Sultan of Perak – SeaDemon Says

October 23, 2019October 25, 2019

Your Choice: Evolution or Revolution?

Murdered members of the East Sumatera sultanates, March 1946 — Members of the Eastern Sumatera Sultanate killed in March 1946

Malays love to idolise the wrong people. We name roads and university buildings after people like Burhanuddin Al-Helmy, Ishak Haji Muhammad, Ibrahim Yaakob, Ahmad Boestaman who once fought for the unification of Malaya and Indonesia under the Indonesia Raya political concept where the former comes under Indonesian rule from Batavia, rid of its feudal system.

On 3 March 1946, five Sultans from five Malay states in East Sumatera, along with thousands of their family members were brutally murdered by supporters of the Communist Party of Indonesia as well as Sumateran Malays who fell for their anti-royalist propaganda. The pogrom did not only end the Malay Sultanate governments of East Sumatera, but also the customs and traditions of the Sumateran Malays.

Those whose name had the prefix Tengku, Wan or Raja were immediately executed, while the Malay population had to assume Javanese or Batak names to avoid persecution. At least two generations of Sumateran Malays had to hide their real identity after the pogrom. It was in essence an ethnic cleansing, and was done under the battle cry “Daulat Rakyat.”

I often wonder if the same is being done here in Malaysia, the sowing of hatred towards the royal institutions in order to remove the very protection of the Malay and Bumiputera rights as well as the sanctity and status of Islam as the religion of the Federation?

Once, there was deep respect for the Rulers. Malaysia Incorporated changed all that. Money was power and that came from those with political power. Political interference in the constitutional powers of the Rulers eroded further whatever was left of that respect.

There is a revival of love and respect for the royal institution, now that things are going bad and election promises reneged upon. But people are still confused by the roles that the Rulers have in this democratic system of ours. Many people think that the Rulers institutions should be dissolved as they do not have any tangible role to play. The truth is far from it. Whatever executive powers that the government has, the fount of that power is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The roles of the Rulers were watered down from the beginning – in our school text books. It does not augur well for a government to be seen as playing a second fiddle to the Rulers. Hence, nationalism was injected into our history text books and the Rulers’ role in our “independence” was only as a signee party to the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1957. Nothing more. In the end, the Rulers are now “living extravagantly on taxpayers’ money.”

Therefore, it is of no surprise that the Rulers and members of the Royal institutions have their set of haters spawned by this lack of understanding. And when Her Majesty the Raja Permaisuri Agong recently retweeted a known UMNO cybertrooper’s post about the incident at the University of Malaya’s convocation ceremony, she was immediately condemned by the haters.

It was unfortunate for Her Majesty to have retweeted that person’s post, but I can understand why. It was driven by her displeasure of the act by the graduate, choosing such an occasion to display an absence of decorum. What if it was the Sultan of Perak who was there to present graduates with their scroll? Her Majesty undid her retweet later.

The Raja Permaisuri Agong is not the first of the first line member of the royal institutions to have suffered attacks both on and off social media. Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak, the Sultan of Johor, and the Sultan of Terengganu were criticised for choosing a Menteri Besar for their respective state by people who do not understand the constitution. Since when is the choosing of a Menteri Besar the prerogative of a winning party or Prime Minister? Where in any constitution does it say that? By convention? By convention is not a rule of law. That is not binding at all.

The Sultan of Selangor was criticised for protecting the sanctity of Islam, with some calling the state’s Syariah criminal enactment unconstitutional. It is the duty and absolute right of the Sultan of Selangor to protect the sanctity of Islam in his state; the same goes for the other Rulers as well. And the state Syariah criminal enactment that was passed by members of the state assembly remains a law of the state until proven unconstitutional by a constitutional court. Has there been any challenge?

I have mentioned in several of my previous writings that this land has always been Islamic by nature and this was reinforced by two British judges in the landmark case of Ramah binti Ta’at v Laton binti Malim Sutan 6 FMSLR (1927).

For the past few years I have seen many attacks made on the Rulers as well as on Islam and the special rights and privileges of the Malays and the Bumiputeras. Many non-Malay Bumiputeras fail to understand that they stand to lose a lot too if these attacks prevail.

