YOURSAY 'This reminds me when they detained Sin Chew reporter Tan Hoon Cheng under the ISA 'for her safety' as the police believed her life was 'under threat'.'
Prove I was seditious to royalty, Dr M tells Karpal
Sinner: Proof? When did former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad start to require proof for anything?
During his reign of terror, people were thrown into detention without proof. People were labeled as communists without proof. People were accused of being CIA and Jewish agents without proof. Now he wants proof for himself.
Cannon: Go through the back issues of the New Straits Times andStar and see what they wrote and posted about the lifestyles of the sultans.
The photograph of a sultan's mansion on a Port Dickson beach discharging untreated sewage into the sea is one unforgettable image. Why such disparaging publicity when all the other beach hotels along the seafront were doing the same thing?
It was open season against the sultans and sultan-bashing was the order of the day done at the behest of Mahathir's regime.
Don't Play-Play: If DAP leader Karpal Singh is as very good lawyer as everyone said he is, he should be able to prove that the former PM had made seditious comments against the royalty during the parliamentary debates for the 1993 constitutional amendment on the monarch's immunity.
If he can't, he should face his sedition case like a gentleman. Why stoop so low by dragging others who is not connected into the court case?
DesiKhan: Karpal wants to prove to Mahathir that there are two set of laws in Malaysia - one for BN supporters and other for non-BN supporters.
Ipohcrite: It's a Freudian slip when Mahathir says others hate him, because what he actually craves for is to be loved and be held in high esteem.
Unfortunately, he's oblivious to the fact that when he continues to spew political venom all around, people find him obnoxious. Why, his blood type could very well be OB+. Positively obnoxious.
Prove I was seditious to royalty, Dr M tells Karpal
Sinner: Proof? When did former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad start to require proof for anything?During his reign of terror, people were thrown into detention without proof. People were labeled as communists without proof. People were accused of being CIA and Jewish agents without proof. Now he wants proof for himself.
Cannon: Go through the back issues of the New Straits Times andStar and see what they wrote and posted about the lifestyles of the sultans.
The photograph of a sultan's mansion on a Port Dickson beach discharging untreated sewage into the sea is one unforgettable image. Why such disparaging publicity when all the other beach hotels along the seafront were doing the same thing?
It was open season against the sultans and sultan-bashing was the order of the day done at the behest of Mahathir's regime.
Don't Play-Play: If DAP leader Karpal Singh is as very good lawyer as everyone said he is, he should be able to prove that the former PM had made seditious comments against the royalty during the parliamentary debates for the 1993 constitutional amendment on the monarch's immunity.
If he can't, he should face his sedition case like a gentleman. Why stoop so low by dragging others who is not connected into the court case?
DesiKhan: Karpal wants to prove to Mahathir that there are two set of laws in Malaysia - one for BN supporters and other for non-BN supporters.
Ipohcrite: It's a Freudian slip when Mahathir says others hate him, because what he actually craves for is to be loved and be held in high esteem.
Unfortunately, he's oblivious to the fact that when he continues to spew political venom all around, people find him obnoxious. Why, his blood type could very well be OB+. Positively obnoxious.
Dr M did not insult royal institution, says DPP
Cannon: According to DPP (deputy public prosecutor) Noorin Badaruddin, Mahathir did not insult the sultans. He only stripped them of immunity from prosecution for wrongful doing.
Cannon: According to DPP (deputy public prosecutor) Noorin Badaruddin, Mahathir did not insult the sultans. He only stripped them of immunity from prosecution for wrongful doing.
Karpal stated that legal action can be taken against a sultan for misconduct. What's the difference? What is so seditious about stating a lawful fact that a sultan is not above the law? Why the double standard?
Telestai!: Correction, Mahathir did not merely insult the rulers. He annihilated the rulers and reduced them to mere spectators of the democratic process.
The word that has gone around is that Mahathir holds an ace on each and every ruler to get them to toe the line.
Like other public institutions that were systematically destroyed by the recalcitrant, the royalty is clearly a pale shadow of what it used to be.
