Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
| Who's the ultimate ruler of Malaysia? Posted: 01 Sep 2012 07:51 PM PDT Then (and even now) I have nothing against monarchy PROVIDED those royals remain as constitutional heads of state, whether of Malaysia the nation or of the respective nine states with Sultans (and a Raja), based on my understanding of the concept of constitutional monarchy in a democracy.
Sometime in August 2007 I read with some alarm a letter to Malaysiakini titled No more backbenchers' role for Rulers written by a person with the pseudonym of Truly Malaysian which stated, in my humble opinion, dangerously for our democratic system: It is definitely a light at the end of the tunnel that the Malay rulers have finally decided to have their say in the recent fiascos that has gone beyond the normal tolerance level of the public. The rulers have finally realised that we as a nation are heading towards obscurity. They are now really living to the true manifestation of being the rulers. [...]
It is, of course, better late than never, and aren't we all are glad that the Malay rulers have finally decided to take a stand and voice their own dissent on various affairs that do not serve the public's and nation's interests at large. [...] Although they have played the backbencher's role in the past, they are now coming forward and we should hand them our support for them to play a more pertinent role in moulding the future of the nation rather than moulding the future for a few. For a start, the writer didn't even know what was(is) a backbencher, and to refer to the rulers playing the backbenchers' role showed his bizarre and Truly pathetic ignorance.
But no doubt he/she would have changed his/her opinion by now with the sad advantage of hindsight of royal interference in the Perak political debacle. Anyway, I had then with the gravest concerns written to MKINI the following: I refer to Malaysiakini letter No more backbenchers' role for Rulers which has me rather worried. The author might not have realized the constitutional implications of his words such as "The rulers ... are now really living to the true manifestation of being the rulers ..." and "... Although they have played the backbencher's role in the past, they are now coming forward and we should hand them our support for them to play a more pertinent role in moulding the future of the nation ..." While I understand the author's euphoria over the Council of Rulers' rejection of the PM's candidate for a senior judicial position, I note that the author's infatuation with the royal dissent came on top of several other high praises for the Perak Prince and Sultan of Selangor when the two, especially the former, raised their voices on issues closed to the dissatisfied public's hearts.
The author has not been alone for Dr Chen Man Hin, a former DAP strongman, had even proposed the Perak Prince as an advisor to the Prime Minister (PM). It would seem that the rulers are making a comeback after years of public scorn at their irrelevance, perhaps caused mainly by one particular individual, who had believed he could still rule as per medieval times, as an absolute monarchy. I most certainly appreciate the Perak Prince's reminder of our constitutional pillars, though in reality he didn't say anything much that the Opposition hadn't pointed out before. But yes, his official stature gave his words more force (and attract more attention) than a Lim Kit Siang or a Nik Aziz could manage. But we need to remember Malaysia is a democracy built around a constitutional monarchy, meaning the voice of the people, and not those of the rulers, prevails.
Sure, our royalty as in the model of the Perak Prince, the Council of Rulers questioning the PM in his choice of a candidate for the bench, and the pronouncement of the Sultan of Selangor to keep politics out of our Merdeka celebrations have been most welcome. They have both a constitutional role and an exemplary role model to play. But we must never talk as if, or even suggest that they had been 'backbenchers' moving forward (presumably) to the 'front bench'. That's dangerous talk, to suggest the rulers may play a direct political role (or even as an political advisor to the PM) while serving as respective Heads of States or as the Yang Di Pertuan Agong, or still retaining their royal prerogatives.
It's certainly a sign of our frustration with the current government that some of us believe the royalty could and would be our saviour. We, the politically frustrated public members, are in reality grasping at straws in much the same way as many of us had embraced a former UMNO reject as a political saviour against a previous regime even when there was no evidence of his reformist qualities during his various ministerial roles.
No matter how good any individual royalty is, no matter how bad any politician is, let us not unwittingly change our system of constitutional monarchy to one of absolute monarchy, or of one where royalty has a greater degree of direct political participation. That will be a regrettable step backwards. That was in mid-2007. Exactly a week following the March 2008 general election I wrote another post Lim Kit Siang opened Royal Pandora Box? where I criticized Uncle Lim as follows (extracts):
So Malaysiakini tells us that the political Deal's stitched, & it's all systems go for Perak.
Alas, the parties have finally acquiesced to royal demands, with many of them forgetting that in a political democracy it's the political party which commands the majority in the State Assembly (outright or through a coalition, formal or otherwise) who picks the CM or MB (or at the federal level, the PM) to be approved by the constitutional ruler.
