Tomorrow, we install out 13th Yang di-Pertuan Agong or King of Malaysia. Literally translated, the Malays term of respect means he is the most exalted of persons in Malaysia. Our Kings\’ (and, we have only one King with nine Sultans) have reigned for 60 years, at five years for each term.
The new King, the Sultan of Trengganu who was elected by the Council of Rulers, will reign from 2006-2011. Their 60-year reign also defines our nature of Constitutional Monarchy in Malaysia. We will unfortunately never have a King from Sabah, Sarawak, Melaka or Penang though. Their heads of state are the Yang Di Pertua Negara or governor. Therefore, those who do not understand our Constitutional history may question why this is so but that is the foundation and framework of the original Social Contract of 1957; our agreement to form the Federation of Malaya and then Malaysia in 1963.
The Federation of Malaya started with only nine Malay states. The Federal Constitution defines the process of that election into the federation for all 13 states (with Singapore leaving in 1965) that we call Malaysia; our \”historic political integration with integrity.\” The institution of the King and physical existence of the Federal Territory (as the 14th state) are clear reminders of the \”new reality\” of our nationhood. Malaysia is still greater than the sum of the parts.
Public interest
To me, the King always reminds me of the public interest. Since the King is the head of the federation; He stands integrally as part and parcel of every other institution for the proper federal governance of this nation. These include the judiciary, the legislative or parliament, the executive or the government of the day. The Federal Constitution, for instance, clarifies that the King is the head of the Islamic religion for the federation, but it does not intend to give him such executive functions and responsibilities. These are limited to the nine Malay states of the federation and that too is limited to the Islamic personal and family law only.
The King symbolically represents Islam in all other states and federal territories. Technically and institutionally therefore, the King can do no wrong as he is above the ordinary laws of Malaysia. He therefore always stands and can even speak to the government of the day, as he did at the recent farewell \’titah\’. At the farewell, the King said, \”The dignity and honor of the institution must be constantly enhanced as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong was not only the pillar and symbol of sovereignty of Malaysia\’s constitutional monarchy but also the head of state and symbol of the people\’s loyalty to the law and the constitution.\” Therefore, he alone can truly speak for all Malaysians regardless of race, religion and political affiliation. The government of the day can only effectively speak for the parties in power; and often only for what is defined as national interest, but this does not always include the opposition, unless they explicitly get their support. Even then it excludes the non-partied Malaysians, who form the largest majority. But the King is above party politics and can therefore speak for the public interest of Malaysia without fear or favor.
The King of Malaysia also reminds me of the first principal and commandment from the Old Testament scriptures; \”thou shall have no other God besides me.\” Now, the theological question for all Malaysians, regardless of creed, is whether we \”treat the King\” as a man-god as do some nation states and cultures? The Westminster Doctrine that the King \”can do no wrong\” was the historical tradition we adopted from the British Constitutional history. But, even that, thanks to Dr Mahathir Mohamad\’s reign as prime minister, and because of abuse of this doctrine by some rulers; this was amended to anthropomorphise the personages of the monarchs in Malaysia.
In short, the legal person who is a traditional Raja or Sultan was brought down to the level of other men in the eyes of the law; I presume that it simply means that the King also carries the citizen\’s identity card and uses a passport when he travels and can be charged for traffic offences! Regardless, the institution and role of the King still remains in tact, since the days of the original kingship established 60 years ago. If then we are called in the scriptures to have no loyalties to any other person or entity other than the one true God; is being loyal to King and country theologically wrong?
Real meaning
In Thailand for instance, if you are \”to step on a baht note\” which has the picture of the King of Thailand; this is a punishable criminal offence. Japan too reveres her Emperor almost like a man-God. The traditional Samurai would commit hara-kiri for the sake of his Emperor and his image or reputation. In our history too, we have had court officials who would do battle for the King and his palace. Today, our soldiers and police force serve King and country; even to the point of death. But the essential question remains; does such loyalty mean that we cease to be loyal to God Almighty; or put another way, is loyalty to the King have to mean disloyalty to God Almighty, especially on matters we know to be true and right? Jesus, when on earth was asked this very question: \”Do we pay taxes to Caesar or to God?\”
That question inspired me through my doctoral dissertation to review the meaning of dignity in the workplace. What is the real meaning of our tradition of being loyal to \”king and country?\” For instance, all public servants in Malaysia serve at the good pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. What does this really mean? Does this mean that our public servants hold office until they cause the displeasure to our King? What does it mean that we have a public service that is called into \”politically neutral service to whoever forms the government of the day.\”
Why is it that after the government wins the general election, the party leader comes before the King to be declared as head of the party elected into power and requested to become prime minister and to form the government? Why is the appointment into the public service officials under the public services commission, or police commission or the teaching service commission? Who do these commissions report to? Who appoints these commissioners and why are commissioners ultimately responsible to the King, and not merely the government of the day? What really is this royal commission? Where are these royal commissioners paid from? Are they merely salaried public servants? Why not? Why are they paid from the consolidated fund which is beyond scrutiny of the Annual Budget Allocations under the annual budget speech under Parliamentary procedures? Where does the ultimate loyalty of the public servant lie; if not with the King and the public interests.
This institution of the King as our head of state therefore needs to be better appreciated by all of us. Equally, all the proper role and functions of the litany of institutions appointed under the \’royal patronage\’ need to also be better appreciated. For instance, what does it mean that the Malaysian soldiers or police are \’commissioned\’ in the name of the King of Malaysia? Why are the Polis Di Raja Malaysia and Angkatan Tentetra Di Raja Malaysia called as such? Do we fully understand and appreciate the nuances of all these intricacies in the Federal governance of this nation? It is therefore time that all Malaysians better appreciated the role and functions of the King in Malaysia. Therefore, it is wonderful that on the occasion of the reign of the Raja of Perlis, the special book on the institution of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia was published and sold.
To me, the King of Malaysia has more than a mere ceremonial role; he must defend and protect the public interest. The Sultan of Selangor has made an excellent example in the last few months; speaking up for the values and ethics of ordinary expectations. My syabas to Tuanku. The institution of the Yang DiPertuan Agong likewise represents an integral part of what it means that we are all constitutional Malaysians and therein lays the public interest of Malaysia. There can be no Yang Di Pertuan Agong without the Federation of Malaysia; as nine plus four! No other democratic country in the world that I know of has such a unique \”system of an elected kingship,\” arising from within the hereditary kingships based on nine different Malay states and their traditions. That is what makes Malaysia unique. We have to better appreciate this wonderful institution and demand more than the ceremonial role from this institution and all her related functionaries! Daulat Tuanku, and God Bless Malaysia.