Being the constitutional protectors of both Islam and the special rights and privileges of the Malays and Bumiputeras, the protection for the Rulers, for obvious reasons, must be removed first. Hence, we have seen the attempts to introduce the National Unity Consultative Commission Bill in 2015, ICERD and the Rome Statute. Times are dangerous in Malaysia for Islam, the Malays and Bumiputeras.

The reason for the UM graduate’s outburst on stage was his claim that the Vice-Chancellor of the university is a racist for attending the recent Malay Unity Congress and for delivering a speech then. A quick read of his speech text revealed nothing racist. But if the graduate still thinks it is, why stop there? Why not demonstrate in front of the Prime Minister’s office or residence for delivering a speech there as well? Why be selective?

And what has the Malay Unity Congress achieved? Absolutely nothing. Even the Prime Minister seems powerless to tell the graduate to go fly kites with his demands and to stop being such a rude person. The PM also seems powerless and reluctant to summon and reprimand the CEO of Media Prima for giving airtime to the said graduate.

That is why I used to tell my Muslim friends before the last general elections – politicians and governments come and go, so never rely on them to protect your rights and the special constitutional status of Islam in this country. And do not ever think that the politicians are bigger in status than the Rulers. The politicians only want to cling on to power. For that, they will make compromises and are willing to compromise their beliefs.

Imam al-Ghazali in his book, al-Iqtisad fil I’tiqad, challenged the idea that Muslims can perfect their individual actions and morals without a state that governs by Islam.

“The Deen and the Sultan are twins,” he wrote. “the Deen is the foundation and the Sultan is the guardian. That which has no foundation is doomed, and that which has no guardian will perish.”

And that is why there seems to be an attempt to undermine and eventually remove the guardian, so that the foundation can be permanently removed. So, what is it that we want? A nation where we live by the Federal Constitution as our paramount law so we can continue our evolution, or, believe in ‘Rakyat Hakim Negara’ where it becomes a revolution?

November 20, 2018

The Malaysian Concord (Part 4) – The Position and Function of the Malay Rulers

This article follows a previous one on the Malay and Bumiputera special rights.

A couple of days ago it was made known to the public that the street names in a certain suburb of Shah Alam were changed to Chinese characters, in contravention of Sections 2 and 9 of the National Language Act, 1963/67.

Yesterday, HRH The Sultan of Selangor decreed that the street names be taken down and replaced by ones in the Malay language, which is the National Language.

I mentioned in a previous post that a national language is a tool to unite the peoples of Malaysia.

It was the intention of our forefathers in the quest for independence to have ONE language to unite all, and that is the Malay language with a Romanised written form, so that the non-Malays could learn the Malay language rapidly (Tunku Abdul Rahman, The Road to Independence, 1984: pp.112-114).

I gather that those were the reasons His Royal Highness issued the decree mentioned above – in line with one of the functions of the Malay Rulers: to care for the people’s welfare. Therefore, if there is any issue that may cause tension, the Malay Rulers will step in to remind the people to respect each other and to respect the laws.

What I find disgusting in this episode is that the local government, or local council, allowed for the street name change to happen, forgetting that every instrument of the government is acting on His Majesty’s Service.

Not too long ago, all government envelopes had URUSAN SERI PADUKA BAGINDA stamped at the top; that was until someone who was not fond of the Rulers changed that to URUSAN KERAJAAN.

Essentially, all government branches, including the Federal cabinet as well as the state executive councillors, are acting on behalf of the Yang DiPertuan Agong and Sultan (in the case of states).

They are not independent of the Rulers – which is why they are sworn in before the Agong or the Sultan.

The Malay Rulers have divested much of their independence now as they did before during the period of British administration.

However, both they and their state remain sovereign. Independence is not equal to sovereignty.

The British were here through the various treaties signed with the respective Malay Rulers. Save for the Japanese occupation, Malayan Union period, Pulau Pinang, Melaka and for a while, Pangkor, the Dindings and Larut, Peninsular Malaysia was never under British colonial rule.

There were three test cases to determine the sovereignty of the Rulers and the state they ruled:

The infamous Mighell v The Sultan of Johore (1894) where it was ruled that, although the Sultan by treaty had bound himself not to exercise some rights of a sovereign ruler, this did not deprive him of his character as an independent sovereign;
In Duff Development Company Limited v The Government of Kelantan (1924), the House of Lords similarly upheld the sovereignty of Kelantan and its Ruler was not intended to be qualified by the terms of the treaty.
In Pahang Consolidated Company Limited v State of Pahang (1933), the Privy Council summarised the constitutional position in Pahang as follows: subject to the limitations which the Sultan had from time to time imposed upon himself, he remained ‘an absolute ruler in whom resides all legislative and executive power.’ (See, 1894; Q.B 1924; A.C and M.L.J).

The British were in the Malay states to assist the Malay Rulers in the administration and management of their respective states, and were under the Rulers’ payroll.

The only matters that they could not touch were the states’ Islamic affairs and Malay customs.

Sir Frederick Lugard wrote of the British Residents:

“From the first to last the theoretical independence of the states was the governing factor in the system evolved in Malaya. The so-called ‘Resident’ was in fact a Regent, practically uncontrolled by the Governor or Whitehall, governing his ‘independent’ state by direct, personal rule, with or without the co-operation of the native ruler.” (Sir F.D Lugard, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa, London, 1926: pp.130-1, vid. pp.8-10).

One such Resident was of course James Wheeler Woodford Birch who, in the words of Sir Richard Olaf Winstedt, “dashed into Perak’s Augean Stables like an angry Victorian schoolmaster, confident that it could all be cleaned up with a little firmness and decision.” (Winstedt, History of Perak, JMBRAS, xii, 1).

Birch’s monumental tactlessness, especially over the regulation of taxes, drove all the Sultan’s Chiefs into frantic opposition which resulted in his assassination in 1875.

Other than the occasional odd behaviour by some Residents, the Malay Rulers and their state remained sovereign and ‘independent’. In an answer to Colonel Josiah Wedgwood (Labour – Newcastle-under-Lyme) about the control over the states of Malaya, Sir Phillip Cunliffe-Lister (Conservative – Hendon), Secretary of State for the Colonies replied:

“There is no question at all of altering in any degree, even by a comma, the Treaties which bind us, and which are charters of the agreements with the Rulers both of the Federated and the Unfederated Malay States.” (British Parliament Hansard, Commons Sitting, Class II, HC Deb 14 July 1933 vol 280 cc 1429).

With the Independence of Malaya, all the administrative powers handed down by the Malay Rulers to the Federal and State Councils was passed to the government that was chosen by the people of Malaya in the 1955 elections.

The Federal cabinet administer the government of the Yang DiPertuan Agong, who was elected by the Malay Rulers to represent Their Highnesses at Federal level, while the Menteri Besar and state executive councillors administer the state for the Sultans.

The Malay 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).

In 1867, Bagehot asserted in “The English Constitution” that the Constitution needed two parts: the dignified – to excite and preserve the reverence of the population’ and the other, the efficient – to ‘employ that homage in the work of government’.

The monarch was the prime example of dignity in this sense and the Prime Minister (Menteri Besar) and his cabinet (executive councillors) of efficiency.

Therefore, the monarch, while lacking executive power, had an important constitutional role.

HRH The Sultan of Selangor was correct in the exercise of his function when reminding the people to not touch on the matters that have been agreed upon and are already enshrined in the Constitution – the sanctity of Islam, the National Language, the Malay and Bumiputera special rights, and the position and function of the Malay Rulers.

Such action, had the Sultan not interjected, would be naïve and dangerous to the fabric of the society.

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. “

(This article was first published on The Mole)

April 13, 2018

Beban Politik Harus Disingkirkan

darth madey

Satu minggu yang cukup menarik. Pembubaran parlimen yang begitu dinantikan telahpun berlaku. Pengumuman oleh SPR mengenai hari pengundian yang jatuh pada hari Rabu telah menyebabkan orang ramai tidak berpuas hati. Ini adalah kali ke-6 sejak kemerdekaan, yang menyaksikan pembuangan undi dibuat pada hari bekerja. 6 dari keseluruhan 14 pilihanraya umum Malaysia. Dan separuh darinya terjadi ketika Mahathir mentadbir Malaysia.

Ramai yang melenting kerana mereka hampir mustahil dapat pulang ke kawasan pengundian dan kembali ke tempat bermastautin selepas mengundi. Mereka kononnya dinafikan keadilan tanpa menyedari mereka sendiri berlaku tidak adil kepada penduduk kampung halaman mereka yang perlu mengadap wakil rakyat yang diundi mereka selama 5 tahun yang mungkin lebih teruk dari wakil rakyat sebelumnya.

