bukit Gelugor, Karpal Singh by openly calling for the review of the decisions made by the said “subject” is democratically and nationalistically correct, in a clear view of his “Loyalty to the Nation” first above self and any other individual. There is no “derhaka” or treason in Karpal’s action at all.
What Umno had tried to perceived “loyalty to the subject” is to merely use the “subject” for their political ends and in order to justify the position of their rebel state government as being appointed by the “subject” but in actual fact it was all planned, moved, cordoned and endorsed by Umno from behind scene. The “subject” is being used.
Therefore, Loyalty to the Nation should be our priority.
Now, when a general’s loyalty is to the nation, he will have the interests of all parties at heart i.e. his army, the people and the sovereign and not be indebted or biased to any particular group or individual.
However, when a general is not clear on what loyalty implies, it could lead to dire consequences. A good example is General Yue Fei of the Chinese Song Dynasty (960 AD to 1280 AD). When Yue Fei was a young man, his mother tattooed the four Chinese characters “Loyalty to the Nation” on his back. Yue Fei later became a very famous and outstanding Song General and he was responsible of repelling the invaders at the Chinese borders.
Unfortunately, owing to the evil plots of the corrupted Song prime minister who is controlling the weak and indecisive emperor, thirteen imperial edicts were issued to recall General Yue Fei from the war zone at the most critical point of the battle. At that time every one of General Yue Fei’s officers’ corps, including himself, knew victory was at hand and even if they had persisted and disobeyed the emperor’s orders. But it was most unfortunate, General Yue Fei was blindly loyal to the emperor and got himself misunderstood the concept of loyalty.
He made a fatal error of returning to the capital and he was subsequently executed on false charges of treason. In his critical moment of decision, General Yue Fei forgot the four characters engrave on his back read “Loyalty to the Nation” and not “loyalty to the emperor”. If he had stayed on to fight the battle, he would have won the war and more than likely to obtain an imperial pardon or perhaps even a promotion. Unfortunately, by making the wrong decision, he not only lost his life, but jeopardized the safety and welfare of his people and interest of the nation as well.
The Song Dynasty was subsequently defeated and conquered by the invading Mongolian troops who later established the Yuan Dynasty from 1280 AD to 1368 AD. This is a clear example, why we said there is no such term of loyalty to the ruler at all, as such loyalty is considered blind and would jeopardize one’s nation if the ruler is subject to a group of corrupted officials or if the ruler himself is a weak and an indecisive leader.
And let us refer to the Perak constitutional crisis. Umno wanted to paint the “loyalty to the subject” more than the “loyalty to the state and constitution”. Anyone who spoke on the “loyalty to the state and constitution” were all branded as “derhaka” or treason. Umno is confusing the people and had used the “subject” to protect their unconstitutional move to topple the elected Perak Pakatan Raykat state government on last February, by mobilizing the nation’s security forces to back their coup d’etat against the Pakatan Rakyat’s administration.
And what did the DAP National Chairman and Member of Parliament for Bukit Gelugor, Karpal Singh by openly calling for the review of the decisions made by the said “subject” is democratically and nationalistically correct, in a clear view of his “Loyalty to the Nation” first above self and any other individual. There is no “derhaka” or treason in Karpal’s action at all.
What Umno had tried to perceived “loyalty to the subject” is to merely use the “subject” for their political ends and in order to justify the position of their rebel state government as being appointed by the “subject” but in actual fact it was all planned, moved, cordoned and endorsed by Umno from behind scene. The “subject” is being used.
Therefore, Loyalty to the Nation should be our priority.
