THE AMBIGUITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

So, if the Royals want to talk about politics, it had better be in support of the opposition and not in support of the government. That would be the safest. Then they would not be in danger of getting whacked by the rakyat.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I was only nine years old at that time and much too young to understand the intrigues of politics, palace politics in particular. But we children picked up talk that the elders indulged in and although not savvy enough to understand the goings-on certainly knew that all was not honky-dory in the corridors of the Palace.

When Malaysia attained Merdeka in 1957, it was agreed that the eleven states, nine with monarchs, would merge into a Federation. For the two ‘republican’ states, Governors would be appointed to turn them into a sort of pseudo-monarchy. My grandfather was appointed the first governor in one of those states, Penang.

To unite the eleven states, a ‘supreme’ or Agong would be chosen from amongst the nine state Monarchs. This is based on the system of all nine monarchs are equal but the Agong would be the first amongst equals. The post of Agong would be rotated and the Agong chosen by the Conference of Rulers based on seniority (not age but the first to occupy the state throne).

Sultan Ibrahim of Johor who had occupied the throne in 1895 was, of course, the most senior but he declined the post because of age. He was 84 at that time.

The next in line was Sultan Abu Bakar of Pahang who had been on the throne since 1932. However, he could not secure enough votes even though the Conference voted five times.

Finally, Tuanku Abdul Rahman of Negeri Sembilan, who had been on the throne since 1933, was elected by eight votes to one.

I do not know why Sultan Abu Bakar was considered not suitable to become Malaysia’s First Agong but the whispering amongst the elders that we kids picked up was because of his ‘lifesyle’. The name of the actress Maria Menado was one of those that we children picked up and those of the Merdeka generation would know what this meant, although no one would really want to talk about the matter unless in whispers.

But Tuanku Abdul Rahman ruled as the First Agong for only two-and-a-half years. He died on 1st April 1960 and was replaced by Sultan Hisamuddin Alam Shah of Selangor.

It is said that the First Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, was not too pleased with Tuanku Abdul Rahman. This was because Tuanku Abdul Rahman collaborated with the Japanese during the war. Tuanku Abdul Rahman also signed the most unpopular Malayan Union Agreement, which Umno and some of the brother-rulers opposed.

Hence the First Agong had a sort of black mark in his record book.

There is a story of how a foreign dignitary was snubbed by Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and he met the Agong, Tuanku Abdul Rahman, and suggested that he sack the Prime Minister.

It was reported that the Agong replied, “Alas I can’t sack him; he is elected by the people, and as Prime Minister of the country he can sack me!”

Sultan Hisamuddin Alam Shah took over as the Second Agong on 14th April 1960 and from what we heard (the elders talking again) Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman advised him against it because, according to the talk, the Tunku told the Sultan he is not the legitimate heir to the throne.

Sultan Hisamuddin Alam Shah died just four-and-a-half months later and the whispering by the elders was that he should have listened to Tunku Rahman. To the Malays it was all a question of daulat.

It seems the Tunku also interfered in the appointment of the successor to the Negeri Sembilan throne but, again, we were too young to understand and this was merely what we heard the elders whispering.

The bottom line is there has always been a very delicate relationship between the elected leaders and the monarchy and since before Merdeka, while Malaya was still under British colonial rule, the monarchy has been subjected to political domination.

For example, the sacking of Sultan Ali of Terengganu in 1945 and the sacking of Sultan Musa Ghiatuddin Riayat Shah of Selangor, also in 1945, were political moves. Hence the monarchs are really not that free in that sense. Their appointment and removal can be done through political interference.

In short, Malaysia cannot abolish the monarchy but it can remove the monarchs or decide who should ascend the throne and who should be bypassed. Such is the thin ice that Malaysia’s monarchs walk on.

In more recent times we have had ‘interference’ from the Kelantan Palace in 1990 that resulted in Umno getting kicked out of the state until today. Then we had the Perak Crisis soon after the 2008 general election and the Selangor Crisis soon after the 2013 general election. In all these cases the palace was accused of interfering in politics.

And today, of course, we have the Johor issue between the Tengku Mahkota and Nazri Aziz, yet one more in a series of ‘crises’ between the government and the Palace since long before Merdeka.

When is the Palace said to be interfering in politics and when is the Palace considered just exercising freedom of speech? The line is blurred, in fact invisible, so if in doubt, the best advise would be don’t.

Of course, one rule of thumb would be if the Palace supports the opposition that can be considered freedom of speech/choice but if it supports the government that can be considered Palace interference.

So, if the Royals want to talk about politics, it had better be in support of the opposition and not in support of the government. That would be the safest. Then they would not be in danger of getting whacked by therakyat.