MY RESPONSE TO TOMMY THOMAS

Anwar is fortunate that this is 2014 and not 1814. If not by now he would have a keris stuck in his belly. And there are many royalist Malays who would volunteer to do that deed. I suppose we will have to be contented with just seeing Anwar spend the rest of his sorry days in the Kajang Prison.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

This is what Tommy Thomas said at the International Malaysia Law Conference in Kuala Lumpur today:

“What happened in Selangor was absolutely wrong. It was for the party to choose the leader and that was the end of the matter.”

He added that one had to look at the United Kingdom, Australia and India to understand what happened in Selangor.

Tommy Thomas said even Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Abdul Razak would have said, “Are you kidding?”

Sivarasa Rasiah, Dr Azmi Sharom and Dr Cyrus Das, all legal and constitutional experts, also all gave their views — which were that Azmin Ali should not have been appointed the Menteri Besar of Selangor.

READ MORE HERE

First of all, Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Abdul Razak would not have gone into conflict with the rulers. They would have first made their intentions known to the rulers and would have got their blessing before doing something that would affect the rulers or would need the rulers’ endorsement later.

Now, if it is wrong for HRH the Sultan of Selangor to appoint Azmin as the MB, why did Azmin accept the appointment? Azmin should have respectfully declined the appointment and should have respectfully informed the Sultan that he cannot accept the appointment because he has to respect the wishes of his party that wants Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail as the MB.

In fact, Azmin sent his people over to the palace to collect the letter from the Sultan confirming his appointment as the MB. Azmin should not have taken the trouble of sending his people to collect the letter from the palace.

Furthermore, Azmin lobbied the palace for the post. He asked for it and was actively lobbying the palace for the job right up to the last day. And I personally know the people he used to lobby the palace.

Another point to note is that after the 2013 general election the palace received two letters. One letter was from PKR proposing Khalid Ibrahim as the MB. Then there was a second letter from one of the ADUNs aligned to Azmin proposing Azmin for the post.

When Khalid had an audience with the Sultan to inform HRH that he had been proposed as the MB, HRH asked Khalid whether he knew that there was a second proposal via a second letter proposing Azmin as MB.

Khalid did not know of that second letter proposing Azmin and he was taken aback. Hence Khalid was not the sole choice for MB. There was a second choice, Azmin.

In Barisan Nasional’s case it is very simple and straightforward. Barisan Nasional proposes the MB, Chief Minister or PM. The proposal is not from Umno or from any of the other members of the coalition.

In Pakatan Rakyat’s case it is not that simple or straightforward. Pakatan Rakyat is not a legal entity so the proposal has to come from PKR, DAP and PAS. And unless PKR, DAP and PAS are unanimous then there is no consensus, like in the case of Barisan Nasional where the coalition speaks for everyone.

These are the things that the legal and constitutional experts are not telling us. Hence by leaving these facts out they are misleading the public. They are not telling us the whole story but just part of the story.

We are being told that 30 ADUNs signed SDs supporting Dr Wan Azizah for MB. What we are not being told is that a number of those 30 ADUNs have sent messages to the palace telling the Sultan that they signed those SDs under duress. Hence they do not support Dr Wan Azizah as MB. Hence, also, this means Pakatan Rakyat does not have 30 ADUNs, as they claim to have. They have less than 29.

So there is no majority as we are being falsely led to believe. It is just one big lie, which the public is swallowing hook, line and sinker. And are these legal and constitutional experts aware of this and if they are aware of this are they then also perpetuating this lie about the majority support for Dr Wan Azizah?

Tommy Thomas used United Kingdom, Australia and India as the examples to compare with what happened in Selangor yesterday.

The UK is different from Malaysia. England used to have many kings (plus many kings in Scotland, Wales and Ireland). Then England was united under one king, and hence called the United Kingdom. Then, in the 1600s, England went through a civil war and Charles I was deposed and, in 1649, beheaded, after which England became a republic.

After 11 years as a republic, in 1660 England decided to revert to a monarchy and Charles II, the son of Charles I, was invited back from exile in France to take the throne.

The England of Charles II was very different from the England of Charles I. The powers of the king were drastically reduced and the monarch now served as merely a rubber-stamp or ceremonial monarch. Hence the monarch should only be seen and not heard.

In Malaysia’s case it was different. Malaya was a country of nine monarchs who had absolute powers. The Federated Malay States and Unfederated Malay States had monarchs while the Straits Settlements came under direct British rule.

Then, in 1948, the many states united under a federation called the Federation of Malaya and, in 1957, Malaya was granted independence and given self-rule.

However, while Malaya may have transformed into a constitutional monarchy, it was not a type of constitutional monarchy like England in 1660. The state rulers did not lose all their powers like what happened to Charles II. The rulers still had a say in some things.

Hence what these legal and constitutional experts say is wrong. The state rulers are not rubber-stamp or ceremonial rulers. It is just that in the past you have never seen the rulers exercise their powers and today you have, in Selangor.

If you wish to compare Selangor to the UK, Australia or India, like what Tommy Thomas has done, then why stop at just the appointment of the MB? There are many things that prove Selangor is different from the UK, Australia or India. So why not talk about those other differences as well?

For example, Islam comes under the state rulers (and under the Agong for states without state rulers). And the rulers decide on all matter concerning Islam.

Can PKR, DAP and PAS (or Barisan Nasional for that matter) tell the rulers what to do regarding Islam? And if Selangor must be compared to the UK, Australia and India, as Tommy Thomas said, then why not?

If the rulers under a constitutional monarchy do not have any power and must listen to the party in power, then PKR, DAP and PAS can change the state laws to allow Muslims to leave Islam, allow Muslims to live as husband and wife without getting married, allow Muslims to drink and gamble, and so on.

PKR, DAP and PAS can also abrogate the law where non-Muslims are prohibited from using the word ‘Allah’ and two dozen or so other words, plus print the Bible in Bahasa Malaysia using Allah as the word for God.

If we want to demonstrate that a constitutional monarchy has no power and that the power belongs to the political party in power then one of the first things Azmin Ali must do is to amend or abrogate the many state laws that are prohibitive and restrictive and which deny people their right of freedom of religion and freedom to not believe in God, like in the UK, Australia and India.

Don’t pick and choose one or two items to strengthen your case in your argument that the Sultan has overstepped his authority. Just change the laws. And since Pakatan Rakyat is in power in Selangor and since the Sultan has no power then just amend the state constitution where it says the Sultan has the prerogative in choosing the MB.

Can PKR, DAP and PAS do that? Remove all the powers of the Sultan once and for all and turn Selangor into a sort of republic with the Sultan as merely a rubber-stamp and ceremonial figurehead who can’t even take a piss unless he first gets the permission of Pakatan Rakyat.

For a long time now Anwar Ibrahim has wanted to turn Malaysia into a republic. He failed in the 1980s and now he is using his comrades in the Bar Council and the legal fraternity to turn the people against the monarchy.

Anwar is fortunate that this is 2014 and not 1814. If not by now he would have a keris stuck in his belly. And there are many royalist Malays who would volunteer to do that deed. I suppose we will have to be contented with just seeing Anwar spend the rest of his sorry days in the Kajang Prison.