If it’s just about money

By MT Webmaster Last updated Dec 22, 2013

I do not understand why you are blaming the Rulers for the cost when it not the Rulers but the state governments that decide how much to spend. Let Anwar Ibrahim, the economic adviser to the Selangor state government, take the lead by declaring that in 2014 Selangor is going to spend just RM1.00 a year on the Sultan.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

What is wrong if Malaysia is made a republic? As a matter of fact, I am in favour of Malaysia being a republic. Look at the wastages and abuse of power by the royalties. Malaysia is probably the only country in the world whereby the royal household is so large and it is extended to so many states and families. Annually, the govt spend more than RM50m on just renovating and maintaining of palaces. We already have istana negara, istana melawati in Putrajaya and yet, the govt. spend another RM2billion for the new istana negara. How about the maintenance and expenses spend on maintaining each of the royal household in the 9 states? And currently, the nation is struggling with budget deficit and hence, the cuts in subsidies resulting in the rise of all prices of all goods and services.

I am not a Muslim but I don’t think anything in the Quran that states having a royal family is a must. The royalties may be the symbol of Islam but I have seen with my very own eyes of their drinking and gambling habits while I was in UK. Are you not ashamed of your blind devotion for the sake of it?

Chan Huan Wei

*******************************************

That was a comment posted by Chan Huan Wei today in Malaysia Today. The closing statement to that comment is, “Are you not ashamed of your blind devotion for the sake of it?” I take it that question was addressed to me so I will have to reply to that comment

I have read many such comments before, mainly posted by the non-Malay readers (and a few by the Malay readers, of course) and it all boils down to just one thing: money. They question the need to spend so much money to maintain the monarchy and the nine royal households (ten if we include the Agong).

First of all, the Agong is a federal ‘post’ while the nine rulers (seven sultans, one Yamtuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, and one Raja of Perlis) are state ‘posts’. Many who comment that they support the abolishing of the monarchy and for Malaysia to be turned into a republic are ignorant of the country’s history. Hence such comments are made in ignorance.

The retention of the monarchy is part and parcel of the Federation and Merdeka Agreements. And, as any first-year law student would tell you, an agreement comprises of more than one party. Hence all parties need to consent to any amendment to that agreement. It must be bilateral and not unilateral.

For example, you sign an agreement to rent a house and you and the landlord have agreed on the monthly rental. Can the landlord amend the agreement and double the rent on all his/her own (unilaterally)? Any amendment to the agreement (such as the doubling of the rent) has to be bilateral. One side cannot amend the agreement without the consent of the other side.

Pakatan Rakyat supporters always talk about justice and fair play. But when it comes to what they want, justice and fair play do not matter. Is it not unjust and unfair for one side of an agreement to amend the agreement without the consent of the other party to the agreement? Where is your sense of justice and fair play?

You want to violate the agreement and impose your will on the other party to the agreement. And you do not call this unjust and unfair. But when Malay supremacists (say like Perkasa) do the same thing and ask that the citizenship of the Chinese be withdrawn you scream and say that this is unfair and unjust.

In the Merdeka Agreement it was agreed that all non-Malays born in Malaysia after 31st August 1957 would automatically be citizens of the country. They need not apply for citizenship like those born outside Malaya before Merdeka. This was agreed in the Merdeka Agreement and must not be violated. Hence if, say, Perkasa asks for the citizenship of the non-Malays to be withdrawn, that is a breach of agreement. What difference would it be for those who call for the abolishing of the monarchy and for Malaysia to be turned into a republic?

Of course, we can always argue that the Federation and Merdeka Agreements are old agreements and that it is time to review and maybe amend these agreements. But do you really want to go there? What happens if that is done? Would that not expose us to the danger of the other terms of those agreements also being reviewed and maybe amended (such as the position of the non-Malays)?

So be very careful with what you wish for. You may be opening a Pandora’s box that may be impossible to close again once opened.

To review the position of the nine state Rulers we would have to review the Federation Agreement of 1948 when the Federation of Malaya was created. Prior to that, the states were independent and the Federation did not exist. In 1948, it was agreed that the states would no longer be independent but would join the Federation. In return, the Federation guarantees the states that the state Rulers would be maintained.

Do we now wish to terminate the Federation Agreement of 1948? If we do then the Federation would cease to exist. And that would then affect the Merdeka Agreement of nine years later when it was agreed that Malaya would be given independence in return for the non-Malays being given citizenship.

So it is not so simple as to just abolish the monarchy. The monarchy exists because of an agreement made between the nine state rulers and the British. To abolish the monarchy we would have to violate the Federation Agreement. And then the Merdeka Agreement would be affected. And once one term of the agreement is violated there is nothing to stop whoever violates this agreement to also violate the other terms of the Agreement, in particular the part about the non-Malays being given citizenship.

Umno knows that it exists only because of the Malay vote. Hence if there are no, or lesser, non-Malays in the country then better for Umno. Hence, also, if the Federation and Merdeka Agreements are terminated so much the better for Umno because then the position of the non-Malays could be reviewed.

We complain about the cost to maintain the monarchy. We complain about the cost to maintain and build palaces. Who is the one spending all this money? Is it the Rulers or the government? Why does the government spend all this money on the palaces? Why can’t the government just tell the Rulers that no more of the taxpayers’ money is going to be spent on palaces? And if the Rulers want new palaces, or they want to maintain their old palaces, then do it themselves using their own money and not the taxpayers’ money.

In 2008, five states were under the Pakatan Rakyat government. Four of those states have Rulers (Penang has a Governor). Why did Pakatan Rakyat not pass a new law in their respective State Assemblies to reduce the cost of maintaining the royal households?

Currently, two states that have Rulers are under Pakatan Rakyat — Selangor and Kelantan. Ask Pakatan Rakyat to stop spending money on the state Rulers. Pass a new law in the Selangor and Kelantan State Assemblies to reduce the salaries of the Selangor and Kelantan Sultans to just RM1.00 a year and do not approve a budget to maintain the palaces and the royal households.

This is a golden opportunity for Pakatan Rakyat to save the taxpayers’ money and no longer waste any money on the Rulers. Do it and do it now. Call a special sitting of the Selangor and Kelantan State Assemblies to debate the spending on the Rulers and reduce the budget to just RM1.00 a year.

It is not the royal family that is spending money on the monarchy. It is the state governments that are doing so (other than the Agong and Istana Negara which come under the Prime Minister’s Department). Can Anwar Ibrahim promise us that once Pakatan Rakyat takes over the federal government and since Istana Negara comes under the Prime Minister’s Department he is going to stop spending money on the Agong and will in fact sell the new Istana Negara to a hotel chain and turn it into a luxury hotel like what they did in India with the palaces of the Maharajas?

Yes, the monarchy costs money. But only Istana Negara comes under the Prime Minister’s Department. The other nine come under the states, two of them Pakatan Rakyat states. So why not just cut the budget down to RM1.00 and solve this problem once and for all. Retain the monarchy but stop spending money on it since the issue here is the cost to maintain them. And Pakatan Rakyat can do this in Selangor and Kelantan. So why are they not doing it?

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK