Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Tony Pua (DAP) the JOKER


tony pua(Malay Mail Online) – DAP’s Selangor chapter repeated its national leadership’s support for newly-installed Selangor Mentri Besar Azmin Ali today but cautioned the PKR leader against running the state administration like a business venture.
The chapter said the new state administration must take the nation’s richer state to greater heights without dipping its fingers in profit-making endeavours but by creating the most conducive environment for businesses to thrive.
A restructuring exercise is necessary to return focus to issues allegedly neglected by the previous administration under Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, such as affordable housing and better transportation infrastructure, Selangor DAP chairman Tony Pua said.
“We hope that under Azmin’s leadership, the government will steer away from getting ensnared in operating businesses. It is not the business of government to be in the business of making profits.
“We believe that if the new administration is able to achieve the above in the next three years, the certainly Azmin Ali will go into history as the best Menteri Besar Selangor has ever had,” Pua said in a statement.
The Petaling Jaya Utara MP said the new government must adhere to the highest standards of accountability and transparency by implementing policies such as fully competitive tenders and disclosure of assets.
In addition, he said Azmin’s government must also have zero-tolerance for corruption and cronyism by punishing guilty offenders, and promoting clean and competent individuals.
Pua also urged the elected representatives, councillors and civil servants, particularly in the local councils, to listen to public opinion.
“As an administration which opposes the abuse of power and clamp down of civil liberties by the Barisan Nasional federal government, Selangor must prove itself to be a beacon of hope by actively implementing our democratisation policies,” said the Petaling Jaya Utara MP.
The chapter also said it looks forward to the new executive councillors led by Azmin, which should be “more consultative, inclusive and people-centric”
“We believe that by working as a team, Azmin Ali will be able to take Selangor to greater heights by making it the best-run state in the country,” he added.
PKR deputy president Azmin, who was sworn in this morning as Selangor’s 15th mentri besar, takes over from Khalid who had held the post for more than six years from 2008 today,
Azmin’s appointment puts an end to a protracted crisis which has pitted Pakatan Rakyat (PR) allies PKR, DAP and PAS against one another.
Khalid’s administration has been long been criticised as “stingy” by his critics, especially those aligned to Azmin.
Before politics, Khalid was a technocrat who made his name through the corporate world, heading, among others, state fund manager Permodalan Nasional Bhd and Guthrie Group Bhd.
Azmin, 50, who is Bukit Antarabangsa assemblyman and Gombak MP, was sworn in before the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, at the Throne Room of the Istana Alam Shah at 10.42 am this morning.
Yes lately Tony Pua has become a Joker in Selangor.  Tony Pua who not only knows about all the dirty dealings of Azmin Ali but is also aware of the demands make by Azmin's boys. So this so-called advice to Azmin is a bloody joke to all the victims of Azmin and gang SINCE 2008.
DAP should be cautious of Azmin's ambitious.  That is HE be the ONLY PERSON to control SELANGOR.  Not the Sultan, Not PAS, Not DAP but Mahathir and HIM. So this talk about working together is BULLSHIT.
Azmin Ali became a millionaire at the age 20.  His parents were not rich.  SO CAN TONY PUA EXPLAIN HOW AZMIN ALI BECAME A MILLIONAIRE AT THAT YOUNG AGE?  
SO WHAT DO YOU THINK???????????????????

Azmin Ali the criminal who is Menteri Besar of Selangor now

One interesting document in that file is regarding the RM15,000 a month that Vincent Tan was paying Azmin Ali. Other than shares, houses and cars totalling about RM1.5 million, almost RM10 million in cash and cheques flowed through Azmin’s and Shamsidar Taharin’s (Azmin’s wife’s) bank accounts. All these transactions were confirmed and certified by the banks concerned. The gist of this whole story is about how the ACA had gathered enough evidence to arrest and prosecute Azmin Ali for corruption involving millions of Ringgit but the then Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, told them to NFA (no further action) the case and bury the file.
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Last month, a retired Anti-Corruption Commission or MACC officer met up with me in London to hand over a thick file of hundreds of documents. This was one very disillusioned anti-corruption officer who wanted the world to know that some of the MACC officers are as corrupted as the people they are supposed to investigate. He made it sound as if it was like putting the fox in charge of the chicken run.
I suppose that makes sense when you consider that people under interrogation have been known to fall out of the window of the MACC office. The old adage of ‘dead men tell no tales’ is very true and it does not cost that much to ensure that witnesses fall out of windows so that the case would go no further, like this particular case we are going to talk about.
Anyway, in that file I was given are police reports, investigation reports, recorded and signed statements, minutes, statements of accounts, bank statements, copies of cheques, vouchers, contract notes, and so on. Basically, it was an entire file going back 17 years when the MACC was still known as the ACA (Anti-Corruption Agency).
The gist of this whole story is about how the ACA had gathered enough evidence to arrest and prosecute Azmin Ali for corruption involving millions of Ringgit but the then Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, told them to NFA (no further action) the case and bury the file.
The file remained buried all this while until my ex-MACC Deep Throat was able to exhume it and run me a copy of the entire file. I must say that the contents of the file, which took quite a while to read and digest, is not only most interesting but is extremely damaging to both Azmin and Anwar.
One interesting document in that file is regarding the RM15,000 a month that Vincent Tan was paying Azmin Ali. It seems Vincent Tan not only financed the fall of Perak but is also financing the ‘other side’ as well. And, according to my ex-MACC Deep Throat, this is still going on. I suppose that is what most Chinese tycoons would do: hedge your bets by placing your money on all the horses in the race.
Other than shares, houses and cars totalling about RM1.5 million, almost RM10 million in cash and cheques flowed through Azmin’s and Shamsidar Taharin’s (Azmin’s wife’s) bank accounts. All these transactions were confirmed and certified by the banks concerned, as the attached reports show (see below).
I am publishing just a few documents from the hundreds to show you what happened. These documents are marked ‘SULIT’ and, therefore, come under the Official Secrets Act. So be careful what you do with them. Better not print them out and have them on your person or else you can end up in jail.
Anyway, I will let the documents tell the rest of the story. I have summarised in English what the ex-MACC officer told me to make it easier for you to follow the case. His original ‘cheong hei’ statement in Bahasa Malaysia is below that, followed by the documents.
Azmin Ali and his wife Shamsidar Taharin

In 1995, I was one of the senior ACA officers involved in the investigation against Azmin Ali and his wife Shamsidar Taharin. I feel it is my duty to reveal how corrupted Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin Ali are. The Director-General of the ACA then was Datuk Shafee Yahaya. He was person who stopped the investigation against Azmin Ali on Anwar’s directive.
The investigation started from information received (tagged as ‘Exhibit A’ and attached herewith). The informer clearly listed Azmin Ali’s assets in 1995 while he was working as Anwar’s Private Secretary with a salary of RM2,400 per month. Following that, a police report was made to enable the ACA to carry out an investigation (a copy of that report attached marked as ‘Lampiran B’). The report was dated 24th May 1995.
As a result, a report was submitted by the late Basri bin Idris (see ‘Lampiran C’ attached). The report showed, from 1991 -1995, Azmin owned, amongst others, a BMW 325i, a Proton Wira 1.6 Xli, a Proton Satria 1.6 Xli, a Proton Perdana 2.0 SE, 1000 lots of Hicom shares and an 8500 sq. ft. house at No. 23, Jalan 1/4D Bukit Mas, Taman Melawati.
On Datuk Shafee’s orders (see minutes of meeting no. 2), the investigating officer was directed not to seek a proper Notice of Declaration of Assets from Azmin Ali, issued under Section 23 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1961.
Under normal circumstances, Azmin would certainly have been detained by the ACA for further investigation. Instead, Datuk Shafee instructed the Director of Investigation to personally meet Azmin in the Deputy Prime Minister’s office (then, Anwar Ibrahim) and to ask him to submit a declaration on a voluntary basis.
Now, what is the legal implication when Azmin voluntarily declares his assets? Meaning to say, he is not bound for any criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Penal Code if the Public Prosecutor is satisfied as to how Azmin acquired his unexplained and excessive property.
All of us who were involved in the investigation felt it was very strange and we were also frustrated with the orders issued by Datuk Shafee.
But it was Basri Idris who continued with the effort to obtain the Notice of Declaration of Assets (see minutes of meeting No 2 dated 20th June 1965) that enabled the investigation to continue and examine the flow of money in Azmin Ali’s accounts (quoted as YDS at paragraph 6 of the minutes).
