RPK, you are wrong By KJ John Sep 30, 2014 Blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) is a maverick of Malaysian politics; he is such a slippery eel with his brilliant logic that there are few who can take him on simply based on his logic and arguments using reason. Moreover, he adduces new ‘information’ which often makes it appear like he is the only one who has privilege to such. Most others do not, and therefore, cannot enjoy the privilege of rebutting such non-public information. My only quarrel however is really that far too often he is an absolute ‘royalist’ but just as easily ceases to be one, when he chooses otherwise. He is aware of his blue blood status, and makes us aware of it. In one of his latest pieces, he has disagreed with legal opinions of Tommy Thomas (right), Cyrus Das, and Azmi Sharom; all three of whom are constitutional lawyers, and two of them are legal practitioners. For RPK’s knowledge, I am not even allowed by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) to be listed as a ‘teacher of constitutional law’ because I do not have a legal first degree, and by their definition, cannot teach law and constitution. Therefore, I choose only to write columns and then, maybe one day, pull all of my stuff into a book, and maybe allow some professor to use my material to discuss the intricacies of legal jurisprudence within the context of Malaysian history and our common past. Formal roles and personal responsibilities The institution of the sultan is always a formal and public role in Malaysia; never a private role with personal responsibility. (These words can have particular meanings within the context of formal organisations.) The office of the menteri mesar is also a formal role and not a private one. Political parties have both formal and legal roles with concomitant responsibilities, and full accountability to the Registrar of Societies. Everything they do or not do is public, with little private space and full formal accountability. Therefore, when the so-called ‘informal alliance of political parties’ called ‘Pakatan’, regardless of whether they are registered as one or not, have publicly declared that their ‘candidate of preference and choice’ has secured 30 votes of support in the assembly; there is really no reason for anyone to question or challenge this notion. It is the same as no one would question what the sultan’s spokesperson says. To me, therefore, where the Sultan of Selangor has failed in his formal role is to call up and meet with the presidents of PKR, DAP and PAS at a face-to-face meeting. I believe if he had done so, then the veracity of the 30 votes of support could have been cleared publicly, without second-guessing the ‘what and whys’. And that could have been a prerequisite way of verifying the veracity of those numbers. If there is still a difference of views; then those concerns needed to be discussed and resolved as a requisite for leading the state by that alliance of parties. Doing it face-to-face with the ruler would have been the most right thing to do. I believe then, they would also have reached a similar resolution and Azmin Ali may have still have become their compromise candidate or some other. Instead of that open, transparent, engagement process, the entire episode has left a bad taste in my mouth with the realisation that the ‘doctrine that the sultan can do no wrong,’ is now being re-enacted against the choice and voice of the people. Tommy, Cyrus, and Azmi’s general argument is simply that our sultan is our constitutional monarch and consequently has to observe the tradition and protocols of the Westminster democratic tradition. For that matter, how can we forget that our former PM challenged and changed that British doctrine with Umno’s constitutional amendments for Malaysian monarchs? The only legal right of a constitutionally-defined monarch in Malaysia now consequently remains therefore - to only agree with the peoples’ choice and voice, as expressed through their representatives, i.e. their elected assemblypersons or MPs. In my view, even insisting upon two names to be submitted is outside their formal jurisdiction; which the legal jurisprudence does not allow. Let us move forward, regardless Bro RPK, let us develop a framework to move our thinking forward. For example, we already have certain givens in Malaysian political and social life. Some of this is already instituted in the federal constitution; others are not but are issues agreed socially, even if not legally. If we can accept these as unchangeable, other than maybe, some agreed ways to ‘reinterpret’ some of these factors, and not necessarily follow the official recorded narrative of our skewed history books; we can move forward. One example will suffice to make my point. One of these realities; which is ‘tersurat dan tersirat’ (it is a given and an assumption in Malayan culture and recorded history) is our so-called ‘social contract’. But, even this has become problematic more recently; especially for our brothers and sisters from Sabah and Sarawak. They do not understand or accept our so-called ‘social contract’ made and agreed to by the Malayans. To them, there is only a legal contract; called the Malaysia Agreement made in 1963. Therefore, if we take our federal constitution as our ‘defining document of destiny’ (what Prof Emeritus of Constitutional Law Shad Saleem Farouqi labels as such) and her traditional interpretations as agreed and approved by the courts, as valid, can we then agree that our ‘rule of law’ principle is enshrined in these case precedents and not in Umno general assembly speeches or even in Utusan Malaysia editorials or even in individual palace protocols. Let me now conclude with one yet clear but contentious issue. Malaysia is not an Islamic State Malaysia is not an Islamic State and can never become one. My reasons are simple enough. Please hear me out before thinking about your responses. A constitutional democracy is defined by the rules under constitutional law and not by specific interpretations of Islamic law; To switch to an Islamic State like Brunei; all of our state rulers must agree; which can never happen; To switch to an Islamic State we need two-thirds majority in Parliament to vote and put an end to our secular nature, to become one ruled under Quranic interpretations; this will never happen, as even Muslims in Malaysia do not want such an ‘interpretive’ Islamic State; It will frighten away all international business interests in Malaysia because of the uncertainty of the kind and quality of leadership and governance of our nation-state; Sabah and Sarawak will be the first to opt out of such a Malaysia as this was not part and parcel of their Malaysia Agreement; and Finally, if we really want to ‘grow really Islamic values, or, universal spiritual values, as a state, why not opt to follow some of the good and excellent examples already existent in the world while still remaining secular in nature; wherein no specific or particular religious values reign but rather common values of public interest. May God guide Malaysia through our quandary. • KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. The views expressed here are his personal views and not those of any institution he is involved with. Write to him at [email protected] with any feedback or views.
Posted on: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:29:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015