‘The government unjustifiably robbed the court of rulers of their royal immunity. The royalty must be given back their honour, tradition and liberty.’
JD Lovrenciear: The government unjustifiably robbed the court of rulers of their royal immunity.
Although under the then prime minister's engineering of truth and fallacy, the rakyat rallied behind the government, today the rakyat has become very conscious of the blinkered pathway they were led into.
That realisation was best encapsulated in the recent general elections. And now the Regent of Negeri Sembilan has spoken in no uncertain terms of what the rakyat had been griping about.
That the royalty must be given back their honour, tradition and liberty. And as if to add salt to the open wound , the government, however, retaliates with a statement that a request to have the immunity restored must come from the Rulers Conference.
Don't these so-called politicians never learn? When the rakyat took five states from under the noses of the arrogant and deaf politicians and handed these over to the opposition camp, the ruling government just continued to brush us aside.
Looks like the people of Malaysia may have to now stand up in defence of their revered, respected and trusted rulers.
The country's rulers reigned longer than the history of our politicians. And the constitution rightfully has given them the royal immunity. But politicians came along and drove a wedge in far too deep. This will not do.
So, if the politicians continue to ignore the polite language of our rulers, then let it be known to these politicians that the talk at the marketplace and in coffee shops is:
‘If we the rakyat have to march to protect our King and rulers we will and we must.’
Daulat Tuanku! Daulat Tuanku! Daulat Tuanku!
Kenny Gan: When Anwar’s trial begins, Saiful should be asked one question: ‘Does he agree to the charge under Section 377B of consensual sodomy?’
If he still insist as per his public stance that the act was non-consensual, the charge should be amended to Section 377C covering non-consensual sodomy or be thrown out.
This is more than a technical definition.. Section 377C involves an element of force which must be proven and hence it is much more difficult to obtain a conviction given the facts of the case.
There are no two ways about it. The prosecution cannot give themselves an easier job to convict Anwar for consensual sodomy while the witness denies it.
This is like alleging that an accused rapist was let into the apartment by the victim to save the prosecution the insurmountable task of proving forced entry while the victim denies it.
For Anwar’s case to proceed under the present charge, Saiful must be willing to repudiate his public stance of forced sodomy and take the adverse repercussion given his swearing on the Quran.
Otherwise, it must be amended to Section 377C. Anything else is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Augustine: In the light of the constant, filthy language uttered by the BN MPs and to which the speakers and deputy speakers have ignored in contrast to what is meted out to opposition MPs, I propose that the entire opposition walk-out permanently of our disgusting Parliament.
Until and unless the speaker gives a public apology and assurance of being fair in decisions and in meting out harsh punishments to these poorly brought up MPs from Barisan Nasional.
The people of Malaysia have never really gained anything good from parliament especially during the last 25 years and will not be able to unless and until every MP from BN learns parliamentary etiquette and decorum.
They have been born of scorn and vile living which is why they spew out such filth. There will never be a day for me to have any respect for these MPs who are pampered by the government and the speakers of the House.
Shame on them!
Hang Tuah: Parliamentarians overseas please be warned that this specimen is unfortunately not rare among the ruling coalition and so you must not shocked if, as invited guests, you see such ugly, barbaric behaviour in the August chamber.
Ms Leo: Yim Pek Ha should be given more than 18 years. Her lawyer said she is a staunch Christian, so Yim being a staunch Christian is not allowed to hurt another person.
Yim slapped Nirmala, isn't that a sin for a staunch Christian? It is pain and hurting.
Moreover see how she abused Nirmala. The judge should punish her more than 18 years.
Justice: Thank god justice has been done and Yim Pek Hwa has been rightly sentenced for her un-Christian deeds. It is people like her that give the religion a bad name.
Teoh Boo Siew: I was shocked when the cruelty of Yim was first reported. But now, I am even more shocked at the sentence meted out. Is this what you call justice tempered with mercy?
Granted this woman has committed a crime (of anger?) and has been found guilty. But justice must be tempered with mercy. To sentence her to 18 years imprisonment, speaks very badly of our learned judge and justice system.
They did not take into consideration that a family's well-being, with very young innocent children, will be very badly affected.
Rather, the sentence meted out only serves to whet the blood-thirsty appetite of vengeance from the public and, in particular, our neighbouring country's press and people.
Everyone was in an uproar and crying for blood when the case first came up - especially our neighbouring country. And our justice system has bowed to their demand!
The sentence meted out does not reflect a justice system that is fair, strict and at the same time merciful. Don't you think a punishment of say a RM30,000 fine, and a three-year bond for good behaviour is enough?
Do we need to overcrowd our prisons, meant for hard-core criminals with this woman? I shudder what will happen to her family. Dear judges who are part of our justice system, have mercy.
Scott South: Referring to my exchange of letters to the editor with the writer, I stand by my comments. His shrill use of descriptors is clearly illogical and lacking in common sense.
While many of the writer’s statements make him seem like a crank, two items stand out. First, he calls the continued existence of ghettos a ‘holocaust’ perpetrated by the American public and government against blacks.
This is preposterous, and my earlier letter explains why, although it should need no explanation. Second, he goes on to presumptuously label me as a neo-con with no evidence whatsoever.
Apparently, if I disagree with him and defend my country, I must be a ‘neo-con’ jumping on the Obama bandwagon in some kind of Stockholm Syndrome! Liberals, apparently, cannot possibly be patriotic or find anything good in America.
This is the essence of what he posits, along with the erroneous claim that hordes of neo-cons are jumping on the Obama bandwagon in an effort to go wherever the wind blows. Any observer of American political commentary can see that there aren't any conservatives miraculously converting to Obama liberalism.
Indeed, the outlandish criticism of Obama from the neo-cons continues as if the election were not over and as if he had already ruined our country before even taking office. It is in fact the neo-cons who have brought our country to near-ruin.
The conservatives are simply an ignorant, anti-intellectual and, as politicians, incompetent set of sore losers whose idiotic policies have finally been pre-empted by the American electorate. As an educated, common-sense liberal-centrist, I was deeply contemptuous of the Bush White House and overjoyed to see Obama elected.
Obama has risen to greatness partly by making some of the most inspiring speeches since Martin Luther King and JFK, speeches from Obama's heart inspiring us to come together as Americans rather than alienating us from one another.
It would be silly to expect him to harp on 19th-century slavery, which has already been done ad nauseum anyway. With the severe problems we face now, it is the time for unity - not petty recriminatory politics.