Efforts to obtain the Notice were successful (see minutes No. 4 – 9) and an investigation paper was referred to Datuk Shafee on 8th May 1996.
Please refer to the minutes No. 10 dated 9th May 1995 and see how Datuk Shafee wanted this case referred to the Deputy Prime Minister. Finally, look at the minutes No. 15. The investigation paper was presented to Datuk Shafee on 12th September 1996 by Dato’ Mohd Zawawi Nordin, the Deputy Director General of the ACA at the time. Dato’ Mohd Zawawi clearly stated Azmin’s assets were not within his means.
Subsequent to that, Datuk Shafee, on the instructions of Anwar Ibrahim, buried the investigation. After more than a year, on 23rd September 1997, Datuk Shafee himself violated the law when he personally instructed this investigation to be closed. See minutes No. 16 which says: “Have informed the Honourable TP” and he wrote “KUS”. The word KUS means “Kemas Untuk Simpan”. It is the terminology used by the ACA and the police when an investigation has been completed and no further action (NFA) is to be taken.
Datuk Shafee had committed a crime under the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the Federal Constitution as he had no right to direct an inquiry to be stopped unless on the orders by the Public Prosecutor.
The voluntarily declaration of Azmin Ali’s assets may be seen below in the ACA investigation file number 15/05/1995. Datuk Shafee had deliberately removed the Notice of Assets Declaration and the declaration of Azmin Ali’s assets.
This case involves an investigation by the ACA on Azmin Ali, the Private Secretary to Datuk Seri Anwar and his wife, Shamsidar, in 1995. Investigations focused on Azmin allegedly having a lot of personal properties mostly obtained via corruption committed while in office as Datuk Seri Anwar’s private secretary at the time. Anwar was the Deputy Prime Minister and the Finance Minister of Malaysia then.
Based on the information received and the police report, an investigation paper was opened. During the inquiry, they found that Azmin’s pay was only RM2,442 a month but he was able to buy two houses, where the first house: double storey bungalow in Setapak priced at RM284,118 with a deposit of RM14,181 and a monthly installment of RM3,376.75. While the second semi-detached house in Taman Melawati price of RM210,000 with a deposit of RM60,000 and a monthly installment of RM1,110.35.
The combined monthly payments are approximately RM4,500. This alone shows that Azmin’s liabilities are more than double his monthly salary. Where did Azmin receive this additional money from to cover this debt? Not only that, it doesn’t make sense if Azmin uses all his salary to pay off the loan. Isn’t this enough to show that Azmin has other income? Furthermore, not taken into account is where Azmin got the money to pay the deposit on the houses.
Investigations conducted by the ACA also proved that Azmin has two vehicles, a BMW with registration number BBN 3 costing RM160,529.85.81 where the deposit of RM120,529 was paid plus installments of RM875 per month. The second car, a Proton with registration number WDU 64, is worth RM80,767.81 with monthly installments of RM700. If we look at the monthly commitments for both the cars it is about RM1,700. At that time, RM1,700 was a lot where the salary of the Deputy Prime Minister’s private secretary is only RM2,000 plus.
But what most perplexes me is why did the ACA close this case? While it is clear Azmin and his wife have multiple properties that did not commensurate with his income, WHY DID ACA STOPPED THE INVESTIGATION? WHO HAS THE POWER TO STOP THIS INVESTIGATION? IS THIS PERSON CONSPIRING WITH AZMIN OR WAS HE AFRAID OF THOSE WALKING IN THE CORRIDORS OF POWER THEN?
For the record, at that time, the Director General of ACA was Dato Shafee Yahya. Clearly, the DG then made a decision that was not relevant to stop the inquiry. What actually happened?
Azmin Ali and Anwar Ibrahim

Saya adalah seorang bekas pegawai kanan BPR yang terlibat di dalam penyiasatan kes terhadap Azmin Ali dan isterinya Shamsidar pada tahun 1995. Saya rasa terpanggil untuk mendedahkan bagaimana ‘corrupt’ seorang bernama Anwar Ibrahim dan Azmin Ali di mana kedua-duanya kaya raya dan malah cerita Shamsidar merupakan gundik Anwar pada saya bukanlah suatu yang mengejutkan kerana telah lama perkara ini berlaku. Hanya orang yang pekak, buta dan tuli sahaja yang sengaja mengatakan segala cerita ‘corrupt’ dan juga skandal sex mereka sebagai suatu cerita rekaan atau konspirasi.
