"No one exercising his constitutional right of access to the courts should be branded as being disloyal to the Rulers or threatened with preventive detention under the ISA. Was it not the BN government that sought to justify the removal of the personal immunity of the Malay Rulers in 1993 on the grounds that no one was above the law? Leave it to the court to decide if the Pakatan Rakyat has a case or not.''
THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER
Standing up for family and friends caught in the eye of a storm is easier said than done. The first instinct is usually to take cover until the storm clouds disperse.
But playing it safe is not part of Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah's DNA. He left his comfort zone yesterday to defend the actions of the Sultan of Perak and take on those who challenged the validity of the latter's decision asking Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin and the Pakatan Rakyat government to stand down. He was willing to stand up for his brethren, and chastise those who displayed rudeness to Sultan Azlan Shah.
Bravo. Really that was the only high point of his statement released to Bernama. With due respect, the rest of it may not add much clarity to the political crisis in Perak and its fallout.
The underlying principle in the statement appeared to be that the actions of the Sultan of Perak (and by extension of all the Rulers) were beyond reproach and the royal household was almost infallible.
But Malaysia is not an absolute monarchy but a constitutional monarchy. If it were an absolute monarchy, then Sultan Azlan Shah or any Malay Ruler would have complete power over all aspects of life in the state. In an absolute monarchy there is no constitution or legal restriction on the monarch's power.
But in a constitutional monarchy like Malaysia, the power of the Sultan is restrained by a parliament, by law, or by custom. In short, his decisions can be questioned and challenged. More so after 1993 when the constitution was amended by the Mahathir administration to remove the immunity Malay Rulers enjoyed from legal action.
The Sultan of Perak stirred the pot last week when he refused to call fresh polls after three defectors left the Pakatan Rakyat government. He instead installed a new Barisan Nasional government that claimed to have a new majority in the state assembly.
This led to a show of anger. Thousands protested outside his palace in Kuala Kangsar to stop the swearing in of the BN menteri besar while Pakatan Rakyat mulled the possibility of taking the Sultan to court.
Police reports were lodged against veteran politician Karpal Singh and opposition leaders deemed to have insulted the monarchy.
In his statement yesterday, the Sultan of Selangor pointed out that Sultan Azlan Shah was a man with vast experience in the legal sphere and judiciary, and was the former Lord President. He also noted that the royal family had superb educational credentials and were always sensitive to the needs of the people.
But the royals are human and prone to mistakes, and errors of judgment just like everybody else. Constitutional experts are still debating whether the Sultan of Perak acted correctly in refusing a request from Nizar to dissolve the state assembly or whether it was well within his rights to direct Nizar to step down as MB.
Raja Aziz Addruse, a respected lawyer, weighed into the debate a few days ago, noting that whether the Sultan had acted correctly or incorrectly is for the court to decide. It was also for the court to decide if the Sultan's actions can be challenged.
"No one exercising his constitutional right of access to the courts should be branded as being disloyal to the Rulers or threatened with preventive detention under the ISA. Was it not the BN government that sought to justify the removal of the personal immunity of the Malay Rulers in 1993 on the grounds that no one was above the law? Leave it to the court to decide if the Pakatan Rakyat has a case or not.''
He is spot on. No one is above the law. The Prime Minister can be challenged and sued. Religious leaders can be challenged and sued. Even Sultans can be challenged and sued.
So the proper thing for both sides — supporters of the palace and the disgruntled Opposition — to do is put the matter before the courts and wait for the matter to be resolved.
What Malaysia does not need are demonstrations, attempts to turn a constitutional issue into a racial conflict and fighting talk by opportunistic politicians.
What Malaysia certainly can do without is Nizar and other Pakatan Rakyat politicians going on a nationwide road show to ratchet up support for their cause.
What Malaysia needs now is a show of neutrality and a steadying influence from its important institutions — the judiciary, the police and the monarchy.
What Malaysia needs are honest brokers, those willing and able to bring down the mercury through actions and words that are just and impartial.
The Sultan of Selangor did right by standing by his blood but his statement offers no navigational tools out from this constitutional crisis. The impasse in Perak can only be settled in court.
No comments:
Post a Comment