Perak’s law of the jungle
Left out of the loop are the people, who look to the Perak palace for justice, while the constitution provides a place and rules for everyone and every institution under the Perak sun. But that has not been the case.
THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER
Politicians might have started the Perak imbroglio but the palace, too, is culpable for adding to the constitutional crisis that has led to a state assembly under a rain tree yesterday by a government ousted through royal fiat.
Sultan Azlan Shah’s decision to ask Pakatan Rakyat Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin to resign or have his post considered vacant led to a Barisan Nasional government under the leadership of Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir in early February after he received support from three state government lawmakers who turned independent.
It has been a roller-coaster ride in Perak politics since then.
With both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional having 28 seats in the 59-seat state assembly, the three lawmakers became kingmakers. But they turned out to have helped create chaos instead.
Locked out from the state office by civil servants acting in the name of the state ruler, Nizar and his cohorts have filed lawsuits and finally used the assembly to suspend Zambry and his six executive councillors. Zambry himself have filed lawsuits that now prevent state speaker V. Sivakumar from convening assembly meetings.
Left out of the loop are the people, who look to the Perak palace for justice, while the constitution provides a place and rules for everyone and every institution under the Perak sun. But that has not been the case.
Since the time the Barisan Nasional government was sworn in by the Perak palace, there has been polarisation in both the state and country.
Everywhere, there are cries of “Foul!” at the way the executive has interfered with the legislature, and now, even the courts. The civil service and police, too, seem to have forgotten the doctrine of the separation of powers.
That has led to the assembly under a rain tree, subjecting Malaysia to ridicule for its practice of democracy.
Instead of the constitution, the law of the jungle – where might is right – have been used against lawfully-elected assemblymen attending a meeting on state matters.
Has there ever been a case of riot police standing by as unidentified individuals are allowed to prevent assemblymen from the state legislature?
Has there ever been a case where the assembly speaker is not allowed to convene meetings?
Is the state ruler even aware that his name is being used in vain by civil servants to deny his lawmakers – both government and opposition – from meeting?
There was a time, depending from which side you are on, when the monarchy was held in high regard. The nine royal houses were regal, wise, caring and reigned but did not rule. This time last year, Malaysians applauded them for choosing state governments with care, despite pressure from either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat.
With their wisdom, Perlis and Terengganu switched menteris besars despite pressure from Umno.
And, Perak was led by Nizar from Pas despite it having the least number of seats among its partners. The fact that the state constitution made it explicit that it had to be Malay Muslim helped tilt the scales in his favour.
But the constitution does not appear to be followed now, whether in appointing a Menteri Besar or separating the powers of the executive, legislature and judiciary.
Notwithstanding the show of unity and support from Umno, the average Malaysia does not view the royals in the same light they did 12 months ago. More so the Perak royal house, which had always been seen as the wisest and fair, be it from their speeches or their deeds.
The power to choose is with the people but the power to decide is with the palace.
One would hope wisdom prevails for both the people and the palace, not the law of the jungle that Perak has witnessed this week, when a rain tree provided what the royals could not – shelter from injustice.
