Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia
No News Is Bad News
For image info, go to https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/sultan-johor-next-malaysia-king-ydpa-agong-monarchy-3876646#:~:text=KUALA%20LUMPUR%3A%20Johor%20ruler%20Sultan,years%20after%20his%20father's%20reign. (Sultan Ibrahim of Johor to be appointed Malaysia’s king, 34 years after his father's reign)
Malaysians look to their incoming King to save multiracial Malaysia
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 19, 2023: Malaysians are anticipating and welcoming their 17th Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King), to save multiracial Malaysia from the “anti-national” racial and religious bigots.
The bigots continue to threaten and shatter national unity and harmony with their extremist racial and religious slurs daily without facing any action.
And, many of the slurs can be considered as ajaran sesat (cults, heresy).
Isn’t this ajaran sesat?
Due to the so-called Madani Unity Government's perceived inaction against such bigots, Malaysians are counting on the incoming King, Johor’s Sultan Ibrahim ibni Sultan Iskandar, to save multiracial Malaysia after he is installed next month.
The continuous spewing of bigotry is affecting Malaysia internationally, especially investors, thus also threatening socio-economic progress.
And, certainly do not expect the Taliban-like PAS and Perikatan Nasional-Bersatu (led by the racist Muhyiddin “I Am Malay First” Yassin) to place national unity and harmony above their selfish political interests for rakyat dan negara (people and country).
It has been reported (see below) that PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang rebuffed efforts by the Muslim Brotherhood to broker peace between him and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in the aftermath of the 15th General Election.
So, national unity and harmony are not in Hadi’s mind nor the party and its allies.
Retired Judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer has penned his views that it would be wrong to interpret the Federal Constitution in a way that reduces the royalty to being a mere rubber-stamp for executive action and advice.
In fact, the King and Sultan form the Religious Council and are the heads of Islam in their respective states.
Therefore, the rakyat are not wrong to look to the majesties to check the religious fanatics to save multiracial Malaysia.
No News Is Bad News reproduces below related news reports on the issue:
The Malay rulers will protect us
It would be wrong to interpret the constitution in a way that reduces them to being a mere rubber-stamp for executive action and advice.
Hamid Sultan Abu Backer - 19 Dec 2023, 10:47am
It is indeed inspiring for me, personally, that the Johor sultan will be the next Yang di- Pertuan Agong.
I entered the state of Johor at the age of five in 1960.
My father, a Tamil Muslim, was then operating the popular Islamic Capitol Restaurant at Jalan Meldrum in Johor Bahru, an area which at the time comprised many members of both the Chinese and Indian business communities.
My father had already set up his restaurant at Jalan Segget in the early 1920s, partly sharing it with the main tenant, a Chinese coffee shop. Their fellowship was so close that when the coffee shop owner’s son qualified as a lawyer and wanted to set up his law firm at the unit, my father readily agreed to vacate the premises.
At the time, the two businessmen were harmoniously operating their respective businesses under the watchful eyes of the Southern Palace, which was just a walking distance from the shop.
In the modern day, it would be unthinkable for a Chinese and a Muslim man selling their traditional food in the same shophouse to also reside on its upper floor, but that was how it was then.
My grandfather, an Indian Muslim from Thopputhurai in Tamil Nadu, India, was already in Johor before the First World War. He was employed by the royal family households of Muar and Batu Pahat, towns that also saw the Chinese and Indians prospering under the Johor rulers.
In my younger days it was not unusual to witness members of the Kerabat Johor, the state’s military officers and politicians, regularly patronising my father’s restaurant.
In fact, on one occasion I was playfully helping with the preparation of various mee dishes when the sultan himself showed up. His secretary placed an order for a “mee sayur”, and my father rushed to attend to them. The sultan, however, signalled for him to let me continue.
It was also quite routine to see the sultan, without any security detail, visiting an aquarium opposite the restaurant. Those in the vicinity would keep their distance as a mark of respect. It occurred to me then that the sultan was quite comfortable being in the presence of his subjects.
How simple and people-friendly the sultan was. The public in turn had immense respect and gave him their undivided loyalty.
I also witnessed several politicians, often referred to as “cikgu” then, bring with them forms and documents to brief and assist the public in their application for citizenship. I was too young to understand these niceties at the time, but I did recall my father assuring applicants that the Malay rulers would always protect us and ensure our safety.
If not for the rulers agreeing to give away some of their rights to administer the country, as well as honour the residents with citizenship, many of us would have found ourselves displaced in an unfriendly environment.
Over the years, my father’s mantra that the Malay rulers would protect us became etched in my mind. It eventually became the cornerstone of several judgments in which I expounded on the supremacy of the rulers, whom I consider to be the fourth pillar of government.
My analysis of the Federal Constitution has led me to the conclusion that our founding fathers only gave the traditional three pillars – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary – a licence to administer the country.
The final say, as I understand it, has always remained with the rulers.
For that reason, I believe it would be wrong to interpret the constitution in a way that reduces the rulers to merely being a rubber-stamp for executive action and advice.
In fact, there are many provisions that say otherwise, assigning to the rulers the positive role of sustaining the rule of law.
For example, although Article 40(1) requires the king to act on the advice of the Cabinet or its representative, he is not obliged to act immediately, and is entitled to ask for additional information.
The constitution also gives the king the sole discretion when it comes to appointing the prime minister under Article 40(2), as well as in several other actions.
Article 38 gives wide powers to the Conference of Rulers in several important aspects of the country’s administration listed there.
In criminal matters, the power of pardon and the final say on sentences are vested entirely with the rulers.