Disini saya hendak menunjukkan contoh bagaimana seorang Ketua Pengarah BPR ketika itu, iaitu Datuk Shafee Yahaya kononnya seorang yang baik, berintegriti, pernah mendedahkan kononnya Dr Mahatir menengkingnya dalam kes Hassan Abul (Pesgawai BNM) dan kemudian buat buku pula yan menunjukkan bagaimana baiknya dia. Tapi dalam diam dan ramai orang BPR tahu dia telah menghentikan siasatan kes Azmin Ali setelah mendapat arahan Anwar. Kalau Datuk Shafee betul-betul bersih saya tabiklah. Tapi nak saya bongkarkan ke kisah Datuk sebelum Datuk jadi KP BPR? Maka Datuk Shafee tolonglah jangan nak komen apa-apa selepas pendedahan ini.
Kronologi Kes
Siasatan kes ini bermula daripada satu maklumat (yang di tandakan sebagai Lampiran A). Pemberi maklumat menyatakan dengan jelas pemilikan harta Azmin Ali yang ketika itu 1995 hanyalah Setiausaha Sulit (SUS) Anwar yang bergaji lebih kurang RM2400/=. Kalau sekarang beliau hanyalah gred 41 sahaja di dalam Perkhidmatan Awam. Ekoran daripada itu, satu repot polis telah dibuat bagi membolehkan BPR menjalankan siasatan (lihat Salinan Repot yang ditandakan sebagai Lampiran B). Repot yang dibuat adalah bertarikh 24.5.1995.
Ekoran itu, satu minit ringkas dikemukakan oleh Allahyarham Basri bin Idris sepertimana Lapiran C berkembar. Ia menunjukkan pemilikan harta Azmin sejak 1991 – 1995, antara lain memiliki sebuah BMW 325i, Proton Wira 1.6 Xli, Proton Satria 1.6 Xli. Proton Perdana 2.0 SE, 1000 saha,m Hicom, sebuah rumah No. 23, Jalan 1/4D Bukit Mas, Taman Melawati seluas 8500 sqft. Hebatkan? BPR siasat ke?
Atas arahan Datuk Shafee (lihat minit no. 2), pegawai penyiasat diarahkan supaya tidak memohon Notis Pengisytiharan Harta yang sepatutnya di keluarkan di bawah seksyen 23 Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1961 kepada Azmin Ali. Tuan-tuan semua tahu, kalau dalam keadaan biasa, bukan setakat Notis, tetapi Azmin sudah tentu akan ditahan untuk siasatan BPR. Knowing how BPR’s style of work. Besar atau tidak pangkatnya Azmin yang hanya gred biasa dalam perkhidmatan awam ketika itu, Pengarah Siasatan diarah oleh Datuk Shafee supaya berjumpa sendiri Azmin di pejabat TPM (siapa lagi kalu bukan Anwar Ibrahim) dan meminta Azmin mengemukakan pengisytiharan secara sukarela.
Now, what is the legal implication when Azmin voluntarily declare his asset? Meaning to say he is not bound for any criminal prosecution under Prevention Corruption Act and Penal Code if the Public Prosecutor satisfy as to how Azmin having an unexplain excessive property.
Diketika itu, kami yang terlibat di dalam penyiasatan merasakan amat pelik dan juga frustrated dengan arahan yang dikeluarkan oleh Datuk Shafee.
Namun saya amat merasakan bagaimana Arwah Basri Idris meneruskan usahanya bagi memperoleh Notis Pengisytiharan Harta itu (limat minit No. 2 bertarikh 20/6/1995) bagi membolehkan siasatan diteruskan untuk memeriksa pengaliran wang dalam akaun-akaun Azmin Ali (quoted as YDS at para 6 of the minutes).
Usaha mendapatkan Notis Berjaya dan lihat Minit-Minit bil 4 – 9 dan Kertas Siasatan dirujuk kepada Datuk Shafee pada 8 Mei 1996.
