Saturday, June 27, 2015

A king reigns but never governs

I had previously written against our monarchs or their immediate heirs taking part in politics, especially in polemical politics, because their royal statements or opinions would confer or deprive unfair advantage to/from a side of politics in the eyes of the public especially the rakyat of the Heartland who have for centuries menjunjung tinggi our sultans.

A ruler by staying above politics assumes the role with which HRH has been assigned by our Constitution, that of being our respected and loved head of state (in the respective sultanate, or in the case of the Agong, our nation). He assumes the important, nay, vital role of an important father-figure for all of us to focus on as a pillar of stability, continuity and centre of gravity of our undivided loyalty. Without such a central figure, our nation will be internally ripped asunder.

Just recently, HRH Sultan of Selangor has with just a few kind and encouraging words to our redoubtable gymnast Farah Ann Abdul Hadi would undoubtedly have effectively shut up the vulgar obscene clams of those kay-poe-chnee kerang kotor who preferred to zoom in on the gymnast's physical profile rather than the gymnast's perfect performance during the recent ASEAN games.

HRH has just demonstrated the perfect role of a constitutional monarch by being a pillar of stability, continuity and centre of gravity of our undivided loyalty amidst worrying Taliban-Saudi-like mafulat-ish misogynistic misdemeanours.

So, our young prince of Johor, HRH Tunku Idris Sultan Ibrahim has left his earlier threat of Johorean secession aside to also join HRH Sultan Selangor in putting his royal imprimatur on exceptional gymnastic performance, with a very telling advice by a well-known Mufti to not judge a person superficially or more correctly to not usurp the prerogative of Allah swt by pre-judging a person by his or her external appearance.

I have been one who have not been happy with, in fact against royal intrusion into the political arena, only for fear of two issues, namely, (1) as mentioned above, it provides one side of politics with unfair and undue advantage, but more importantly (2) it exposes the royal figure to political 'whacking' (wakakaka) because by the royal person choosing to enter the grubby grotty grim of the political arena, he has voluntarily and automatically invited counter-political comments which can be in very harsh adversarial forms.

Such are the rules of democratic adversarial politics a la Newton's 3rd Law. One can't have his cake and eat it also, in wrongly believing the royal person can make political commentaries but would be exempt from counter-challenges or criticisms. You may also wish to read my post The ultimate cake wakakaka.

By playing a firm, stern but fair father figure in deciding on non-political issues, such as whether social attacks on a leading sports personality who had participated exceptionally in a sports on behalf of our nation have been fair or worthy, the royal person ensures the stability of our society and continuity of our state as a safe, stable and secure nation.

But was the young prince seeking social rehabilitation after his bizarre threat of Johor seceding from Malaysia?

Who knows and who cares as this time he has done a damn good and to-be-highly-commended non-political job of 'protecting' Farah Ann Abdul Hadi from the sleazy scums and slugs.

Perhaps in today's more politically-conscious society it may indicate the growing power of the people, to whom even the royals want to be on their good side?

To quote Otto Von Bismarck, a king reigns but never governs. Daulat Tuanku!


  1. i think stay above politics doesnt mean one cannot criticize govt, or its policy, or some absurd comment from some zealots

    1. criticizing govt policies is politics and the job of the opposition (representing the people). If a constitutional monarch criticizes govt policies he becomes a member of or has sided the opposition and must be prepared to be equally criticized like an ordinary politician; likewise if the ruler criticizes the opposition he becomes a member of or has sided the ruling party with all the attendant political challenges.

      Just remember the Perak Constitutional crisis and an almost similar (but not quite as serious) situation in the recent Selangor's MB selection

    2. i dun know where to draw a line, both sel n perak crisis have everything to do with power struggling of 2 coalition, but to criticize a govt policy is the rights of everyone i guess, not limited to opposition. what would happen then if me n u criticize the govt? some equal umno to malay, pas to islam, dap to chinese, n govt to politics, i think we shd make clear of all this in order not to hijack by politician.

    3. HY, mea culpa - I missed out the general public; you're right, though in most democracy the public would take their complaints to the opposition or even to MPs of the ruling party to raise them in parliament, but monarchs and by convention their immediate heirs (crown princes) do not involve themselves with politics

      No doubt Perak and Selangor started with the political struggles of political parties but the respective monarchs should have stayed out and abided by their constitutional roles

    4. What about Wan Azizah denied being MB? Stop bullshiting la, pukimak kaytee

      what about najib say that sultan pahang supports him and yet sultan pahang says that no sultan is above politics......