Jika tidak mahu pulang mengundi, tukarlah alamat mengundi ke alamat bermastautin.

Lebih menarik, baru-baru di dalam satu penulisan di laman Facebook, DYAM Tunku Mahkota Johor telah menyeru kepada rakyat Johor untuk menolak parti atau pakatan yang akan memberikan kemenangan kepada Mahathir. Rakyat yang membaca terus menghamburkan kemarahan. Sebelum ini, apabila Tunku Mahkota Johor atau lebih dikenali sebagai TMJ mengkritik kerajaan, rakyat, termasuk mereka yang tidak mempercayai institusi beraja dengan akan pantas menulis ‘Daulat Tuanku’. Kini khalayak yang sama menyerang TMJ.

Saya kurang gemar sekiranya seorang ahli kerabat diraja mengeluarkan kenyataan sedemikian kerana saya percaya, sungguhpun mereka mempunyai pandangan tersendiri, mereka perlu kekal tidak berpihak. Namun, ungkapan terkenal dari Walter Bagehot bermain di fikiran saya:

“Raja mempunyai 3 hak: Hak untuk berbincang, hak untuk memberi galakan dan hak untuk memberi amaran”

Ini diakui oleh Mark R Gillen dari Fakulti Undang-Undang, University of Victoria (Gillen 1994:7) Almarhum Sultan Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah yang juga mantan Ketua Hakim Negara pernah bertitah:

“Adalah menjadi satu kesilapan jika peranan seorang Sultan, seperti seorang Presiden, adalah terhad sepertimana yang telah diperuntukan oleh Perlembagaan. Peranan seorang Sultan jauh melangkaui peruntukan Perlembagaan” (Azlan Shah 1986:89).

Maka, adalah hak TMJ untuk memberikan amaran kepada rakyat Johor mengenai apa yang baginda fikirkan sebagai berbahaya untuk rakyat baginda, dan demi perpaduan negeri baginda.

Jika Barisan ingin mengambil kesempatan untuk isu ini, saya fikir waktunya tidak kena kerana ia dilakukan terlalu awal, ketika negara baru hendak ‘memanaskan badan’ untuk menghadapi pilihanraya. Anda kini dapat melihat mesej-mesej yang disebarkan di dalam WhatsApp yang bukan sahaja menyerang Sultan Johor sekarang, tetapi juga menyerang Sultan sebelum ini, iaitu nenda kepada TMJ. Mahathir juga cepat mengeluarkan kenyataan, dengan berkata tulisan Pakatan itu hanya memberikan keuntungan kepada Pakatan.

Mungkin itu yang beliau fikirkan.

Perseteruan Mahathir dan Istana Johor berlaku dari sebelum Syed Saddiq dilahirkan lagi. Dua tahun selepas menjadi Perdana Menteri, Mahathir cuba mendapatkan persetujuan Almarhum Sultan Perak, Sultan Idris Shah untuk naik takhta sebagai Yang Dipertuan Agong ke-8 kerana Sultan Pahang bakal menamatkan tempoh perkhidmatan pada tahun 1984. Ianya berjalan serentak dengan kempen memburukan Sultan Johor, dalam cubaan untuk mendapatkan sokongan ramai.

Hubungan Mahathir dan Sultan Johor begitu teruk sehingga beberapa pegawai kanan tentera merancang satu rampasan kuasa pada tahun 1983. Panglima Tentera Darat ketika itu, Jeneral Tan Sri Dato’ Zain Hashim, seorang pegawai tentera yang amat cemerlang, terpaksa bersara pada usia yang masih muda, iaitu 52 tahun, pada Januari 1984 dan digantikan oleh Jeneral Tan Sri Dato’ Mohd Ghazali Bin Haji Che Mat. Jeneral Ghazali hanya berkhidmat sebagai PTD selama setahun sebelum dilantik sebagai Panglima Angkatan Tentera. Jeneral Ghazali telah diganti oleh Jeneral Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Mohamed Hashim Mohd Ali sebagai Panglima Tentera Darat, adik ipar Mahathir. Tentera Darat kini diperintah oleh seseorang yang setia dengan Mahathir. Jeneral Hashim kemudian menjawat jawatan Panglima Angkatan Tentera. Maka, berakhirlah segala ketidak-setiaan Angkatan Tentera Malaysia terhadap Mahathir.

