Certain quarters are calling for their fellow Malaysians to be stripped of their citizenship. Presumably because these individuals have committed treason by disrespecting HRH the Sultan of Perak.
In the case of former Perak menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin , it is because he declined to resign when told to do so by HRH the Sultan of Perak. Since the Malaysian constitution is clear that when such an impasse occurs, the sitting menteri besar has the right to seek legal recourse to dispute the legality of the new state government, Nizar is within his constitutional rights to decline the royal command and seek the judgment of the Malaysian courts.
In cases like this one, we might consider looking to the words of our founding father. Tunku Abdul Rahman who was a prince, lawyer and prime minister. His words must surely carry some weight. On the matter of the role of constitutional monarchs, the Tunku had this to say: ‘Under our constitutions, either federal or state, the ruler is the fount of authority, and as such guardian of the constitution. Just as the constitution ensures that his office is respected, so too must aruler respect the constitution.’ (Looking Back, 215)
No one should doubt the wisdom and the authority of HRH Sultan Azlan Shah, who was our former Lord President. In this matter, HRH acted in good faith. Yet, to quote the Tunku again, ‘They (the rulers) must set the best example, or show in kingship as well as sultan-ship that thereis much they can do that can be appreciated and expected by their people’.
Therefore, just as the constitution provides for the authority and dignity of the rulers, it also provides for the safety for the common citizen. Nizar is well within his rights to defy the royal order, challenge the legality of the appointment of the BN state government and have his day in court.
The second Malaysian whose citizenship is called into question is that of DAP chairperson Karpal Singh. A senior lawyer and senior member of parliament, Karpal Singh suggested that HRH Sultan Azlan Shah be named as a defendant in a potential law suit calling into question the legality of the BN Perak government. No one wants to see the Perak royal house being taken to court. Some people are calling Karpal's suggestion ‘treason’ and that he should be stripped of his citizenship. The loudest voices are from Umno Youth. This is ironic as no other political party in Malaysia's history has a longer list of going against the Malay rulers than Umno.
In the case of former Perak menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin , it is because he declined to resign when told to do so by HRH the Sultan of Perak. Since the Malaysian constitution is clear that when such an impasse occurs, the sitting menteri besar has the right to seek legal recourse to dispute the legality of the new state government, Nizar is within his constitutional rights to decline the royal command and seek the judgment of the Malaysian courts.
In cases like this one, we might consider looking to the words of our founding father. Tunku Abdul Rahman who was a prince, lawyer and prime minister. His words must surely carry some weight. On the matter of the role of constitutional monarchs, the Tunku had this to say: ‘Under our constitutions, either federal or state, the ruler is the fount of authority, and as such guardian of the constitution. Just as the constitution ensures that his office is respected, so too must aruler respect the constitution.’ (Looking Back, 215)
No one should doubt the wisdom and the authority of HRH Sultan Azlan Shah, who was our former Lord President. In this matter, HRH acted in good faith. Yet, to quote the Tunku again, ‘They (the rulers) must set the best example, or show in kingship as well as sultan-ship that thereis much they can do that can be appreciated and expected by their people’.
Therefore, just as the constitution provides for the authority and dignity of the rulers, it also provides for the safety for the common citizen. Nizar is well within his rights to defy the royal order, challenge the legality of the appointment of the BN state government and have his day in court.
The second Malaysian whose citizenship is called into question is that of DAP chairperson Karpal Singh. A senior lawyer and senior member of parliament, Karpal Singh suggested that HRH Sultan Azlan Shah be named as a defendant in a potential law suit calling into question the legality of the BN Perak government. No one wants to see the Perak royal house being taken to court. Some people are calling Karpal's suggestion ‘treason’ and that he should be stripped of his citizenship. The loudest voices are from Umno Youth. This is ironic as no other political party in Malaysia's history has a longer list of going against the Malay rulers than Umno.
In the run up to Merdeka, when the Alliance of Umno and MCA made their stand against home rule and instead wanted independence, the Malay rulers were dead against the suggestion of elected representatives being the majority of the Federal Legislative Council.
Here again, I quote the Tunku:‘The sultans were adamant and refused to give in. They were frightened about what might happen to them if the people had control of the country...I had to think and plan very carefully, because at all costs I wanted to avoid having a split with the rulers...I was in Johore, and decided the best course was to call on the sultan to present a petition requesting him to agree to a national election and independence.
‘We led a procession of thousands to the Istana Johore, including all the Alliance leaders, Tun Cheng-Lock Tan, Tun Leong Yew Koh, Tun Dr Ismail, Tun HS Lee and Datuk Sulaiman Abdul Rahman. We marched in the sun and reached the Istana at noon. Sultan Ibrahim stood at the top of the Istana steps to greet us, looking over the lawns below at the thousands of Alliance members of Umno-MCA. In front of the vast crowd, I presented our petition, and when the Sultan took it in his hands from all around there rose a shout in salute, the words of homage, ‘Daulat Tuanku, repeated three times.’ (Looking Back, p. 27)
It appears that the British colonial government did not try to keep the rakyat away from their sultan. Perhaps tear-gas had not been invented yet. On another occasion, when the Sultan Ibrahim of Johorinstructed the menteri besar Datuk Seth to retain a British Adviser, the Tunku related what amounts to be something along the lines of mohon derhaka on the part of Datuk Seth.
‘During a discussion on the posts of British advisors and residents, the late Datuk Seth, acting menteri besar of Johor, declared that his sultan had ordered him to fight and retain the office of British Adviser in his state, but he himself, speaking as a Malayan representative and a patriot, would not support his sultan on this issue.
