Pity about Linda Onn, heavy sigh and all that. The ultimatum to wear Radzwan or else, wasn’t fair on her.
By the way, does anybody know R. Subashini? It appears she’s had her rights taken away as well. She lost in her appeal to stop her Muslim-convert husband T. Saravanan @ Muhammad Shafi Abdullah from going to the Syariah court to dissolve their civil marriage, and convert their children to Islam without her permission. The stumper – the civil court of appeals told her to go to Syariah court to claim her rights.
Ha ha ha. Wasn’t that funny? Civil court denies her rights and she, a non-Muslim, has ANY chance at all in Syariah?
As regards Linda Onn, she WAS in LA on full sponsorship of the network, right? And she was there as a representative of the network, right? And she DID carry with her the hopes of Malaysians, right? And network execs can say what is appropriate for the network’s image and what isn’t, right?
And if indeed the order for her to not use Jovian Mandagie came from the Prime Minister’s Department but not the Prime Minister’s Office, why? I guess network bosses would’ve wanted Linda to follow Government directives but why the JPM? And which office? And why Radzuan Radziwil did the JPM choose. And how exactly do you spell his name?
Apart from non-muslim religious associations, no Jabatan has spoken up for Subashini. I’m gong to tell her to convert to Islam – that’ll get Shafi-ravanan-Abdullah whatever. Then he’d have to come up with Syariah reasons to dissolve his marriage to Siti Subashini Abdullah.
I’ve heard of Muslim women leaving the faith to get instant release from sham marriages still in effect, because the errant husbands just won’t pronounce talaq, despite not having shared a bed with them in years.
This is a pretty desperate move but that’s the only way to do it. BUT you must pronounce the shahadah again immediately after you get an annulment and don’t even stop to breathe in case your breathing stops before you’re a Muslim again.
Suraya Alattas - a Muslim - entertainment editor of the New Straits Times, once was flown by sponsors to Los Angeles to attend the Emmys. Her luggage didn’t arrive with her, who landed a few hours before D-Night.
Suraya wore what she could. What she had. No she didn’t have to host a live telecast back to Malaysia so it was okay for her to wear anything as long as it looked ‘formal’. she didn't have to wear anything 'designer'. In answering the call of duty, she attended the show without her planned-on dress.
But no one would have known if she hadn’t gone to the Emmy's. Why, she could have written her report from her hotel room while the awards show was going on, since she knew so much about the job at hand. the moral of the story is, Suraya was the right person for the assignment.
Okay, yes, Linda DID do something good, lets not drive all the nails in. She has revealed that the entertainment business isn’t as pretty as how we’re led to believe it is. Thank you.
then again, whats wrong with using Mandagie anyway – the boy is only HALF Indonesian. Its only a dress. Don’t we have half Malays who will inherit whole States when they inherit whole thrones?
Half Malaysians are wonderful. They’re handsome and in two cases really smart and have given people new hope in the monarchy.
So if Linda really weighed the pros and cons of her actions, she should reconcile with whatever fate befalls her in terms of losing work, losing job or losing endorsement contracts.
I don’t know what wrong Subashini has done to lose her children.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Analyse This
Saturday, February 03, 2007
At 16 I wanted to become a lawyer. Then, a close cousin, a major role model in my life, said the market for lawyers was overflooded. I studied finance instead. Two years later my brother went to Holborn Law Tutors. Twenty five years later, my lawyer-cousin is a judge and I, am tippy toe-ing the fine line between right and being prosecuted, as I write…
The poor sod of a political analyst. The poor, and may I presume long-suffering, wife of the political analyst. The tireless daughter too, of said analyst. Tsk tsk, eh wot?
When the murder of a Mongolian model first came to light in the vernacular papers, I cared little for the speculation and motivation and whatever political blunders or strategies have occurred that were rumoured to be the crux of the atrocity.
Grim though it was, shudder though I did, the killing itself didn’t vex me as much as did the bigger picture, ie. the nerve. The matter was beyond just taking the law into one’s own hands. It was making new laws. Playing God, that’s what it was.
A married man, a woman, an affair. Somewhere between the brazen transgressing of marital borders and inner cowardice, between breaking the law and not wanting to face up to the music or explosion, a child is orphaned.
The alternative would have been infidelity exposed of a known figure, whose public persona is truer to his physical appearance than his mental and emotional decadence – full, fatherly, wholesome. Yech.
By what decree did the protecting of that image take precedence over the life of a woman, no matter what moral rot she may be proven to have sunken to? No matter how dangerous she was to the point of posing a threat to his family, whose wealth affords them pleasure and protection of the highest ranking, in USD.
A woman purportedly menacing, yet was powerless to get past residential gates, electronic or human, twice.
And what image now has that researcher?
Remember that Chief Minister who was thought to have raped a minor and thus had destroyed the schoolgirl’s life? It turned out that the 15-year old was the morally unsound one, the punishment for her apparently a redeeming spell at some pusat pemulihan akhlak or other. Anyway, the former minister in question, among ruling party stalwarts at least, is still held in eminence. As is the other Chief Minister who put his life at risk by carrying cash instead of traveller’s cheques, traveling down under. Lucky he that no bandit held him at gunpoint for a little of that RM2 million. Phew.
