For all the dust it has stirred, the Perak political deadlock has presented a soul-searching opportunity for Malaysians to consider the type of government and constitutional monarchy it wants.
At the dawn of the Perak crisis, many looked with great hope towards Sultan Azlan Shah, a former chief justice and one of the most revered monarchs in the country, for a resolution.
The leaders of Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional sought separate audiences with sultan to stake their claim to the Perak state government.
In the end, the sultan favoured the BN and swore in Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir as menteri besar.
That marked the beginning of an ongoing, protracted legal battle and public debate in constitutional interpretations – at the federal and state level – as well as greater public interest in the powers and functions of the state legislative assembly, the judiciary, the government and indeed the royalty.
It wasn’t the first instance of royal intervention though. Shortly after the March 8 general election, the royalty asserted itself in no fewer than four states.
In Perak the palace chose a menteri besar from PAS, much to the concern of DAP which initially preferred a PKR candidate.
King Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin, who is also theTerengganu ruler, rejected former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s candidate Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh for MB, although Idris had the support of the majority of the BN assemblymen.
And there was some issues regarding the choice of MB in Perlis as well as the make-up of the exco in Selangor due to royal intervention.
In two of these cases, the royalty’s preferences clashed with the interests of the BN and in the other two it clashed with those of PR. As such, it was hard for either BN or PR supporters to say with consistency and with conviction that royal intervention is always a desirable thing.
Few people other than Raja Petra Kamarudin would consistently support royal intervention. For most people, whether you support royal intervention or not all depends on whose ox is being gored
PR supporters who cheered royal intervention in Terengganu are now upset with the royal decision in Perak. And BN supporters who jeered the royal decision in Terengganu are now accusing PR supporters in Perak of derhaka.
Sultan Azlan Shah, the man at the heart of the current Perak imbroglio, last Sunday, on the occasion of his 81st birthday, made what many thought was a highly ironic statement: That the rulers are “above politics”.
He said that it was because of that that rulers cannot participate in open debate to answer any allegations hurled against them by political groups.
It should be mentioned that rulers aren’t elected and don’t hold press conferences to explain their decisions. In other words, they are for all intents and purposes not accountable to the electorate. Yet they do make decisions that have deep political consequences.
At least seven people nationwide have been hauled up to face charges for insulting the sultan on the Internet and DAP Chairman Karpal Singh is facing a sedition charge after saying that the sultan can be sued in his personal capacity for his role in the Perak crisis.
Such developments would surely make people have second thoughts about venting their anger at royal intervention. It might even have the effect of stifling civil discussion about the role of the monarchy.
But given the winds of change and expectations of reforms sweeping the nation it’s doubtful that Malaysian will not speak in hushed tones about what kind of constitutional monarchy they want.
Amidst the dizzying range of opinions held about royal intervention, the Perak political crisis presents the perfect opportunity for the nation to reflect on the ideals of democracy, of realpolitik and of the difference between observing the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.
At the dawn of the Perak crisis, many looked with great hope towards Sultan Azlan Shah, a former chief justice and one of the most revered monarchs in the country, for a resolution.
The leaders of Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional sought separate audiences with sultan to stake their claim to the Perak state government.
In the end, the sultan favoured the BN and swore in Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir as menteri besar.
That marked the beginning of an ongoing, protracted legal battle and public debate in constitutional interpretations – at the federal and state level – as well as greater public interest in the powers and functions of the state legislative assembly, the judiciary, the government and indeed the royalty.
It wasn’t the first instance of royal intervention though. Shortly after the March 8 general election, the royalty asserted itself in no fewer than four states.
In Perak the palace chose a menteri besar from PAS, much to the concern of DAP which initially preferred a PKR candidate.
King Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin, who is also theTerengganu ruler, rejected former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s candidate Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh for MB, although Idris had the support of the majority of the BN assemblymen.
And there was some issues regarding the choice of MB in Perlis as well as the make-up of the exco in Selangor due to royal intervention.
In two of these cases, the royalty’s preferences clashed with the interests of the BN and in the other two it clashed with those of PR. As such, it was hard for either BN or PR supporters to say with consistency and with conviction that royal intervention is always a desirable thing.
Few people other than Raja Petra Kamarudin would consistently support royal intervention. For most people, whether you support royal intervention or not all depends on whose ox is being gored
PR supporters who cheered royal intervention in Terengganu are now upset with the royal decision in Perak. And BN supporters who jeered the royal decision in Terengganu are now accusing PR supporters in Perak of derhaka.
Sultan Azlan Shah, the man at the heart of the current Perak imbroglio, last Sunday, on the occasion of his 81st birthday, made what many thought was a highly ironic statement: That the rulers are “above politics”.
He said that it was because of that that rulers cannot participate in open debate to answer any allegations hurled against them by political groups.
It should be mentioned that rulers aren’t elected and don’t hold press conferences to explain their decisions. In other words, they are for all intents and purposes not accountable to the electorate. Yet they do make decisions that have deep political consequences.
At least seven people nationwide have been hauled up to face charges for insulting the sultan on the Internet and DAP Chairman Karpal Singh is facing a sedition charge after saying that the sultan can be sued in his personal capacity for his role in the Perak crisis.
Such developments would surely make people have second thoughts about venting their anger at royal intervention. It might even have the effect of stifling civil discussion about the role of the monarchy.
But given the winds of change and expectations of reforms sweeping the nation it’s doubtful that Malaysian will not speak in hushed tones about what kind of constitutional monarchy they want.
Amidst the dizzying range of opinions held about royal intervention, the Perak political crisis presents the perfect opportunity for the nation to reflect on the ideals of democracy, of realpolitik and of the difference between observing the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment