It’s not about the minister or crown prince, it’s about the constitution – Ram Anand

I will have to begin with a disclaimer – I am not a fan of Tourism and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz, Datuk Seri Najib Razak or Johor Crown Prince Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim.

In my formative years, i was a huge fan of Malaysia’s racial harmony. A visit to Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma)’s website, however, makes me wonder if they, too, lived and grew up in the same Malaysia.

Now, I cannot claim myself to be a dinosaur as I am still under three decades old, and those who are forming the next generation of discourse in Malaysia are ultimately my peers, and it doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

I was also a fan of the Malaysian environmental stability – free from natural disasters, they said. The earthquake in Sabah last week all but threw these assumptions out the window for good. The ground has literally moved beneath our feet.

So, what is left to be a fan of in this part of the world?

Like all nations, when the ground shifts drastically, you can only hold on to one document to ensure you don’t veer off without a direction altogether, and that is the Federal Constitution.

I am a fan of the constitution, but then again, our constitution is one that has gone through countless amendments over the years.

This probably typifies how we are as a nation, terminally fickle-minded.

There was a flurry of praise for the Johor crown prince for having said his piece regarding the whole Friday morning shenanigans at the Nothing to Hide forum, during which the prime minister chose not to attend due to “security concerns".

He implied, cheekily, that a person who didn’t show up for that forum must have “something” to hide. He might not have mentioned names, but that jibe was nowhere near subtle.

Then came the equally flamboyant Nazri. He used the word “whack” when referring to the royal family member, and the rest was history. They have been trading barbs ever since.

Come to think of it, Nazri and the crown price are both cut from the same cloth – flamboyant, honest (that’s a very subjective adjective), enigmatic, controversial.

Both come from bloodlines that were more privileged, in many senses, than my own.

But they differ in two crucial areas – the crown prince is seen as criticising Najib at a time when the prime minister’s popularity has plummeted, while Nazri is defending Najib.

Based on this, people have expressed “pride” in this royal family member’s actions, after he told a minister that the latter is not a “God”.

But there is a second fundamental difference between these two men, one was elected, the other was not.

And that second difference is a question of the constitution.

The monarchy is not supposed to interfere in politics of the nation. It doesn’t matter how popular Najib is, that is not an issue for the royal family to dabble in.

Nazri might have risked sounding like Najib’s cheerleader, but the fact remains that he was arguing a point on constitutionality.

In the mass wave of criticism directed against Najib, the fallacy would be to be swept by the flow and cheerleading for a monarch to start making statements that have political implications.

But this fickle mindedness on what we demand from our leaders and which side we take has been typified so many times in the past.

Protesting against the Sedition Act when opposition lawmakers are persecuted and then demanding that Datuk Ibrahim Ali be booked under the same law is self-contradictory.

Of course, the question of the Sedition Act arises again in this spat, and we forget that this whole episode sums up, in Nazri’s own words, the unequal playing field.

Would a member of the royal family be probed under sedition for using similarly harsh words against a minister?

Are we debating the existence of a law from colonial times, or its selective persecution?

We need to make up our minds, not sit, twiddle thumbs and change our course of discussion every time the wind blows in our face.

Similarly, opposition parties like PKR are also guilty of the same before.

They were on collision course with the Selangor Sultan for the latter’s level of involvement in choosing the Selangor Menteri Besar in 2014.

But the same party leaders petitioned the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to pardon Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy conviction on grounds that this was a political conspiracy.

Do we want the monarchs to weigh in on political matters? That, too, seems to be a question for which the answers change as quickly as day turns to night.

Of course, this is a curious battle between an Umno leader and a monarch, no one could have seen that coming. It is somewhat entertaining to watch, sitting by the sidelines, without prejudice.

It is also easy to move and support whoever “appears to be an underdog”.

But as tempted as I am to think that this small war of words has nothing to do with me, there is a clear line here.

And because I am a fan of the Federal Constitution, I am with Nazri in this seemingly innocuous clash of egos.

Because the underlying factor is one of constitutionality.

* Ram Anand is a journalist with The Malaysian Insider.