The Sun of Monday, April 13, 2015 carried the headline: ‘Don’t do it again!’ I read it and wondered who was giving this order. Since I had picked up the copy before daylight, I did not take the time to read it immediately but instead went for my daily walk. But of course in the course of my walk I wondered which father was speaking to his children, or which principal was talking to his or her school kids.
Little did I realise that it was one representative of the rulers council in Perak speaking after the 163rd council meeting.
The warning was given to Perak assemblypersons from one side of the August House, namely about 26 of them. The assemblypersons had ‘misbehaved’ by not wearing the correct uniform to their ‘school!’ They were being warned, by this unelected representative of the sultan about their misdemeanour and were being scolded, “Never to do it again!” Really, who are we dealing with here?
Constitutional authority
Malaysia has a constitutional monarchy, and they get exist from history, legacy, and as defined by the federal constitution. If the constitution does not recognise them; they cannot continue to legally exist, regardless of our understanding, appreciation and emotional arguments about our history and legacy before 1957.
The Persekutuan Tanah Melayu which pre-existed the Federation of Malaya is historically real and all valid reality was incorporated into the Merdeka constitution.
These traditional Malay Rulers; while they existed in the past as feudal heads of Malay community, they have also been squarely limited by the federal constitution in defining their new roles and responsibilities in the new Federation of Malay States; and since then the newer Federation of three Malaysian States.
Therefore, for one example, they do not have power to execute someone not already charged and convicted by the Civil Courts system under our federal constitution. In fact, their power is only to pardon and never any more to convict.
Therefore, I was truly shocked by this Perak warning in the name of the Perak rulers council. Consequently, as a non-Perakian, I want to ask questions that come to my mind. Is the institution of the Perak royalty really without any ‘of their own sins?’ As a Christian, I suggest, propose and am reminded by what Jesus said: “Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone!”
Does the recent history of Perak royalty and its legacies propose such a model conduct that they are now qualified to speak and warn our legitimately elected assemblypersons on how to dress; when no such first warning was ever given hitherto? I have heard some controversy over the selection, and then election of the Perak ruler? Are these true and have zero merit?
Finally, my question centres on what our constitution states the royalty can and cannot do. Do they really have such legal authority even at the Malay state level, of what assemblypersons can and cannot wear in civil space? The assemblypersons are elected representatives; not school children, or kids in a family home.
While I am schooled in proper attire for most formal functions in Malaysia, unless there is a factually documented protocol and written advice, there is no way it can be ‘enforced;’ legally speaking.
But worse than all this, the representative of the sultan, claimed that: “The action of the elected representatives had breached one of the principles of the Rukunegara – courtesy and morality;
“They violated customs which shows an ill-mannered attitude towards royal institution;
“The sultan coming in full regalia to officially open the event for the first time since he ascended the throne is a testimony of the honour accorded to the institution of the people as symbolised by the state assembly”; and
“Members of the assembly are reminded that in the state of Perak the sultan has consented that annually there will be two occasions categorised as special and to be honoured as a full ceremonious dress day, referred to as, ‘Hari Kalung’.”
The morality of Rukunegara?
Since when has the Rukunegara really become the foundation and framework for our new morality? If so, why then did the doubt and debate about the word, ‘Allah’ erupt? We all believe in the same God, right? Therefore, I ask again, do all MPs and assemblypersons really now understand the meaning of this new ruling by the sultan of Perak, couched by his representative in his scolding? Does it have any legal efficacy?
One good friend and civil society activist, K Haridas has written a serious and thought-provoking content about what is and is not ‘logical morality’ of the Rukunegara; please read it and then we can understand that many people use the Rukunegara to justify anything under the sun, when it is convenient, never otherwise.
To quote him:
“The Rukunegara aimed at providing the vertical relationship between the citizen and the state and the horizontal relationship between citizen and citizen. It was a pledge by the people to attain these ends guided by these principles:
- Belief in God.
- Loyalty to Agong and country.
- Upholding the constitution.
- Rule of law.
- Good behaviour and morality.
“This was envisaged to give birth, as it was hoped, to a new attitude out of which would be born a renewed sense of solidarity and togetherness based not on power but on shared goals.”
K Haridas’s conclusion
After actively re-evaluating the Rukunegara, Haridas concludes his piece as follows:
“A time out of power may be the best appreciation we can offer the BN. This may provide them with an opportunity to rethink their philosophy and vision for the future.
“There is a lack of leadership within the BN today that can provide a transcending call for unity because they lack the correct paradigm and integrity. A paradigm based on ethnicity cannot give birth to an inclusive mindset. In some ways it is Hobson’s choice for many of us and this contains within it the risks and opportunities for an interesting future. For patriots this is the time to risk for change.”
I rest my case. May God bless Malaysia.
Part I: Systemic Integrity
Part II: Private dimension of public roles
Part III: Three things I have learnt so far
