| The day Mahathir clipped the rulers' wings-pdf versi melayu di attach. | | |
| Translation |
| Monday, 03 January 2011 09:00 |
| For the official text of the speech in Malay by Dr Mahathir Mohamad in Parliament with regard to the constitutional amendment on the rulers' rights and privileges, see the Hansard – click pdf (ref. pages 13-26) http://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR-18011993.pdf **************
Below is an unofficial English translation of Dr Mahathir's Jan 18, 1993 speech: Mr Speaker Sir,
1. I request to propose that is a Bill named 'An Act to amend the Constitution' to be read for the second time. Speaker Sir, allow me to introduce and comment on the Act that I've just mentioned.
2. When the country demanded independence, the country's leaders, who garnered a big victory and consolidated support in the 1955 General Election, decided that our country would be administered via Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.
3. This system was chosen because when the Malay states were administered via the feudal system with power vested in the hands of the Rajas, the Malay states were weak and its administration was in chaos. The states could not establish peace and enforce laws. As a result, the states were forced to place themselves under the influence of foreign powers like China, Siam and the West. Finally, all the Malay states were conquered by the British and ruled as British colonies via treaties between the Rajas and the British Government.
4. After the Second World War, the Malay Rajas hoped that when the British administered again, their positions as Rajas, under the advice of the British officials, would be restored. The Malay states would be again ruled by the British although unlike Singapore, Penang and Malacca, where the British had full authority.
5. For the majority of the Malay people in the Peninsular states, they were ready to accept a rule in which the Malayness of the Malay states was recognized by the British, although the administration was almost completely controlled by the British. Yet, there were opinions among some Malays that the Malay states should be completely freed from British colonial rule.
6. Malays only realized that they might be marginalized and be made beggars in their own country when the Malay Rajas bowed to MacMichael's threats and signed a new treaty with the British to return the Malay states directly to the British to be ruled as British colonies like Singapore, Penang and Malacca.
7. Because the Rajas so easily handed over Singapore, Penang and Pangkor to the colonialists and then the Malay states, the people ('rakyat') could no longer accept a system that only gives power to the Rajas and the people are not given any role in the country's politics. Also, after World War Two, absolute monarchies decayed throughout the world. Everywhere, absolute monarchies were abolished. Where it was maintained, the powers of the Rajas were limited by the Constitution, or the country's basic law. Hence, when the Federated Malay States demanded for independence, the leaders of the people studied the various administrative systems while taking into account of the history of the Malay States and other administrative systems.
Mr Speaker Sir,
8. The old administrative system in the Malay states was a feudal system in which the Rajas had absolute power without a written Constitution. This feudal system was determined by customs that were often arbitrarily manipulated by the people in power. If the people in power breached the customs, it was difficult for palace officials and the people to criticize and bring any charges. But when the situation became too bad, it was likely that customs were put aside and revolt occurred. But this method nonetheless brought about negative consequences without guaranteeing that the revolt would improve the situation.
9. Therefore, the opinion that Rajas should be placed under a Constitution that determined the status and role of the Rajas was born. With this method, the Rajas could no longer act as they pleased. The powers of the Rajas would be determined by the Constitution, that is, the country's basic law. Yet, there were Rajas who were willing to hand over their own states to foreign powers while ignoring the Constitution.
10. Yet when the Constitutional Monarchy was drafted for the Federation of Malaya, which at that time was moving towards independence, those drafters of the constitution still believed that the Rajas would abide by not only by what was written but also the unstated between the lines, that is, the spirit of the Constitution.
11. During the British colonial period, because they could appoint or remove Rajas, therefore Rajas accept the advice of the colonial rulers. This matter is included in the treaty between the British and the Malay Rajas in which the advice of the 'British Resident' or 'British Adviser' must be sought and adhered to by the Rajas save those that relate to Islam and Malay customs. For the British, that the advice must be abided by the Rajas is not strange because in the system of Government in Britain, their 'King' or 'Queen' must accept the Government's advice. If not, the King will be removed from the throne. Hence, when King Edward VIII was adamant to marry a divorcee, he had to abdicate the throne on the Government's advice, although there was no specific provision for this action. What was enforced was not the law but the country's political interests, and the British Kings abide by the country's politics. That's the reason why even before the British Parliament decided that Queen Elizabeth should pay income tax, Her Majesty herself decided to pay income tax. The British Constitution, although unwritten, is abided to in and according to custom.