      Who is cheating? Najib........but then kaytee as alaways silent about Najib

      What about Rosmah proclaim herself as first lady of malaysia

      You see the whole bullshit article by kaytee when he refuses to address the real issue


  2. Before HY shits himself in his pants, perhaps, it's time for HY to use his brain......

    Listen to what JFK got to say.......You think his speech is possible if the nons such as kaytee continues to be chicken to leaders such as Najib

    Therefore, why I loathe people like kaytee

  3. The choice is yours - Farah Ann Abdul Hadi?


    Saturday, June 27, 2015 Tammuz 10, 5775

    Israel Basketball Association spokesman says agreement with FIBA allows point guard Naama Shafir to play wearing skin-toned elastic sleeves.

    Israel has reached a compromise with basketball's governing body that will allow an Orthodox Jewish player to play in the European women's championship in Poland.

    University of Toledo and Israeli national team point guard Naama Shafir is an Orthodox Jew who wears a T-shirt under her jersey because Jewish modesty rules require her to cover her shoulders.

    FIBA refused to let Shafir wear a shirt under her jersey, saying regulations require all players to wear the same uniform.

    But Moti Aksmit, a spokesman for the Israel Basketball Association, says Israel has reached an agreement with FIBA that allows Shafir to wear skin-toned elastic sleeves.

    FIBA Europe spokesman Sakis Kontos confirmed that Shafir was given approval to play with the sleeves.

    Israel opens against the Czech Republic on Saturday, then takes on Belarus on Sunday and Great Britain on Monday. [Unquote]

  4. 'advice by a well-known Mufti to not judge a person superficially or more correctly to not usurp the prerogative of Allah swt by pre-judging a person by his or her external appearance'.

    does this apply to everybody?

    1. Kampung Lad,
      Ask Hasan this question

      Why sultan brunei above hudud? Fuck la

    2. I have previously asked the same is it that the Sultan of Brunei and his family could be exempted from the hudud islamic laws ?

      PAS was absolutely delighted when the news first came out that Brunei had out of the blue decided to implement hudud on all of its citizens and it apparently sent a congratulatory rombongan to Brunei almost immediately, but up till today, not a single word from PAS, (or from any other Muslim community/country for that matter ) about this special exemption from the hudud punishment for that 'special' family in Brunei ! I suppose to these Muslims, their god is OK with this sort of special treatment and that a group of people could be above the laws.

      Re the royalty's Umno blogger RPK had exasperatedly asked the rakyat this question....what do we really want....a constitutional monarchy or otherwise ? Apparently, he wanted the rakyat to be scrupulous about this matter, but shouldn't he be directing this question even more emphatically to his master Umno ?

    3. HRH Sultan Brunei has given his and his family their ex cathedra determination in the Brunei's constitution.

      Perhaps, we should consider and accept that point and we should wait for a few more years when the hudud law in Brunei is in full bloom.

      After all the Christians acknowledge and accept papal infallibility of the Popes.

    4. "Brunei Darussalam is an absolute monarchy, ruled by Sir Haji Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan (Supreme Ruler) of Brunei."

      Supreme rulers do not subject themselves to the laws they made or enforce.
      You can see examples of supreme rulers example north east Asia, middle east...

      Son Prince Azim spends lots of money and time with celebrities in Europe.
      Brother Prince Jefri was embroiled in some financial and legal issues, including a settlement of monthly allowance of US$300,000.

    5. but then Hudud is supposed to be Allah's divine laws, which an earthly mortal like the Sultan, no matter how supreme his royal person is, has no right to place himself above

    6. umar al farouk was the father of hudud. allah does not give a name to his capital punishment. that's all i want to say.

    7. KT... the Sultan knows this. HRH shall submit himself to hudud punishment in an unlikely event he dares to sin. He knows his responsibility to Allah. As I have said let hudud blooms first.

    8. "After all the Christians acknowledge and accept papal infallibility of the Popes."

      Alamak....these so-called muslims...when it suits them, they will use the Christians as exemplary benchmark.....and also when it suits them, they will castigate the Christians, declaring only Islam is the only true religion and Allah the one and only true god. Mmm...most oily and worse than the most slimy of double-headed snakes. M-u-n-a-f-i-kkkk !