Saya mengetahui butiran rancangan rampasan kuasa tersebut tetapi diminta untuk merahsiakannya.

Tidak, ini tidak menunjukkan Tentera hanya perlu setia kepada Raja-Raja Melayu, sebaliknya tentera juga perlu setia kepada kerajaan Yang Dipertuan Agong kerana menurut Artikel 39 Perlembagaan Persekutuan menteri kabinet adalah mewakili Yang Dipertuan Agong dan diberikan kuasa eksekutif untuk mentadbir negara bagi pihak Yang Dipertuan Agong. Maka, kesetian perlu diberikan oleh Angkatan Tentera Malaysia untuk Perdana Menteri dan kabinet beliau.

Segala perbuatan dan cubaan Mahathir keatas keluarga diraja Johor telah ditulis TMJ. Bukan rahsia lagi yang Mahathir begitu bencikan keluarga diraja kerana sejak zaman Perang Dunia Kedua lagi beliau telah bertelagah dengan Tunku Abdul Rahman, Perdana Menteri Pertama Malaysia dan kerabat diraja Kedah. Baru-baru ini, Mahathir telah menyerang projek Forest City dengan cuba menakutkan penduduk tempatan dengan kebanjiran warga China dan menyerang etnik Bugis, iaitu keturunan Najib dan dua orang Sultan, iaitu Johor dan Selangor dengan berkata ‘Lanun Bugis patut balik ke tanah asal mereka’.

Sultan Johor mengecam Mahathir kerana memainkan sentimen perkauman manakala Sultan Selangor mengecam komen Bugis Mahathir.

Mahathir masih tidak memohon kemaafan atas kedua-dua insiden itu.

“Beliau adalah seorang yang pemarah dan akan membakar seluruh negara ini dengan kemarahan beliau” titah Sultan Selangor di dalam satu kenyataan yang dikatakan turut dipersetujui oleh Majlis Raja-Raja.

Apabila ditanya oleh media mengenai titah Sultan Selangor itu, Mahathir menjawab “Ya, saya memang pemarah dan anda sendiri boleh lihat betapa marahnya saya. Saya akan bakar anda dan akan terus membakar apa sahaja.”

Ya, Mahathir akan membakar apa sahaja asalkan beliau mendapat apa yang beliau hajati. Beliau tidak peduli sekiranya negara ini hancur. Ini adalah kerana beliau kian kesuntukan masa.

Sebelum bersara 15 tahun lepas, beliau mahukan seorang Perdana Menteri yang mendengar cakap dan yang akan melindungi beliau dan keluarga beliau dari sebarang siasatan, walaupun selepas beliau tiada lagi. Apabila Pak Lah enggan, beliau gulingkan Pak Lah. Kemudian datang Najib Razak yang mempunyai idea sendiri bagaimana negara ini perlu ditadbir dan dijadikan lebih baik. Mahathir, yang tidak biasa dengan orang-orang yang tidak mengikut kemahuan beliau, cuba menggulingkan Najib. Ianya merupakan serangan dari pelbagai arah, yang menguatkan lagi serangan sedia ada dari pembangkang.

Beliau berpakat dengan Muhyiddin dan Shafie. Beliau tahu bahawa beliau tidak boleh bergantung harap dengan Zahid Hamidi kerana beliau pernah memenjarakan Zahid di bawah ISA. Kesetiaan Hishammuddin terhadap sepupunya pula tidak boleh dipersoalkan. Beliau menekan kepimpinan UMNO dengan harapan Najib akan disingkirkan dan Muhyiddin akan dilantik sebagai Perdana Menteri lalu menjamin keselamatan keluarga beliau.

Malangnya rancangan itu gagal. Najib kembali teguh dan kini aktif membalas serangan. Muhyiddin dan Shafie dipecat dari kerajaan dan parti. Mahathir dan keluarganya kini berdepan dengan kemungkinan terpaksa menghadapi siasatan ke atas salahguna kuasa untuk mendapatkan kekayaan dan projek-projek tanpa tender terbuka.

Sebab inilah beliau nekad untuk kembali berkuasa sebagai Perdana Menteri – supaya beliau boleh jamin akan dapat melindungi keluarga beliau dari disiasat oleh pihak berkuasa.