12. Because the Malay Rajas in colonial times followed advice, therefore it was believed that the problem of Rajas acting outside the law would not occur.
13. The drafters and founders of the administration of the Federation of Malaya also believed that the provision that the Rajas that could not be charged in court is only a sign of the majesty of the King and not to be taken as a right to commit crimes. Certainly the drafters of the Constitution and the founders of our country's independence did not mean this provision gave the Rajas the right to be above civil and criminal laws. Constitutional Monarchy has never given privilege to the Rajas to commit crimes. But if the Rajas is in default while carrying out official duties, the Rajas are free from charges. This is because the Government is responsible and the party that should be charged.
14. In the efforts opposing the Malayan Union and returning the Malay states and the Straits Settlements to the 'status quo ante', that is, the situation before World War Two, the people played an important role although there is no legal provision. It was clear at that that time to the people that the Rajas without the People's support are easily controlled by the colonialists and other parties. Hence, the people had to be given rights in the country's politics and administration. The role of the people must be determined by the law.
15. Considering this reality and once again taking the example of Britain, the Federation of Malaya chose the Parliamentary Democracy system. The people will elect their representatives to the Dewan Rakyat (Parliament) and the Dewan Undangan Negeri (State Legislative Assemblies) who will be the main law and policy makers. This allowed the people to play their roles in an orderly and organized manner.
16. Once again following the system in Britain, the laws can only be valid after they are signed by the Rajas. In Britain, this is not a problem because it is not possible that the King will reject the advice of the Cabinet. But in Malaysia, the word 'advice' that the drafters of the constitution believed would have the same meaning like in Britain and during the colonial period, is not clearly interpreted. Therefore, the Rajas can reject the Government's advice.
17. If the advice of the Government may be rejected, this means that Parliamentary Democracy does not exist and the people are not in control as Parliament is supposed to represent people power, being made up of representatives chosen by the people. In some matters, not only is the agreement of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong required, but also the Conference of Rulers.
18. Although the Parliamentarians are free to speak in the Dewan Rakyat and state legislative assemblies about any topic, but they cannot touch on the Rajas because any criticism of the Rajas may be interpreted as sedition and the MPs charged under the Sedition Act. This provision was a result of an amendment made in 1971. Before this, criticism of the Rajas could be made in the House. In Britain and other countries, the MPs are free to criticize their rulers. It is clear that that criticizing the rulers does not undermine their sovereignty.
19. While this prohibition on any criticism is said to protect the Rajas' majesty, nonetheless when the Rajas are immune to criticism, they will not be aware of the wrongs that they have committed. Hence, perhaps more wrongs will be committed and these wrongs could become more serious. This will not only sully the Rajas' majesty but can also cause the people to hate the Rajas. It is not true to say the prohibition on criticizing the Rajas will protect the Rajas' majesty. Actually, it is possible that the majesty of the Rajas will be sullied because of this prohibition.
20. The Rajas are not Constitutional Monarchs any more but have become absolute Monarchs if they can reject advice while being immune from criticism and any legal action. Once again Parliamentary Democracy no longer exists because no action can be taken against the Rajas who reject the advice of the people's Government and commit wrongdoing.
21. In 1983, action was taken to amend the Constitution so that at the very least the power of the Agong to reject Bills written by Parliament was abolished. This effort was successful but not fully. What was approved ultimately was that the power of the Agong to reject Parliament Bills was reduced a small degree with the new provision such that he can refer the bill back to Parliament if he is unwilling to sign any bill that has been approved by Parliament. Thereafter even if the Agong refuses to sign the bill, it will become valid by law in 30 days (Article 66(4) Constitution) should Parliament approve it again.
22. But this approval is limited to matters that do not touch on the rights and privileges of the Rajas. To amend the Constitutional provisions that touch on the Rajas, the Conference of Rulers must give their consent.
23. At state level, no amendments was made to the state Constitutions. Hence, there are no laws that can be passed without being signed by the Rajas. This means the powers of the Rajas in the state is above the powers of the state legislative assembly that represents the people.
24. These provisions do not become problems if there are no opposing opinions between the Rajas and the state legislative assembly, or there is no wrongdoing by the Rajas, or if there is no such thing as a Malay custom that does not like to jeopardize the relationships with the Rajas. Unfortunately, because the Chief Ministers and Prime Minister are Malays that are unwilling to be on bad terms with the Rajas, when the Rajas do something that is not supposed to be done, no effective criticism is made. Even if criticism is made, there cannot be any action taken on the Rajas should they be unwilling to heed the criticisms of their official advisers.
25. Hence, in the history of independent Malaysia, the actions that exceed the rights and privileges of the Rajas taken by the Rajas and parties who hide behind the Rajas become more serious over time. The possibility is that it will become more serious in the future. If there are no amendments to the law, like those suggested here, without doubt worse will happen that will cause the institution of the monarchy to be hated by the people. It is not impossible that one day in future demands are made to completely abolish the monarchy system despite provisions in the Constitution.
26. Hence this amendment that is suggested aims to avoid or prevent the escalation of hatred towards the Rajas that could bring about demands to abolish the monarchy system. This amendment is to save the Rajas themselves and the Constitutional Monarchy system. To strengthen the Constitutional provisions to maintain the monarchy system, provisions are made such that any suggestion to abolish it will be interpreted as sedition and falls under sedition laws.
27. This amendment does not touch on the privileges provided the Rajas. Rajas will continue to maintain their status as rulers, and facilities provided to the Rajas and the royal families according to the Constitution will be continued.
28. To guarantee that Constitutional Monarchy is really effective, three amendments need to be made to the Federal Constitution. First, the Constitutional provision related with the immunity of the Rajas from any legal action as in Clause (1) Article 32 where after the word "court" is added the words "tetapi hanya berkenaan dengan apa-apa jua yang dilakukan atau ditinggalkan daripada dilakukan olehnya dalam perjalanan atau yang berupa sebagai perjalanan fungsi-fungsinya di bawah mana-mana undang-undang bertulis". This means no court action can be taken against the Rajas who are carrying out their official duties.
29. Sovereign Immunity is a feudal concept – a concept in which allegedly 'The King can do no wrong'. According Dr Hogg in his book 'Liability of the Crown', this concept is based on the excuse that a King cannot be charged in his own court. This excuse has long been questioned and rejected by European law experts like Adams who feel that there is no doubt that feudal lords are under their own courts – 'No doubt at all of the subjection of feudal lords to their own courts'.
30. Under the Government of India Act 1935, the Governor General or Governor is only immune when carrying out official duties.
31. In the United States, President Nixon's demand such that he is exempted from a legal provision was rejected by the Supreme Court.
32. In England, the Queen cannot be arrested and the arrest of anyone cannot be made on palace grounds. The Queen cannot be charged in court either.
33. But in a paper that discussed the Constitutional Law of India, under the Crown Proceedings Act for England, the original provision has been amended to allow 'Civil proceedings by and against the Crown'.
34. In the same paper it was mentioned that it has become a 'fundamental general rule' that 'His Majesty cannot sanction any act forbidden by the law'. When he is not permitted to sanction any act forbidden by the law, he is also himself not permitted to commit any act forbidden by the law. Hence, 'His Majesty is under and not above the laws (and) he is bound by them equally with his subjects'.
35. Provisions in the Constitutions of Spain, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Luxemburg all give immunity to the King only when carrying out official duties as the ruler. Any wrongdoings in the carrying out official duties fall upon the Government or Ministers.
36. There are no special provisions in any Constitution in European countries that give immunity to the King when carrying out unofficial activities. Yet, the Kings in the respective countries are still recognized and sovereign. They continue to be sovereign and did not lose their sovereignty. The opinion that Kings are only sovereign if the Kings can get away with committing crimes is not supported by the practices of other countries in this day and age. Even in the past, the King is often punished when he commits any wrongdoing, like in the case of Charles I in England and Louis XVI in France.
37. Only in the Constitution of Malaysia is there a specific provision under Article 181(2) that 'no proceedings whatsoever shall be brought in any court against the Ruler of a State in his personal capacity'.
38. Almarhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj, this country's first Prime Minister, had written that immunity is not 'satisfactory' because 'Rajas can kill anyone without any action taken against him'. The result of provision 181(2) is very wide. Because the Constitutions of the Federation and States are also law, Article 181(2) actually allows Rajas to breach the Constitution. Because of that, when the Rajas engage in business, although prohibited by the Constitution, nothing can be done by the Government. The Agong cannot be charged in any court. But the Conference of Rulers can sack him from his position. On the contrary as a Raja, Article 181(2) will protect him.
39. If Malaysia intends to become a country that practices Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy, the immunity that is given to the Rajas must be abolished. The Constitution in countries that practice the Constitutional Monarchy System doesn't give immunity to their Kings. By the same token, the abolition of the immunity of the Malay Rajas cannot jeopardize their sovereignty. In the modern era, it is only because the King can't commit crimes as they will, that the King's status will not be jeopardized, especially in a country that practices Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.
40. To guarantee the effectiveness of the abolition of immunity, two more provisions in the Constitution needs to be amended. The first is related to the provision in Article 63(2) that protects a person from taking part in a debate in Parliament or Parliamentary Committee from being questioned in court, which has been amended by Article 63(4) if it touches the provision of the Sedition Act. This provision is made in 1971. This means criticism towards the King can be made before 1971 without jeopardizing the Raja's sovereignty. Hence, it allows again the people's representatives to criticize the Rajas who were wrong without denying the original rights and privileges of the Rajas. The amendment of Article 63 after Clause (4) reads:- "(5) Notwithstanding Clause (4), no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by him of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong or a Ruler when taking part in any proceedings of either House of Parliament or any committee thereof except where he advocates the abolition of the constitutional position of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as the Supreme Head of the Federation or the constitutional position of the Ruler of a State, as the case may be". Article 72 of the Federal Constitution is amended by inserting after Clause (4) the following Clause:- "(5) Notwithstanding Clause (4) no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by him of the Ruler of any state while taking part in any proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or any committee thereof except where he advocates the abolition of the Ruler's position as the constitutional Ruler of that State".
41. The interpretation of the sedition towards the Raja in the Constitution is so wide until no criticism can be made in Parliament by members of the Dewan Rakyat or state legislative assembly. Hence, the media also has no freedom to report. Criticism can only be made by the Rajas' advisors behind closed doors. If this criticism is ineffective, there is nothing further that can be done.
42. Actually all three former Prime Ministers, as advisors to the Rajas, had criticized the Rajas many times while they were in office. I know criticisms had been made because this matter was reported in Cabinet meetings and also the Umno supreme council many times.
43. When he was Prime Minister, Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn had once before harshly criticized the Rajas for the doing what they should not do in his written speech at the Conference of Rulers meeting that was attended only by Their Highnesses or their representatives.
44. But all these criticisms were not effective. The matters touched upon continued to be done, even intensified. What was never done during the British era and in the early years of independent Malaysia are now done in the open and widespread.
45. Although almost all Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers report about the problems that they face to the Umno supreme council but the public are not aware. Hence, the public does not know the problems faced by the Government. Most of them continue to believe that the system of Constitutional Monarchy is operating smoothly with the Rajas honoring all the provisions in the Constitution. Only a small number of the people know what goes on and they are not comfortable with the Rajas' doings. But they can't express their views and feelings because there is a Sedition Act.
46. The Sedition Act and the relevant provisions for sedition towards the Rajas in Article 63(4) of the Constitution prohibit the people from getting information and voicing their opinions. They can only talk among themselves. Political leaders, including Government leaders have heard and realize the views and anger of those people who know about the Rajas' doings. Such is their anger that there are those, especially among the young generation, that consider the monarchy system to be behind times.
47. But because of the Sedition Act and prohibitions on criticizing the Rajas, the rulers do not listen and do not believe their advisors when such information is conveyed about the people's anxiety. The Rajas and the Royal Families seem to opine that all of these are inventions of the advisors to the Rajas to frighten them or take away their rights.
48. In this situation, the Rajas not only continue their habits that the people dislike and are uneasy with but also continue doing what is hated by the people. If this trend is not stopped, the feelings of the people towards the Raja will boil over and become so bad that at some point of time in the future, the people may no longer be able to contain their feelings. For a long time there have been letters to newspapers that expressed such feelings.
49. With your permission Speaker Sir, I wish to read an excerpt of an article sent to The Straits Times in 1946 by a prominent Malay leader, when the British suggested the formation of the Malayan Union. This leader went on to hold a high position in Government. This article was not published in the Straits Times but was passed to me recently by the writer.
50. This writer says, with your permission, 'All intelligent Malay leaders ought now seriously to give most profound and careful thought to the question whether the time has not arrived when the Malay Royalty (I mean the Sultan and Raja) should gracefully withdraw themselves altogether'.
51. If there were opinions like this as early as 1946, is it not possible that they will arise again in 1993 if the Rajas are not stopped from doing things that are undesirable?
52. The protection and privilege given to the Rajas aim to put the Rajas in a high and exalted position. The protection and privilege is not to allow the Rajas to do whatever they like including committing crime. Rajas that are aware and understand the true meaning of these provisions will always take care to prevent sullying themselves through acts or bad behaviour disliked by the community. Rajas who are aware will know acts that ignore the feelings and opinions of the community will eventually cause the people to remove the Rajas, and even abolish the monarchy system. This is what happened in countries that are now republics.
53. In Malaysia, very much protection is given to the rulers. Sovereign Immunity from laws and prohibitions from criticism, although only by members of the state assembly that have been entrusted to administer the country, separates the Rajas from the real world. In this situation, the acts and behaviour of the Rajas will become worse in the long run. This is happening in Malaysia.
54. Hence, it is important Members of the House are given back the right to criticize the Rajas in their debates. Without this right, the Members of the House will fail to practice the Parliamentary Democracy system and will be unable to assert that the people are the ones in power under this system. Without this right, the ones in power are the Rajas and not the people.
55. With the existence of a prohibition on criticizing the Rajas, Members of the House actually cannot protect the institution and system of monarchy. Hence, the freedom of Members of the House to speak in the House should not be blocked by the Sedition Act like provided for under Article 63(4) and 72(4). With the addition of Article 63(5) and 72(5), the Members of the House can not only protect the Raja's position but also the Constitutional Monarchy that is clearly protected by the Constitution, because it is mentioned in Article 63(5) and 72(5) that the exemption from the Sedition Act does not include proposing the 'the abolition of the constitutional position of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as the Supreme Head of the Federation or the constitutional position of the Ruler of a State'.
Mr Speaker Sir,
56. The second matter that can void the abolition of the Rajas' immunity when doing something against the law in a non-official capacity is the Rajas' right to pardon as provided for in Article 42. With this provision, a Raja can pardon himself if he is convicted by a court after immunity from legal action is withdrawn. This means the withdrawal of immunity is meaningless and ineffective.
57. Hence, the Government proposes that Article 38 and 42 of the Federal Constitution be amended as in Clause (2) Article 28 and Clause (12) Article 42. Clause (2) Article 38 of the Federal Constitution will be amended – (a) by substituting the comma at the end of the paragraph (c) with a semicolon; and (b) by inserting after paragraph (c), the following paragraph: "(d) grant pardons, reprieves and respites in respect of, or to remit, suspend or commute sentences, under Clause (12) Article 42,". Article 42 of the Federal Constitution is amended by inserting, after Clause (11), the following Clauses: "(12) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, where the powers mentioned in this Article – (a) are exercisable by the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of a State and are to be exercised by in respect of himself or his wife, son or daughter, such powers shall be exercised by the Chief Minister of the State acting on the advice of the Pardons Board constituted for that State under this Article and which shall be presided over by him; (b) are to be exercised in respect of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, the Ruler of a State, or his Consort as the case may be, such powers shall be exercised by the Conference of Rulers and the following provisions shall apply: (i) when attending any proceedings under this Clause, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong shall not be accompanied by the Prime Minister and the other Rulers shall not be accompanied by their Menteri-Menteri Besar; (ii) before arriving at its decision on any matter under this Clause, the Conference of Rulers shall consider any written opinion which the Attorney-General may have delivered thereon. (c) are to be exercisable by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong or the Ruler of a State in respect of his son or daughter, as the case may be, such powers shall be exercised by the Ruler of a State nominated by the Conference of Rulers who shall act in accordance with the advice of the relevant Pardons Board constituted under this Article. (13) For the purpose of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause (12), the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong or the Ruler of the State concerned, as the case may be, and Yang di-Pertua-Yang di-Pertua Negeri shall not be members of the Conference of Rulers".