Rujuk m init 10, lihat bagaimana Datuk Shafee mahu kes ini dirujuk kepada TPM dengan minitnya bertarikh 9/5/1995. Apakah integrity BPR ketika itu di bawah pimpinan beliau yang mana Datuk Shafee sering menekankan integrity di kalangan kami. Akhirnya lihatlah minit bil 15, Kertas Siasatan dikemukakan kepada Datuk Shafee bertarikh 12/9/1996 oleh Dato’ Mohd Zawawi Nordin, Timbalan Ketua Pengarah BPR ketika itu. Beliau secara jelas memberitahu harta Azmin adalah diluar kemampuannya.
Dramatiknya selepas itu, Kertas Siasatan ini terpendam atau dipendam macam jeruk oleh Datuk Shafee atas arahan Anwar Ibrahim. Sehinggalah pada 23/9/1997 (setahun lebih), tiba-tiba Datuk Shafee has violated a law when personally instructed this investigation to be closed. Minit beliau berbunyi (rujuk minit 16) “Telah maklumkan kepada YAB TP” dan beliau menulis “KUS”. Perkataan KUS bermakna Kemas Untuk Simpan. Ia adalah  terminology yang digunakan oleh BPR dan Polis apabila suatu siasatan itu telah siap dan tiada tindakan lanjut.
Perbuatan Datuk Shafee ini melanggar undang-undang jenayah di bawah Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan juga Perlembagaan Persekutuan kerana beliau tiada hak untuk mengarah suatu siasatan dihentikan melainkan arahan Pendakwaraya. Namun oleh kerana terlalu taksub kepada Anwar Ibrahin he has betray his own agency dan terutamanya Rakyat Malaysia.
Di bawah ini tuan-tuan bolehlah tatapiu pengisytihatan harta secara sukarela Azmin Ali dan di dalam fail siasatan BPR bernombor 15/5/1995 Datuk Shafee telah hilangkan Notis Pengisytiharan Harta dan juga pengisytiharan harta Azmin Ali.
Pengisytiharan harta secara secara sukarela Azmin Ali dapat tuan-tuan baca daripada Fakta kes pegawai Penyiasat yang saya tandakan Lampiran D. Jangan tuan-tuan buta, cek-cek yang masuk dalam akaun Shamsidar sahaja ketika itu sudah melampaui RM7 juta lebih. Seorang sururumah tangga amat kaya dan dikayakan oleh Anwar.
Sebab itu apabila Anuar Shaari memberi dokumen-dokumen pemilikan saham Shamsidar dan Azmin untuk siasatan lanjut, apakah ,masyarkat buta? Saya dapat download dokumen-dokumen itu melalui website dan silalah baca sendiri.
Orang seperti Datuk Shafee telah merendahkan martabat BPR dan lihat peyamun yang diselamatkannya ketika itu menjadi penderhaka kepada Negara. Banyak kerosakan telah dilakukannya. I need not to explain more about this. Hanya orang yang buta, pekak dan tuli akan jadi bahalol dunia seperti Datuk Shafee.
Kes ini melibatkan satu siasatan oleh BPR ke atas Azmin Ali Setiausaha Sulit Datuk Seri Anwar dan isteri Azmin, Shamsida (hanyalah seorang surirumah) pada tahun1995. Siasatan dibuat ke atas Azmin kerana dikatakan mempunyai harta peribadi yang banyak hasil daripada perlakuan rasuah yang dilakukan semasa memegang jawatan Setiausaha Sulit Datuk Seri Anwar pada waktu tersebut. Ketika Anwar adalah Timbalan Perdana Menteri dan juga Menteri Kewangan Malaysia.
Berdasarkan maklumat dan repot polis yang diterima, satu Kertas Siasatan telah dibuka bernombor BPR/KS: Semasa siasatan dibuat mendapati gaji Azmin hanya RM2,442.00 sebulan tetapi mampu untuk membeli 2 buah rumah iaitu rumah pertama:double storey banglow di Setapak  harga RM284,118 dengan deposit sebanyak RM14,181 dan bayaran bulanan sebanyak RM3,376.75. Manakala rumah kedua:rumah berkembar di Taman Melawati harga RM210,000 dengan deposit sebanyak RM60,000 dan bayaran bulanan sebanyak RM1,110.35. Jika dicampurkan kedua bayaran bulanan ialah sebanyak lebih kurang RM4,500.00. Ini sahaja dan menunjukkan hutang Azmin melebihi sekali ganda gaji bulanan beliau. Di mana Azmin mendapat wang tambahan untuk menampung bayaran hutang ini?? Bukan itu saja, tak mungkin semua gaji Azmin di gunakan untuk membayar hutang rumah?? Bukankah ini sahaja dah mencukupi menunjukkan Azmin mempunyai pendapatan yang lain. Itu tidak diambil kira lagi dimana Azmin mendapat wang untuk membayar wang deposit rumah-rumah tersebut.