Jika difikirkan, kenapa perlunya seorang ‘ yang berprinsip’ melanggar kesemua prinsip dan bekerjasama dengan musuh ketatnya, yang diketahui ingin memusnahkan budaya dan adat istiadat orang melayu dan mungkin juga, institusi beraja?

Mantan-mantan pegawai tinggi polis dan tentera pasti ingat di dalam satu sesi golf di mana Almarhum Sultan Iskandar berkata Malaysia tidak memerlukan sistem Presiden dan mesti menyingkirkan ‘beban politik’.

Kita mungkin tertanya apa yang dimaksudkan oleh Almarhum tteapi saya rasa saya tidak mempunyai sebarang masalah mengenalpasti siapa yang dimaksudkan oleh Almarhum.

Namun, satu perkara yang pasti, Mahathir lebih rela untuk memohon maaf kepada Ambiga dan DAP kerana menggunakan perkatan ‘keling‘ daripada memohon ampun kepada Raja-Raja Melayu.

Lihatlah sendiri di mana kedudukan Raja-Raja Melayu berbanding Ambiga dan DAP di mata Mahathir.

Inikah sifat seseorang yang boleh memelihara kedudukan agama Islam dan keistimewaan Bumiputera dan orang Melayu di Malaysia?

Berhati-hatilah bila membuang undi kelak.

December 8, 2017

Non Compos Mentis

Zaid Ibrahim on a campaign trail (courtesy of parpukari.blogspot.my)

His Royal Highness Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah Alhaj, the Sultan of Selangor from my observation is a calm and very private person. He rarely makes any statement or gives interviews to the media except during his birthday celebration. Only once in a blue moon would Sultan Sharafuddin voice out his concern, especially during the Kajang Move, because it was affecting the efficiency of His Royal Highness’s state government. The Sultan had also expressed his concern over the rudeness of the Opposition and its supporters towards the late Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak during the Perak constitutional crisis of 2009.

The latest episode involves the adverse reaction by DAP’s Zaid Ibrahim to the Sultan’s statement on Mahathir’s remark on the Bugis people. The statement was made as part of an interview with The Star for this year’s celebration of the Sultan’s birthday. In his Twitter postings, Zaid said that when some Rulers play politics, they must know the consequences. Do not think there is no price for partisanship.

What earned Zaid the wrath of many was when he also Tweeted a warning to Sultan Sharafuddin saying the Sultan should be careful with his words (as) no one is immune when (the) country burns.

That is typical of Zaid, when he displays the usual non compos mentis character. Often displaying his republican attitude, Zaid suits well in the DAP – a party known historically for its rash behaviour when it comes to respecting the Rulers Institution. It is also well that he is a Malay, from Kelantan, as it would appeal to the fence-sitting Malays in Kelantan who are politically torn after the departure of PAS from Pakatan Rakyat effectively ending the coalition.

The late Karpal Singh once petitioned to sue Sultan Sharafuddin’s late father, Almarhum Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Alhaj, in 1987 over a speech by Sultan Salahuddin to the Selangor branch of the Ex-Servicemen’s Association saying that he would not pardon drug traffickers in Selangor. The petition was rejected on the grounds that there was no lis. In 2009, Karpal Singh had intended to sue Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak for appointing Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir as the new Menteri Besar, replacing DAP’s choice Nizar Jamaluddin. Karpal was found guilty of sedition in 2014.

Since gaining some grounds after the 2008 general elections, the DAP has time and again displayed its disrespect to the Rulers Institution by not abiding by the dress code at state assembly openings. One good example is of DAP’s Gwee Tong Hiang who was the Johor state assemblyman for Bentayan who did not wear a songkok at the state assembly opening. The late Sultan of Johor, Almarhum Sultan Iskandar Ismail was not amused.

“Two days ago someone here tried to be a hero by refusing to dress accordingly. If he wants (to differ), then get out of here now!” the late Sultan chastised. Tong Hiang, unfortunately, was not present then.

The DAP had wised up since then. Seen as a Chinese chauvinist party, such rude behaviour turned them into punching bags of the Malays, especially those from UMNO who had a feast turning the DAP into cheap meals. The DAP quickly recruited liberal Malays into its fold, including Zaid, to do their dirty jobs for them. This keeps the heat off the Chinese in DAP, but pit Malays against Malays.

