Miscellanous - from reformasi to royalty

From Malaysiakini - Pakatan takeover plan still on track: Anwar.

Today Anwar Ibrahim said an opposition plan to seize power remained intact despite a series of secret talks between one of its partners with the ruling government.

Seize power? Anwar Ibrahim’s reformasi – wakakaka – this man has such thick skin he has no shame at all in showing the true colours of his so-called reformasi.

From Malaysiakini - Local fishermen unamused by Batu Puteh claims.

Malaysian fishermen are pissed off with Singapore's claim for exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around Batu Puteh.

If one were to look at the map, one would see the outrageous nonsense of the Sings. Those Sings think Malaysia doesn’t have an EEZ rights too? Sheeesh!

Reminds me of an Indian story – elephant stood under a coconut tree; lil’ mouse was on elephant’s back, attempting to screw elephant – the cheeky lil’ sod. Coconut dropped on elephant’s head; Mama pachyderm cried “ouch”; mouse said: “Sorry dahleeeng, I didn’t mean to be so rough.”

F* Sing tikus at its bloody height of impertinence!

From Star Online - Kit Siang: Why Malay unity and not Malaysian unity.

Uncle Lim asked AAB this question regarding the once-secret UMNO-PAS' 'Malay unity' talks. I too ask the same question of PKR’s Mohamad Fairus Khairudin (Penang’s Deputy CM) – see PKR leader wants in on UMNO-PAS 'Malay unity' talks!

From Star Online - Rulers have special roles.

Highly admired Regent of Perak, once (prior to the March 08 election) touted as the ‘silver bullet’ to kill off the BN werewolf, told us yesterday that Malay Rulers are not decorative symbolic monuments who merely carry out ceremonial duties. Rather, they have roles in society, which means their views should not be taken lightly.

He then gave several examples of the royal righteous roles, one of which caught my eye.

HRH said of Nizar, the new MB, who sacked the state religious director without getting the Ruler's assent first.

HRH justified (or in kaytee’s reckoning, attempted to do so) his humiliation of Nizar, stating: “That is why the state government was asked to withdraw it!” because, according to his HRH, Nizar contradicted the principle of basic justice as the director had not done any wrong and was not given an opportunity to defend himself.

If you read my Supremacy of the people's voice in democracy I brought out HRH’s initial reason for rebuking and forcing Nizar to back down, on the grounds that the dismissed chap was a director of a State religious department, and the Sultan, as the State’s head of Islam, has his royal prerogative on all matters of State religion, including deciding who should be sacked or not sacked involving State religious issues.

And on those (religious rights) grounds, he revoked the MB’s decision in the dismissal.

Apart from the needless public humiliation of Nizar, and thus undermining his MB’s authority, I pointed out that Karpal Singh had been absolutely correct for speaking out against royal interference with politics and political management decisions.

Even though the man was the director of a State religious department, his sacking was not related to religious matters but rather his political behaviour as a State public servant – he was insubordinate to the PAS MB.

Certainly insubordination would then be within the rights and powers of the MB to dismiss him, even without consulting the Sultan as it has nothing to do with a religious issue.

Yes, I noted that there were the usual politically motivated calls, no doubt from BN, to charge Karpal with lèse majesty.

But, was Karpal Singh right? Let's see what HRH said yesterday of the case.

HRH did not bring out the Sultan’s right as the head of Islam in revoking the MB’s decision to dismiss that insubordinate bloke.

That's right - that reason was totally absent! What HRH said was that MB Nizar contradicted the principle of basic justice as the director had not done any wrong and was not given an opportunity to defend himself.

So it has now been admitted by HRH that it was an administrative issue and not a religious one!

A case of basic (administrative) justice! And so, according to HRH, he had (on behalf of Papa) intervened to ensure there was basic justice.

What about the unacceptable issue of insubordination to the MB? And the subsequent public humiliation of a MB? Was there basic justice for MB Nizar?

Quite frankly, by raising the case again and changing HRH’s reason for revoking the MB’s administrative decision, the Regent has made his justification worse.

If I were to draw any consolation from this sorry saga, I can only say HRH has at least indirectly heeded Karpal Singh’s admonition on royal interference with politics and political management decisions.

I saw the whole series of royal interferences (Perlis, Terengganu, and Perak) as opportunities for flexing of their once-absolute-but-neutralised royal muscles after Dr M left the stage.

The royal humiliation of MB Nizar left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Silver bullet?