The Federal Constitution: To Question or Not to Question

Villains who twirl moustaches are easy to spot; but those who cloak themselves with good deeds are well camouflaged

Raggie Jessy

Modern day Constitutional Monarchy is as much a philosophy as it is an ideology, bequeathed to us by colonial masters who sought a transfer of executive control to a representative government. Therewith, the Constitutional Monarch is vested with executive authority and remains a nominal chieftain, while an elected government customarily dispenses laws and administers the state in his name. Withal, he reserves prerogative powers, particularly when concerning Islam and the appointment of a Prime Minister.

Monarchial Institutions worldwide are generally coextensive, though intricacies bearing on succession remain endemic to a given state. For instance, only a scion of royal stock could accede to the throne within the UK, under a system circumscribed by a heritage of bloodlines. It is quite the same here in Malaysia, save for deliberations by a council comprising hereditary Rulers of the Malay states, who elect the Yang diPertuan Agong from among them once every five years.

That’s right. Malaysia isn’t quite the cloistered anomaly some of you may have been driven to surmise. In fact, several nations we regularly refer to as developed and ‘sophisticated’ have reigning Constitutional Monarchs, much like the UK, where Anwar occasionally bitches about his trials and tribulations on primetime television.

In Malaysia, the Yang diPertuan Agong connotes an insignia, one personified chiefly by the eminence accorded to his rank. That is to say, the emphasis isn’t so much on the person as it is on the magnificence and significance brought about by his rank.

But in the UK, emphasis inclines primarily towards Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, with eminency accorded to her rank seemingly in eclipse. It’s like this: the term ‘Queen of England’ instinctively evokes Queen Elizabeth, the person, who is revered not so much for what she typifies, but simply for being Elizabeth, the Queen. Now, as far as I am concerned, that is the straight dope.

Having ironed that out, let us now plough through history, in a manner that helps us apprehend the significance of Constitutional Monarchy and special rights accorded to the Malays.

1. The British and the Sultanate

Malacca’s Sultanate was founded by a Malay-Hindu Ruler named Parameswara in 1402, and began as a Hindu kingdom. The Sejarah Melayu itself, written within the century, traced the origins of Malay Sultans to Indian princes. Gangga Negara and Srivijaya are examples of old Indian Kingdoms that made their presence felt in the peninsula.

Early contact between the kingdoms of Tamilakkam and the Malay peninsula occured during the regimes of the Pallava Kings (from the 4th to the 9th century CE) and Chola kings (from the 9th to the 13th century CE), while trade relations with Tamil merchants led to the Indianized kingdoms of Kadaram (Old Kedah) and Langkasugam.

Thence, Malacca’s Sultanate wasn’t the oldest. That is a distinction reserved for the Sultanate of Kedah, which began as a Hindu Kingdom founded by Maharaja Derbar Raja of Gemeron, around 630 CE. Due to trade relations, the Kingdom of Kedah was infused with Islamic theology from neighbouring Aceh, and gradually transformed into a Malay Muslim Sultanate.

Following Parameswara’s conversion to Islam, Malacca became known as among the first of established Malay Muslim governments, one that gradually advanced to become a regional entrepôt empire. The Johor Sultanate, consanguineous with that of Malacca, gradually emerged as a power of eminence within the Peninsula, while narrations of early UMNO history are somewhat intertwined with those of Johor’s.

The British first concerned themselves with the Malayan trade chapter in the 17th century. The discovery of tin by European traders set the draft for intensified mining activity within Malaya, already famed for her spices and gold reserves among international traders.

When they arrived, the British were met with Malay Muslim Kingdoms, ones they regarded as indigenous to this part of the Malay Archipelago. Their dominion was earmarked by a series of deliberations with local Monarchs, whom they regarded to be de jure aristocrats within a cluster demarcated by established governments.

So there you have it. Early Malaya was already the land of the Malays the day your average John Bull set foot in her affairs on various pretexts, bordering on egocentric arbitrations and deliberations. And while the British gradually usurped executive powers from Monarchies, they retained an order of eminence that helped contain Monarchial subjects, a precedent now echoed with Constitutional Monarchy.

All said, such a simplistic recapitulation barely modulates annals of our Sultanates with contemporary customs and convention, although, it prequels adequately when scrutinizing Malay special rights.

2. Malay Special Rights

“An Englishman, if he is ever alone, forms an orderly queue of one.” Famed for his etiquette and disposition to decorum and formalities, he wouldn’t engage in colloquy or deliberations with imposters, or those he deemed to be savage. Apparently, early Malay governments were reasonably established and civilised.

In a nutshell, the recognition of Malay special rights trails right back to the British era, when the ever condescending British Joe had a prejudicial role not just in formulating the Constitution, but in sculpting our multiracial lineage to his whims, in a manner that was preponderant and guileful.

The British began by recognising local Malay governments as they were. They deemed the Malays to be descendants from early arrivals, treating them as an indigenous race which they vested with privileges. Later arrivals comprised chiefly of indentured labourers, merchants, and the ever enterprising Chinese, who never regarded themselves subjects to the local Monarchs. It is with this reasoning, that they were not accorded privileges enjoyed by the Malays.

That is distinct and precise. Be that as it may, the concept of Malay Nationalism as a united and organised political movement was non-existent, while Ketuanan Melayu was largely extraneous to the socio-political lineament. This was attested by Lin-Sheng Ye (2003) in The Chinese Dilemma.

As Patrick Keith (in his book, Ousted!) had once put it, Hugh Clifford urged “everyone in this country [to] be mindful of the fact that this is a Malay country, and we British came here at the invitation of Their Highnesses the Malay Rulers, and it is our duty to help the Malays to rule their own country.”

In the Origins of Malay Nationalism, William R. Roff further advanced British investment towards sculpting and channelling Malay energies in the right direction within the Malay states. This by far reflects on policies of the era that favoured the Malays; High Commissioner Sir Laurence Guillemard regarded these acts as measures to put Malays in their proper place with regards to administrative and commercial affairs.

When the local-born non-Malay began demanding political representation, British High Commissioner, Sir Shenton Thomas was known to have said, “…I do not know of any country in which what I might call a foreigner … has ever been appointed to an administrative post.” This reflects on British attitudes that prevailed within the complex socio-political and socio-economic landscape that enveloped the Malay states then.

Perhaps one can now better appreciate contexts to Malay special rights. During the colonial era, these rights bore on Monarchies, governance and land ownership, which the Malays held to be their ancestral birthright, at a time when the average Malay was a mere farmer or fisherman, while the Chinese had established businesses and monopolised trade.

3. Can we question the Constitution?

Yes, we can. To question the Constitution isn’t contemptuous, nor is it a form of revolt or treason. And neither should it be deemed as injurious to polity.

Dynamic democracies gradually evolve with time, demarcating rights and privileges within a framework driven and regulated by a feedback loop. Such democracies engage in a plurality of activity that seeks to keep politicians abreast of sentiments abound, warranting just representation of a people.

Collapse of democratic governments begins with the caving in of these loops under the pressure of government superstructures, born out of the arrogance and preponderance of egocentric politicians who pledge arbitrary allegiance to them. Without the feedback loop, these superstructures take on a life of their own, shaped not by social forces, but by dispositions of those who reap benefits from them. Politicians who blindly advocate and preserve such structures are typically confined to orthodox rules that are generally outmoded and ineffective.

That’s right. British attitudes that brought about various privileges discussed herein are rather archaic, but have been passed on and preserved through generations. Sooner than later, magniloquent opposition factions that are superficially grounded to the aspirations of a people, will be perceived as apposite and gradually emerge victorious. At the end of the day, it is perception that takes precedence over reality, particularly when government politicians insist on preserving such structures, falling out of sync with a people.

Withal, tenets on democracy and Constitutional Monarchy within the Malaysian framework, though explicit, does not usurp one’s right to freedom of speech, assembly and associations. This remains an absolute guarantee as circumscribed by Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia.

Of late, various quarters from within the government have come forth attempting to muzzle adherents of these privileges, in a manner that poses restrictions where issues are deemed sensitive, notably those concerning Malay special rights and Constitutional Monarchy.

Now, I am an advocate of Constitutional Monarchy, as much as I am for the preservation of Malay special rights. But everyone, regardless of political affiliation, is entitled to an opinion, however sensitive some may feel it to be. Instead, due priority should be accorded to mannerisms and etiquette by an authority hoping to put a lid on iffy political gambits and wanton disregard for the law by conniving factions.

When Anwar and his henchmen came forth questioning the Ruler’s prerogatives, he inadvertently ignited flames of dissension among a people who stood historically and constitutionally blind. You see, our people generally do not embark on fact finding missions, particularly when matters of political concern prove too arduous. To them, it seems like getting blood out of a stone.

Such is the human trait that even medieval sociologists came to recognise it as endemic to socio-political structures. People prefer analysts and politicians to shoulder the ark of such intricacies, bringing cynicism to bear on governments. At the end of the day, what matters to them is if policies advanced tend towards resolutions poignant to their well being, particularly when concerning day-to-day circumstances.

So when self-acclaimed ‘Constitutional experts’ come forth with inexplicable accounts of events as they unfold, the people stand at sixes and sevens with interpretations that usually number as many as there are, lawyers. They get infused with a false sense of invincibility when left wing protagonists shuffle off their virtues and come forth to question Monarchial jurisdictions in a manner that is deemed provocative and possibly, injurious. Now that, is intolerable.

All said, villains who twirl moustaches are easy to spot; but those who cloak themselves with good deeds are well camouflaged, and will remain camouflaged as long as society does not involve itself with the question of Constitutional rights and liberties, albeit in a manner befitting our cultural heritage, one adorned with mannerisms and etiquette.