#FavoriteMovieQuotes: Good Will Hunting (Park Scene)

#FavoriteMovieQuotes Good Will Hunting

Sean: Thought about what you said to me the other day, about my painting (note: Will insulted Sean’s dead wife by asking him “That’s it, isn’t it? You married the wrong woman. Did she leave you? Did she bang some other guy?” after analyzing a watercolor painting that Sean had done himself). Stayed up half the night thinking about it. Something occurred to me..fell into a deep peaceful sleep, and haven’t thought about you since. Do you know what occurred to me?

Will: No.

Sean: You’re just a kid, you don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talkin’ about.

Will: Why, thank you.

Sean : It’s all right. You’ve never been out of Boston?

Will: Nope.

Sean: So if I asked you about art, you’d probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him, don’t you? His life’s work, political aspirations, him and the Pope, his sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I bet you can’t tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling, seen that. If I ask you about women, you’ll probably give me a syllabus of your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can’t tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy. You’re a tough kid. I ask you about war, you’d probably throw Shakespeare at me, right? “Once more unto the breach, dear friends.” But you’ve never been near one. You’ve never held your best friend’s head in your lap and watch him gasp his last breath looking to you for help. If I asked you about love, you’d probably quote me a sonnet, but you’ve never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. You’ve never known someone that could level you with her eyes. Feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you, who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn’t know what it’s like to be her angel, to have that love for her, to be there forever. Through anything, through cancer. And you wouldn’t know about sleeping, sitting up in a hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes that the terms ‘visiting hours’ don’t apply to you. You don’t know about real loss, because that only occurs when you love something more than you love yourself. I doubt you’ve ever dared to love anybody that much. I look at you, I don’t see an intelligent, confident man. I see a cocky, scared shitless kid. But you’re a genius Will. No one denies that. No one could possibly understand the depths of you. But you presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine, and you ripped my fucking life apart. You’re an orphan right? Do you think I’d know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are, because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you?

Debris

We made love and our scars met,

And every inch of my skin burned like fire to a cigarette.

All at once i am restless, and i am cold;

And my nerves are humming with your stories that i now hold.

Our lips are swollen, the hue of vintage wine,

And our limbs trembling while they lapse through worldly decline.

I told you not to make promises with your body,

I could answer to no such bounty,

And though now I’m yours, I am only debris.

Your mouth unfurls like the verge of a wound,

But I shush you and whisper “i love you, ma cherie brune;

“What we have, don’t you see? Is no copied, chromed ruse.”

So maybe I’m badly broken,

And there’re parts of me long lost, stolen,

But maybe, too, you’re the same as me,

And the pieces of mine might fit yours perfectly.

“Terang yang kau dambakan, hilanglah semua yang kau tanya.”

This song gets me every single time. Every single time, without fail.

“Empati Tamako” by The Trees and The Wild.

Tagged

Malaysia’s Failing Legal Framework

hari-merdeka

Malay rights? Are you sure it is a right? Hak ketuanan Melayu, adakah ia satu hak?

Looking at the constitution;

When we are talking about the constitution and the racial dynamics of this country, we cannot avoid article 153 and my argument is that article 153 has been contorted, distorted, mutated, at two (2) levels: one, on the idealism level and second, the pragmatic level.

Let me make myself clear about the outset. I have nothing against affirmative action whatsoever, in fact I think it is necessary but the problem is when it is not done well.

So if we look at article 153 just briefly it is about providing specific assistance to Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. When I say there are problems on the level of idealism and pragmatism, what do I mean?

Well, the idealism is, first and foremost is that we must not forget that article 153 exists within the context of the constitution. And the constitution very clearly states that in Part II, that all Malaysians are equal. So there is this underlying belief in equality. And if you look at the history of the drafting of the constitution, during the discussion of article 153, it was made clear that the aspiration of the Alliance and of the royal families, the Sultans at that time was that ultimately this country (Malaya at that time, of course) would not have any governance based on racial grounds. So decision making would do away with all racial grounds. That was the aspiration, embedded in the constitution under article 8.

But somehow we have lost sight of this. We have lost sight of this higher ideal of equality. And when you have something like ‘153’ without the corresponding idealism and aspiration, it is not tempered by any belief that whatever we do has to be within the context of equality. Then it can run loose and get out of hand. And I believe this is one of the problem that we have because we have a serious problem of ideology in this country (or, lack of ideology). And without a firm belief in certain principles, certain human rights and certain ideologies then by the letter of the law all sorts of abuse can occur.

