Ethiopian-Arab UMNO Datuk Syed Ali Alhabshee Wants Raja Petra's Citizenship Revoked

Related Article:

(CLICK HERE):Syed Ali Al-Habshee's Ancestral Background

What An Idiot!!

BODOH BETUL,
ARAB INI DARI ETHIOPIA, AFRIKA !


The Star reported Cheras Umno division chairman Datuk Syed Ali Alhabshee asked the Government to revoke the citizenship of Raja Petra Kamarudin because Raja Petra was no longer keen on staying here. He said RPK's "activities could affect peace in Malaysia".

Syed Ali also urged the Government to carry out investigations on corporate figures and private sectors financing Raja Petra. “If the Government fails to do so, it might give an impression that there are insiders who are in cahoots with Raja Petra. It is strange that the Government is slow in taking action against Raja Petra.”

Raja Petra's Response

Read here for more

I am a certified subject of the Sultan of Selangor

by

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Cheras Umno division chairman, Datuk Syed Ali Alhabshee, has asked the government to revoke my citizenship.

The Alhabshee family is originally from Ethiopia (Habsha in Arabic). So that makes him AFRICAN and NOT Malay.

Now, maybe Syed Ali wants to know where my family came from.

Well, here goes.

This is my family tree starting from the Yamtuan Muda Riau who was father to the First Sultan of Selangor.

1. Daeng Cellak ibni Daeng Rilaga, Yamtuan Muda Riau

2. His Highness Sultan Salehuddin Shah ibni al-Marhum Daeng Cellak (1st Sultan of Selangor)

3. His Highness Sultan Ibrahim Shah ibni al-Marhum Sultan Salehuddin Shah (2nd Sultan of Selagor)

4. His Highness Sultan Muhammed Shah ibni al-Marhum Sultan Ibrahim Shah (3rd Sultan of Selangor)

5. His Highness Sultan Sir Abdul Samad Shah ibni Raja Abdullah ibni al-Marhum Sultan Ibrahim Shah (4th Sultan of Selangor)

6. His Highness Sultan Ala'eddin Suleiman Shah ibni Raja Muda Musa ibni al-Marhum Sultan Sir Abdul Samad Shah (5th Sultan of Selangor)

7. Tengku Badariah binti al-Marhum Sultan Ala'eddin Suleiman Shah

8. Raja Sir Tun Uda Al Haj Bin Raja Muhammad married Tengku Badariah Binti al-Marhum Sultan Ala'eddin Suleiman Shah

9. Raja Kamarudin Bin Raja Sir Tun Uda Al Haj (1 Jul 1925 - 4 Aug 1971) married Barbara Mabel Parnell @ Bariah Kamarudin (11 Feb 1933 - 5 Nov 1980)

10. Raja Petra Bin Raja Kamarudin (27 Sep 1950)

I am the ELEVENTH generation from the Yamtuan Muda Riau of the Johor-Riau Empire that also ruled over Selangor.

And the crest and certificate below proves that I was a subject of the Sultan of Selangor BEFORE Selangor joined the other states to form the Federation of Malaya in 1957.


According to the Federation Agreement that resulted in Selangor joining the Federation of Malaya, the government can’t revoke my citizenship.

The Sultan of Selangor can, however, revoke my status as a subject of the Ruler of Selangor and if His Highness so wishes can also banish or exile me from the state of Selangor.

Umno, however, CAN'T do a damn thing.

Know Your Leaders Quiz

Transcribed from an article posted by a reader on Din Merican's blog

WHICH:

a.. Chief Editor of a mainstream Malay newspaper who had an affair with a young girl while his wife lay paralysed in bed?


b.. Chief Minister who eloped to Thailand to secretly marry his second wife?


c.. Federal Minister who was caught with a female artiste in a Port Dickson hotel room?


d.. Federal Minister whose brother was arrested for drug trafficking?


e.. Federal Minister who had an affair with someone else’s wife that eventually resulted in a broken marriage?


f.. Chief Minister who had an affair with someone else’s wife that eventually resulted in a broken marriage?


g.. Chief Minister who had an affair with an under-aged girl which resulted in an illegitimate child?


h.. Chief Minister who had an affair with a girl who eventually gave birth to an illegitimate child?


i.. Chief Minister who kept an under-aged mistress at a condominium in Kuala Lumpur ?


j.. Religious leader who had an illicit affair and who is now holding a prominent position in a very important government religious body like the National Fatwa Council?


k.. Chief Minister who had an affair with his sister-in-law who gave birth to an illegitimate child?

THE ANSWERS:

1. A Chief Editor of a mainstream newspaper (Utusan Melayu) who had an affair with a young girl while his wife lay paralysed in bed
-Zainuddin Maidin (became Ministef of Information)

2. A Chief Minister who eloped to Thailand to secretly marry his second wife
– Muhammad Mohd Taib (then Chief Minister of Selangor).

3. A Federal Minister who was caught with a female artiste in a Port Dickson hotel room
– Najib Tun Razak (Defence Minister) and Ziana Zain.

4. A Federal Minister whose brother was arrested for drug trafficking
– Muhyiddin Yassin (who became Deputy Prime Minister)

5. A Federal Minister who had an affair with someone else’s wife that eventually resulted in a broken marriage
– Ruhaini Ahmad.

6. A Chief Minister who had an affair with someone else’s wife that eventually resulted in a broken marriage
– Muhammad Mohd Taib ( Chief Minister of Selangor)

7. A Chief Minister who had an affair with an under-aged girl
– Rahim Tambi Chik (then Melaka Chief Minister).

8. A Chief Minister who had an affair with a girl who eventually gave birth to an illegitimate child
– Shahidan Kassim (Perlis Chief Minister).

9. A Chief Minister who kept an under-aged mistress at a condominium in Kuala Lumpur
– Shahidan Kassim.

10. A religious leader who had an illicit affair and who is now holding a prominent position in a very important government religious body
– Ismail Ibrahim of the National Fatwah Council.

11. A Chief Minister who had an affair with his sister-in-law who gave birth to an illegitimate child
– Abu Hassan Omar (then Selangor Chief Minister).

Part 6 (Final): The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - The Struggle for Power Between UMNO and the Malay Rulers

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

by

Professor Mark R. Gillen
Faculty of Law University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

(Occasional Paper #6 1994 )

Related Article: Dr. Mahathir's Speech ( 13 February 1993) as PM in Parliament to Amend the Constitution to Strip the Malay Rulers' Immunity

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction

II. Historical Background on the Malay Rulers
A. The Malay Rulers Prior to the British Intervention

1. Origins and Structure of the M alay Sultanates
2. The Rulers and the Islamic Influence

B. The British Intervention
C. The Malayan Union Struggle
D. The Rulers Under the 1957 Constitution

E. The 13 May 1969 Riots

F. The 1983 Constitutional Crisis

III. Constitutional Amendments And The Events Leading Up to the Amendments

A. The Gomez Incident

B. Response to the Gomez Incident

C. The Proposed Amendments

D. UMNO's Justification for the Amendments and Opposition to the Amendments

E. The Rulers' Compromise

IV. Cultural Change and the Struggle for Power

A. The Struggle for Power

B. Cultural Change and Why the Government Acted When it Did

V. Conclusion

------------------------------------------------------------------


IV. Cultural Change and the Struggle for Power

A. The Struggle for Power

The government argued that the amendments to the Constitution in response to the Gomez incident, by removing the immunity of the Rulers, were a step towards increased democracy in Malaysia.

Viewed in their broader context the amendments were part of an inevitable struggle for power between the executive branch of government and the Rulers.

The removal of the Rulers' immunity does not, on the face of it, directly increase executive powers. However, the focus, in the midst of the amendment debate, on the alleged orders given by Rulers to government officials, pressure put on government officials to obtain government contracts and timber concessions, alleged extravagant expenses, and alleged interference in government affairs suggests there was more to the whole affair than just the removal of the Rulers' immunity.

In part the allegations were made to put pressure on the Rulers to consent to the removal of their immunity. However, the exposure of these alleged extravagances put the Government in a position to crack down on the influence of the Rulers. The removal of the Rulers' immunity, and the apparent public support, may put the Government in a better position to leave the Rulers to pay for unbudgeted expenditures presented to state and federal governments after they have been incurred.

