Well, recently in June this year, when the Johor DUN heard a bill giving executive powers to HRH in the state Housing Board, the Royal Dentist Extraordinaire (wakakaka), warned: "There is already a feeling of disrespect for the royals. This may lead to other forms of disrespect."
You know who he is, don't you? Wakakaka.
The Royal Dentist was the medical specialist who de-fanged the royals in 1992, wakakaka again.
 |
| Their pain, my entire pleasure wakakaka |
Anyway, in today's Malaysiakini, Dr Mahathir was quoted as saying: I gave one name, [and] rulers have no issue in regards to the Selangor MB issue. MKINI reported:
The former premier revealed that during his tenure, he had only submitted a single name to the palace to be considered for the menteri besar's post.
"Throughout my time, it was always one name only. I never had any problem with any of the sultans," he said when asked if the monarchs had ever requested for more names to be submitted.
I have only one answer to the different treatment experienced by PKR and DAP.
UMNO is UMNO, and no one shakes it, not even the royals. Ain't that just the truth, as was experienced in 1992 when the royals were given the full abusive treatment by UMNO. For more, see my Insulting the Rulers, UMNO-style.
Back to the Johor housing Board issue in June just to prove this point: TMI reported in its Utusan says will snub Johor palace over criticism on new bill the following defiant Utusan statement to HRH Johor:
Utusan Malaysia today said it would not answer any royal summons to appear before the Sultan of Johor, following the paper's criticism against a controversial plan to include the ruler in the state's administration. […]
The Umno mouthpiece said if the Johor palace was unhappy with the criticism and wanted to reprimand or clarify, it could send a representative to meet the daily's editors.
Wah, but then Utusan was/is of course UMNO. And then, Utusan could not resist continuing in Jebat-ish fashion:
UMNO is UMNO, and no one shakes it, not even the royals. Ain't that just the truth, as was experienced in 1992 when the royals were given the full abusive treatment by UMNO. For more, see my Insulting the Rulers, UMNO-style.
Back to the Johor housing Board issue in June just to prove this point: TMI reported in its Utusan says will snub Johor palace over criticism on new bill the following defiant Utusan statement to HRH Johor:
Utusan Malaysia today said it would not answer any royal summons to appear before the Sultan of Johor, following the paper's criticism against a controversial plan to include the ruler in the state's administration. […]
The Umno mouthpiece said if the Johor palace was unhappy with the criticism and wanted to reprimand or clarify, it could send a representative to meet the daily's editors.
Wah, but then Utusan was/is of course UMNO. And then, Utusan could not resist continuing in Jebat-ish fashion:
"Moreover, times have also changed. The media must stop being overly worried about criticism involving the rulers.
"This is the common question among media practitioners every time a sensitive issue arises regarding the Johor palace. "The anxiety of media practitioners towards this issue should stop immediately. There is no reason for such anxiety in today's new media landscape.”
TMI also reported: Awang said there was no reason for high-ranking palace officials to reprimand reporters and editors.
Instead, he said in other countries with monarchies, it was a common practice for the media to send their representatives to the palace.
"That is how it is done in palaces in Europe, Japan and Thailand, even the royal institutions in other states in Malaysia. This is to avoid misunderstandings as if parties are being bullied."
Awang of course is Awang Selamat of Utusan (namely, UMNO).
And MKINI also reported Dr Mahathir concluding: ... that it is "up to the sultan" who he wants to appoint but ... if the person appointed does not hold a majority, the individual can be voted out through a vote of no-confidence. That is according to our system."
Of course as I have written, where palace issues are involved, it's best for Malays to deal with them (and for nons to stay out and f**k those constitutional limits or rights which would only apply or become meaningless depending on ........), and no Malay deals with them better than UMNO Malays, and in UMNO no Malay deals with them better than Dr Mahathir, wakakaka.
But no worries mateys, a totally mandate-less Khalid, as caretaker MB notwithstanding, will soon sign the water deal.
Now, on a separate issue, namely sedition, we have just heard the former IGP who was and still is most dislike and disrespected by many of us, proposing that capital punishment (death sentence) be considered for repeat offenders of sedition.
Well, Dr Mahathir has commented on that stupid sickening sinister proposal by asking the former IGP to try the death penalty himself, wakakaka - see TMI's Dr Mahathir tells former IGP to try the death sentence.
Besides being a Royal Dentist, Dr Mahathir is sure a doctor ... Dr Jekyll (that is) & Mr Hyde, wakakaka.
