The political crisis started a long way back with one man thinking that the seat of the Prime Minister should be handed to him, while the incumbent felt that he should hold on to it for as long as possible. There was no Malay, Chinese, Indian, Jawi, UEC or Adib involved in the whole fiasco.
When His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong stepped in to solve the crisis, there were as many calls for the Parliament to be dissolved as there were for the incumbent to handover the premiership to his so-called designated successor. I wrote to friends the following:
“The Raja is the landowner. It is the constitutional prerogative of the Raja to choose whom in his judgment should lead the administration of HIS government. Our duty every five years or so is to vote for those whom we think should represent us. That is where our responsibility ends.”
His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong did exactly that – solving the crisis according to what is accorded to him in the Federal Constitution. With the two warring parties claiming the right to the premiership, political parties went back and forth changing their allegiance to each of the party who in turn claimed that he has the most support.
His Majesty went on to call each MP for a private interview trying to see who supports whom. And many got trapped in that simple but virtually meaningless definition of ‘majority support’ thinking that the candidate with the most support should become the Prime Minister. However, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that gives such provision.
Article 43 (2) (a) of the Federal Constitution states that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House. In other words, exact number of support for any of the candidate is not a requirement for a decision to be made by His Majesty. The interview is only for him to gauge the level of support each candidate has.
The method used is similar to the ones used in Perak by the late Sultan Azlan Shah, and in Kedah several years later, to determine who can command the confidence of the most of the Dewan to become the respective States’ Menteri Besar. In all three crises, the maturity and wisdom of the Ruler is incumbent (Dr Zambry v Dato’ Seri Nizar 5 CLJ 265) para 232. The method to determine the issue of “majority support” is the prerogative of the Ruler and is non-justiciable (op cit).
It is in my opinion that “majority support” was determined by the total number of MPs from any one bloc. There was the Anwar bloc – MPs who wanted Anwar to become the next PM. Then there was the Mahathir bloc – people who wanted the elder statesman to continue. And we had the Muhyiddin bloc – those who solidly supported Muhyiddin’s candidacy. Both the Anwar and Mahathir bloc had to combine to challenge Muhyiddin’s number of support. But whether they like the other bloc’s candidate that they were forced to accept is questionable. Hence, the one with the most unambiguous support would be Muhyiddin.
No one else has the right to choose a Prime Minister. The right claimed by Anwar Ibrahim to become a Prime Minister, and the so-called promise by Mahathir to hand over the premiership to the former, are against the Federal Constitution. Only the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has that right, as prescribed in Article 40 (2) of the Federal Constitution. Conventions are not laws, and are therefore not legal. It is because of this illegal promise that got us into this trouble last week.
Even after the announcement by Istana Negara on the swearing-in ceremony of Malaysia’s 8th Prime Minister was made, there is still talks of numbers and majority made by the other party. But what is the point of scoring 50 goals after the final whistle was blown? And going back to Article 43 (2)(a) where it is the Constitutional prerogative of the King to choose an MP as the PM whom in his judgment commands the confidence of the member of the House, such SDs carry no weight whatsoever. It was just an attempt to create negative perception about the wisdom of the King.
We are certainly blessed to have a wise King who made full use of his rights in the Constitution and his freedom to consult to settle this chaos. Despite taking precedence above all other persons in the Federation, His Majesty did not forget to consult all the other Rulers. After all, he represents all the Rulers. And he stood his Constitutional ground, gentlemanly, when others did not.
Sultan Muhammad V, the 29th Sultan of Kelantan, has been elected to become the 15th Yang DiPertuan Agong by the Council of Rulers today. His Royal Highness shall be replacing Tuanku Al-Haj Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah ibni Almarhum Sultan Badlishah, the Sultan of Kedah whose tenure will end on the 12th December 2016.
For months whispers have been flying around that HRH Sultan Muhammad V would not be eligible be elected as the YDP Agong as he is not married. However, there are only three reasons for a nominated Sultan to be disqualified;
He is not an adult,
He has made known to the Council of Rulers that he wishes not to be nominated, or,
Five of the Rulers vote against his nomination for reasons such as being mentally or physically challenged, or for some other reason.