Siasatan yang dijalankan oleh BPR juga membuktikan Azmin memiliki 2 buah kenderaan iaitu BMW no plat BBN 3 berharga RM160,529.85.81 dimana bayaran deposit sebanyak RM120,529 dan bayaran bulanan pula sebanyak RM875 sebulan. Kereta kedua pula Proton Perdana no plat WDU 64 berharga RM80,767.81 dengan ansuran bulanan sebanyak RM700. Jika kita lihat komitmen bulanan bagi kedua kereta ini ialah lebih kurang RM1,700. RM1,700 pada ketika itu nilai yang besar. Mana tak nya klu dilihat gaji setiausaha sulit TPM pun pada masa tu baru RM2 ribu lebih.
Saham yang dimilik oleh Azmin dan isterinya juga umpama seorang bisness man. Cuba kita lihat bagaimana isteri seorang penjawat awam mempunyai saham di dalam pasaran saham dengan nilai keseluruhan melebihi setengah juta. Itu tak termasuk baki-baki didalam akaun bank yang pernah satu ketika mencecah RM300 ribu lebih. Cuba lihat keadaan yang saya nyatakan di atas. Adakah kita mempercayai penjawat awam boleh hidup dengan sedemikian??
Tetapi perkara yang paling membingungkan saya apabila BPR menutup kes ini? Sedangkan memang jelas Azmin dan isterinya mempunyai harta yangberlebihan yang tidak setimpal dengan pendapatannya. MENGAPA SIASATAN BPR DIHENTIKAN? SIAPA YANG MEMPUNYAI KUASA UNTUK MEMBERHENTIKAN SIASATAN INI?? ADAKAH ORANG YANG MEMBERHENTIKAN SIASATAN INI BERSENGKOKOL DENGAN AZMIN ATAUPUN TAKUT KEPADA PEMIMPIN PADA MASA TERSEBUT 
Untuk makluman, pada waktu itu Ketu Pengarah BPR adalah Dato Shafee Yahya. Dengan nyata skali KP BPR telah membuat satu keputusan yang tak relevan bilamana menghentikan siasatan ini. Apa sebenarnya yang berlaku? Jika kita tunjukkan perkara ini kepada budak sekolah pun mereka dapat menilai bahawa tak mungkin dengan gaji RM 2 ribu legih sebulan mampu mempunyai gaya hidup mewah seperti Azmin. TETAPI kenapa Dato Shafee menghentikan siasatan ini? ADAKAH kerana bersengkongkol? Favouritism? Mengikut telunjuk pemimpin seperti Kerbau dicucuk hidung? Ataupun sama dah NYANYUK????????
Kite cube renung-renungkan kembali berkaitan dengan perkara ini dan lihatlah lampiran-lampiran yang diupload besama. Ingatlah hidup ini hanya perjalanan yang sementara sahaja. Jangan ingat kita terlepas untuk selama-lamanya.

What Westminster system discretion means

Given what has happened in Selangor, it is perhaps instructive for us to go through the law and practice that regulate the appointment of, as well as the change in, a government.
Both the federal and state levels of government in Malaysia practice the Westminster mode of governance. As some of the states in the federation do not have hereditary monarchs, we actually have some little republics – namely Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak – within the same system.
Such is indeed an interesting subject for study. That, notwithstanding the powers given to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the rulers and the Yang di-Pertua Negeri, when it comes to appointing government, are actually the same.
For one thing such power is a creation of the Federal Constitution. Unlike the power pertaining to religion, for example. It is of course found in the constitution, but its origin is not from the Westminster convention.
As far as the power to appoint the government is concerned, it is the Westminster convention and practice that stand as the benchmark.