58. With this amendment, the Raja cannot hear the plea and pardon himself. If the Raja or his Consort pleads for pardon, the Conference of Rulers will hear and decide on the case.
59. The Raja also cannot hear the plea of his own children and pardon his own children. The Conference of Rulers will appoint another Raja to hear and decide on the pardon submission of a Raja's child.
60. With the abolition of the immunity of the Rajas from legal action, except when carrying out official duties, it is believed that a Raja will not commit acts that can be charged in courts. With this, the Raja will be honoured by the people.
61. The abolition of the ban applied on Members of Parliament and the state legislative assembly by the Sedition Act will prevent the Rajas from committing any act that may attract the criticism of the respective members of the house.
62. The abolition of the powers to pardon himself will make legal action more effective.
63. The real reason for these amendments is not because the Government or the people want to drag the Rajas to court as they like. The reason is so that the Rajas will restrain themselves from committing acts that may court legal action. Hence, the Rajas will be respected more.
64. It should be reminded that the respect of the People towards the Raja cannot be determined by laws. With your permission, 'Respect must be earned'. Having laws that scare the people will not bring 'respect'. With the realization that the Rajas can be brought to court, they will certainly avoid committing acts that will cause the people not to respect them. Hence, the institution of the monarchy will be better respected and better preserved.
65. To strengthen the efforts to preserve the Rajas and monarchy system, any proposal or pressure to abolish the system will be interpreted as sedition and charged under the Sedition Act.
Mr Speaker Sir,
66. I feel very sad that today I am forced to present to the august House a Bill to amend the Constitution that has in some way sullied the good name of the Rajas and the institution of the monarchy. It is with a heavy heart that I present and explain the suggested amendments.
67. The Government did not make the decision to amend the Constitution without reason. Actually, as I have said, the Government has refrained from making these amendments since the time when we achieved independence. We avoided it in order to preserve the dignity of the sovereigns. But this approach did not alleviate the situation. On the contrary, the situation has worsened.
68. Ultimately after an incident in which a Raja assaulted a citizen, and prior to this, another incident in which a prince assaulted a citizen, compelled the Government to view such episodes with grave concern as otherwise the Government's credibility as a responsible leadership will be jeopardized.
69. The Government is forced to take a firm stand to protect the people from being oppressed by the Rajas. Certainly, this stand was not made because of just these two incidents alone. There have previously been many incidents where the Rajas oppressed the people, the Rajas broke civil and criminal laws, the Rajas misused Government and national funds and assets, the Rajas pressuring and oppressing government officials.
70. The incident in Johor is only, with your permission, 'the straw that broke the camel's back'. The people's reaction to these incidents clearly shows that they no longer accept and 'tolerate' these kind of acts.
Mr Speaker Sir,
71. There are people that who appear to want to give powers to the Rajas and who defend the Rajas when the Raja commit crimes. They try to subvert the people's thinking by accusing the Government of trying to abolish the monarchy.
72. I wish to assert that the Barisan Nasional Government does not at all suggest that the monarchy be abolished. This is clear from the amendments fielded. Any suggestion to abolish the monarchy will be interpreted as sedition and the Government will take action under the Sedition Act against anyone who suggests or acts to abolish the monarchy.
Mr Speaker Sir,
73. The Government is aware that the people, particularly the Malays accept and support the monarchy. The accusation is that the Government is trying to abolish the monarchy only because of political interests. The Government which represents the majority of the Malays and other races will abide by the wishes of the people and will not do something that is unpopular.
74. Because it is clear that the majority of the people of all races still desire the monarchy, specifically the Constitutional Monarchy system, the Government will guarantee that this system is protected by the Constitution.
Mr Speaker Sir,
75. There are parties that opine that the Malay Rajas are needed to protect the Malays. The MacMichael Treaty and the Malayan Union incidents clearly prove that those who are willing and able to protect the Malays are the Malays themselves. If not because they rose up and opposed the Malayan Union, today, the Malays would have been beggars in their own country.
76. The attempts by some parties to frighten the Malays with regard to these amendments are by those who wish to use racial sentiments for their own interests. Their track record does not assure us that they are sincere. They are the ones who try to weaken the Malays by breaking up Umno and working with certain parties that are viewed with suspicion by the Malays.
77. Can merely preventing the Rajas from committing crimes cause the Rajas to lose their sovereignty and no longer be Rajas? The opinion that the Rajas can only be Rajas if they are given rights and given privileges to commit crime contravenes the concept of Rajas as the source of law. In olden times in the West, Kings possessed the right to commit crime. For instance, according to the concept, with your permission, 'Droit du seigneur' (right of the Lord) or the Right of the Lord, the King has the right to spend a night first with all newlyweds.
78. But in the West, all these rights have been abolished. That is why Western countries that preserve the Monarchy System do not have specific immunity for their rulers. Even if there is a mention that the King cannot be brought court, it is only a formality. King, Government and the people know if the King commits a crime, he will be brought to court, and he will be removed from his throne. Hence, the Kings in the Western countries will not intentionally commit crime.
79. Although it is clear that the Kings in the West are not immune from legal and other action, the Kings are still Kings. They are respected and admired.
Mr Speaker Sir,
80. During the British era, the Malay Rajas were not only immune but were also under the orders of the British officials. They can be appointed and removed from the throne. One of MacMichael's threats so that the Rajas would sign the Malayan Union treaty is they will be removed from the throne if they do not sign.
81. In this situation, the Rajas will continue to be Rajas. The people are not demanding the Rajas be removed or the monarchy system to be abolished although the Rajas handed over the Malay states to the colonialists. I am reminded that at that when colonial era ended, the Rajas in Indonesia, India and Pakistan were rejected by their people demanding independence. On the other hand, the people of this country, mainly the Malays and Umno, fought to save the Rajas and the monarchy.
82. The opposition of the Malays to the Malayan Union is a clear indication of how the fate of the Malays lies in the hands of the Malays. The security of Malays is not jeopardized should the Malay Rajas not have the right to commit crime. There are parties that say with the abolition of the Raja's right to commit crime, the Malays are no longer Malays and that will be the end of the special position of the Malays. This is not true. This is slander. Those who can guarantee that the Malays will continue to be Malays and Malay rights are protected are the Malays themselves. They, through their representatives and the Government that they choose, create and implement various programmes to protect and restore the honour of the Malays.
Mr Speaker Sir,
83. A Raja asked why the Constitutional amendments are related to Islam when the Government does not agree with the implementation of Sharia and Hudud law. According to His Royal Highness, he is ready to accept Islamic law without immunity but is unwilling to accept the country's laws which are not Islamic.
84. With or without the blessing of Their Royal Highnesses, the position of the Malay Rajas since Merdeka has been determined by the law, that is, the Constitution. These laws also give certain special privileges to the Rajas. Among these privileges is immunity from legal action. If the Rajas were willing to accept the immunity under laws which are not Islamic laws, why is the abolition of immunity under the same laws are not accepted by the Rajas?
85. In Islam there are two principles that are strongly upheld by law. The first is there is no difference among Muslims in the enforcement of Islamic laws. Raja and people are equal in the eyes of Islamic law. The immunity for Rajas contravenes this principle. Rejecting the abolition of the immunity so that the difference between raja and the people is preserved in law does not reflect a strong adherence to Islamic principles.
86. Receiving immunity from laws said to be not Islamic law, but rejecting the abolition of this immunity under the same laws, contradict the claim that only Islamic law is acceptable.
87. Islam allows much leeway. Islam takes into account all factors and circumstances faced by its believers. Such that even in carrying out religious duties, environment, an individual's health and the prevailing circumstances are taken into consideration. Therefore, prayer can be made without certain movements, without facing the kiblat, made in advance of the prayer time, delayed, or two prayers combined, made in a congregation or alone. Palestinians, who were driven out by the Zionist rule, could pray without taking off their shoes. In other religious duties, there is also leeway. Such is also with the enforcement of hudud law. The state of the environment and society must be considered. That is the reason why not many countries in which the majority of the population is Muslim do not establish hudud law. Those that do, also do not fully implement them.
88. The Government does not reject hudud law. The implementation must take into account the situation of the country in which Muslims only make up 56 percent and who are still weak in many fields. The administration that rejects the leeway given by Islam actually does not follow Islamic teaching. Islam does not order Muslims or a Muslim Government to blindly implement Islamic law if it can be detrimental. That is why the Prophet asks his followers to go to Ethiopia to save himself. That is why the Prophet migrated to Medina to save Islam and the Islamic struggle.
89. If the conditions permit, we will implement hudud law. But while waiting for hudud law to be implemented, we do something against Islamic teaching. Actually, crimes that are prohibited by the country's civil laws are similarly crimes prohibited under Islamic law. Does the said Raja want the freedom to commit crime only because we have not yet implemented hudud laws that prohibit the same crime?
90. The second principle is there is no immunity in Islam. All laws are the same for all believers. A Raja that wants to be immune from the law is not adhering to this Islamic principle.
Mr Speaker Sir,
91. Finally, I wish to touch on the problems related to advising the Rajas. Like I have mentioned, Rajas must accept the Government's advice. In other countries where the Monarchy System still exists although without specific provision that the Kings must act in accordance with the Government's advice, these Kings never act contrary to the Government's advice. Hence, the relationship between the King and Government who represents the people remains good. More than that, in these countries, these Kings are respected and revered by society.
92. Unfortunately, in Malaysia, although there are provisions that the Rajas should act according to the Government's advice, the Rajas hold on to the interpretation of 'advice' as widely accepted – that is, advice can be accepted or rejected. This interpretation is wrong. In this area, there are also some matters that the Rajas consider no advice is required to be given. Hence, many things are done in opposition to the Government that represents the people.
93. The problem faced today is caused by the belief that the Rajas can put aside the people's Government. This fraudulent act occurs because advice is ignored. An impasse on this amendment is also caused by the unwillingness of the Rajas to accept advice.
94. If this continues, the Parliamentary Democracy Government can no longer fully and truly exist. This is the reason the Government is bringing these amendments to the House. If this process is challenged, the decision can be brought to court. As a Government that holds firm to, with your permission the 'rule of law', we will abide by the decision of the courts. At the same time, this matter should not be seen from the legal angle only. It also has to be seen from a political angle.
95. When the Rajas handed the Malay states to the British, the people undertook political action to regain the Malay states and preserve the monarchy. As all agreements are made solely between the British and the Rajas, from a legal perspective, the people do not have the right to do so. Nonetheless, British still honoured the political action taken by the people.
96. I hope the Malay Rajas will also accept a lesson learned from our country's history, specifically the history of the Malayan Union and accept the political will of the people. Although the signs show that the Malay Rajas accept this amendment, I hope after the amendment is approved by the Dewan Rakyat and the Senate, the Malay Rajas will accept and pass these laws. |
-----------------------------------------#########-----------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Mail Forwarder-------------------------------------
Formerly Known As Tai_Ci_Master.
Visit:
WWW.PENDEKARBLOGGER .COM
WWW.GELANGMANIKWANI TA.BLOGSPOT. COM (New)
WWW.HARUNYAHYA .COM
join : malaysianews- subscribe@ yahoogroups.com
: malaysianews+subscribe@ googlegroups.com
-Whomsoever ALLAH guides, none can lead astray and whomsoever He send astray, none can guide.
No comments:
Post a Comment