The second and third reasons were used during the discussion to elect the First Yang DiPertuan Agong where Sultan Abu Bakar of Pahang was the most senior Ruler after Sultan Sir Ibrahim of Johor who had declined the nomination due to old age (Sultan Sir Ibrahim passed away on the 8th May 1959). He became the Sultan of Pahang on the 24th June 1932. However, Sultan Abu Bakar’s nomination was rejected FIVE TIMES by the Rulers because he was a controversial figure – he had financial difficulties and had wanted to marry a perempuan ronggeng (Abdullah Ahmad, 2016 p.141). Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was then the Chief Minister of Malaya advised Sultan Abu Bakar against marrying this woman named Hathifah binte Abdul Rashid if he wanted to become the Yang DiPertuan Agong. Sultan Abu Bakar agreed.
However, Sultan Abu Bakar married Hathifah anyway and Tunku only discovered so when they were honeymooning in Hong Kong (Straits Times, 21st April 1957).
Early this morning, the infamous portal Malaysiakini and the Malaysiakini-wanna-be Malay Mail Online both reported that the Sultan of Johor had declined the offer to become the next Yang DiPertuan Agong, quoting a Facebook page and not official sources.
It has been a norm that the Raja or Sultan with the most seniority would be considered as the candidate for the post of the Yang DiPertuan Agong. All the nine states have since provided a Yang DiPertuan Agong and the list of seniority is as follows:
The Yam DiPertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan,
The Sultan of Selangor,
The Raja of Perlis,
The Sultan of Terengganu,
The Sultan of Kedah,
The Sultan of Kelantan,
The Sultan of Pahang,
The Sultan of Johor,
The Sultan of Perak.
With the ascension of the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, as the ninth Yang DiPertuan Agong, a new official list was made based on the seniority of the states that have provided a Yang DiPertuan Agong previously. Whether or not Johor was offered is not known but such offer could only be made had the Sultans of Kelantan and Pahang declined the nomination. It would seem impossible for the Sultan of Kelantan to reject such offer only to accept it later when the one that should have been offered next is the Sultan of Perak.
Such is the uniqueness of the office of the Yang DiPertuan Agong that was institutionalised on the 31st August 1957. It was first to be called the Yang DiPertuan Besar but was rejected by the Rulers Council in favour of Yang DiPertuan Agong. Every five years the Rulers would meet to elect the next Yang DiPertuan Agong and the Timbalan Yang DiPertuan Agong. Although some say that this is similar to that practised in the United Arab Emirates, the office of the President of the UAE is a hereditary office of absolute monarchies. They are the government whereas in Malaysia the government is elected by the people and is dismissed by the people through general elections. And unlike in the UAE, the Rulers council cannot dismiss a Prime Minister or anyone else without the advise of the Prime Minister. Therefore, a recent attempt by Parti Pribumi member named Mahathir to get the Rulers Council to intervene and dismiss the Prime Minister is just a futile and cheap attempt to lie to the people of Malaysia. Of course, there would be those mentally-challenged people who would believe that he is right.
With the election of Sultan Muhammad V as the 15th Yang DiPertuan Agong it is hoped that this would bring about a much better cooperation between the PAS-led Kelantan state government and the Barisan Nasional-led Federal government. Such cooperation would be very beneficial to not only the development and people of the state of Kelantan, but also to the Malays and Islam in Malaysia that are coming under constant attacks by Malay liberalistas, evangelists and chauvinistic politicians opposed to Malay unity and the position of Islam as the Religion of the Federation.
The roles of the Rulers (or sometimes referred to as the Malay Rulers) in this blessed nation are somewhat misunderstood. While many often think that the Institution of the Rulers mirror that of the British’s Westminster-style monarchy, it is not. Britain had undergone a period of regicide and for a moment was a republic under Oliver Cromwell, but monarchy was reinstalled with the ascension of Charles II guided by the British Parliament with laws made and passed solely by the Parliament. Here, we have Rulers who, until 1957, ruled the land (although much of the administration was passed to British advisers through various treaties who were on the Rulers’ payroll). It was only on 31st August 1957 that the executive powers of the Rulers were handed over to a civilian government chosen by the majority of the people of the Federation of Malaya. The Rulers, as owners of this land, continue to enjoy their position with their income regulated by the respective laws, and receive advice from the Menteris Besar (or in the case of the Yang DiPertuan Agong, the Prime Minister). This is evident in Article 181(1) of the Federal Constitution which states:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution,” the “sovereignty, prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Rulers…as hitherto had and enjoyed shall remain unaffected.”