Love him or hate him, he is the formidable Dr Mahathir, wakakaka.
every one fear of the dictator, even if he submit name like maria ozawa, stormy daniels or peter north, no one dare to make a sound, dun u see the one he appointed as mb who build a palace bigger than the real palace, still no one say biadap or derhaka.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, a Chinese emperor would lose mandate of heaven if he didn't rule well and fairly !
DeleteWe have to dig back to dusty ancient laws in the UK for the ancestry of penalties against Treason and Sedition.
ReplyDeleteEngland had a Treason Act 1351, which imposed the Death Penalty for acts of war against the King and other types of acts intended to deprive the King of his Crown.
In those days before Constitutional Monarchy, the King could and did lock people upon his command for lesser acts of disobedience and disrespect.
The Sedition Act 1661 extended penalties to other activities not involving Warlike acts intended to cause hatred, contempt or dissatisfaction against the King.
The death penalty has never been applied for such lesser offences.
Interestingly , the English Sedition Act 1661 was only repealed in 1945, nearly 300 years later.
KT,
ReplyDeleteRoyal dentist....wakakakakaka.
R u sure u have not swallowed too much Hongkie saliva in the Oz, or there is an ancient Cantonese gene in yr family.
Pulling the tiger's tooth is too typical a Cantonese saying that all those who speaks Cantonese understands well.
It fits the doings of that mamak!
May Allah looks kindly upon all his other deeds, by offsetting this score.
wakakaka, I did kiss a couple of KL and Alor Setar Canto sweeties lah
DeleteI read in the news recently, in Indonesia, a graduate law student by the name of Florence Sihombing, vented her anger on the social media platform by calling Yogyakarta “poor, stupid and uncultured”. The student had apologized. She was released on bail and would stand trial.
ReplyDeleteCurtailments of freedom of expression do exist everywhere in the world. It is in daily operation in every country. Fines and imprisonment (“death penalty?”) are to make the people subservient to the law. Granted, it makes our freedom constrained and brittle. But without the law, can we on our own enforce self-censorship and restraint?
Natalie Shobana Ambrose opined.. “How do we create innovators when innovative thinking is not allowed? How do we move forward when academics are not allowed to weigh in on events and provide opinion? How are we moderate when every little form of critical thought is considered dissent and sedition?”
It is a very thin line that separates the acts of stirring up of enmity between the different classes of the society and acts of suppression/domination by those with superior powers.
Honest dissenting opinions that inches forward a cause for the common good should be accorded and tolerated. But it should not be used as a licence to stir the masses to outrage or transgress public order.
- hasan
the problem i see is one that with superior power make the final call what is honest dissenting opinions n what is not.
Deletewe may not like how the west impose their value on us, but i think the people / commoner in a secularirm democracy society have more say in anything concerning their life compare to let say china n middle east, n that is oso y i believe the host choose not to reside in either one i mentioned wakaka
Non-Malays in Malaysia must accept the reality that they cannot criticise Malay leaders and definitely not Malay Rulers, or they be prepared to spend time in jail.
ReplyDeleteMalays can get away with heavy criticism and insults against Chinese and Indians with little or no action at all, but that is the reality of Melayu-sia.
Najib has said that Islam and the Malays are under threat in this country.
Threat means they have an enemy - therefore the Non-Malays, Chinese and Indians are the enemy.
Accept the reality, or like Ktemoc, go live in Australia.
Aiya.....not only Najib lah....dulu dulu pun our great Dr sudah sound the warning. Bukan saja PMs....ministers, judges, senior civil servants, news editors, NGOs, student bodies, islamic bodies, mualaf malay-wannabe also....all have one time or another have already sound the siren....the OTHERS are driving the Malays into the sea....beware ! beware ! these ingrates and kurang ajar are driving them from their 'own land', our country will have a Christian PM and a Chinese will be the next PM....
DeleteAll the above very familiar lah....as familiar and as regular as the azan we hear a few times a day all our lives.
Without all such noises, Melayu-sia is definitely not Melayu-sia lah. For those unable to migrate, just accept lah....one ear in, one ear out...and for goodness sake, zip up our mouths....enuf headache as it is without being hauled some more for sedition, right ?
Dr M had no problems but AAB had when his choice in Perlis and Terengganu were rejected.
ReplyDeleteAAB's problem was not he did not provide more than 1 candidate but rather he provided the wrong candidate who were not in the good book of the Sultans
ReplyDelete