My point is, how much would a little slapping around by the wife have hurt, had she found out from the 'other woman's' revelation? So he had an affair. So? She wants to leave him?
Whats a little ribbing from jealous cronies? Temporary boycott from a hurt and embarrassed daughter who sports designer accessories? Why, a few flips of calendar pages and its water under the bridge old chap, water under the bridge. And old newspapers wrap nasi lemak, know wot I mean?
But death is permanent. The little boy will still not have his mother again, long after the image of said political analyst is repaired by rebuilders and consultants.
Then again, there may have been some stupidity involved. Naivity, how sweet. Analyst didn't know policeman friend would harm his lover. Analyst didn't think that an officer of the law would kill a woman he merely wanted to be stopped from 'disturbing' his and his family, never mind that the latter, in his bragging, couldn't remember if he had, "killed six or seven people."
If I had a million Kroners and I needed to invest the amount in a safe instrument or with a safe custodian, I would trust a man of fiduciary position who declares that he has at least six times embezzled, to take my money and possibly put it on contraband, wouldn’t I? On none of those occasions when he stole the monies did he seem hungry, or coerced, or to be acting in self-defense.
Yes I would, because I would first chide him,twice, with such strong words like, “Don’t put my money in illegal activities and don’t, under any circumstance, cheat me because that is all I have.”
posted by Wahts Up at 9:10 AM 0 comments
Monday, January 22, 2007
Sue? Really?
I have a new baby. I have two babies now. I have their future to think of. Does this mean I can't be a real blogger?
posted by Wahts Up at 8:37 AM 0 comments
At 16 I wanted to become a lawyer. Then, a close cousin, a major role model in my life, said the market for lawyers was overflooded. I studied finance instead. Two years later my brother went to Holborn Law Tutors. Twenty five years later, my lawyer-cousin is a judge and I, am tippy toe-ing the fine line between right and being prosecuted, as I write…
The poor sod of a political analyst. The poor, and may I presume long-suffering, wife of the political analyst. The tireless daughter too, of said analyst. Tsk tsk, eh wot?
When the murder of a Mongolian model first came to light in the vernacular papers, I cared little for the speculation and motivation and whatever political blunders or strategies have occurred that were rumoured to be the crux of the atrocity.
Grim though it was, shudder though I did, the killing itself didn’t vex me as much as did the bigger picture, ie. the nerve. The matter was beyond just taking the law into one’s own hands. It was making new laws. Playing God, that’s what it was.
A married man, a woman, an affair. Somewhere between the brazen transgressing of marital borders and inner cowardice, between breaking the law and not wanting to face up to the music or explosion, a child is orphaned.
The alternative would have been infidelity exposed of a known figure, whose public persona is truer to his physical appearance than his mental and emotional decadence – full, fatherly, wholesome. Yech.
By what decree did the protecting of that image take precedence over the life of a woman, no matter what moral rot she may be proven to have sunken to? No matter how dangerous she was to the point of posing a threat to his family, whose wealth affords them pleasure and protection of the highest ranking, in USD.
A woman purportedly menacing, yet was powerless to get past residential gates, electronic or human, twice.
And what image now has that researcher?
Remember that Chief Minister who was thought to have raped a minor and thus had destroyed the schoolgirl’s life? It turned out that the 15-year old was the morally unsound one, the punishment for her apparently a redeeming spell at some pusat pemulihan akhlak or other. Anyway, the former minister in question, among ruling party stalwarts at least, is still held in eminence. As is the other Chief Minister who put his life at risk by carrying cash instead of traveller’s cheques, traveling down under. Lucky he that no bandit held him at gunpoint for a little of that RM2 million. Phew.
My point is, how much would a little slapping around by the wife have hurt, had she found out from the 'other woman's' revelation? So he had an affair. So? She wants to leave him?
Whats a little ribbing from jealous cronies? Temporary boycott from a hurt and embarrassed daughter who sports designer accessories? Why, a few flips of calendar pages and its water under the bridge old chap, water under the bridge. And old newspapers wrap nasi lemak, know wot I mean?
But death is permanent. The little boy will still not have his mother again, long after the image of said political analyst is repaired by rebuilders and consultants.
Then again, there may have been some stupidity involved. Naivity, how sweet. Analyst didn't know policeman friend would harm his lover. Analyst didn't think that an officer of the law would kill a woman he merely wanted to be stopped from 'disturbing' his and his family, never mind that the latter, in his bragging, couldn't remember if he had, "killed six or seven people."
If I had a million Kroners and I needed to invest the amount in a safe instrument or with a safe custodian, I would trust a man of fiduciary position who declares that he has at least six times embezzled, to take my money and possibly put it on contraband, wouldn’t I? On none of those occasions when he stole the monies did he seem hungry, or coerced, or to be acting in self-defense.
Yes I would, because I would first chide him,twice, with such strong words like, “Don’t put my money in illegal activities and don’t, under any circumstance, cheat me because that is all I have.”
posted by Wahts Up at 9:10 AM 0 comments
Monday, January 22, 2007
Sue? Really?
I have a new baby. I have two babies now. I have their future to think of. Does this mean I can't be a real blogger?
posted by Wahts Up at 8:37 AM 0 comments
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)