The Rulers can now be sued for those expenses. Many of the alleged actions of the Rulers through which they exerted influence may now be the subject of legal proceedings before the Special Court.

The form which the removal of immunity ultimately took also appears to give the executive additional leverage over the Rulers. Three of the five judges of the Special Court are the Lord President and the Chief Justices of the High Courts who are appointed at the behest of the Prime Minister.

The proceedings, civil or criminal, can only be undertaken with the consent of the Attorney General, and, in the context of criminal proceedings, expose a Ruler to the potential loss of his position as Ruler.

This seems to give the government a significant tool for bringing an unwieldy Ruler into line.

Indeed, as Raja Aziz Addruse, a lawyer and editor of the Journal of the Malaysian Bar (and member of a royal family), has said,

the amendments will arm the Executive with the power to subjugate the Rulers through threats of prosecution for any offences, however minor. The Rulers will beat the mercy of the Executive. ... The power to prosecute is a powerful weapon which,in the hands of the ruthless, can be abused to great advantage - not by prosecuting the alleged offender but by withholding prosecution in return for his cooperation.

B. Cultural Change and Why the Government Acted When it Did

Although the Gomez incident was the catalyst for the amendments, concerns about the influence and excesses of the Rulers had been raised in the past.

At the UMNO generally assembly in November of 1990 a resolution was passed that sought to clarify the role of royalty in politics in light of alleged involvement of some of the Rulers in the October 1990 general election.

In 1992 UMNO had drafted a set of guidelines for the Rulers to address some of the concerns. The Prime Minister also commented in his speech to Parliament on the introduction of the amendments that concerns about problems with the Rulers had been noted for quite some time.

Thus the Gomez incident was the merely the opportunity the Government needed to muster political support to deal with the influence of the Rulers that had vexed the Government for some time.

The Government might have responded earlier to the increasing expense and influence of the Rulers and their interference in government. However, in the time between 1983-84 constitutional crisis and the 1993 constitutional amendments, the Mahathir government faced a serious leadership challenge in 1987 and a general election in 1990.

The Mahathir government may have also felt the need for support from the Malay Rulers, particularly in the 1990 general election when they faced the challenge of Semengat '46 which claimed to be the champion of Malay causes and the true protector of Malay institutions such as the monarchy.

Challenging the Rulers at that time would have risked the loss of Malay support crucial to any political coalition hoping to form the government.

By 1993 the position of the Mahathir government was more secure. The government coalition's dominant Malay political party was showing signs of increasing concern over the problems encountered with respect to the Rulers. They appear to have also felt the time was right for a challenge to the Rulers in light of even greater changes in the attitudes of Malays towards the Rulers than had been the case at the time of the 1983 constitutional crisis.

In the 1983 constitutional crisis the government had to accept substantially reduced constraints on the Rulers compared to those it had originally sought. Nonetheless, the government's success in amending the constitution to constrain the powers of the Rulers in 1983, modest though it may have been, had indicated that attitudes of some Malays towards the Rulers were changing.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) introduced in the early 1970s facilitated an increase in the number of highly educated Malays. Malays educated either overseas or in Malaysian Universities were exposed to Islamic principles or concepts of democracy neither of which squared with the notion of an un-elected Ruler with broad powers.

In the ten years that passed after the 1983 constitutional crisis the number of highly educated Malays increased. Thus the change in the cultural attitudes of the Malays towards the Rulers apparent in the 1983 constitutional crisis had, if anything, become more pronounced.

The NEP had also encouraged the development of a Malay entrepreneurial class. This new class of successful Malay business persons may have felt less need for the privileges accorded Malays through the quota system and citizenship provisions the protection of which was vested in the Rulers by the Constitution.

Their interests were also affected by the business interests of the Rulers and the influence of the Rulers in obtaining government contracts, licences and timber concessions. The Malay entrepreneurial class, as well as the non-Malay entrepreneurs, may have felt their business potential was constrained by the competitive advantage Rulers and their royal families could obtain through their influence.

Many Malays may have also come to the view that the real source of protection for their special rights and privileges, to the extent they still hold these dear, is not so much through the Rulers as it is through the leverage they hold in the political process.

These changes in the cultural attitudes of Malays permitted a more substantial challenge to the position of the Rulers than had been possible in the past.

UMNO and the governing coalition appear to have sensed that the support of the Malay Rulers was no longer necessary to secure the support of the Malay population. For the Rulers the consequence of this change in the attitude of Malays is that the importance of the Malay Rulers for the Malay people and in Malaysian politics appears to have been substantially, and probably irrevocably, reduced.


V. Conclusion

The removal of the Rulers' immunity was a significant constitutional development in Malaysia. The move of the executive to rein in the influence and alleged excesses of the Rulers was brought about with apparent public support that is perhaps somewhat surprising given the historical reverence to the Malay Rulers and their importance as a symbol of Malay unity.

The Government demonstrated a willingness to crack down on influence and extravagance, a step they would have been unwilling to take if it meant the loss of the precious support of the Malays.

Their ability to take the steps they did suggests a continuing change in the cultural attitude of the Malays to the Malay Rulers. The reduced degree of unquestioning reverence for the Malay Rulers and their symbolic significance appears to be more substantial than it was in 1983 given the relatively limited success of the Government in 1983 compared to 1993.

The Malay Rulers had been exerting considerable influence in Malay society and politics in spite of the constitutional limits on their powers.

However, the events of 1993 appear to have irrevocably reduced the significance of the Malay Rulers in Malay society and in the politics of Malaysia.

Related Articles:

• Part I: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background
  
  
• Part 2: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)
  
  
• Part 3: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)
  
  
• Part 4: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - The Gomez Incident
  
  
• Part 5: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - UMNO Makes the Move Against the Malay Rulers

Part 5: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - UMNO Makes the Move Against the Malay Rulers

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

by

Professor Mark R. Gillen
Faculty of Law University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

(Occasional Paper #6 1994 )

Related Article: Dr. Mahathir's Speech ( 13 February 1993) as PM in Parliament to Amend the Constitution to Strip the Malay Rulers' Immunity

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction

II. Historical Background on the Malay Rulers
A. The Malay Rulers Prior to the British Intervention

1. Origins and Structure of the M alay Sultanates
2. The Rulers and the Islamic Influence

B. The British Intervention
C. The Malayan Union Struggle
D. The Rulers Under the 1957 Constitution

E. The 13 May 1969 Riots

F. The 1983 Constitutional Crisis

III. Constitutional Amendments And The Events Leading Up to the Amendments

A. The Gomez Incident

B. Response to the Gomez Incident

C. The Proposed Amendments

D. UMNO's Justification for the Amendments and Opposition to the Amendments

E. The Rulers' Compromise

IV. Cultural Change and the Struggle for Power
A. The Struggle for Power
B. Cultural Change and Why the Government Acted When it Did

V. Conclusion

------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Proposed Amendments

In response to the Gomez incident there were calls for steps to be taken to remove the Rulers' immunity.

Within weeks of the first reports of the Gomez incident amendments to the provisions of the constitution concerning the immunity of the Rulers were being drafted. Newspapers carried reports of support for the Government's strong stand on the Gomez incident and for proposals to amend the constitution to deal with the matter.

According to the reports, support came from both coalition government parties and from non-government coalition parties. Support was also reported from several groups and organizations in Malaysian society.

There were also reports and letters containing opinions to the effect that constraining the alleged abuse of the Rulers would be consistent with Islamic principles.

These proposed amendments dealt with the immunity of the Rulers, changes with respect to the Rulers' powers to grant pardons and changes with respect to sedition in the context of Parliamentary proceedings concerning the Rulers. The provisions of the Constitution providing for the immunity of the Rulers were to be amended to replace the general immunity with an immunity limited to their actions in an official capacity. The proposed amended version of Article 181(2) read,

No proceeding whatsoever shall be brought in any court against the Ruler of a State in respect only of anything done or omitted to be done by him in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under any written law. 

There was a similar proposed amendment of Art. 32 with respect to the immunity of the King.

A third clause to be added to Article 181 provided that any law which provided for the immunity of a Ruler of a State in his personal capacity or attached sanctity to his residence would be void.

Perhaps in the interests of garnering support from the Conference of Rulers, the proposed amendments provided that no proceedings could be taken against a Ruler in his personal capacity for anything done or omitted to be done by the Ruler before the amendments came into effect.

The whole notion of Rulers being subject to the criminal proceedings before a court and the consequences of criminal proceedings with respect to members of the royal families could be next to meaningless if the Rulers could pardon themselves or their family members. Consequently the provisions of the Constitution with respect to pardons were to be amended such that where a Ruler or his consort, son or daughter were involved the powers would not be exercised by the Ruler himself.

Where the King, or his Consort, or the Ruler of a state, or his Consort, were concerned the powers would be exercised by the Conference of Rulers and the King or Ruler concerned would not be members of the Conference of Rulers for that purpose.

Where the son or daughter of the King or Ruler of a State were concerned the power to pardon would be exercised by a Ruler of a State nominated by the Conference of Rulers who would act on the advice of a pardons board.

The proposed amendments also dealt with restrictions on questioning the privileges of the Rulers in either Parliament or State Legislatures. The proposed amendments provided that no person would be liable to any proceedings in any court against a person in respect of anything said by him of the King or a Ruler when taking part in proceedings of either house of Parliament or any committee thereof.

However, one exception to this remained. The person could still be liable if he or she advocated the abolition of the constitutional position of the King as the Supreme Head of the Federation or the constitutional position of the Ruler of a State.

Similarly, no person would be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by that person of the Ruler of any State when taking part in any proceedings of the legislative assembly of a State or any committee thereof, unless the person advocated the abolition of the Ruler's position as the constitutional Ruler of the State.

Meetings of the Rulers with government representatives led to some last minute changes in the proposed amendments before they were presented in Parliament. The changes provided for the creation of a special court to deal with cases involving the Rulers.

If civil or criminal actions were brought against a Ruler or the King these would, under the revised version of the proposed amendments, be dealt with by a special court. The special court would consist of the Lord President of the Supreme Court, who would act as chair of the court, the Chief Justices of the High Courts, and two other persons, chosen by the Conference of Rulers, who are or were judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts.

The Rulers were said to have generally agreed to accept the proposed amendments on January 17, 1993.

However, at a special meeting on January 18 they issued a statement saying they were not in a position to give consent to certain proposals in the Bill without further deliberation and consultation. The Rulers, while acknowledging that "there can not be two systems of justice in the country" and that they agreed "to the formation of an effective mechanism to hear the [people's] grievances against them", expressed concern for the "far-reaching consequences on the sovereignty of the Malay Rulers".

They were of the view that a special court was not the most suitable forum for determining matters relating to the Rulers and proposed the creation of an Advisory Board to make recommendations to the appropriate State authority for the removal of a Ruler before he was charged or sued.

Nonetheless the proposed amendments, as revised, were tabled in the Dewan Rakyat (lower house) on January 18th, 1993 and were passed by both houses by January 20th.

D. UMNO's Justification for the Amendments and Opposition to the Amendments

UMNO's justification for the amendments was that they were necessary to protect the Rulers and preserve the institution of the Rulers as constitutional monarchs.

In response to claims that the amendments represented the first step towards the creation of a republic, UMNO pointed to the amendments on sedition which continued to make persons liable for statements in Parliament or a Legislative assembly advocating the abolition of the monarchy.

Otherwise amendments to the provisions on sedition were said to be necessary because although abuses by Rulers were known of in the past, little could be done because no one could voice criticisms of the Rulers even in Parliament or the State Legislatures and thus the public could not be made aware of the problems faced by the Government.

Semangat '46, an opposition party that was formed upon the breakup of the former UMNO party, opposed the amendments, taking arguably the strongest pro-royalty stance of any party. While it agreed that some steps needed to be taken so that the Rulers could "hear the grievances of the Rakyat (the people)",147 it claimed that the proposed amendments interfered with the sovereignty of the Rulers and were a step towards the formation of a republic. They argued that the ultimate removal of the Rulers would take away an important aspect of Malay culture and tradition and a symbol of Malay unity.

The Democratic Action Party (DAP), a primarily Chinese opposition party which is part of an opposition coalition with Semangat '46, originally supported the government in December when it expressed the need for action to be taken in light of the Gomez incident. It also initially supported the amendments.151 However, it abstained from voting when the amendments were introduced in Parliament in January. The reason they gave for the abstention was that the Constitution required the consent of the Rulers to amendments affecting their privileges and such consent had yet to be given.

According to DAP the consent was required before the amendments could be introduced in Parliament. DAP was accused of sacrificing its principles in favour of preserving their opposition coalition with Semangat '46.

The Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS), a Malay pro-Islamic party and part of the opposition coalition, supported the government's call for action and the move to lift the Rulers' immunity in light of the Gomez incident155 but later abstained from voting on the amendments introduced in Parliament in January. Although it claimed to be in favour of the removal of the Rulers' immunity because it was not in accord with the principles of Islam, it said that the amendments were not "comprehensive enough" and that it did not like the manner in which the wrongdoings of the Rulers were exposed in the House.

PAS was arguably in a difficult position in that it may have wanted to avoid alienating the Kelantan royal family whose support could be influential in staying in power in the state of Kelantan.

E. The Rulers' Compromise

The decision of the Conference of Rulers not to consent to the proposed changes to the Constitution was followed by stepped up pressure on the Rulers. It was announced that henceforth the payment for the expenses of the Rulers would be limited to those that were expressly provided for by the law.

The government would no longer pay for the building and maintenance of rest houses, additional palaces, private wards in hospitals, yachts and aircraft.

The refusal of the Rulers to give their consent to the proposed amendments was followed by a barrage of media coverage exposing alleged excesses of the Rulers.

There were also further reports of influence by the Rulers in government affairs.

Eventually, on February 11, it was announced that a compromise had been reached and that the Rulers agreed to give their consent to the proposed amendments but with certain changes that were agreed to.

There were two changes to the amendments tabled in the House on January 18.

One was that a Ruler charged with an offence in the Special Court should cease to exercise his functions as a Ruler.166 Pending the decision of the Special Court a Regent would be appointed to exercise the functions of the Ruler. A Ruler convicted of an offence by the Special Court and sentenced to imprisonment for more than one day would cease to be the Ruler of the State unless he received a pardon. A similar provision was added with respect to the King.

The other change was that no action, civil or criminal, could be instituted against the King or a Ruler of a State with respect to anything done or omitted to be done in his personal capacity without the consent of the Attorney General. Overall the modifications appeared to be relatively minor. The revised amendments were submitted to Parliament and were passed by both Houses on March 9, 1993.

(Continue PART 6)
Related Articles:

• Part I: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background
  
  
• Part 2: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)
  
  
• Part 3: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)
  
  
• Part 4: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - The Gomez Incident

Dr. Mahathir's Speech ( 13 February 1993) as PM in Parliament to Amend the Constitution to Strip the Malay Rulers' Immunity

Read here for more

Related Articles:

• Part I: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background
  
  
• Part 2: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)
  
  
• Part 3: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)
  
  
• Part 4: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - The Gomez Incident
  
  
• Part 5: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - UMNO Makes the Move Against the Malay Rulers
  

NOTE: 

In a speech before Malaysia's Dewan Rakyat, or parliament, on February 14, 1993, then-Prime Minister asked that the body strip the country's sultans of their immunity to the law.

In the speech, he accused them, among other things, of giving away parts of the country to the British, oppressing the people, breaking civil and criminal laws, misusing the money and property of the government and pressuring government officials. 

The measure, which included a rule to allow commoners to criticise the Sultans, even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or king without fear of the Sedition Act other than questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy itself, was passed overwhelmingly by the parliament, apparently without outcry over Dr Mahathir's rather tough treatment of the country's nine monarchs.

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's Speech in Parliament  on February 14, 1993,

Mr. Speaker Sir,

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 mentioned above

2. When the country demanded independence, the country's leaders, who received a huge victory and united 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 negative result, the states were forced to put 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 a British colony via agreements between the Rajas that administered with 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 reinstated. The Malay states would be ruled by the British although not like Singapore, Penang and Malacca, where the British had full power.

