The most famous line of Erich Segal's 'Love Story' has been 'Love means never having to say you're sorry', which was then immortalised in a 1970 film adaptation of that novel.
![]()
In other words, you can't blame god for your own evil - you'd reap it.
So, apart from you being evil, god is completely blameless, and never ever responsible for any untoward occurrences (like, say, a tsunami which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, or the recent earthquake in Italy which has done likewise), save those acts of nature which are praiseworthy (like a beautiful sunrise, glorious sunset, a wondrous butterfly, a rainbow, etc), wakakaka.
So, with that line, does the MM Online news story on 25 Aug 2016 ― Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad apologised today for amending the Federal Constitution by removing the need for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s signature and approval in lawmaking - mean that Mahathir did/does NOT love his King and Constitution, to wit, Malaysia?
Back in 1994 when Mahathir was 'Emperor' of Malaysia, meaning he didn't give a f**k about mere lowly kings and sultans, his government passed amendments in parliament to the constitution (Article 66(4a)) to allow any bill that has been passed by the Parliament to become law within 30 days, regardless of whether the Agong gives his assent.
Thus this has today allowed PM Najib Razak to pass the NSC Bill to become law, namely, on June 7 this year despite not obtaining express royal assent, after the 30-day period by which the King would have to give his assent, had passed.
The NSC Bill provides for the establishment of the NSC, the declaration of security areas, and other related matters.
At that time, that was, back in 1994, many Malaysians saw Mahathir as a hero, a 'royal dentist', who had removed the unpleasant fangs of some unpleasant royalty who became unpleasant bullies and unpleasant abusers of ordinary pleasant but helpless citizens (also, as a Kedahan he knows the story of Raja Bersiong only too well, wakakaka).
 |
Raja Bersiong bloke was a Kedahan or a Thai military man, wakakaka |
Those happy Malaysians didn't realize the deeper Constitutional significance of Mahathir's move against the royalty, or they would not have been so happy.
What is the point of Mahathir now saying sorry for a drastic irreversible act when he had already done it. No one in government will ever propose for that amendment to be rescinded, indeed no one , not even Mukhriz Mahathir or Azmin Ali or Ahmad Zahid or whoever.
By the by, there is an ancient biblical saying in Galatians (6:7 - 8) which talks about god's justice (god's justice? wakakakaka):
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
In other words, you can't blame god for your own evil - you'd reap it.
So, apart from you being evil, god is completely blameless, and never ever responsible for any untoward occurrences (like, say, a tsunami which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, or the recent earthquake in Italy which has done likewise), save those acts of nature which are praiseworthy (like a beautiful sunrise, glorious sunset, a wondrous butterfly, a rainbow, etc), wakakaka.
But I have to say that de-fanging royalty would in general be good - eg. just look at what HRH did to Pakatan in 2014 when he approved Azmin Ali as the Selangor State's MB when the ruling coalition had presented a different candidate, Wan Azizah - was that constitutional? And what about what had happened in Perak in 2009?
While we should love and respect our king and sultans and heads of states, we should NOT allow them to do as they please, unless their acts are within the Constitution. They are merely constitutional heads of states, whether that be in Selangor, Perak, Terengganu or Johor.
Yes, Mahathir did a good thing in 1994 but now, because of his inner evil intent, he has admitted he shouldn't, which in turn means he did NOT give a f**k about citizens' rights in 1994, but was far more interested in the Constitutional 'hole' he wanted to and did create.
In 1390, Geoffrey Chaucer wrote in The Parson's Tale (in olde English):
And ofte tyme swich cursynge wrongfully retorneth agayn to hym that curseth, as a bryd that retorneth agayn to his owene nest.
Four hundred years later, in The Curse of Kehama, 1810 the allusion was made clearer in modern English as follows:
Curses are like young chicken: they always come home to roost.
In other words, 'as you sow, so shall you reap'or 'the chickens have come home to roost', Mr Mahathir.