Next, Article 181 preserves the rulers’ prerogative powers. In my considered view, these powers may be used to sustain the rule of law in the event it is violated by any of the three pillars of government.
Both the army and the key to Parliament are also placed under the rulers.
Finally, the absolute power to proclaim emergency as per Article 150 is, in my view, the hallmark of the Malay rulers’ supremacy.
Over the years I have noticed that the traditional three pillars – the executive, legislature, and judiciary – have not acted as per their oaths of office, which require them to preserve, protect and defend the Federal Constitution.
That omission has allowed corruption and corrupt practices to flourish, undermining social justice and rule of law, and resulting in the doctrine of separation of powers becoming a myth in this country.
In my view, such endemic corruption, misconduct on the part of politicians designed to create disunity, division and hatred, and the liberal misuse of racial and religious rhetoric for political one-upmanship may entitle the rulers to issue a proclamation of emergency.
To my mind, the Malay rulers, through the king, are constitutionally empowered to participate in the administration of the country as and when necessary. Arguments of constitutional jurists and pundits attempting to say otherwise are unsustainable within the framework of our constitution.
For that reason, I welcome the prime minister’s statement that he is prepared to consider the views and suggestions of the incoming king.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
King can give opinion, but PM has final decision, says expert
Wan Ahmad Fauzi Wan Husain says decisions on government matters rests with the prime minister, except in matters involving royal prerogative and discretion.
Amirul Aiman - 19 Dec 2023, 8:45am
Wan Ahmad Fauzi Wan Husain (left) and Aziz Bari (centre) said ultimate authority rests with the government, while Philip Koh said a constitutional monarch must remain above politics.
PETALING JAYA: The prime minister has the final say over government matters, although the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is entitled to share his opinion on any issue, says a constitutional expert.
“The ultimate decision rests with the prime minister, except for matters involving royal prerogative and discretion,” said Wan Ahmad Fauzi Wan Husain of ISTAC International Islamic University Malaysia.
Another constitutional scholar, Aziz Bari, said Malaysia’s system of constitutional monarchy places authority with the government, which answers to Parliament.
Wan Husain and Aziz were commenting on a proposal by the sultan of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar, for Petronas and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to report directly to the King.
Sultan Ibrahim, who will become the Yang di-Pertuan Agong next year, gave his views when discussing his desire to eradicate corruption in the country.
In response, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said he is willing to discuss the proposal.
He said Sultan Ibrahim’s suggestion would not affect the separation of powers between the monarch and the executive.
Philip Koh, an adjunct professor of law at Universiti Malaya, said the issue of the King’s involvement in executive matters could become controversial as it could involve the monarchy in “political-business thickets.”
“The wider issue of whether it is good for the King to be directly involved in executive enforcement bodies and government-linked companies gives rise to contesting issues of whether a ruler should enter such domains,” he said.
“It could draw the King into political disputes or situations that are considered unsuitable for a constitutional monarch, who is typically expected to remain above politics and partisan interests.”
Wan Ahmad said no legal issue would arise from having the anti-graft agency and the national petroleum company report directly to the King “as long as it follows the law”.
“If a new practice needs to be introduced beyond the scope of Article 40(1) of the Federal Constitution, then a bill must be tabled,” he said.
The constitution stipulates that the King shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet except otherwise provided.
It also states that the King is entitled to any information available to the Cabinet concerning the government.
Aziz, a former law lecturer, said the new King has every right, and a duty, to put things right if certain agencies do not function properly.
However, the Tebing Tinggi assemblyman suggested that the King could intervene under “exceptions” to the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, rather than through the introduction of a new set of rules.
Hadi rebuffed Muslim Brotherhood’s olive branch with Anwar, says source
The source claims that the Muslim Brotherhood tried to play peacemaker between the former Pakatan Rakyat allies.
Mohd Farhan Darwis - 19 Dec 2023, 9:15am
Abdul Hadi Awang and Anwar Ibrahim were allies in the now defunct Pakatan Rakyat coalition.
PETALING JAYA: PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang rebuffed efforts by the Muslim Brotherhood to broker peace between him and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in the aftermath of the 15th general election, says a source in the know.
The source, who declined to be named, said a Muslim Brotherhood representative from Qatar had sought to mend ties between the former Pakatan Rakyat allies, to strengthen the voice of Muslim leaders on the international stage on issues affecting Muslims.
This included the plight of the Palestinians.
“Hadi is influential among Muslim scholars while Anwar is close to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s bloc,” he said, referring to the Turkish president.
The source said the Muslim Brotherhood’s representative came to Malaysia twice to bring Hadi and Anwar to meet but was unsuccessful.
“They believe it (Anwar and Hadi’s rivalry) is a loss (to the Islamic world) so they tried to broker peace but their efforts were rejected by Hadi.”
The source said Hadi detailed his reasons for not wanting to meet Anwar in a lengthy letter, with the key reason being the Marang MP’s refusal to mend ties with him.
Anwar’s PKR and Hadi’s PAS were part of the now defunct Pakatan Rakyat, which also included DAP between 2008 and 2015.
After the coalition’s break-up, PKR and DAP formed Pakatan Harapan (PH) along with Amanah, a splinter of PAS.
The source did not disclose if the Muslim Brotherhood’s “peacemaking” efforts involved bringing PAS into the unity government.
FMT has reached out to Hadi and Anwar’s offices for comment.
In an interview with Time Magazine in October, Anwar said the door was open to PAS should it decide to join the PH-led unity government.
No comments:
Post a Comment