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 states when the Malay Rajas bowed to MacMichael's threats and signed a new agreement 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 2, 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 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 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 make charges. But when the situation became too bad, it was likely that customs were put aside and revolt occurred. But this method brought definite 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 liked. 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.

Part 4: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - The Gomez Incident

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

by

Professor Mark R. Gillen
Faculty of Law University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

(Occasional Paper #6 1994 )

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction

II. Historical Background on the Malay Rulers
A. The Malay Rulers Prior to the British Intervention

1. Origins and Structure of the M alay Sultanates
2. The Rulers and the Islamic Influence

B. The British Intervention
C. The Malayan Union Struggle
D. The Rulers Under the 1957 Constitution

E. The 13 May 1969 Riots

F. The 1983 Constitutional Crisis

III. Constitutional Amendments And The Events Leading Up to the Amendments

A. The Gomez Incident

B. Response to the Gomez Incident

C. The Proposed Amendments
D. UMNO's Justification for the Amendments and Opposition to the Amendments
E. The Rulers' Compromise

IV. Cultural Change and the Struggle for Power
A. The Struggle for Power
B. Cultural Change and Why the Government Acted When it Did

V. Conclusion

------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The Constitutional Amendments and the Events Leading up to the Amendments

A. The Gomez Incident

There were allegedly several incidents over the course of at least the previous twenty years in which Rulers and members of the royal families had abused their privileges.

However, the catalyst that brought these allegations into the open and was the linch-pin for the constitutional amendments was the Douglas Gomez incident.

Douglas Gomez was the coach of the Maktab Sultan Abu Bakar field hockey team. The team had made it to the semi-finals of the Malaysian Hockey Federation Milo Champion Schools Tournament.

Its semi-final match was to be held on Wednesday, November 25th, 1992. A few hours before the match Douglas Gomez was instructed to cause the team to withdraw from the match on an order from the Johor Education Department director.

This was just one of several withdrawals of Johor hockey teams from tournaments over several months prior to November 25th. Afterwards Douglas Gomez called for the resignation of all Johor Hockey Association principal office bearers and criticized the leadership for "destroying" hockey in the state.

This seemed to have little to do with any of the Malay Rulers.

However, Douglas Gomez was summoned to the Istana (or palace) Bukit Serene in Johor Baru on Monday, November 30th. He was there for four hours.

During the first hour he was briefed on palace etiquette and on how to ask for forgiveness if he made a mistake in his actions or communications with the Sultan.

The Sultan of Johor arrived and, according to Gomez, was surrounded by six men in jeans and T-shirts and 10-12 Johor Military Force personnel.

On Tuesday, December 1st, after his visit to the palace, Gomez sought treatment at a local private clinic for bruises to his face and stomach.

On Sunday, December 6th, he made a report to the police in which he alleged that he had been the victim of an assault while at the palace and that, although there were several people in the palace at the time, the only person responsible for his injuries was the Sultan himself.

The apparent connection between the Sultan of Johor, Douglas Gomez and field hockey was an event which occurred in July of 1993.

The Sultan's son, Tengku Abdul Majid Idris was alleged to have assaulted the Perak goalkeeper after a championship final game which Perak won on a penalty stroke.

The Malaysian Hockey Federation concluded that there was sufficient evidence that the assault had occurred and banned Tengku Majid from play for a period of five years. It was after this decision by the Malaysian Hockey Federation that the spate of withdrawals by Johor hockey teams from national tournaments began to occur.

B. Response to the Gomez Incident

The Gomez incident was followed by several days of news coverage in which outrage was expressed at the Gomez incident.

Reports in the following weeks contained allegations of other abuses by the Sultan of Johor and the Johor Royal family.

There were also allegations of abuses of privilege by other Rulers. For instance, the Pahang Royalty was alleged to be putting pressure on the Pahang Government and its forestry officials for more timber concessions in spite of substantial concessions that had been made over the previous four years.

There were other general allegations of excessive timber and land concessions being demanded by Royal families.

There were complaints that some Rulers refused to pay debts and otherwise refused to comply with contractual obligations relying on their immunity from civil actions.

There were allegations that the privilege of allowing Rulers to import luxury cars free of duty had been abused by obtaining import approval permits for cars for other members of the royal families and for friends of the royal families.

Concerns were also expressed with respect to alleged interference by Rulers in government affairs.

Caution regarding provisions of the Sedition Act, which deemed discussion of the issue of the Rulers' privileges to be an act of sedition, had apparently been thrown to the wind.

Reports of sedition were made against various persons including opposition MP Karpal Singh and even against the Prime Minister himself.

(Continue in PART 5)
Related Articles:

• Part I: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background
  
  
• Part 2: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)
  
  
• Part 3: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)
  
  
• Part 5: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - UMNO Makes the Move Against the Malay Rulers

Part 3: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

by

Professor Mark R. Gillen
Faculty of Law University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

(Occasional Paper #6 1994 )

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction

II. Historical Background on the Malay Rulers
A. The Malay Rulers Prior to the British Intervention

1. Origins and Structure of the M alay Sultanates
2. The Rulers and the Islamic Influence

B. The British Intervention
C. The Malayan Union Struggle
D. The Rulers Under the 1957 Constitution

E. The 13 May 1969 Riots

F. The 1983 Constitutional Crisis

III. Constitutional Amendments And The Events Leading Up to the Amendments
A. The Gomez Incident
B. Response to the Gomez Incident
C. The Proposed Amendments
D. UMNO's Justification for the Amendments and Opposition to the Amendments
E. The Rulers' Compromise

IV. Cultural Change and the Struggle for Power
A. The Struggle for Power
B. Cultural Change and Why the Government Acted When it Did

V. Conclusion

------------------------------------------------------------------

E. The 13 May 1969 Riots

In the general elections of May 10th, 1969 the ruling coalition, dominated by UMNO, the main Malay political party, suffered a dramatic loss of support while non-Malay opposition parties enjoyed gains. The ruling coalition maintained a majority but did not retain the their coveted two-thirds majority which allowed them to amend the Constitution.

This concerned Malays who, despite hopes and promises, had not seen their social and economic situation improve substantially from the time of independence.

On May 11th and 12th the non-Malay opposition parties held victory parades in Kuala Lumpur in which they were said to have uttered expressions and carried on in ways that provoked Malays.

A large gathering of Malays on May 13 erupted into violence apparently upon receiving reports that a group of Malays had been attacked by non-Malays. The resulting mayhem left many dead and injured.

On May 17, 1969, a national emergency was declared. Parliament was suspended and the country was put under the control of a National Operations Council.

Parliament was not reinstated until March 1971.

In the hopes of averting further violence, measures were taken to improve the condition of the Malays. The Constitution was amended to provide for additional quotas for the Malays with respect to education.

The New Economic Policy was adopted which sought to increase Malay involvement in the economy. The questioning of this policy was prohibited by amendments to the Constitution and consequential amendments to the Sedition Act which deemed such questioning to be seditious.

The questioning of the privileges, position, powers or prerogatives of the Malay Rulers, who were a symbol of Malay unity and the Malay struggle against non-Malays, was also prohibited by amendments to the Constitution and the Sedition Act.

Amendments to the Constitution with respect to these provisions were also made subject the consent of the Conference of Rulers.


F. The 1983 Constitutional Crisis

In 1983 the government proposed amendments to the Constitution which for the first time brought the Rulers openly into conflict with the government and with UMNO, the party which had claimed to be the protectors of the Rulers since the time of the Malayan Union struggle.

The proposed amendments altered the provisions with respect to the King's assent to bills deeming the King to have assented to any bill which the King had not given his assent to within fifteen days.

A similar amendment would have been required in each of the state constitutions. The proposed amendments would also have provided for a change in the power to declare an emergency. The emergency powers give broad powers, upon the declaration of an emergency, to promulgate ordinances having the force of law at any time Parliament is not sitting.

Prior to the proposed amendment it was the King, upon satisfaction that a grave emergency existed, who had the power to declare an emergency. The King was to act on the advice of cabinet. The proposed amendment would have given the Prime Minister the power to instruct the King to declare an emergency.