Indeed, this was the formula left behind by the Reid Commission. Such is also the case with the so-called discretion to dissolve the House. What is crucial here is that these powers should not be understood literally, unlike the notion of discretion in ordinary legislation. It goes without saying that the concept of discretion in the constitutional sense is quite different.
To argue otherwise would virtually render elections unnecessary. Such would also run counter to the principle of responsible government that is central in the parliamentary system like ours.
It also goes, within saying, that it is also within this framework that we have to discern the idea of constitutional monarchy.
As far as the rulers are concerned their power to appoint a menteri besar is different from the one they had in the constitutions framed under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948, under which they could just appoint anyone they pleased.
Under such a legal regime, the mentri besar appointed essentially holds office at the pleasure of the ruler concerned.
Then came constitutional monarchy
The position ceased to exist immediately after the constitutional monarchy came into being in 1959, the year the post-independence general election was held.
The notion of discretion on the part of the palace, as well as the power to dissolve the House, has to be understood within the framework of the parliamentary system, for which the prototype is the United Kingdom. Reference, the commission recommended, may also be made to other Commonwealth jurisdictions.
Having said that the law on the matter, whatever the provisions of the constitution say, is essentially this: that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the rulers and the Yang di-Pertua Negeri, have no say when there is a majority in the House and that majority group has indicated in whom their support for the head of government lies.
Their job in these situations is just to hand over the letter of appointment to the member of the House concerned. Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak (1984-2014, right) summed up the role of the palace here as merely “giving constitutional endorsement to the decision of the party in power”.
To say otherwise would run counter to the one provision that exists in all the federal or state constitutions: that the head of government – namely the prime minister, the menteri besar or the chief minister – does not hold office at the pleasure of the head of state.
This is the provision that stands as the pillar for the concept of responsible government in the cabinet system; something that differentiates the British system from the American one.
It was the adherence to the essence of the Westminster system that explained the reason why Queen Elizabeth II stayed in the background when Conservative leader David Cameron (left) and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg negotiated the terms for a coalition government after the 2010 British general election, where no party held an absolute majority to form the new government.
And as soon as the two parties agreed to their terms, the Queen just sent for the Conservative leader to form the government, upon which the caretaker government led by the outgoing Prime Minister Gordon Brown ceased to exist.
This incident was particularly significant for, at least from the perspective of the Malaysian constitution, as it could have revived her prerogative powers. But such was the discernment and tact the British Sovereign had; something that explained why she has often been said as “never put her foot wrong”.
It must be pointed out that, from the point of the palace as a constitutional monarch, it is unconstitutional for him to ignore the majority and to start screening the “candidates”.
Job of palace in a clear majority
A constitutional monarch has a crucial role to protect the constitution, but in order to do that he must not allow himself to be dragged into the mud. A monarch that is no longer seen as reigning above party politics would not be able to play the role of the father figure assumed by monarchs such as King Bhumipol Adulyadej of Thailand.
In situations where there is a clear cut majority and one of them has already been named as the head of the government, the job of the palace is just to appoint that person.
In the words of Sultan Nazrin Shah of Perak, “(The Yang di-Pertuan Agong) appoints (and does not select) the Prime Minister. Correspondingly the Rulers at the state level appoint (the Menteri Besar).”
It was said that there was a certain amount of apprehension, given the personality of Labour leader who won the post-War general election in Britain. But somehow, the then British Sovereign – King George VI – set aside his personal feelings and chose to follow democratic dictates.
Similar patterns of ceremonies have prevailed in Malaysia at the federal level and these are indeed an overwhelming evidence of how the law is understood and practised in the country.
Thus it was not a mere coincidence that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong chose to stay aloof over the transfer of power between Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra and Abdul Razak Hussein in 1970.
As the former head of judiciary  Raja Azlan Shah said, His Majesty was just giving a constitutional approval for the decision made by Umno leaders. Another round of ritual was put on display when Razak died and his deputy Hussein Onn filled the shoes left by him.
Whatever happened between Hussein Onn and Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1981 the National Palace did not interfere and it just, as a matter of ritual, handed over the appointment letter to the Mahathir as the new prime minister.
And when Mahathir’s turn came in 2003, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong did not stand the in the way: his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi came and collected the letter of appointment without any fuss. The same thing took place when Umno decided that Najib Razak should take over from Abdullah in 2009.