The same was noted by Mark R Gillen of the Faculty of Law, University of Victoria (Gillen 1994:7). In the words of the late Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, former Lord President, it is:
“a mistake to think that the role of a King, like that of a President, is confined to what is laid down by the Constitution, His role far exceeds those constitutional provisions” (Azlan Shah 1986:89)
As history have shown, time and time again, the strength and weakness of the Rulers lie in the strength or weakness of those responsible to advise the Rulers. Those appointed as the Prime Minister and Menteris Besar are expected to be sincere, wise and knowledgeable, truthful and forthcoming no matter how bitter the advice may be, so that the Rulers can act with just with their feet firmly on the ground, or in the Malay saying:
Supaya Raja tidak dibuai dalam khayalan; tidak diulit gurindam pujian
Why I have not referred to the Rulers in this particular post as the Malay Rulers is deliberate, with references made to various research papers on this subject. Before the entrance of the British advisers, each of the Ruler was the Ruler of all he surveyed and was the enjoyer of all he surveyed. This means that there were no state boundaries as we now have to show the dominion of each Ruler, and the people whom we collectively refer to as the Malays (as the Chinese and Indians are back in China and India are) used to refer to themselves as people of where they originated: orang Muar, orang Jasin, orang Pekan so on and so forth. Their loyalty is to the Ruler who has dominance over their area. With the introduction of the Chinese and Indian immigrants by the British, the role of the Ruler transcended protector of the Malays, as protector of the immigrant subjects as well. The Hikayat Johor of the early 20th century lauds Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor for “looking after the Chinese subjects living in the state.” There is also mention of Chinese and Indians welcoming the Sultan home from an overseas journey (Anthony Milner, Australian National University, Milner 2002:214).
Even a left-wing Malay who wanted to unite a Raja-less Malaya with Batavia (Jakarta), Ibrahim Yaacob, referred to a Kelantan Ruler bestowing a prestigious title on a Chinese merchant and observed that the Johor state council building looked like a Chinese audience hall because it was decorated Chinese writing. When Ibrahim Yaacob asked what was the writing about, he was told that it recorded the personal service of wealthy Chinese people to the Ruler (Milner 2002:261). Ibrahim Yaacob later served as a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Japanese Giyuugun (Volunteer Army) and fled Malaya for Batavia and served under Sukarno taking up the name Iskandar Kamel Agastya (SeaDemon: Road to Merdeka – Persekutuan Tanah China (6th September 2011).
When racial strife hit Malaysia on 13th May 1969, the Sultan of Terengganu as well as other Rulers took steps to protect their non-Malay rakyats (Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian, Faculty of Humanities, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Kobkua 2011:364). This goes to affirm the special press statement made by the Conference of Rulers in October 2008 explaining that the Institution of Rulers is a “protective umbrella ensuring impartiality among the citizens.” The statement itself explains the Rulers’ constitutional role respecting the so-called “Social Contract” between Malays and non-Malays, and assures the non-Malays that there is no need to “harbour any apprehension or worry over their genuine rights.” (Kobkua 2011:425-426).
When the British wanted the Sultan of Selangor to banish a Chinese man, Ho Chick Kwan, (Ho Chick Kwan v Honourable British Resident Selangor, Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1931), Ho was described as a “natural born subject of the Ruler of the State of Negeri Sembilan, and his adopted mother Lui Ho described herself as owing “true allegiance to His Highness the Sultan of Selangor.”
Such is the role of the Rulers in unifying the rakyat, and such was how the non-Malays back then were loyal subjects of the Rulers as the Malays were – a far cry compared to what we have today.