The amendments were apparently considered necessary because of an upcoming election for King in which the two potential candidates for the Kingship, following the order set out in the Third Schedule to the Federal Constitution, were Rulers who had caused problems for their respective state governments.

It had been reported that one of the candidates for the Kingship had suggested that on becoming King he would exercise the power to declare an emergency and then seek to exercise governmental powers himself.

Further, each of these Rulers had taken exception to the Chief Ministers of their states and had taken steps that ultimately led to the resignation of the Chief Ministers. Of particular concern was the forced resignation of a Chief Minister after two years of refusals by the Ruler to give assent to state legislation.

The proposed amendments were sought to avoid any similar problems which either of the two candidates for the Kingship might cause for the federal government upon becoming King.

The King, at the behest of the Conference of Rulers, refused to give his assent to the amendment bill.

This was followed by political rallies by the Prime Minister and a media blitz which portrayed UMNO as the protector of the Rulers against radicals seeking the abolition of the monarchy and which exposed the allegedly extravagant lifestyles of the Rulers of the states of Perak and Johor.

Eventually a solution acceptable to both the government and the Rulers was found.

The final amended version of the Constitution provided that the King, within 30 days of the passing of a bill by both houses, would either give his assent to the bill or, if it was not a money bill, return the bill to Parliament with a statement of reasons for his objection to the bill.

If, on the return of a bill, the bill was again passed by both Houses it would again be presented to the King for his assent and the King would have 30 more days to assent to the bill after which time the bill would become law "in like manner as if [the King] had assented to it".

The requirement for similar provisions to be adopted in state constitutions was dropped in return for an oral assurance that assent to bills passed by state legislatures would not be unreasonably delayed by the state Rulers.

The amendments with respect to emergency powers were withdrawn.

The compromise also included oral assurances that the Rulers of the states would not unreasonably withhold assent to state legislation and that the proclamation of an emergency would not be exercised unilaterally by the King.

The ability of the government to mount sufficient public support for a change to the assent provisions that would more clearly limit the powers of the King and, at least through an oral assurance, the powers of the Rulers, indicated a change in Malay society with respect to the importance of the Rulers.

It suggested a decreasing importance of the Rulers as a symbol of, and in the protection of, Malay political supremacy.106 Nonetheless, there appeared to be sufficient public support for the Rulers to allow them to prevent a more substantial incursion into their powers.

(Continue PART 4)
Related Articles:

• Part I: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background
  
  
• Part 2: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)
  
  
• Part 4: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - The Gomez Incident
  
  
• Part 5: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - UMNO Makes the Move Against the Malay Rulers

Part 2: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

by

Professor Mark R. Gillen
Faculty of Law University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


(Occasional Paper #6 1994 )

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction

II. Historical Background on the Malay Rulers
A. The Malay Rulers Prior to the British Intervention

1. Origins and Structure of the M alay Sultanates
2. The Rulers and the Islamic Influence

B. The British Intervention

C. The Malayan Union Struggle

D. The Rulers Under the 1957 Constitution

E. The 13 May 1969 Riots
F. The 1983 Constitutional Crisis

III. Constitutional Amendments And The Events Leading Up to the Amendments
A. The Gomez Incident
B. Response to the Gomez Incident
C. The Proposed Amendments
D. UMNO's Justification for the Amendments and Opposition to the Amendments
E. The Rulers' Compromise

IV. Cultural Change and the Struggle for Power
A. The Struggle for Power
B. Cultural Change and Why the Government Acted When it Did

V. Conclusion

------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Malayan Union Struggle

After the Japanese occupation during the second world war the British sought to restore political control of the Malay states. A Malayan Union was proposed which the Malay Rulers agreed to, although apparently under duress. Under the proposed Malayan Union scheme the states would be brought together and ruled by a Governor assisted by an Executive and Legislative Council with the British Crown as the unifying figurehead of authority.

Former State Councils with independent powers were to be replaced by State Councils with delegated powers with respect to issues of purely local concern. The Rulers would preside over Malay Advisory Councils and would have jurisdiction with respect to the Islamic religion in their states.

However, their legislative powers with respect to Islamic matters were subject to an overriding approval of the Governor. They would assist the Governor with respect to religion and with respect to such other matters as the Governor chose to seek their advice on.

Besides further reducing the significance of the traditional Malay Rulers, the scheme also provided for liberal citizenship provisions that would have allowed for a substantial increase in the non-Malay population thereby reducing the political influence of the Malays. Consequently, the proposed Malayan Union was very unpopular with the Malays and the United Malays National Organization ("UMNO") was formed to oppose the Malayan Union scheme.

UMNO claimed to be the protectors of the Malay Rulers and the struggle for the Malay Rulers came to represent the struggle for the Malays against British and non-Malay interests.

A compromise was reached with the creation of the Federation of Malaya which set up a Federal system in which the Rulers were given a more significant role. In the States Rulers presided over Executive Councils and could choose not to follow the advice of the Executive Council as long as they gave their reasons in writing.

A Conference of Rulers was created which was entitled to see draft bills of the Legislative Council and its assent to bills was required before they became law. The Conference of Rulers was also entitled to be consulted on matters of policy.

The response of the Malays to the Malayan Union proposal suggested the beginnings of a change in the relationship between the Malays and the Malay Rulers. The Rulers had lost some prestige by initially agreeing to the Malayan Union proposals.

However, although UMNO became the substantive protectors of the Malays, the Malay Rulers became symbols of the Malay struggle and Malay identity.

D. The Rulers Under the 1957 Constitution

The 1957 Constitution creating the Federation of Malaysia brought about a compromise between the Malays, non-Malays and the Malay Rulers.

The Malays feared domination by the non-Malays who controlled the economy. The non-Malays feared political domination by the Malays and the risk of not being citizens in the country they had made their home. The Malay Rulers feared that they would lose their position if the people had control of the country.

In the Constitution's political compromise the Rulers were made Heads of State and Head of the religion of Islam in their own states.

A Conference of Rulers, originally created by the 1948 Federation agreement, was provided for in the 1957 Constitution. The Constitution also created the position of Yang di-Pertuan Agong (or King).

The King is chosen by the Conference of Rulers from among the Malay Rulers according to a rotational scheme and serves in office for a period of five years.56 The King was given the power of assent to legislation.

However, instead of being required to give his assent to legislation, assent to legislation was left to his discretion. A similar discretion to assent to state legislation was given to the Rulers of the Malay states.

The King was also given the power to act in his discretion to appoint the Prime Minister (providing the person appointed, in his judgment, is likely to command the support of a majority of the House), to withhold consent to a request for the dissolution of Parliament, and to requisition a meeting of the Conference of Rulers concerned with the privileges, position, honours and dignities of the Rulers.

The Rulers of the States were given similar discretionary powers having discretion to appoint the Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) of the State, and to withhold consent to a request to dissolve the State Legislative Assembly.

The State Constitutions also provide that the Rulers function as Heads of the Islamic religion in their respective states, and have discretion in the appointment of a consort, a Regent, the appointment of persons to Malay customary ranks, titles, honours and dignities, and in the regulation of royal courts and palaces.

In other matters where powers are granted to the King he must act on the advice of cabinet or of a minister of cabinet with the general authority of the cabinet.

For instance, the King appoints the cabinet on the advice of the Prime Minister,and appoints the Lord President of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justices of the High Courts and other judges of the Supreme and High Courts on the advice of the Prime Minister. Similarly, the Rulers of the states, subject to powers such as those mentioned above, must act on the advice of the Executive Council (state cabinet) or a member thereof.

The Constitution continued the existing position of the Rulers by providing that the "sovereignty, prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Rulers ... as hitherto had and enjoyed shall remain unaffected."

The Constitution also provided for an immunity of the Rulers from proceedings in court. Article 32 provided that the King "shall not be liable to any proceedings whatsoever in any court" and Article 181(2) provided that "[n]o proceedings whatsoever shall be brought in any court against the Ruler of a State in his personal capacity."