Similar patterns of events took place at the state levels, where the heads of state merely put into effect what has been decided by the majority party in the state assemblies. This year, two such incidents took place: in Sarawak in April and then in Terengganu in May.
Palace merely stamped majority decisions
It was apparent that in all those instances, the palace merely presided a formal ceremony that gave the decision made by the majority party a stamp of constitutional approval.
And this should have also been the case in Selangor in 2014, when PKR decided to sack Menteri Besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim. Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, who has put up 30 signed declarations of support in her favour, should have been allowed to go through the rituals that took place at federal level, as elaborated above.
It is perhaps worth mentioning one incident involving former prime minister Razak Hussein and Sultan Idris Shah of Perak after the 1974 general election. Razak insisted on the appointment of one Ghazali Jawi as the state menteri besar, something that he knew was unacceptable to the ruler.
As it happened, Razak persisted and, amazingly enough, the latter relented. In Selangor too the appointments of governments have been plain sailing in the foregoing years.
In fact, when Abu Hassan Omar was submitted as the menteri besar designate to replace Muhammad Muhammad Taib, who had to resign in 1997, the Abu Hassan was not even a member of Selangor State ssembly: he was still a minister in the Mahathir administration.
Later, when the more experienced Abu Hassan but was said to be uncooperative in the acquisition of Putrajaya, Umno replaced him with a rookie, the unknown Dr Mohd Khir Toyo. On both occasions the Selangor palace could have put up some constitutional questions – but it somehow it chose to go by the Umno decisions.
As such, what has happened since early August, including the snub on Anwar’s request to have an audience on Aug 10, was rather puzzling. And more so when the palace secretary made it clear last week that it was a practice for the p[rime minister to be given an audience to present the candidate for the menteri besar’s office.
Appointment given based on party position
It must be pointed out that the audience granted to the prime minister was on the basis of his position as party leader, not as the head of the federal government. Therefore, constitutionally speaking, similar treatment should have been accorded to Anwar as leader of the Pakatan Rakyat, the majority party in the Selangor State Legislature.
Admittedly, there could be situations where the monarch, even as constitutional monarch, might assume a proactive role. Not to pursue personal interests, but to protect democracy and constitutionally.
This was the background for my answer to those who cited the refusal of the Sultan Terengganu to abide by the majority rule in 2008 to justify what happened in Selangor in 2014.
I have admitted, however, that the ruler was in no doubt wrong on the appointment rule, but he might be entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt given the character of the incumbent, the candidate submitted by Umno for the post of menteri besar.
The same could be said with regard to the Perlis case. In fact, here, the ruler might even be saved by the appointment rules themselves. The ruler of Perlis, to my mind, has a stronger ground to ignore the name submitted by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the then Umno president.
However, having said that, it must be admitted that those deviations must not stand as the standard rule; it has to be treated as a mere exception and this only applies when the system has yet to become fully democratic and transparent.
One has to admit that given the lack of institutional support in Malaysia, there are times when we have to rely on the palace to do the unthinkable: to prevent the corrupt and autocratic candidates from assuming the post. However, it has to be said that Wan Azizah does not fall into this category.
In any case the palace should have granted Anwar a hearing, should it have reservations about her. This was what the ruler of Perak did in 1974, though Razak went on to insist on his choice.
Speaking with the benefit of hindsight, it may be said now that given that Tunku Abdul Rahman did not take the move to unseat him lying down, the National Palace could have delayed the replacement process.
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the outgoing premier argued then, queried the need to impose emergency. In fact, more questions can be asked now: such as, why the deputy and not the prime minister himself, who presented the advice to declare emergency?
Whatever the answers to these questions, it has to be stated that there were two different Yang di-Pertuan Agong at that point of time. The one who declared the emergency was the Sultan of Terengganu, while the one presiding the change of prime minister was the Sultan of Kedah, who, incidentally, is now serving as the head of the federation for the second time.
Back to Selangor, it is really disturbing to see certain quarters putting up banners and organising rallies supporting the palace for reasons that may not be constitutional.
The more so when this is led by characters such as the Selangor Umno strongman Noh Omar. Does he not realise that it was Umno, after losing Kelantan in the 1990 general election, that once demanded that the rulers’ power to appoint the menteri besar be abolished?