The role of monarchs in Constitutional Malaysia
By SV Singam
At the time of the formation of the Federation of Malaya, the rulers of the 9 states were accorded special rights and privileges in recognition of their contribution towards the preservation of the Malay culture and Islam. Their special position also ensured that the essential Malayness of the land was being preserved.
Prior to and even during the colonisation by the European powers, the rulers were feudal lords, holding the power of life and death over their subjects. After they became constitutional monarchs, their legal powers were severely curtailed. As Sultan Azlan Shah himself pointed out, their role was largely ceremonial. They had some little powers of veto but, constitutionally, did not even have hire and fire rights over their Menteris Besar.
Unfortunately, some of these rulers could not understand the implications of these constitutional curtailments of their powers. They continued to act in the manner of feudal lords and in the process, committed crimes against humanity. These crimes armed Mahathir with the ammunition he needed to curtail the royal powers even further. He removed some of those crucial veto powers and grabbed almost absolute power to himself.
Some of the royal houses further degraded their position by becoming involved in business dealings with UMNO cronies. By so doing, they made themselves beholden to UMNO power brokers.
When the stirrings of freedom freshened the air post GE12, even some of the rulers perked up and exercised their powers of discretion. They demonstrated that they still had a key role to play in our Constitutional Monarchy.
Fast-foward to Perak, February 2009. The state of Gamuda Holdings finances and the involvement of the daughter of Sultan Azlan Shah in Gamuda may or may not have had an impact on the sultan's decision. But the sultan has placed himself in a questionable position. By so doing, he is bringing the role of Constitutional Monarchs into focus.
Even when the ruler wielded absolute power over his liege, treason and loyalty were merely extreme ends of a continuum, as demonstrated by the chronicles of Hang Tuah, Tun Perak and Hang Jebat. In today's context, treason is a chameleon, depending on who is making the claim.
Malaysia's royalty teeters on the edge. How they move forward may well depend on their actions of today. History may remember that it was, after all, not the death of a caddy that brought down the royal houses.