‘Datuk Seth agreed with the rest that the posts of British Adviser and British Resident must go. To ensure that this would happen, Datuk Seth said he was prepared to accept whatever punishment his ruler might decide to impose on him.’ (Looking Back, p. 60).
Would Umno Youth or any NGO call for the retrospective stripping of citizenship of Datuk Seth? Here is a clear and irrefutable case of refusing to carry out the orders of the Sultan of Johor. There aremany other cases where Umno led and the people followed.When Dr Mahathir Mohamad proposed to remove the immunity of their Royal Highnesses from criminal and civil prosecution, Umno backed the call.
This writer remembers reading articles in the Dewan Masyarakat as a schoolboy where the case was argued intelligently and reasonably. There were voices that asked for Mahathir to be stripped of his citizenship but these were retrogressive as the people backed Mahathir then. On all these counts when individuals defied royalty, they had good reason to do so and they did it without denying their Royal Highnesses their dignity.
Nizar, to my mind, has acted with utmost courtesy to HRH the Sultan of Perak. He said that he does not intend to name the sultan as a defendant in the impending lawsuit. Surely, he has a right to defend his government in the Malaysian courts. In almost all instances of a constitutional crisis of this nature, the deposed have had a right to legal recourse. Stripping Nizar of his citizenship denies him that right.
It is not my place to give advice to a senior lawyer of Karpal Singh's stature and reputation. Indeed, I remember his son in St. Xavier's Institution in Penang. However, Karpal Singh might want to take a leaf from Tunku Abdul Rahman's book. Humility is what wins the day, especially when dealing with royalty. It wins you support from the rakyat whilst preserving the dignity of HRH.
It is imperative in a constitutional monarchy that the dignity of their Highnesses do not get tarnished otherwise they can no longer carry out their duties as protectors of the constitution. The very document that prevents Malaysians from losing their citizenship for speaking the truth.
(First published on: Feb 13, 09 1:19pm)
Here again, I quote the Tunku:‘The sultans were adamant and refused to give in. They were frightened about what might happen to them if the people had control of the country...I had to think and plan very carefully, because at all costs I wanted to avoid having a split with the rulers...I was in Johore, and decided the best course was to call on the sultan to present a petition requesting him to agree to a national election and independence.
‘We led a procession of thousands to the Istana Johore, including all the Alliance leaders, Tun Cheng-Lock Tan, Tun Leong Yew Koh, Tun Dr Ismail, Tun HS Lee and Datuk Sulaiman Abdul Rahman. We marched in the sun and reached the Istana at noon. Sultan Ibrahim stood at the top of the Istana steps to greet us, looking over the lawns below at the thousands of Alliance members of Umno-MCA. In front of the vast crowd, I presented our petition, and when the Sultan took it in his hands from all around there rose a shout in salute, the words of homage, ‘Daulat Tuanku, repeated three times.’ (Looking Back, p. 27)
It appears that the British colonial government did not try to keep the rakyat away from their sultan. Perhaps tear-gas had not been invented yet. On another occasion, when the Sultan Ibrahim of Johorinstructed the menteri besar Datuk Seth to retain a British Adviser, the Tunku related what amounts to be something along the lines of mohon derhaka on the part of Datuk Seth.
‘During a discussion on the posts of British advisors and residents, the late Datuk Seth, acting menteri besar of Johor, declared that his sultan had ordered him to fight and retain the office of British Adviser in his state, but he himself, speaking as a Malayan representative and a patriot, would not support his sultan on this issue.
‘Datuk Seth agreed with the rest that the posts of British Adviser and British Resident must go. To ensure that this would happen, Datuk Seth said he was prepared to accept whatever punishment his ruler might decide to impose on him.’ (Looking Back, p. 60).
Would Umno Youth or any NGO call for the retrospective stripping of citizenship of Datuk Seth? Here is a clear and irrefutable case of refusing to carry out the orders of the Sultan of Johor. There aremany other cases where Umno led and the people followed.When Dr Mahathir Mohamad proposed to remove the immunity of their Royal Highnesses from criminal and civil prosecution, Umno backed the call.
This writer remembers reading articles in the Dewan Masyarakat as a schoolboy where the case was argued intelligently and reasonably. There were voices that asked for Mahathir to be stripped of his citizenship but these were retrogressive as the people backed Mahathir then. On all these counts when individuals defied royalty, they had good reason to do so and they did it without denying their Royal Highnesses their dignity.
Nizar, to my mind, has acted with utmost courtesy to HRH the Sultan of Perak. He said that he does not intend to name the sultan as a defendant in the impending lawsuit. Surely, he has a right to defend his government in the Malaysian courts. In almost all instances of a constitutional crisis of this nature, the deposed have had a right to legal recourse. Stripping Nizar of his citizenship denies him that right.
It is not my place to give advice to a senior lawyer of Karpal Singh's stature and reputation. Indeed, I remember his son in St. Xavier's Institution in Penang. However, Karpal Singh might want to take a leaf from Tunku Abdul Rahman's book. Humility is what wins the day, especially when dealing with royalty. It wins you support from the rakyat whilst preserving the dignity of HRH.
It is imperative in a constitutional monarchy that the dignity of their Highnesses do not get tarnished otherwise they can no longer carry out their duties as protectors of the constitution. The very document that prevents Malaysians from losing their citizenship for speaking the truth.
(First published on: Feb 13, 09 1:19pm)
On 11 May 2008, the Malaysian High Court declared Dato' Seri Mohd Nizar as the rightful Menteri Besar of Perak. The case is now at the Court of Appeals.
No comments:
Post a Comment