The Constitution provided that changes in the Constitution with respect to the privileges or position of the Rulers would require the consent of the Conference of Rulers. In particular, article 38(4) provided (and continues to provide) that,

No law directly affecting the privileges, position, honours or dignities of the Rulers shall be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

Curiously, a more specific provision with respect to the consent of the Conference of Rulers makes no reference to the immunity provided by articles 32 and 181(2).

It provides that,

A law making an amendment to Clause (4) of Article 10, any law passed thereunder, the provisions of Part III, Article 38, 63(4), 70, 71(1), 72(4), 152, or 153 or to this Clause shall not be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

This was said to give a measure of protection to the Malays in that changes to matters of considerable importance to them, such as citizenship, language, and quotas for Malays would be subject to the consent of the Malay Rulers whom they could expect would defend their interests.

The Rulers were also given powers to grant pardons in respect of offences committed within their state.

With the creation of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, the King was given similar powers with respect to those territories. The Ruler is required to exercise his power of pardon on the advice of a Pardons Board which is to consist of the Attorney General, the Chief Minister of the State and up to three other members appointed by the Ruler.The Pardons Board meets in the presence of the Ruler and is required to consider any written opinion of the Attorney General.

Although the Constitution has been amended several times since 1957, there have been relatively few amendments which have affected the powers or position of the Rulers.

However, two significant changes prior to the 1993 amendments were the changes in response to the May 13, 1969 riots and the changes that brought about the "Constitutional crisis of 1983".


Continue in Part 3
Related Articles:

• Part I: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background
  
  
• Part 3: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background (Contd)
  
  
• Part 4: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - The Gomez Incident
  
  
• Part 5: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - UMNO Makes the Move Against the Malay Rulers

Part I: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

by

Professor Mark R. Gillen
Faculty of Law University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

(Occasional Paper #6 1994 )

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. Historical Background on the Malay Rulers

A. The Malay Rulers Prior to the British Intervention

1. Origins and Structure of the Malay Sultanates
2. The Rulers and the Islamic Influence

B. The British Intervention

C. The Malayan Union Struggle
D. The Rulers Under the 1957 Constitution
E. The 13 May 1969 Riots
F. The 1983 Constitutional Crisis

III. Constitutional Amendments And The Events Leading Up to the Amendments
A. The Gomez Incident
B. Response to the Gomez Incident
C. The Proposed Amendments
D. UMNO's Justification for the Amendments and Opposition to the Amendments
E. The Rulers' Compromise

IV. Cultural Change and the Struggle for Power
A. The Struggle for Power
B. Cultural Change and Why the Government Acted When it Did

V. Conclusion

------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY


I. Introduction

From its inception in 1957 the Constitution of Malaysia has provided an immunity to the Malay Rulers (or Sultans) against civil actions or criminal prosecutions. Early in 1993 the Constitution of Malaysia was amended to remove this immunity. Although the federal Constitution of Malaysia and the constitutions of the states of Malaysia leave the Rulers as mere constitutional monarchs they have wielded considerable influence due, in part, to the traditional reverence of the Malay people for their Rulers. The ability of the Government to bring about these constitutional amendments is noteworthy in light of the traditional reverence Malay people have for the Malay Rulers. The apparent public support for the changes suggests a shift in traditional Malay cultural values that appears to have irrevocably reduced the significance of the Malay Rulers in Malay society and in the politics of Malaysia.

This paper traces the events leading to the constitutional amendments of 1993 in the context of the significance of the Malay Rulers in Malaysian politics and Malay culture.

The paper begins, in Part II, by providing a brief historical background to the Malay Rulers and their importance in Malay culture and tradition. It also outlines the position of the Malay Rulers under the constitution as it stood prior to the recent amendments.

Part III describes the events leading up to the recent amendments and the nature of the amendments that were finally made.

Part IV discusses how the amendments signal a change in the attitude of Malays to the Malay Rulers which allowed the government to act when it did and which has substantially reduced the significance of the Malay Rulers.

II. Historical Background of the Malay Rulers

A. The Malay Rulers Prior to the British Intervention
1. Origins and Structure of the M alay Sultanates

The history of the Malay Rulers can be traced back prior to the Melaka Sultanate during the 15th century. However, most of what is known of the history of the Malay Rulers comes from the Malay Annals, stories of the Malay Rulers and accounts of travelers to the region. These deal primarily with the period beginning from the time of the powerful Malacca Sultanate which was established in the 13th century and became a center for trade attracting Arab, Indian and Chinese traders and later attracting the interests of the Portuguese, Dutch and British colonial powers.

a. Hierarchical Structure

There were many differences in the structures of the Malay Sultanates that developed on the Malay peninsula. However, the Malacca Sultanate is said to have come the closest to covering the whole peninsula and subsequent Malay Sultanates probably tended to look to Malacca as a source of tradition and authority thereby giving a basic political structure notwithstanding local variations.

These Sultanates generally involved hierarchical organizational structures in which the Sultan ruled through a series of chiefs and sub-chiefs. The Malay Rulers were not all-powerful. Enforcement was no doubt impeded by the difficulties of travel in the harsh terrain. There was generally also a lack of cultural homogeneity in the subjects of the state. Power was thus decentralized among district chiefs who were often in conflict with one another and with the Ruler.

This decentralization of power was mitigated in part by "the hard facts of trade, national defence and the need for law and order over a wider area than a district". It was also mitigated by the indoctrination of a Ruler's chiefs and subjects with a strong sense of unquestioning loyalty to the Ruler.

b. Loyalty

The concept of unquestioning loyalty to the Rulers was noted in the Undang-undang
Melaka, which set out the qualities expected of Malay subjects as follows:

The qualities required of a ruler's subjects are three in number. Firstly, (he is to be) honourable in all his behaviour; secondly, (he) abides by the commands of the ruler; whether he (the ruler) is tyrannical or not, he (the subject) shall follow his commands; thirdly, he desires mercy from his Lord.

Malays refer to this as daulat which calls for great respect for and loyalty to the Malay Rulers.

It has been said that:

... daulat, as a concept of general Malay tradition comprised several related ideas. Daulat was the supreme expression of the quality of the "majesty", and its possession of a ruler constituted divine sanction of his reign. It was a stable, impersonal quality, beyond the influence of its holder's character or abilities. It could act arbitrarily and offensively to protect the ruler, his command and his dignity, and enabled him to accomplish acts of great magic. In short, daulat was a foundation of the ideology of legitimation.

Linked to the concept of daulat was the notion that the Malay Rulers possessed certain mystical powers that would lead to misfortune to those who were disrespectful of or disloyal to a Malay Ruler.

An English visitor witnessing a ceremony for the installation of ministers in the early 1820s recorded the event as follows:

The Raja having requested my presence at the ceremony of administering the oath of allegiance to some ministers and officers, I accordingly attended at the hall. A large concourse of people were assembled. The chiefs and their attendants were seated on carpets and mats on the floor. In front of the sopha on which the Raja sat, were arranged the following articles, a low stool on which lay the Koran, and a large jar of consecrated water, on top of which was a model of a crown. The Raja advancing dipped the regalia, consisting of armour, in the water, and placed them against a pillow.

The new ministers and other officers then approached and had the oath tendered to them. This oath consists [of] two parts and is very short. The first part is the promise of fidelity, the second imprecates every calamity to afflict the juror and his family to remote generations should he betray the trust and confidence reposed in him ...

Malay annals also contain accounts of the unquestioning loyalty of the Malay subjects to their Rulers. The extent of the loyalty to the Rulers is demonstrated in a passage in the Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai referring to the time when the Sultan Mahmud of Melaka ordered his wealthy Bendahara put to death.

The Bendahara is said to have prevented his followers from defending him by saying: "It is the custom of the Malays never to derhaka (to commit treason)."

c. No Division of Powers

Although a Malay Ruler's power may have been decentralized through a system of chiefs and sub-chiefs, the Ruler, armed with the loyalty and respect of his subjects, maintained law and order, declared war, administered justice and decided on the life and death of his subjects. There was no notion of a system of checks and balances between executive, legislative and judicial power. Indeed, it has been said that,

In a Malay State the Ruler is an absolute monarch; he is the sole fount of honour, the sole source of justice and the sole repository of the executive and legislative power.

There is no distinction between executive and legislative acts such as we know under the English constitutional law.

d. Fear Culture

The scope of a Malay Ruler's authority coupled with notions of respect, loyalty, and perhaps mystical powers, are the source of what is often referred to by Malays as their "fear culture".

This "fear culture" manifests itself in a sense that authority is something that should be both respected and avoided. According to one commentator, the Malay ideal of authority calls for sternness, dignity, and paternalistic concern; but it is also understood that those in authority can easily become angered and do irrational things. Hence it is imperative not to provoke authority but to stay out of its way as much as possible.

e. Summary

A Malay Ruler was traditionally the pinnacle of a hierarchy and was the sole source of judicial, executive and legislative power. His power was maintained and enhanced through the development of an unquestioning loyalty that has imbued Malay people with a strong sense of reverence for and fear of the Rulers.

NON Muslims Now FULL PAS Members Under New Wing

Read here for more in malaysiakini

The 20,000 non-Muslim members of the PAS Supporters' Club have been inducted as full members into the Islamic party with the formation of the Dewan Himpunan Penyokong PAS (PAS Supporters Grouping Wing) as its fourth and newest wing.

The opposition party's information chief Idris Ahmad said that the new wing's members will now be recognized as official party members with the right to attend the Islamic pary's annual Muktamar as delegates to the meet.

"But for now, they cannot yet vote in party elections," he told Malaysiakini when contacted.

He added that the newly-formed wing will focus on helping to explain the party's policies through talks and dialogues as part of efforst to counter BN's propoganda against the party.

This is important he contends, because the wild allegations levelled against PAS in the ruling coalition-controlled media have contributed to the negative perception toward PAS, especially amongst non-Muslims.

"Previously they held their activities under the club's name. Now they can conduct events with more direction and planning. They will explain party policies and break the walls which is dividing PAS from the non-Muslims," he added.

Party president Abdul Hadi Awang launched the new party wing at the Klang District Land Office Multipurpose Hall this morning.

Speaking to reporters, Hadi said that the party's inclusion of non-Muslims through the neew wing proves that the party is uniting all the races in the country.Hadi also said that if all the races in Malaysia could unite harmoniously, it would bode well for the nation.

"We are trying to unite all the races in Malaysia by opening our doors to non-Muslims. The proof is that we recognise supporters as our official party wing," he was reported as saying by PAS organ Harakah Daily.

In his speech, he said what would unite the races is justice and mutual respect between the races, principles that PAS is putting into practice.

He cited further the party's decision in Terengganu to place a non-Muslim in one of the electoral constituencies to contest under the PAS banner.

"This shows that PAS does not sideline non-Muslims," Hadi said.

Scotland Yard Tells Malaysian Govt "Go Fly Kite" on RPK's Extradition

Read here for more

Malay Mail reported the following:

The Malaysian police has been in talks with UK's Scotland Yard for assistance in their bid to nab controversial blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) during his trip to London soon.

Deputy Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar said, "We are in touch with Scotland Yard and they know he is highly wanted in our list. A lot of effort have been put in by all parties concerned. Hopefully, if everything goes to plan, we will have him nabbed soon." Read here for more

But Scotland Yard said there is NO extradition treaty between the Malaysian and British governments so it would be extremely difficult for Malaysia to request for anyone to be extradited from the UK.

At New Scotland Yard office today, (it was) revealed that there is NO extradition request from the Malaysian government, nor is there any warrant of arrest issued against Raja Petra Kamarudin.A further check with Interpol in Paris revealed the same thing.

Raja Petra and Wife Posing
In-front of London's Metropolitan Police Station 

GABUNGAN PEMIMPIN TAK BERMORAL

Read here for more

Perdana Menteri kita ini macam cowboy di zaman Wild Wild West. Siri TV tahun 1960-an ini selalunya menunjukkan watak orang yang tak pedulikan undang-undang.Hukum yang dipakainya ialah pistolnya. Dia sanggup melakukan apa saja kerana orang takut kepadanya; sebab dia digelar “a fast draw”. Bila semua orang dalam ketakutan maka dia lah hero ditempat itu.

PM kita pun sama macam hero kaki tembak orang tanpa peduli undang-undang. Dia rasa dia sudah berjaya setelah “menang” di Hulu Selangor dengan membeli undi, menggunakan media massa termasuk Utusan dan stesen TV untuk memburukkan dan memfitnah lawan dan menyalahgunakan semua agensi penguatkuasa kerajaan tanpa segan silu. Maka dia ingat dia boleh kitar semula taktik itu di Sibu.

Dengan itu PM kita pun bertandang ke Sibu dengan gaya dan taktik yang sama. Dia tawarkan RM18 juta kepada sekolah-sekolah cina, RM1.7 juta untuk geeja-gereja Kristian dan RM5 juta untuk mitigasi banjir. Wang tunai yang tidak kehabisan pula bercurah-curah di rumah panjang di Sibu.

PM Najib dan orang nombor duanya Muhyiddin sebenarnya jenis pemimpin yang tak ada moral kepimpinan. Tidak layak menjadi pemimpin; tidak boleh dijadikan teladan. Mereka pandai memburukkan peribadi saya tetapi merekalah sebenarnya “promoter” kepimpinan yang rasuah dan ganas.

Bangga dengan penyalahgunaan kuasa yang dipamerkan. Bangga bila membelakangkan undang-undang dengan sawenang-wenangnya. Mereka tak sedikit pun rasa malu dan segan. Tak segan kepada rakyat sendiri dan tak malu kepada kacamata dunia tentang tindakan mereka.

Merekalah sebenarnya orang yang takut dengan rakyat.

Mereka tahu kalau rakyat dibenarkan memilih dengan bebas dan pilihanraya diadakan dengan cara yang lazim diadakan di negara lain secara demokrasi tulen, mereka akan kehilangan kuasa. Itu pun, rakyat tetap berani bersuara. Suara rakyat masih hidup di Sibu. Saya yakin suara ini akan bertambah kuat di dengar di merata pelusuk negara kita.

Memang tak mudah undang-undang yang adil nak dilaksanakan di Malaysia. Ini adalah kerana di negara kita, Peguam Negara, Ketua Hakim Negara, Ketua Polis Negara dan Pengerusi Suruhanjaya dan Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia adalah orang-orang PM.

Mereka sudah lupa bahawa semasa mereka mengangkat sumpah menerima jawatan masing-masing, sumpah keramat mereka adalah untuk menjaga kepentingan rakyat, mendaulatkan undang-undang negara dan menjalankan tugas dengan berani dan penuh integriti. Tapi sekarang ini mereka hanya menjaga kepentingan PM semata-mata.

Walaupun sukar, InsyaAllah, suatu hari nanti kita rakyat Malaysia akan berjaya mengembalikan maruah dan harga diri rakyat dan negara yang kita cintai. Bila tiba hari keramat itu, kita sudah tentu tidak memerlukan elit Melayu seperti ini lagi kerana sudah terbukti mereka hanyalah pagar yang makan padi.

Golongan ini hanyalah gabungan pemimpin yang tak bermoral.
-Zaid Ibrahim

Revealed: Mahathir's 1969 Open Letter to Tunku Abdul Rahman (17 June 1969)

Surat Dr Mahathir dibawah telah dicetakkan oleh blogger "Tulang Besi" dalam blognya "Malaysia Waves".

Tulang Besi menulis:

" Dari surat Dr Mahathir kepada Tunku ini, jelas yang dipersalahkan oleh Dr Mahathir kerana terjadinya 13 Mei adalah Tunku Abdul Rahman sendiri.

Jadi, hairan saya kenapa Berahim PERKASA nak salahkan orang Cina pula. Selamat membaca.

Bila baca surat ni teringat saya minit-minit mesyuarat Agung PAS yang arwah bapa saya simpan dari tahun 60an dan 70an. Ejaan dan jalan bahasanya adalah serupa."