As mentioned in the fifth paragraph above, the strength and weakness of the Ruler depends on the strengths, weaknesses, sincerity, truthfulness, and knowledge of their adviser, namely the Prime Minister and the Menteris Besar. The recent fiasco in Johor shows how a weak adviser can put the Ruler in harm’s way. When the British acted as advisers and administered the states of behalf of their respective Rules, many of the Malays, including Ibrahim bin Yaacob, Burhanuddin Helmy et al saw no need for the monarchy to remain as an institution, hence the desire to make Malaya a republic united with Batavia. UMNO then took over as the linchpin of the Malays from the Rulers with the formation of the Malayan Union.
It is easy to understand why the Rulers agreed to the formation of the Malayan Union: weakened by the pompous nature of their British advisers who departed when the Japanese arrived, the Japanese relegated the Rulers into nothing more than deputy advisers in the administration of the Malay customs and religion. Imagine what it was like for a Johor commoner to see his Sultan being scolded by the Japanese for leaning on his stick. Seen working with the Japanese in World War Two, and weak in the eyes of the Malays, the Rulers did not have much choice but to succumb to the demands of the British. But the Tunku was quick in restoring the faith of the Malays in the Rulers. He recalled that:
“At all costs I wanted to avoid having a split with the Rulers.” (Simon C Smith, Professor of International History, University of Hull, Smith 1995:183)
The seemingly weak administrations of both Abdullah Badawi and Najib Razak, and the digression of UMNO from its original intended path of protecting Islam, the Malays and Bumiputras and its inherent weakness in dealing with various right-wing Chinese and Indian organisations that have thrived under weak administrations have led to the formation of right-wing Malay groups such as the PERKASA and ISMA. Najib seems to have given in to a lot of demands from people who will never ever support him nor his party, promising uncontrolled legal reforms thence setting up the left-leaning National Unity Consultative Council. The National Harmony and Reconciliation Bill proposed by the NUCC is seen as a clear and present danger to a society that is already on the edge of destruction.
In Section 6 (1) (iii) of this Bill, will render the Rulers powerless in selecting the Menteri Besar for their respective state; the Agong will not have the power to select his Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, his Inspector-General of Police, or his Chief of Armed Forces even. You Malays and Bumiputras may think that Article 153 can protect you, but you should also read Article 153(5) of the Federal Constitution and see what it says, and tell me if what I have written in this paragraph is not true.
Section 7 (1) (ii) even allows people of the LGBT group to hold important positions. Gender equal opportunity is already in effect, but regardless of sexual orientation? I have gay friends and some are good friends of mine. Even they cringe whenever their lifestyle is brought under the spotlight by glamour-seeking peers. It is not that they are not talented but will this not tear the fabric of our society? May I ask the so-called religious Muslims and Christians if they agree with this? In the name of Human Rights, we are beginning to fight to become animals, where unnatural ways are to become the norm of our society. I wonder how long would the Christian church in Malaysia be able to resist same-sex marriages with this Bill coming into effect. Removal of the Sedition Act would certainly act as a catalyst to destruction, much as the removal of the Internal Security Act has contributed to the worsening condition of the country. There is nothing wrong with either Act. Mere tweaking to prevent the laws from being abused by politicians would have been sufficient.
I fear for the future of this nation. We must not let extremism prevail.
This is where the Rulers can play a role in holding the fragile fabric of this divisive society, to once again play a pivotal role in bringing this nation back to its senses. We can no longer rely on weak Prime Ministers and Menteris Besar to protect this society from falling apart, all in the name of Human Rights (and the desire to please non-believers thinking you can get votes by kow-towing to their demands). The Rulers also need to keep their conduct, and that of their families, in check. There is no use correcting the society when they and those related to them do not behave with the utmost decorum. And as history has proven again and again, the Rulers can act independently from their weak and self-interested advisers.
In the words of Sultan Nazrin Muizuddin Shah of Perak in July 2011:
“Rulers must use wisdom to calm situations, but they do not have a ‘magic lamp’ to keep unity, especially when the situation has become chaotic.“
I was an Officer of the Armed Forces of Malaysia, my loyalty has always been for my King and Country. I humbly beg His Royal Highnesses to intervene and override weak and destructive suggestions of the government of the day. Again in the words of Sultan Nazrin:
“Unity requires a willingness to sacrifice, accept defeat willingly and celebrate victory with humility.”