      So to this hasan....the Sultan is like god eh...making himself and his family above even god's divine laws, wakakaka

    9. Isn't the ISIL/ISIS/IS/Daesh also following divine directives, sawing off heads, burning pilots, drowning captives, shooting prisoners, throwing LBGTs off towers, luring jihadi brides, blowing up themselves and those praying in mosques etc?

      If you say it is not, who would dare to raise this question to them? Would anyone in Brunei

      do the same? In Brunei, the sultan has the advantage of oil riches so the people can be kept docile and obedient.

    10. As I have said, the constitution said HRH Sultan cannot sin. In the unlikely event he had sinned, he shall submit himself to the hudud law. The Sultan knows that. Can you understand me?

    11. Hahahaha! Hudud in full blossom in Brunei even though it is stated that Brunei monarchs are above hudud.

      Pukimak Hasan.......It is ok......All singaporeans including NS men ( Operational or otherwise) are above hudud in Brunei. Else, Singapore will do it the Raja Brooke's way

      else the guns would be mounted against brunei and not to mention that it is singapore manages brunei finances

    12. Go on Looes… serve you pejorative language as literary hors-d’oeuvres to the readers. Make them smile. What else have you got?

    13. hasan....compared to your pathetic and munafik lame justification and all that nonsense of rpk being a man with good heart and hadi not chauvinistic, all couched in your oh-so-pretentious elegant language, I can safely say most of us here much much prefer Looes's pejorative least he's honest.

    14. JJ - As per KT’s comment in his ‘Turning Bubur Back To Nasi’ at 7.01 PM 26.06-2015 “as mentioned, looes is allowed here for comic relief - in short he is a clown, wakakaka,” Me wakakaka too…

      And as I mentioned above in this post - The Choice Is Yours. Me wakakaka again……and again... wakakaka

  5. The constitution gives discretionary powers to the rulers concerning appointment of chief minister and the dissolution of state assembly. This little leeway can make the ruler appear to be political (as happened in Trengganu, Perlis).

    1. more like residual power......ask pukimak kaytee who John Kerr is

  6. I think there should be room for Royalty to weigh in on matters of serious national concern, for what is right and point out what is wrong, without taking political sides.

    Politicians, whatever their stripe, all come with a load of baggage. Any time they say something, there will be people who will almost automatically object, or counter them by attacking them, or tune out altogether, regardless the validity of the issues they brought up.

    1MDB is a classic example. Most of the questions and doubts raised on 1MDB are very pertinent, but when raised by politicians, many respond negatively.

    That is what happened when Mahathir brought up the issue, and attracted all kinds of brickbats and accusations of hypocrisy.
    Similarly, many were negative on Rafizi, simply from his PKR background, and negative on Tony Pua due to his previous support for the "Kajang Move".

  7. Do you know why I say PAC's finding on Najib major crime is hocus pocus? Pukimak chao cibai kaytee

    If Nixon can't get away with it, in the name of natural justice, najib can?

  8. Interesting....
    However, I have never seen evidence that Otto von Bismarck actually said those words "a king reigns but never governs".

    The concept of Constitutional Monarchy had not yet taken root in Continental Europe of the 1860's and 1870's. The newly united Germany had a democratically elected parliament, but Bismarck had not interest in respecting democracy.

    The King's Ministers were really that - the German King maintained the real power to appoint the Prime Minister and his cabinet, not Parliament. This was unlike Britain, where the true power to select the Prime Minister had already been transferred to Parliament for several hundred years.

    Bismarck was definitely no Constitutional Monarchist, rather a perverse kind of Monarchist. It suited Bismarck that the Government was answerable to the King, not Parliament, because he was the real power behind throne.

    This had unfortunate results for Germany and the rest of the world.
    For the next 50 years, Germany was in reality ruled by an authoritarian and militaristic elite in the name of the King. Parliament was an ineffective talking shop.
    This authoritarian/ military elite is the one which led the way to World War I.

    1. Hehehehe......You are right man. In fact Germanic Kings, princes, Prince-bishops and dukes known to be all powerful. Hehehe, ask kaytee, what happen to Otto towards the end of his career? It was not just Bismarck. The Prussian emperors ain't interested.......Austrian too.....

      But then to solely blame Germany on WW1 mess would be simplistic.....

      It's like kaytee's constant blaming Anwar for every woes in Malaysia........quietly letting Najib absconded