I had posted this reminder of the people's right and power two days ago in Perak Papadum Ping Pong Primadonnas, where I stated:
… kaytee believes the coalition has done something quite stupid. In submitting 3 names to the Sultan to choose it has unwittingly involved royalty in State politics in an unprecedented way. It's not for the Sultan to choose from a list of three. Certainly the Sultan can disagree with a name but he should only be given one name (at a time). For example, the Sultan could say no to DAP Ngeh and say, gimme another name! But it's not for HRH to be given 3 names and decide on one he prefers. The choice of an MB is a political one and to be left to the political parties as elected by the rakyat; the acceptance of the choice is the prerogative of HRH, but HRH cannot and should not be making a political decision by choosing one name from a list of three. Yes, the ruler cannot reject the candidate forwarded for his approval, save where there is perceivable concerns the candidate has a dodgy record or perhaps is infirmed, etc* which may affect the proposed candidate's ability to head the State government.
Now, the Star Online has indicated two worrying cases where the State rulers of Perlis and Terengganu have taken it into their hands (or heads) to appoint their choices against that proposed by the winning political party. [...] In the rulers' increasing (and unjustified) discretion in such appointments the Sultans must have found comfort from the support (direct or otherwise) of the stupid political parties undermining each other. The rulers had been living in tolerated disgrace following the castration of a notorious royal brother by Dr Mahathir (rightfully so and an action fully supported by most Malaysians), but since then they have (under a certain erudite leader) slowly but steadily been clawing their way back to prominence and regained respect and adulation from their subjects.
| ||||||||||
| Sultans’ Daulat Is A Myth – Part Two Posted: 01 Sep 2012 02:22 PM PDT Zaid begins his book by briefly tracing the history of Malay sultans. Unlike the Japanese Imperial family that stretches as far back as 600 BC, or the British to the 11th Century or even earlier, Malay sultans are of recent vintage. The Raja of Perlis was established only in 1834, while that of Johor only slightly older (1819). In modeling the Malaysian constitutional monarchy along the British one, the Reid Commission assumed that Malay sultans were like English kings. That was the first major blunder. To Zaid, it also underscores the pitfall of trying to adopt wholesale foreign concepts or models, not just in law but also much of everything else. Those English monarchs have had centuries of working with a democratically elected government. Earlier, a few of them have had to pay dearly for their errors. Consequently today their system works smoothly. Not so with Malay sultans. Up until British rule, Malay sultans were literally Gods; those sultans could actually take your life. Displease the sultan or prevent him from grabbing whatever you own including your daughter or priced kerbau (water buffalo), and you risked being beheaded, banished, or enslaved (kerah). Those sultans were not above the law as there were no laws then; they were the laws. Malays like me have a lot to be thankful to those colonials for ending those odious royal traits of our culture. No, that is not an expression of my being mentally colonized, rather one of deep gratitude. Malaysia has a disproportionate number of monarchs, 9 out of the nearly 40 worldwide, as Zaid and others have noted. The error in that frequently cited observation is the assumption that our sultans are comparable to those other kings and queens; they are not. There is little in common between Malay sultans and the British Queen or Japanese Emperor. Instead, Malay sultans have more in common with the tribal warlords of Africa and Papua New Guinea, from their insular worldview to their fanciful costumes. The Papuan tribal chiefs have their elaborate colorful headgear, as well as their prominent penile sheaths which they proudly display; ours have their equally ostentatious desta and tanjak. Like those tribal chieftains, our sultans' too are afflicted with their feudal habits. Modernity has not erased our sultan's medieval mentality. When Malaysia became independent, those odious habits began creeping back. Those sultans are not to be blamed entirely, however. "The Rulers' unwillingness to remain within their constitutional roles has been further aggravated," Zaid writes, "by a lack of conviction and courage by the institutions that are supposed to protect and preserve [our] … constitution." Stated differently, our sultans have many enablers. We allow them to regress. We tolerate them when they flout the rules. Members of the Malay royal family are perfectly capable of behaving themselves and keeping within the rules if they were to be told in no uncertain terms that their tantrums would not be tolerated. Consider their behaviors during colonial and Japanese times. It was the sultans who sembah (genuflected to) the colonial and Japanese officers. Today when these Malay princes and princesses are down in Singapore for example, they obey even the basic traffic rules. Those rajas would not dare pull their silly stunts down there; they would be immediately punished. Likewise, if one of our sultans were to skip on his Vegas casino gambling debts, our ambassador would have to quickly bail him out of the county jail. Just as a child whose earlier tantrums had not been corrected would grow up to be an intolerable brat, likewise when our sultans strayed earlier on and there was no one to restrain them, that only encouraged them to go beyond. A few decades later their excesses would trigger the constitutional crises of the 1980s and 1990s that led to the amendments ending respectively the rulers' power to veto legislations and stripping them of legal immunity in their personal conduct. Both were possible because of the strong executive leadership of Prime Minister Mahathir. Today with a government with a less-than-robust mandate and a leader with a banana stem spine, the sultans are emboldened to re-exert themselves; hence the insistence of their daulat or special status.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan