What did I say about my theory regarding the relationship between oath takings and integrity?
THERE IS AN INVERSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAKING OATHS AND INTEGRITY. THE MORE OATHS ONE TAKES, THE HIGHER THE CHANCES THAT HE WILL DEBAUCH HIMSELF.
Oath takings take many forms. Some are statutory declarations. You can write and say anything. Just give your IC/ID and sign where appropriate. Then pay RM 4 to the commissioner of oaths.
If you want to do it free, you can take the religious oath taking. You can swear before the Quran, the bible, the Sikh holy book and whatever books you think are holy.
You either deny the accusation against you or you affirm your own position.
You have a few options if you do not want the above. You can decapitate a rooster in a Chinese temple, which means you cut your cock. You can walk on a bed of burning cinders. You can immerse your hand in a cauldron of boiling water. Heck! You can even drink Paraquat or Roundup.
Nonetheless, the inverse relationship stays largely true. The more oaths you take, the more lies you make, the more you denigrate yourself.
Let us look at the pattern.
The SD by RPK on Datin Rosmah alias Dotty is classified as criminal defamation.
The SD by the Myanmar doctor from Pusrawi is regarded as doubtful. He is in fact missing.
The SD by T. Thagarajoo is rubbished/not true.
The oath by Saiful Bukhari is questionable in its authenticity.
The declaration by Ustaz Ramlang Porrigi will needless to say, be dammed.
Hence, each of the SD and oath is negated by its corresponding falsehood.
Now if each oath/statutory declaration is nullified by its own contradiction, what value can you place on Dato Najib’s pious sumpah?
Nil. Yilek. Zilch! Zero!