Surat Terbuka Dr Mahathir
kepada PM Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra
bertarikh 17 Jun 1969

Batu 6, Titi Gajah,

Alor Star,

17hb. Jun 1969

Y.T.M. Tunku,

Patek berasa dukachita kerana tujuan patek membuat kenyataan kepada akhbar telah di-salah faham oleh Y.T.M. Tunku. Sa-benar-nya tujuan patek sama-lah juga dengan tujuan Tunku, ia-itu untok menyelamatkan negara ini daripada bahaya yang menganchamkan-nya.

Pendapat-pendapat Tunku berasaskan kepada cherita-cherita yang di-bawa kepada telinga Tunku oleh orang-orang yang mengelilingi Tunku yang chuma suka mencherita kepada Tunku perkara2 yang mereka fikir Tunku suka atau patut dengar sahaja. Benarkan-lah patek bercherita berkenaan dengan keadaan, fikiran dan pendapat2 rakyat yang sa-benar-nya supaya Tunku dapat faham tujuan patek membuat kenyataan yang di-tegor itu.

Tunku biasa cherita kepada patek sendiri ia-itu Tunku mengelakkan rusohan dengan menahan hukum bunoh yang di-jatohkan kepada 11 orang subversif China. Sabenar-nya tindakan Tunku ini-lah yang mengakibatkan rusohan dan kematian yang berpuloh kali banyak yang terjadi semenjak 13 Mei.

Tunku selalu "bertolak-ansor," ia-itu memberi kepada orang2 China apa yang mereka tuntut. Punchak tolak-ansur ini ia-lah pembatalan hukum bunoh tadi. Pembatalan ini menimbulkan kemarahan yang besar oleh orang2 Melayu.

Orang2 China pula menganggap Tunku dan Kerajaan Perikatan sebagai pengechut dan lemah dan boleh di-tolak ke-sana ke-mari. Sebab itu orang2 China tidak takut lagi menolak Perikatan dan orang2 Melayu pula tidak ingin kepada Perikatan. Sebab itu orang2 China dan India membuat kurang ajar pada 12 Mei kepada orang Melayu. Kalau Tunku biasa di-ludah di-muka, di-maki dan di-tunjok kemaluan, boleh-lah Tunku faham perasaan orang Melayu.

Orang2 Melayu yang Tunku fikir tidak memberontak telah-pun menjadi gila dan mengamok sehingga mengorbankan nyawa mereka dan membunoh orang yang mereka benchi kerana Tunku terlangsong bagi muka. Tanggong-jawab tentang mati-nya orang2 ini, Islam dan kafir, terpaksa di-letak di-atas bahu pemimpin yang salah pendapat.

Patek mohon ma’af tetapi patek ingin sampaikan perasaan orang-orang Melayu kepada Y.T.M. Tunku. Sabenar-nya, orang2 Melayu sekarang, baik PAS baik Umno, betul2 benchi pada Tunku, terutama orang2 yang di-hina-kan oleh orang China dan yang kehilangan rumah-tangga, anak-pinak, saudara-mara kerana tolak ansur Tunku.

Mereka kata Tunku chuma ingin di-kenal-kan sebagai "The Happy Prime Minister" walau-pun ra’ayat menderita. Mereka tahu bahawa dalam keadaan dharurat-pun Tunku ashek bermain poker dengan kawan2 China Tunku. Budak2 polis mencherita yang Tunku mengguna-kan kenderaan dan eskot Polis untuk menchari kaki poker.

Sa-balek-nya pula orang2 China tidak ada sedikit-pun hormat kepada Tunku. Mereka berkata Tunku "naïve" dan tidak ada kaliber. Ada lagi yang mereka kata yang tak dapat patek sebut-kan. Kata2 itu datang dari semua golongan orang China, dari intelek sa-hinggga China becha.

Pada masa lewat2 ini lagi satu kesan burok telah timbul. Orang2 Melayu dalam Civil Servis, dari Perm. Sec. ka-bawah, pegawai2 tentera dan polis Melayu tidak ada lagi kepercayaan dan respect kepada Tunku. Patek tahu kebanyakan mereka sokong PAS dalam undi pos. Pegawai Melayu dari  Polis, tentera dan askar biasa maseh patoh kepada kerajaan oleh kerana arahan sekarang sesuai dengan kehendak mereka sendiri. Kalau Tunku membuat apa2 yang tidak di-ingini oleh mereka, patek perchaya mereka tidak akan menurut kata Tunku.

Patek tahu Tunku takut kominis mengambil kesempatan kalau timbul kekachauan dalam negeri. Patek lebih takut kalau kerajaan mula "lose control over the armed forces". Sa-kali ini terjadi, keadaan tidak akan puleh semula. Sampai bila-pun kerajaan civil mesti tundok kepada tentera. Tunku biasa jadi "Happy Prime Minister" tetapi orang yang akan turut ganti tak akan merasai "happiness" apa2.

Patek harap Y.T.M. Tunku jangan-lah menipu diri dengan berkata "satu hari mereka akan bershukor dengan perbuatan saya". Ta’akan yang sa-orang itu selalu betul dan yang banyak selalu salah. Patek ingin sampaikan kepada Tunku fikiran ra’ayat yang sa-benar, ia-itu masa telah lampau untuk Tunku bersara dari menjadi perdana menteri dan Ketua Umno.

Patek faham betul2 kuasa yang ada pada Tunku dan patek masih ingat nasib Aziz Ishak. Tapi patek tak akan jadi sa-orang yang bertanggong-jawab kalau patek tidak terangkan apa yang patek sebut-kan. Kalau di-penjara sa-kali-pun patek terpaksa kata apa yang patek telah kata-kan.

Patek di-beritahu ia-itu Tunku berkata patek Pakistani. Patek tidak perchaya kata2 orang kerana patek tahu Y.T.M. Tunku tidak akan berkata begitu. Patek-lah yang selalu mempertahan-kan Tunku apabila orang2 PAS kata yang Tunku anak Siam yang ta’ berhak memimpin orang Melayu. Jadi Tunku juga akan mempertahan-kan patek walau-pun maseh ada dua sudu darah Pakistani dalam tubuh badan patek.

Patek sa-kali lagi mengulangkan ia-itu kenyataan yang patek buat itu ia-lah menchegah kejadian yang akan menambah perasaan benchi orang2 Melayu terhadap kerajaan dan menggalak-kan orang2 China menjatohkan lagi maruah orang2 Melayu. Rusohan yang lebeh besar akan berlaku jika ini di-biarkan. Tentera sendiri tidak akan dapat di-kawal. Dan lagi kalau T.H. Tan dan dewan orang China boleh membuat kenyataan, kenapa ketua2 Umno tidak boleh?

Patek menulis surat ini dengan hati yang ikhlas dan harapan bahawa Y.T.M. Tunku akan bacha surat ini dengan sa-penoh-nya sendiri. Patek berdo’a ke-hadhrat Allah subhanahuwataala supaya di-buka hati Tunku untok menerima kenyataan yang sa-benar ini walau-pun pahit dan pedas.

Patek Yang Ikhlas,

(Dr. Mahather bin Muhammad)

RELATED ARTICLE

Read here for more

Popular blogger Tulang Besi has reproduced Dr Mahathir Mohamad's scathing letter to first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman penned in the aftermath of the May 13, 1969 racial riots.

The letter, which was widely distributed back then, had led to Mahathir's expulsion from Umno.

Tulang Besi, who operates the Malaysia Waves blog, pointed out that the letter clearly blamed Tunku for the bloodletting.

“So I am perplexed as to why (Malay pressure group) Perkasa is blaming the Chinese,” he said.

In his letter to Tunku, Mahathir had said:

“You have told me yourself that you had prevented riots by stopping the death sentence on 11 subversive Chinese. But it is this action of yours which led to the riots and resulted in scores of deaths since May 13.”

“You have always compromised, giving in to the Chinese's demands. The core of this compromise was revoking the abovementioned death sentence. This caused great anger among the Malays.

“The Chinese consider you and the Alliance government cowardly and weak and could be pushed around. This is why the Chinese are no longer afraid to reject the Alliance and the Malays also do not favour it.

“This is why the Chinese and Indians behaved rudely (membuat kurang ajar) towards the Malays...”

Tulang Besi's posting comes in the wake of a Malay unity rally, slated for May 13, being postponed following instructions from the top.