With all this going on how could they allow the people to talk? And with 1,000 servants and courtiers hanging around the palace how does one prevent people from talking? So they had this thing called sedition laws so that anyone who talked could be punished.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
The PKR Sri Muda state assemblyman, Shuhaimi Shafiei, is to be charged for sedition this Monday. At least 20 police reports have been lodged against Shuhaimi because of his blog posting while Perkasa and the pro-Umno people have demanded that he be hanged for inciting war on the Malay rulers.
To understand Malaysia’s Sedition Act you have to go back 1,000 years to the days when they did not want the people to whisper or talk bad about the Rulers. And to do this you have to read a bit of English history. Malaysia’s judicial system and laws are, after all, moulded after the British system and British laws.
Malaysia’s history books start from 1946, the year that Umno was born. Before that Malaysia had no history, or at least a distorted version of history -- like Malay warriors born in China being sent to Malaya’s shores as bodyguards for a Chinese princess who married a Malay Sultan and allegedly defended Malay rights by saying that Malays would never disappear from the face of the earth (a debate currently raging in Malaysia’s blogosphere).
Anyway, English history starts from 1066, and not 1946, at least when I read English history in the Alice Smith School in standard one. Before 1066 it does not count because Britain did not officially exist yet. What existed were Argyle and the Highlands where the Scottish barbarians lived, and Sussex where the West Saxons lived, and Northumbria and Cumbria and York and Carlisle and so on, where the Norsemen or Vikings lived.
Britain, at best, was a collection of many barbarian tribes and not yet a nation as such. It was not until 1066 that Britain became a nation and the many regions became united under one King. 1066, therefore, was significant to English history in that England finally saw order -- or more like organised chaos if you can regard rape, pillaging and plundering as order.
1066 was the year that William sailed to England with his great army. Contrary to what many believe, William, who conquered England and became known as William the Conqueror, was not even a King. He was the Duke of Normandy, a region that was a vassal of the King of France. And before he became known as William the Conqueror in 1066, he was known as William the Bastard.
Yes, that’s right, William was a bastard son of the Duke of Normandy. But how can they allow the Saxons he displaced from the throne in London (Lundene on the Temes river) spread the rumour that he is not of royal blood but of low birth -- and a bastard on top of that. So they passed a law that made it a crime to speak bad about the King -- and William the Bastard became William the Conqueror from thereon and no one dared correct this historical fact lest they get charged for sedition and lose their head in the process.
All through English history many bastard children succeeded the throne of England. There was also the added problem of many of the Kings and Princesses being gay, or at least bisexual. In fact, one King of England was even having a gay relationship with the King of France (any wonder they were expert sword fighters?). And though the Kings never visited their Queen’s bedchamber (they never slept in the same room and always slept in separate rooms) since their honeymoon, the Queen still managed to get pregnant and it was suspected that it was the Queen’s young, handsome advisers who were the real fathers of those children.
We must understand that marriage in those days was not for sex or out of love. It was to seal political alliances. If you married the sister or daughter of the King of another country then that country would not attack your country because you were now related -- either brother-in-law or son-in-law. So, after marrying your Queen, you locked her away and spent your time chasing other women -- or other men as the case may be.
The most notable 'bastard' Ruler of England was probably Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry VIII from his second wife, Anne Boleyn. The church did not recognise Elizabeth because divorce was not allowed so Henry broke away from the church and formed his own church to legitimise his divorce from the Queen and his marriage to Anne (but Rome still regarded her as a bastard).
Because of this they wanted Mary, Henry’s granddaughter, to inherit the throne. But since she was Catholic (and French), and Catholics were put to death if they confessed to being Catholics, Elizabeth got the throne instead. Mary was later executed for her crime against God -- for being a Catholic. Mary was of course known as Mary Queen of Scots but it was the Scots who betrayed her and handed her to Elizabeth to be jailed for many years before she was executed. (The Scots have been betraying their Rulers since time immemorial).
Against this backdrop (and much more I have not mentioned) how can they allow people to talk? Kings, Queens and members of the Royal Family were bonking away and breeding like rabbits outside of marriage. Many preferred sex partners of their own gender or many partners at the same time in orgies where the gender of the sex partners were of little concern as long as they were bonkable.
To solve the succession problem, rightful heirs to the throne mysteriously died in their sleep so that those not eligible to succeed the throne could then take the throne. Courtiers got ahead and received titles, position and land at the pleasure of the King. And the King’s pleasure would be guaranteed if your wife got sent to the King’s bedchamber for the night where she would whisper in the King’s ear in between bonking sessions: what happened to my husband’s request…etc, etc.
With all this going on how could they allow the people to talk? And with 1,000 servants and courtiers hanging around the palace how does one prevent people from talking? So they had this thing called sedition laws so that anyone who talked could be punished.
And on 1st January 2010, Britain abolished the Sedition Act -- not because people no longer talked about their Monarchy or that the Monarchs of today are better behaved, but because with the Internet you can no longer catch those who talk anyway.
But Malaysia still has the Sedition Act, an old British law, and those who talk about the Monarchs (or even about the Deputy Prime Minister’s wife) will still be punished -- like they did in England 1,000 years go. And, this Monday, PKR Sri Muda state assemblyman, Shuhaimi Shafiei, is to be charged for sedition for allegedly insulting the Sultan of Selangor.
How we have progressed since the days of William the Bastard a.k.a. William the Conqueror of 1066.
No comments:
Post a Comment