What the authorities should realise is that such behaviour displayed most recently by Zaid Ibrahim sends the wrong signal that it is alright to reject Malay traditions including respect for the elders and the Rulers to the younger Malaysian who, at their age, would be mostly anti-establishment by nature. If this goes unchecked, it would certainly give birth to more Zaid Ibrahims.

The authorities should take cue from Sultan Sharafuddin.

“I am aware that Zaid had long been making false and incorrect accusations against me. He is a politician and a former minister whom I understand is against the royal institution. My advice to Zaid is simple, do not forget where you come from,” the Sultan said.

November 4, 2017

The Creeping of the Republicans

I blame our history books. In our eagerness to instill the spirit of nationalism, we took an easy way out by saying that we were colonised by the British, when in actual fact the whole of Malaya came under British rule only during the Malayan Union period. Only Melaka, Pulau Pinang, Singapore, and for a while Pangkor and the Dindings were under the direct rule of Britain when they were part of the Strait Settlements. Other than that, the British advisers administered the Malay states through treaties, and the administrators were under the payroll of the respective Sultans or Rajas, not the British.

One of the leading evidence of the sovereignty and independence of the Malay states was a landmark case in England where in 1885 the Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor went to England, and according to the plaintiff of the case, Miss Mighell, took the name Albert Baker and promised to marry her.

It was held by court that the Sultan was entitled to immunity even though up to the time of suit ‘he has perfectly concealed the fact that he is a sovereign, and has acted as a private individual.’ ‘When once there is the authoritative certificate of the Queen (Victoria) through her minister of state as to the status of another sovereign, that in the courts of this country is decisive’.

To an argument that Sultan Abu Bakar had waived this immunity, the court held that the only way that a sovereign could waive immunity was by submitting to jurisdiction in the face of the court as, for example, by appearance to a writ. If the sovereign ignored the issue of the writ, the court was under a duty of its own motion to recognise his immunity from suit.

The roles of the Malay Rulers 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. The Rulers ruled this land even when the British were here to administer the land on behalf of The Majesties.

When 31 August 1957 arrived, the powers that the Rulers had invested in the British was duly transferred to a government that was chosen by the people through a process of democracy called Elections. It is untrue that during the British administration of this land, and now, that the Rulers have no other power other than having a say in the matters of the Religion of Islam and the Malay custom.

The Rulers, as keepers 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)

In other words, the Rulers may be Constitutional Monarchs, but they are not limited to what have been spelt out in the Federal Constitution.

When Syed Saddiq, the runner for Mahathir wrote to the Sultan of Selangor after His Royal Highness expressed great displeasure over Mahathir’s labelling of the Bugis as “pirates who should return to their own land” and pleaded for the Sultan’s support to “fight against corruption and injustice with the people” it shows this great-person-wannabe’s lack of understanding of the position of the Rulers in the Federal Constitution.

The Rulers are apolitical. The Rulers do not take sides, or do not express openly whom they prefer over those they do not. For instance, when the Menteri Besar of Selangor does something that is deemed un-Menteri Besar-like, the most the Sultan would do is to express a reminder for the Menteri Besar to improve his performance so that the lives of the subjects of His Royal Highness are not in any way adversely affected. To encourage certain courses of action is part of the duty of a Sultan, but the Sultan is above politics.

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.“

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.”

After 2008, we have witnessed how lawmakers from a certain party have been rude towards the Malay Rulers, forgetting their place in the Federa Constitution. The Rukunegara – means nothing to them: there is no Loyalty to the lawmakers themselves are rarely guided by the belief in God as they lie as if God does not exist, they show no loyalty to King and Country except when they need favours or awards which also means they do not subscribe to the supremacy of the Constitution, they don’t believe in the Rule of Law when it does not work according to their overall game plan, and by being rude to the authorities beginning with the Malay Rulers show that they do not practice courtesy and morality.

And are we surprised that we now have common people threatening the police, council enforcement officers, biting court officers, or show gross disrespect for the authority of the Malay Rulers? They learn such absence of manners from their political idols.

If I were to write a letter to His Royal Highness The Sultan of Selangor, it would be to plead to His Royal Highness to pressure the authorities to hasten their investigation into the seditious nature of Mahathir’s remark.