Thursday, January 16, 2025
SHIFTING THE BLAME TO JUST ONE PERSON
I believe the following comment or opinion is going viral on Social Media. I saw it this morning. I have no idea who wrote it because no name of writer is provided. I believe it is propaganda yet there are 'facts' mentioned and opinions ventured which are of note.
I have adapted it some, in my usual way. No names. My comments in blue.
THE ACTION BY THE R---L P---CE WITH REGARD TO THE ADDENDUM IS DEEMED SUSPICIOUS BY THE MALAYSIAN PUBLIC.
… As an UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE in the nation’s justice system specifically and in the governance of the country generally.
(OSTB : Perhaps it should be clarified from the beginning exactly which 'R---L P---CE' is being referred to. It is not fair to point fingers at the entire establishment).
QUESTIONS THE RAKYAT WANT ANSWERS:
2. Was the idea of having the ADDENDUM meant to EXERT UNDUE INFLUENCE on the P-----s Board?
3. Was the intent of the ADDENDUM to bind the hands of the members of the Board?
NOTE: The ADDENDUM is perceived by the public as a backhanded act of the P---ce to scuttle the constitutional functioning and decision-making of the P-----s Board.
4. Under the Federal Constitution, the Y-PA (P---ng S--tan) as chairman only acts on the collective decision and advice of the P-----s Board.
5. Did the @G advise the FORMER Y-PA that the P-----s Board is constitutionally prevented from reducing the jail conviction of the court to a “House Arrest”?
6. Did the @G advise the FORMER Y-PA that the P-----s Board cannot CHANGE the CHARACTER of the conviction of the court?
7. If advice had been given to the Y-PA, why wasn’t it heeded?
MORE SUSPICIOUSLY:
1. Why wasn’t the ADDENDUM sent officially to the P-----s Board for the attention of the members of the Board?
2. Why did the P---ce send it to the @G? Was that meant to “PRESSURE” the @G to take a stand to tell the Board to reach a “House Arrest” decision?
MORE CURIOUS…
3. Why was the ADDENDUM ISSUED on the EXACT day the P-----s Board met (29 January 2024)?
NOTE:
- In the corridors of power, there is talk that the P---ng R---l P---ce got wind of the likely decisions of the P-----s Board a just FEW DAYS BEFORE the Board met.
- It was widely rumoured then that the P---ng R---l P---ce was unhappy with the likely final decision of the P----s Board.
- This is despite BACKROOM talks between the convicted felon’s political supporters, representatives of the P---ng R---l P---ce with the Gov----ent, and some members of the Board on having “House Arrest”. (OSTB : Meaning the Gov----ent was involved in the BACKROOM talks!!)
- Therefore, the last-minute drafting of the Addendum was seen as an AFTERTHOUGHT, and therefore, the DESPERATE issuing of the Addendum on the DAY THE BOARD met.
4. Why then was the ADDENDUM SENT to the @G only AFTER (repeat, ONLY AFTER) , the P-----s Board had ALREADY MET? That is, ONE DAY AFTER the P-----s Board met.
The grapevine in the corridors of power held that the Addendum was only sent by the P---ce to the @G AFTER the P-----s Board had already met, was to FORCE THE ISSUE on the @G (representing the Gov----ent) to pressure the P-----s Board to rescind its original decision of reducing jail sentence in PRISON and to replace it with a HOUSE ARREST.
Secondly, the P---ce must have known that its Addendum has NO constitutional standing to either determine the decision of the P-----s Board or to change/overturn the final decision of the Board.
REMEMBER: The P-----s Board is a creature of the Federal Constitution and its functions are limited by the Constitution and NOT to be diluted through the whims and fancies of the Mon----y or for that matter, the sitting Gov----ent.
Furthermore, it is important for Malaysia’s R---l Houses to be reminded that they fall under the label of a CONSTITUTIONAL MON----Y and they are NOT ABSOLUTE MON-----ES. In other words, our Mon----y is also a creature of the Federal Constitution.
COMMENT:
1. In geo-political parlance, the action of the P---ng R---l P---ce in trying to force the issue of pardons on the P-----s Board had “crossed the red line” of acceptabilty with regard to the role of a constitutional mon---h on matters of national governance.
2. The then @G did the right thing to shelve the ADDENDUM (seen as a constitutional nonsense) by sending it back to the Office of the Y-PA for the NEXT Y-PA to sort it out. The @G acted wisely to avoid this embarrassing “Addendum” episode going public, and this action was primarily to protect the P---ce from public scorn and ridicule for trying to directly interfere with our justice system.
(OSTB : Well considering how well written and how well informed this 'anoynymous comment' is, it looks like the floodgates of 'public scorn and ridicule' are now being nudged open. But this comment is in English, not Malay. Designed for a restricted readership. So some restraint is being shown. Or perhaps this is a veiled 'signal'.)
3. It is GROSSLY UNFAIR and WRONG to blame the . . . . . that they are hiding the “ADDENDUM” issue. What they did was to maintain STRATEGIC SILENCE AFTER they had all REALISED WHAT THE P---CE was up to.
4. In fact, the @G and the relevant Gov----ent M---sters were simply protecting the reputation and integrity of the Institution of the R--ers in the eyes of the Malaysian population.
5. Criticisms for this “Addendum” shenanigan should be directed at the P---NG R---L P---CE for triggering this controversy in the first place, and as a result, putting . . . . in a very difficult position.
6. deleted
(OSTB : How do we know for certain that ALL OF THEM were not part of the same deal in the beginning? How do we know for certain that they were all not in cahoots? Dont forget that a crucial decision was made by the C-in-Chief to invite a minority party to form the gomen. What was the consideration for choosing that minority party instead of the other party? There had been meetings between the C-in-Chief and the parties. What did they discuss? Shouldnt the Malaysian public know? If those discussions are 'secrets' please explain why they are secret?)
LESSON TO BE LEARNT ... AGAIN AND AGAIN
This is not the first time when a Constitutional Mo---ch interferes with the governance of the country, which CONSTITUTIONALLY is the domain of ordinary Malaysian people who voted their leaders into Parliament.
Such tendency of our CONSTITUTIONAL MO---CHS often leads to an onset of a constitutional crisis. The consequence of it is it will diminish the respect of the Malaysian public for the Institution of the R--ers.
(OSTB : I dont hear any angels flapping their wings here. Do you? Rather there appear to be multiple little devils kicking up dirt and dust as usual.
There is much afterthought in this 'comment', obviously to 'cover someone's tracks'.
They did not expect the issue of the house arrest to kick up such a storm in the country. Even the coalition partners are extremely unhappy with the foolishness of the whole idea. The potato has become too hot to handle. It is time to just throw the potato into the fire and let it burn to a crisp.
What else does this mean? It means promises that were made earlier (during the deal making) are now being broken. This is what is happening. The political risk is too great. If they allow the house arrest, the public reaction will be quite unpredictable. It could spark off dont know what. So the criminal stays where he is.
The main person who was party to the exercise, namely the retired C-in-Chief, is now being made the scapegoat - which is clearly the intention of the comment above. 'He is the person responsible for this muddle'. 'Not us'. Or rather 'Not Me'.
The comment above also fails to discuss the 'considerations' for all the parties mentioned herein. What do they all get? Why did they do it? Was it because of a mundane commitment to 'duty, responsibility and the rule of Law'? Or were there other considerations? As I said, you cannot hear any angels flapping their wings here.
But let me conclude with a not so relevant question : Where are the people's interests in all this? Who protects the people's interests? Do any of these characters care?
