Page 1 of 1

Is Miss Universe Malaysia discredit Justine Pasek as Miss Universe 2002?

PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:23 am
by ajsy0203


Last night at E-Gala of Miss Universe Malaysia 2020, the pageant organizers aired a video of good luck from dethroned and original Miss Universe 2002 Oxana Fedorova and they captioned in her video that she is Miss Universe 2002 yet MUO still recognized Justine Pasek as Miss Universe 2002 on their website and removed Oxana from the list of former titleholders.

Do you think Miss Elaine Daly and her team are trying to discredit Justine Pasek as Miss Universe 2002 since she completed the remaining 8 months of Oxana's supposed full reign as Miss Universe? Do you think MUO and Madam Paula are already forgiven Oxana so they allowed Miss Universe Malaysia to acknowledge Oxana as Miss Universe 2002?

Re: Is Miss Universe Malaysia discredit Justine Pasek as Mis

PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:48 am
by beautywatchnyc

Everyone knows Oxana was the original titleholder, thus the triumph and feat will always remain in memory and on records. Ms. Justine Pasek assumed the crown ONLY after Oxana relinquished her title owing the latter's decision and personal wishes. Whether right or wrong, that is not the issue here. E Gala Ms U Malaysia should not be faulted if they wanted to give the honors and recognition due the original queen.

Re: Is Miss Universe Malaysia discredit Justine Pasek as Mis

PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 3:19 am
by Elyerno Zabagguri
JUSTINE PASEK IS MISS UNIVERSE 2002.
Anyway, whether they recognize Justine Pasek or Oxana Lazy girl as Miss Universe 2002, still they will clap hard at Miss Universe 2021.

Re: Is Miss Universe Malaysia discredit Justine Pasek as Mis

PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 6:25 am
by ajsy0203
beautywatchnyc wrote:
Everyone knows Oxana was the original titleholder, thus the triumph and feat will always remain in memory and on records. Ms. Justine Pasek assumed the crown ONLY after Oxana relinquished her title owing the latter's decision and personal wishes. Whether right or wrong, that is not the issue here. E Gala Ms U Malaysia should not be faulted if they wanted to give the honors and recognition due the original queen.


Then other franchise holders will recognize the dethroned/resigned queens too like Helen Morgan as Miss World 1974, Gabriela Brum as Miss World 1980, Džejla Glavović as Miss Earth 2002 and Anea Garcia as Miss Grand International 2015?

Re: Is Miss Universe Malaysia discredit Justine Pasek as Mis

PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:50 am
by beautywatchnyc
ajsy0203 wrote:
beautywatchnyc wrote:
Everyone knows Oxana was the original titleholder, thus the triumph and feat will always remain in memory and on records. Ms. Justine Pasek assumed the crown ONLY after Oxana relinquished her title owing the latter's decision and personal wishes. Whether right or wrong, that is not the issue here. E Gala Ms U Malaysia should not be faulted if they wanted to give the honors and recognition due the original queen.


Then other franchise holders will recognize the dethroned/resigned queens too like Helen Morgan as Miss World 1974, Gabriela Brum as Miss World 1980, Džejla Glavović as Miss Earth 2002 and Anea Garcia as Miss Grand International 2015?


Why should that be a burden to you? Why, what, and how is that severely wrong giving recognition to the A+ efforts and hard work done by the original winner? After all, the crown has been relinquished and the "2nd best" has taken the replacement. More than consolation or a stroke of good luck that suffices already the technical and legal requirements after any "dethronement" is effected. The caveat: What will prevent a name recall from and by those who had chosen the winner from among the finalists, of how superior the original queen performed relative the rest, and how she captured the final vote of the judging panel in a consensus? In the minds of the adoring public, there was only one winner to the finale from the get go and nothing can alter that (no matter how effective the PR machine goes or marketing strategies are put in place in favor of the newly designated queen.)

Re: Is Miss Universe Malaysia discredit Justine Pasek as Mis

PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:05 am
by ajsy0203
beautywatchnyc wrote:
ajsy0203 wrote:
beautywatchnyc wrote:
Everyone knows Oxana was the original titleholder, thus the triumph and feat will always remain in memory and on records. Ms. Justine Pasek assumed the crown ONLY after Oxana relinquished her title owing the latter's decision and personal wishes. Whether right or wrong, that is not the issue here. E Gala Ms U Malaysia should not be faulted if they wanted to give the honors and recognition due the original queen.


Then other franchise holders will recognize the dethroned/resigned queens too like Helen Morgan as Miss World 1974, Gabriela Brum as Miss World 1980, Džejla Glavović as Miss Earth 2002 and Anea Garcia as Miss Grand International 2015?


Why should that be a burden to you? Why, what, and how is that severely wrong giving recognition to the A+ efforts and hard work done by the original winner? After all, the crown has been relinquished and the "2nd best" has taken the replacement. More than consolation or a stroke of good luck that suffices already the technical and legal requirements after any "dethronement" is effected. The caveat: What will prevent a name recall from and by those who had chosen the winner from among the finalists, of how superior the original queen performed relative the rest, and how she captured the final vote of the judging panel in a consensus? In the minds of the adoring public, there was only one winner to the finale from the get go and nothing can alter that (no matter how effective the PR machine goes or marketing strategies are put in place in favor of the newly designated queen.)


So they should allowed Helen M., Gabriela B., Džejla and Anea to recognize their achievements too aside from Oxana?

Re: Is Miss Universe Malaysia discredit Justine Pasek as Mis

PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:56 am
by beautywatchnyc
ajsy0203 wrote:
beautywatchnyc wrote:
ajsy0203 wrote:
beautywatchnyc wrote:
Everyone knows Oxana was the original titleholder, thus the triumph and feat will always remain in memory and on records. Ms. Justine Pasek assumed the crown ONLY after Oxana relinquished her title owing the latter's decision and personal wishes. Whether right or wrong, that is not the issue here. E Gala Ms U Malaysia should not be faulted if they wanted to give the honors and recognition due the original queen.


Then other franchise holders will recognize the dethroned/resigned queens too like Helen Morgan as Miss World 1974, Gabriela Brum as Miss World 1980, Džejla Glavović as Miss Earth 2002 and Anea Garcia as Miss Grand International 2015?


Why should that be a burden to you? Why, what, and how is that severely wrong giving recognition to the A+ efforts and hard work done by the original winner? After all, the crown has been relinquished and the "2nd best" has taken the replacement. More than consolation or a stroke of good luck that suffices already the technical and legal requirements after any "dethronement" is effected. The caveat: What will prevent a name recall from and by those who had chosen the winner from among the finalists, of how superior the original queen performed relative the rest, and how she captured the final vote of the judging panel in a consensus? In the minds of the adoring public, there was only one winner to the finale from the get go and nothing can alter that (no matter how effective the PR machine goes or marketing strategies are put in place in favor of the newly designated queen.)


So they should allowed Helen M., Gabriela B., Džejla and Anea to recognize their achievements too aside from Oxana?


"Allow" reeks of an oversimplification as to what and how this context purports. That decision was not for every outsider within periphery to make. Besides, what might be applicable to one should not be taken as norm for all. A decision was taken by the respective organization for purposes which are unknown to many of us; or reached on the basis of a unique situation, or due the conflict of causes as to what may have been imperiled reason. What was deemed observable did not necessarily explain nor confirm a doubtful information occurring within that no outsider was privy or that he/she might have been impaired by a lack of sufficient information to draw from.