AB Sulaiman: This episode reminds me so much to the case when then home minister Syed Hamid Albar Albar detained Sin Chewreporter Tan Hoon Cheng under the ISA 'for her safety' as the police believed her life was 'under threat'.
It caused so much furore that she was released 24 hours after her arrest. Won't our civil servants learn from this disgraceful act?
Anonymous_3e21: "The attorney-general has the sole discretion and absolute power in deciding who to prosecute. It is the AG's discretion and that cannot be questioned in this court," said the DPP.
There you are, that's how powerful the AG Abdul Gani Patail is.
Ferdtan: DPP Noorin by objecting to the bid by Karpal to subpoena the former prime minister and several others to appear as witnesses at his sedition trial shows that AG's Chambers still fears the old despot, even a retired one.
If what she said is correct, that Mahathir in fact were protecting the royal institution, then he should have no fear in appearing in court to tell it as it is - that he saved the reputation of the rulers.
If Mahathir really felt it that way that he had done some 'good deeds' for the royalty, I am sure he, like most people, would have love to come to court to gloat about it.
DPP Noorin, we are not convinced with your lame argument in court - it makes no sense. It borders to stupidity when you say that Mahathir did not question the constitutional monarch, but he defended it.
How can a person defend a monarch by taking away his powers and his right to immunity to criminal charges? The logic really eludes me.
DPP Noorin knew that her reasoning will hold no water, so she, like all DPPs before her, used the strong-arm tactics of using the discretionary power of the law to defeat all arguments.
She said the attorney-general has discretion on whom to prosecute and it is not for the court to question his discretion. Case closed, no more need to debate.
So in other words, and in stronger terms, the judge can go and fly a kite.
T: It is a sad day when our prosecutors argue that equal protection before the law is less than absolute discretion of the AG to prosecute. - Malaysiakini
Telestai!: Correction, Mahathir did not merely insult the rulers. He annihilated the rulers and reduced them to mere spectators of the democratic process.
The word that has gone around is that Mahathir holds an ace on each and every ruler to get them to toe the line.
Like other public institutions that were systematically destroyed by the recalcitrant, the royalty is clearly a pale shadow of what it used to be.
AB Sulaiman: This episode reminds me so much to the case when then home minister Syed Hamid Albar Albar detained Sin Chewreporter Tan Hoon Cheng under the ISA 'for her safety' as the police believed her life was 'under threat'.
It caused so much furore that she was released 24 hours after her arrest. Won't our civil servants learn from this disgraceful act?
Anonymous_3e21: "The attorney-general has the sole discretion and absolute power in deciding who to prosecute. It is the AG's discretion and that cannot be questioned in this court," said the DPP.
There you are, that's how powerful the AG Abdul Gani Patail is.
Ferdtan: DPP Noorin by objecting to the bid by Karpal to subpoena the former prime minister and several others to appear as witnesses at his sedition trial shows that AG's Chambers still fears the old despot, even a retired one.
If what she said is correct, that Mahathir in fact were protecting the royal institution, then he should have no fear in appearing in court to tell it as it is - that he saved the reputation of the rulers.
If Mahathir really felt it that way that he had done some 'good deeds' for the royalty, I am sure he, like most people, would have love to come to court to gloat about it.
DPP Noorin, we are not convinced with your lame argument in court - it makes no sense. It borders to stupidity when you say that Mahathir did not question the constitutional monarch, but he defended it.
How can a person defend a monarch by taking away his powers and his right to immunity to criminal charges? The logic really eludes me.
DPP Noorin knew that her reasoning will hold no water, so she, like all DPPs before her, used the strong-arm tactics of using the discretionary power of the law to defeat all arguments.
She said the attorney-general has discretion on whom to prosecute and it is not for the court to question his discretion. Case closed, no more need to debate.
So in other words, and in stronger terms, the judge can go and fly a kite.
T: It is a sad day when our prosecutors argue that equal protection before the law is less than absolute discretion of the AG to prosecute. - Malaysiakini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.