TO BE OR NOT TO BE

"To be, or not to be, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to — 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life,
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action."

This soliloquy of the Danish Prince Hamlet has been given multiple interpretations although its influence have stretched from Star Trek to Sesame Street. But for this purpose I would go with E Possers' interpretation: He opined that "This soliloquy is a meditation on the central theme of the duties and temptations of a noble mind in an evil world".

Of course it is apparently apt here to take another of Willie Shakespeare's immortal line when the ghost of the King (McDuff), was seen by an officer of the palace guards, walking over the palace walls. The guard thus said: "Something is rotten in the House of Denmark". This of course has only one interpretation: to describe corruption or a situation when something is really wrong.

The question: To cross over or not to cross over?

When a company's books show an incremental slide, can the CEO asks for loyalty. Loyalty may not put bread on the table. What would you do?

When the building is burning, do you call a meeting to discuss how to put out the fire. If you are not suicidal, you would vacate the building? I would. Still looking for the fire-hose or the fire-hydrant amongst thick undergrowth of mismanagement and non-maintenance?

When KD Barisan Nasional is already showing signs of arthritic disfigurements and its rudder lost or stolen for personal gains....shouldn't it sail towards the dry docks....but lets say it cannot make the journey to the dry docks, what should the "sailors" in KD Barisan Nasional do? Sink or swim together. That's stujpid, when KD Pakatan Rakyat has its life-boats circling the decrepit 62(?)year old imitation of a proud ship of yesteryears. I alway maintain that there are still some good men in UMNO but what can a few good men do to right so many arrogant wrongs?
Already, some of the registered owners of the ship are deregistering their ownership! NO?

There is this debate going on currently about the morality of "to cross or not to cross". I for one hold strongly to this fact that it was the people who voted whoever into parliament. It is the common sense thing to go back to their constituency and say honestly:, " I cannot serve you well in this type of "climate" ....with your endorsement, can I cross over to more conducive clime?" And if they say yes and they find out that money was involved to improve the climate, the people must without any hesitation "decapitate" this turncoat.

What say you, people?