Then comes the pragmatic element of article 153.

You see, the thing is, article 153 is.. categorically speaking, is not a right per se. It is not a right in any sense of the word actually. Article 153 is fundamentally a permission for the government to move away from article 8. Article 8 says that everyone is equal except where it specifically allowed for in the constitution and art 153 is where it is specifically allowed for in the constitution. So in other words, it is permissioned for the government to move away from the ideals and the letter of article 8 to do something/implement policies with regards to affirmative action.

It is not a right, it is merely a permission.

And another thing is we have to look at what it says.

The constitution is very clear. You can act unequally if you are allowed to and article 153 gives permission to act unequally. But you have to act unequally, as allowed for in the constitution. And the constitution is very specific as to when and  where you behave in a  matter which is unequal (business permits, licenses, education, scholarships, roles in the civil service etc). Anything else beyond this is wrong, because it is not allowed for in the constitution.

Unfortunately, we haven’t really had a serious challenge on the implementation of affirmative action supposedly based on the permission allowed by 153. Because I’m sure there will be many circumstances and situations where the actions and policies conducted and have been passed, have exceeded the limitations provided by the constitution.

Now, the problem that we have is that this provision in our law has influenced our political scenario. And this, more that the law this has probably created the problems that we have today.

The myth of the Malay rights enshrined in the constitution has been perpetuated by the government, the supporters and the organizations which are proxy to them. And this has led to a very toxic atmosphere in our society where there is a sense of different classes of citizens.

So when affirmative action becomes something different from helping the marginalized to a right, what you are doing is you are dividing, you are creating a divisiveness within the society. And of course there are social repercussions from this as well, because the whole affirmative action thing is based on race, instead of being based on need. So race becomes a question which is perpetually being raised, Malayness for example. What do you mean by Malayness? This is of course defined in our constitution as someone who habitually speaks Malay, who practices the religion of Islam, and who practices the cultural norms of the Malay people. And so what you have here of course is that suddenly religion gets caught up in the mix as well. And so the issues of religion and religious freedom suddenly becomes clouded by the issues of race. Because you cannot be a Malay constitutionally if you are not a Muslim. There are many Malay Hindus in Bali for example. So it becomes cloudy, it becomes messy.

And on top of this, other laws have been passed to make it near impossible for us to look at this matter with intelligence and a progressive outlook. So you can’t question 153. The Sedition Act makes it difficult or impossible. I would argue that you can question the implementation of it but the law is so vague and arbitrary that people are worried about this.

And there is also an aggressive stance whenever an effort is made with regards to questioning of the success of policies which were based on race. A few years ago, a study was published which argued that with regards to share and stock ownership, the objectives of the NEP was met. This was vehemently shot and shouted down not so much based on the work itself, but based on the fact that the writer of the report was Chinese. See, we have even shut down the necessary tools which are required in order for us to see whether this affirmative action is working or not.

If you can’t argue about the existence of 153, we still need to argue whether it is working or not. But how can you argue if it’s working  or not when there is 1) an adamant insistence that it is an unquestionable right, and 2) when any effort is made to look at the implementation, it would be deemed unacceptable.

So, we are led to a situation where there can be no forward movement, no progressiveness with regard to this issue, which ultimately could undermine the entire purpose of affirmative action which is to help the marginalized.

I would say that over the years, article 153 has not evolved, because ‘evolve’ connotes something positive. It has instead, mutated from something which was initially designed as a tool for social equality and equity into a weapon for the furtherance of intolerance and racial divisiveness.

So, what is necessary? Open discussions, and open research on the effectiveness of 153. We need to go deep into the heart of the matter.  What else? The freedom to conduct the research without fear or favour (the ammendment/abolishment of the arbitrary Sedition Act).

We should stop saying that the Malay rights are ‘unquestionable.’ Instead, we have to ask more questions.

I don’t think that this country was founded on any principles of bigotry and biasness.  I think we were founded on the principles of equality and justice and also equity. It’s just that somewhere along the line we have forgotten this and this is why we are the way we are.

Rivet

True knowledge,
a whole universe less traversed
Because knowledge is more than textbooks
more than a first class degree
more than you and me

Knowledge, is what you’re left with
skinned
Naked,
Your brain would glow
from all that you know.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.