your say ‘Why do they need it at all, if in the first place they have not committed, and are not going to commit, any wrong?'

On 'Rakyat will march to protect rulers'

Zack Chew: No. We cannot give the royalty back their immunity. Why do they need it at all if in the first place they have not committed, and are not going to commit, any wrong?

Marty Lee : The writer predicts that the rakyat will 'march' to protect the royalty. My question to him is 'why would we do that?'

The writer seems to be under the delusion that Malaysia is Thailand, where the royalty are loved by the people because their actions merit their affection.

In Thailand, the royalty help the poor in many acts of philanthropy and the their king often acts as mediator in times of political crisis and acts with honour and dignity to protect his subjects.

That is why the people love them. The behaviour of some of our royalty on the other hand, leave a lot to be desired.

Why should we march to support someone's right's to beat one of 'us' rakyat with a golf club?

Why should we march to support someone's ‘right' to get sued in a business deal?

I will say that not all the royals act as such, which is why the majority of them have nothing to fear.

But I would rather march to protect Teresa Kok.

Takeda Shingen: I haven't stopped laughing since. The writer is living in a dream when he says that the royalty needs to be given back their 'honour', 'tradition' and 'liberty'.

What a load of poppycock.

'Honour' is earned through one's actions and deeds - not given as a right. Where is the honour then in today's royals in abusing their power when they use their bodyguards to beat up people or at nightclubs where they fight?

Or to conduct shady deals that gets them sued...yes, they are upholding our honour so well.

'Tradition?' What? Like the 'tradition' of treating the public like serfs? Where they can beat a golf caddy to death and not be prosecuted?

'Liberty?' They have liberty like anyone under the sun. They can do business, they can walk in the street and not be harassed.

If they live like any other normal person and not do anything illegal, then they are free.

The royals, like anyone else, are human. They can both achieve great things like any talented man can and they can also do bad things like any man can.

Why give them immunity? Why should they need immunity if they conduct themselves with 'honour'?

In a time of change when we want equality, the writer sure is going out of his way to try to send us back to the Stone Age.

HL Too:

I, too, beg to differ. The rakyat will not march to protect the rulers. Why should rulers need protection from the rakyat?

If our experience with our rulers is any guide, the people need protection from the rulers. I'm no fan of Dr M but the one great thing he has done is to remove immunity from the rulers.

Nobody but nobody should be above the law. Ask the family of the caddy that had his head bashed in.

The writer can keep on chanting Daulat Tuanku until the cows come home but I don't think the rakyat will march anywhere for the rulers. At least not this one.

Rakyat Tuanku: No one, absolutely no one, should be accorded absolute immunity.

The Agong, while in office, should be accorded immunity from prosecution. But that immunity will lapse once he steps down from the position.

And any offences he committed while in office will then be accorded the due process of law.

The state rulers and their regents should be accorded immunity only insofar as to their actions to uphold their obligations to the rakyat.

I would love to hear from the rulers their views on the ISA being used on their rakyat.

On PKR caught in a royal dilemma

Marty Lee : Reading this report makes me really wonder whether Anwar is another flip-flop politician. So far to date, he has promised us(the rakyat) a lot but has yet to deliver and has never really given us a straight answer.

On why Sept 16 failed, he has flip-flopped saying first the PM would not meet him. Then he said he can't reveal the names.

Now he says people have signed a crossover list but don't want their names revealed. Once again no solid answers, just a lot of ‘ifs' and ‘buts'.

On the issue of PAS wanting to ban alcohol in Selangor, he said it couldn't happen because it is a state matter but then said it might be good because it will stop teen-drinking. Once again he flip flops.

He can't give us a straight answer. PAS has said that they will try this new law in Shah Alam so why isn't Anwar putting out a firm statement that says ‘No!'?

Now on the issue of the royals, he says, that they should be given immunity but subject to our constitution and laws. What does that mean?

It is another flip flop answer that can go either way. It could mean they have full immunity or that they have immunity but it depends on our laws.

Anwar, why are you trying to appeal to either side? That is not the way of a leader. A leader makes decisions, even ones that people may not like, because it is the right thing to do.

A leader should not make decisions based fear of losing popularity. DSAI is riding on a high of public support but the wave will crash if he does not start acting like a leader should.

On Let the monarchy spearhead our challenge!

Modern Male Malay: Malaysians truly have short memory as ‘Truly Malaysian's' letter shows. Those who are apprehensive of change tend to yearn for the ‘good old days'.

Truly Malaysian and the Regent of Negri Sembilan want the citizens of the country to believe that a return to the pre-immunity days for royalty is a fantastic idea.

I would beseech Malaysians to scrutinise the role and behaviour of members of the ever- expanding and costly royal families. Have we forgotten that talking about the status of the royalty was a taboo not so long ago, but thanks to the Internet we can now discuss it openly.

Sejarah Melayu will certainly enlighten those who have a romantic view of the Malay royalty. I will not put to pen the very long list of, let's just call them misdeeds, by the various royal households in the country least Malaysiakini is hauled up by the authorities for sedition and what have you. Instead, try a Google search and read the reliable websites.

Those of us who have ever had to interact with the Tuanku-s would have experiences the feudalistic rituals and subservience that is expected of us, the commoners. Just ask the civil servants who have to appear before royalty. Some of them even tremble before a ‘blue blood'.

There is always the sembah and endless hand-kissing, which by the way, is also expected by royal pretenders such as our political leaders. Watch RTM or TV3, you won't miss feudalism in action.

As a Muslim, I find it repugnant that I have to sembah or kiss the hand of another human, with the exception of my parents.

I would suggest non-Malays re-read the statement issued by the Conference of Malay Rulers hectoring Malaysians not to rock the boat but raising question about the injustices, inequalities and racism in the country.

These are issues that ought to be discussed, debated and resolved in any modern society. Instead, the rulers reiterated their unassailable position at the apex of the Malaysian polity and the special rights of the Malays. The protection of the Malays, and by inference the rulers themselves, is paramount to them.

In other words, there is no Malay without the Malay rulers. The interests of non-Malays come last in the statement, like a footnote.

One or two of the royalty may appear to speak the language of the masses, but only one or two. How many and how much do non-Malays know about the intrigues in the royal families?

Very few, I would think, and it's about time they take the trouble to find out more about the place they call home.

So, please do not ‘let the monarchy spearhead our challenge', as suggested by ‘Truly Malaysian'. It is backward looking and I dread the day when the royalty have the power to call the shots and reign supreme once more.