When
the MP for Alor Star proposed that MB Azmin Ali streamline the constitutional
procedures of appointing the MB, he was viciously criticised by a Malay group.
He was accused among other things, trying to challenge the institution of the
monarchy.
The
defence of the institution is one of the 4 Malay institutions which must be
defended to the last drop of Malay blood. This was declared by the minister in
charge of the Police and security of the country. We all know who he is. His
name is not Himmler.
Call
me unpatriotic, but nobody wants a return to absolute monarchy. I support
constitutional monarch. It is part of my cultural heritage. I think all Malays,
even those with some republican inclinations, support the existence of the
Malay monarchy in its current form. The Monarchy itself may adapt to emerging
trends later. If it does that, it is due to its enlightened self-interest.
But
let them remain as constitutional monarchs. We have no problems with that.
We
have a good system already. The primary right is with the people. We have
chosen to accommodate constitutional monarchy which means a limited monarchy.
It is limited by the applicable rules of law (we already accorded special rules
and courts when dealing with members of Malay royalty). More important the
conduct of rulers is censored by public opinion. A ruler, who does not heed the
voice of the people, cannot endure.
An
example of such public opinion is the very public expression of disapproval of
a development in Johor. The development is said to involve the Sultan of Johor.
The developer has claimed his proposals are above board. If so, he has nothing
to fear from a public disapproval of a peasant or a fisherman.
But
we all know the usual story. He is not hiding behind the above board argument
but actually riding on that vague concept of royal prerogative. What is that
again? It is that indefinable privilege of shielding the actions of the
monarchs and those representing him of accountability. Obviously the developer
is representing the Sultan of Johor and because he carries the stamp of the
Sultan, he has royal prerogative.
The
group that assailed the Alor Star MP and like the others with the same mission,
appear like instant noodles and claimed as its principal cause, the protection
of the Malay monarchy against assault and attack and whatever. What is the real
issue here?
The
bigger issue here is about crown prerogative. Crown prerogative shields the
king and his representatives from constraints that affect us mortals. Those
hiding behind crown prerogative do no need to explain their action. In
Malaysia, it’s even more novel- one could always hide behind the never can be
questioned Malay monarchy. The cushioning, conveniencing, excluding powers of
the prerogative crop up throughout our system of government, often excusing
conduct that is most arbitrary, most secretive, and least accountable.
Crown
prerogative is simply what's left of a once much larger edifice and as defined
by Lord Dicey "the residue of the discretionary or arbitrary authority
which at any given time is left in the hands of the crown." Except that,
strictly speaking, it's no longer in the hands of the crown, but the hands of
our political masters.
Yes
the political masters. No one for a minute believes the speech given by HRH the
Sultan of Selangor during the endorsement on excos appointed for Selangor, was
written by him. The extraordinary length and narrative of the Selangor problem,
mentioning the Kajang move and expression of anger at DAP and PKR, even citing
the cessation of hostilities during the month of Ramadhan, can only be the
handiwork of some political masters.
Crown
prerogative of course means the monarch. Today the King retains the ancient
prerogatives of choosing or dismissing the prime minister and deciding whether
or not parliament should be dissolved. Today, when a party leader resigns or
gets sacked, the party will choose a replacement, and only in the most
exceptional circumstances would the palace look for a successor anywhere else.
As to dismissing a premier, for a monarch to try to do this in the early 21st
century seems inconceivable.
The
Malay Monarchy to UMNO is a carte blanche. It allows the government, which UMNO
controls of course, do a lot of things under near immunity. It can be used to
fill a huge range of senior appointments in the armed forces, the security
services, the civil service and the judiciary, without reference to the
people's representatives, though also, in most cases, without anything more
than a token reference to the monarch whom they are said to be serving. It is
still the Royal commission, the Royal pardon when prisoners are released, the
King’s pleasure when they are jailed sine die, and royal commissions to inquire
into weighty issues. But the will which drives the institution is that of
Putrajaya, not the palace.
But
here is the good news. Crown prerogative can be, and is being, rolled back. It
helps if there is an outcry against the way it frustrates a clear public
interest, as in the case of the Mega development project in Johor. The immunity
from accountability is challenged, because we must realise that crown
prerogative is a residuum. Where statutes exist, it retreats. We have laws
protecting the Malay monarchy. As such we do not require the raucous defence of
the Malay monarchy against challenge. No need to invoke immunity.
The
emerging constitutional history of this country is going to be the history of
the prerogative powers of the crown being made subject to the overriding powers
of the democratically elected legislature as the sovereign body. The
prerogative powers of the crown remain in existence to the extent to which
parliament has not expressly or by implication extinguished them.
Politicians
come and go, monarchs in so many countries come and go, but the people, they
remain.