A cheap apology, neither to royalty nor rakyat
A careful inspection of Mahathir’s apology reveals no apparent theme or principle: it was as if he was apologising to himself, all for himself only.
Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew Daily
Tun Dr Mahathir apologised for the actions he had taken to amend the Constitution to curtail the role of the royalty; and on the same day, he came under censure from the Johor Sultan for criticising “Bangsa Johor”.
During the 1990s, Mahathir moved to amend the Federal Constitution, making a government bill to automatically become law without the need for royal consent. At that time, he had all the powers to himself and was bold enough to take on the Malay Rulers who were, and are still, enjoying very noble status in Malay society.
He could even rally the whole nation and the media to stand by him as he banked on the bruised image of the royalty resulting from an assault on hockey coach Douglas Gomez; it successfully created the legitimacy for a constitutional amendment.
That could be the feather in the cap of Mahathir during his 22-year reign: compared to his other iron-fisted actions such as Ops Lallang, removal of Musa Hitam, Tengku Razaleigh, Anwar Ibrahim and the Chief Justice — which caused him dearly in terms of public outcry — his constitutional stint was a total success with zero negative repercussions, not to mention a decisive boost to his popularity and credibility as a consequence.
On the other hand, the power of the Malay Rulers has since suffered over the following decades until after the 2008 general election when royalty emerged once again as a third force to balance things out between the ruling coalition and the opposition front.
Out of everyone’s expectation, Mahathir’s first ever apology has been for his most successful battle in decades.
Najib’s National Security Council Act came into effect automatically despite the disapproval of the Conference of Rulers and the failure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to grant his royal consent within the stipulated period of time.
Prior to the constitutional amendment in 1994, the Bill would have had no chance of going into effect without the consent of the King.
Ironically, given the confrontation between Mahathir and Najib, the former PM’s action two decades ago has done the incumbent a huge favour today.
A careful inspection of Mahathir’s apology reveals no apparent theme or principle, especially in view of the fact that the apology was made neither to the Malay Rulers nor to the rakyat: it was as if he was apologising to himself, all for himself only.
In the meantime, his criticism of “Bangsa Johor” has invited the backlash not only from the state royalty but ordinary Johoreans as well.
Under normal circumstances, the “Bangsa Johor” issue would be more of a tussle between federalism and localism. If federalism becomes more dominant, then localism will have to take a back seat, and vice versa. Whether federalism or localism should take precedence depends wholly on which of the two forces is more powerful.
Given that the federal government suffers a poor credibility and public image, while the Johor royalty enjoys unprecedented popularity, it is natural that Johoreans will feel more attached to, and take pride in, their “Bangsa Johor” identity.
Acceptance of the “Bangsa Johor” concept surely cannot be construed as a rejection of the federation. The two forces can exist side by side if a Johorean is proud of both his state and the country.
Mahathir couldn’t be more embarrassed by the Sultan’s words, that “He goes around dividing the people, including the Malays, while I do my utmost to unite Malaysians of all races, including the Malays.”
Tay Tian Yan is a senior editor of Sin Chew Daily.
