Voters and politicians take note. The Selangor menteri besar impasse has shown that a sultan can ignore the will of the majority and the wishes of political parties in power and there's little anyone can do about it.
This was the main takeaway from a seminar by constitutional expert Dr Abdul Aziz Bari, an academic who is being investigated for sedition over his remarks on the Selangor sultan’s
conduct.
The seminar was on lessons learnt from the almost two-month impasse, which threw the government of the country's richest state in a tailspin and opened up severe rifts among Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties.
Aziz also said the imbroglio revealed that having laws and a constitution which limited a ruler's ability to meddle in politics and day-to-day governance were not enough to stop one of them from overstepping his boundary.
Yet, Aziz still believed that the Selangor episode was not a reason to abolish the monarchy as morally upright rulers can be a check to autocratic and corrupt elected political leaders.
However, Aziz said there was a huge risk for rulers who intervened in politics and who took sides in a political conflict – it opens them to criticism.
“The point of voting is so that people can choose their representatives and who lead them in government. This is so that (the government) can be evaluated.
“So it is dangerous for rulers to step in. The monarchy should only intervene when it is absolutely necessary.
“When there are clear signs of politicians jumping camp and it is difficult to determine which party is in majority in the legislature,” Aziz told the audience at the seminar organised by publishers GerakBudaya in Petaling Jaya yesterday.
The Selangor constitutional impasse was triggered by the sacking of Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim from his PKR party on August 9.
However, Khalid was kept on as menteri besar by Sultan Sharifuddin Idris Shah until September 22 when Azmin Ali was announced as his replacement. The move was criticised by legal experts as being unconstitutional.
They argued that in the Selangor Constitution, a menteri besar holds the post not at the behest of the sultan but after being chosen by a majority of members of a state legislature.
Aziz repeated this point in the seminar, saying the sultan should have removed Khalid the moment that 30 members of Selangor’s legislative assembly declared support for Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail as the new menteri besar on August 14.
“If there are already statutory declarations (SD), it is difficult to ignore. Khalid had to resign and the sultan had to choose Wan Azizah,” Aziz said.
Instead, the Selangor sultan ignored the collective voice of 30 state assemblymen and picked a candidate not endorsed by PR – Azmin.
The sultan’s conduct has been questioned by PR politicians and also academics. A number of them, including Universiti Malaya law lecturer Dr Azmi Sharom have been hauled to court under the Sedition Act.
Aziz is still being investigated by police and has yet to be charged.
The Selangor ruler, Aziz said, had taken sides in the feud between PR and Khalid, when he should have remained independent and allowed the politicians to sort it out.
“After Khalid was sacked by PKR, he could get an audience with the sultan. But (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim who was the leader of Pakatan could not get an audience.
“When (Dr) Wan Azizah got 30 SDs she also could not see the sultan. But then the sultan granted an audience with Barisan Nasional chief Datuk Seri Najib Razak.”
Yet, Selangor’s case was not unique. It happened to Umno in Terengganu and Perlis after the 2008 general elections.
In both cases, said Aziz, the respective rulers rejected menteri besar candidates forwarded by the BN chief at the time Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
And then there was the Perak crisis of 2009, when the state ruler chose an MB from BN after a series of controversial defections by three PR lawmakers.
In the 1980s, the then sultan of Johor had even overruled a Shariah Court ruling in a custody case, Aziz said.
“So Selangor is not the first time a sultan acted unilaterally. But it is not necessarily a bad thing.
“In the early 1980s, the sultan of Johor played a role in the removal of an autocratic menteri besar. The same thing occurred in Perak in 1974.”
Aziz said the main reason rulers felt they could choose who would be an MB was because of how they interpreted their discretionary powers.
The various state constitutions stated that the rulers had discretionary powers to choose an MB.
“But discretionary in the sense of the constitution is not the same as in other laws. You have to look at it in totality.
“If a ruler uses his powers to appoint who he wants as menteri besar, then why have elections in the first place?”
In the parliamentary system which Malaysia practises, the head of government is chosen by members of the legislature who are in turn elected by the people, said Aziz.
“That is how the government is accountable to the legislature which in turn is answerable to the people.” – November 9, 2014.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/the-unfortunate-lesson-from-the-selangor-mb-saga#sthash.02Vuz2vk.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment