His Majesty's Loyal Opposition

Isn't it a strange expression? His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It is a reminder of the constitutional system that Malaysia adopted seamlessly and, it would seem, obviously from the British Westminster parliamentary system. It was an exported version, of course. 

The original model in the UK is different from Malaysia's version in many ways. Most significant is that Malaysia has a written constitution and, the UK doesn't. In the UK, their Parliament is supreme. In Malaysia, the Federal Constitution is supreme. What this means is that in Malaysia, all decisions of the government and all laws enacted can, and must, be tested against the Federal Constitution. If the decisions and laws are found to be against any principle or provision of the Federal Constitution, the decision and law will be invalidated and struck down.

As with everything in Life, these structures operate properly only when all humans involved in the process share a common belief in the rules. If we get a leader who wants to transcend the rules and, has the power to flout the rules, then, the system has failed.

In the UK, none of the current players ever question the fundamental rules of their Parliamentary system. That is why their system works well.

Just to digress a little, in the United States of America today, we can see how fragile systems of laws can be. The US found themselves with a President who parachuted in as a rank outsider to their representative democratic processes. He isn't a career politician and legislator. He is a businessman.

To digress further, all businessmen have one core purpose in their business goal. It is to take full and maximum advantage of the system, be it legal or economic, to maximise profits. In our current era, a businessman is, at core, a profiteer. He or she will test the rules and boundaries of the laws of the land and push, and pull, cajole, compromise, lubricate and do whatever that needs to be done, to maximise profits. Equally important is to understand that within the organisation he created, a businessman is a dictator or, at the very least, a benevolent despot. Don't be fooled by the conventional wisdom of corporate and business literature when they extol ethics and social responsibility; that's just propanganda. Make no profit and incur losses, you fail and you're out. That is the Damoclean Sword that a businessman lives by. And, the US elected someone with that background and experience. The diplomatic phrase for such a person who now acts as the US President is that he is a transactional leader. 

So, in a Third World, polyglot and multi-racial community like Malaysia and, with an imported system of laws, people who are used to feudal values and imperial dictates still cannot understand what a Constitutional, Monarchical, Parliamentary system means. Many Malaysian of voting age still believe that voting is a superficial act. What is important to them is that there is a feudal lord who will provide them with beneficence in exchange for with they must offer their gratitude.

You can imagine how fertile that ground is for abuse of power, whatever the system of laws.

To lesser minds operating within Malaysia's constitutional system as politicians or political operatives, due to lack of credible opposition and, a bullying Juggernaut approach to democracy, these lesser minds chose to ignore the basis of the Federal Constitution. They chose to retain the old habits feudalism.

With such an attitude, any attempts to audit the decisions of government was portrayed as treasonous, seditious and, generally "unlawful". So, he who inhabits the position of power may not be opposed. Any opposition was an act of lawlessness.

Between 1981 and 2003, Dr M led UMNO and, by dint of habit, therefore, assumed the position of Prime Minister of Malaysia. During those 22 years, he behaved as an iconoclast. By his actions, he initiated a mindset within UMNO that laws could be bent and moulded to strengthen powers and reduce opposition. During those 22 years, the Executive branch of government grew manifold times. To be fair, in the modern age, the Executive branch of government has grown throughout the world in response to the increasing complexity of modern societies. But, in Malaysia, such Executive growth had ominous undertones.

Opposition political leaders and civil society leaders were incarcerated. This was the habit of the Malaysian government as it was in many Third World countries.

When he relinquished power in 2003, there was a brief spring under Abdullah Badawi. That spirit was initially retained by Najib. But, the atmosphere quickly descended into a defensive mindset.

That defensive mindset led to a quick stocktake of the powers vested in the Executive branch of government. Very quickly UMNO found a motherload of precedents and powers initiated during the Mahathir era.

3 major examples of Mahathir-era authoritarian behaviour comes to mind. Firstly, the double confrontation with the monarchy. Second, was the sacking of the head of the Judiciary and 5 senior judges. Third, was Operation Lallang that placed numerous Opposition political leaders and civil society leaders under preventive detention.

By this thread, the summary dismissal of Gani Patail as the Attorney-General of Malaysia points to a Mahathir-era Executive Juggernaut approach to dealing with recalcitrants.

This raises a question. Was Mahathir one of the lesser minds aluded to earlier in this blog entry? The answer would be in the affirmative. It was often said, that Dr M, being a non-lawyer (and, therefore, unlike his 3 predescessors, Tunku, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn) did not, or refused to, understand the principles of the Westminster system enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

The Banyan tree metaphor used to describe Lee Kuan Yew's leadership in Singapore could equally apply to Dr M. The point was that nothing grew under the large and dark shadow of a Banyan tree. In Malaysia, the consequence of 22 years of Mahathir led to a large and growing coterie of sycophants and even lesser minds who believed that their positions in government was a feudal right and privilege. It was an entitlement and, a brith right.

This mindset was supported by a voting population that could be moulded like putty. Invoke the Yellow Peril of the dastardly Chinaman who will rob you blind and fear was instilled.

We also cannot and, should not, ignore the fact that during the Najib era, it was Dr M who wrote the narrative of the Yellow Peril through the machinations of Perkasa. Even after Dr M fell out with Najib, the narrative of the Yellow Peril proved to be an effective weapon used by UMNO.

Is Dr M a different person today? I don't think so. I believe most Malaysians know this to be the case. But, horses for causes, Malaysians chose well. The motley crew created by the charisma of Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Kit Siang and Wan Azizah with the spirited support of many, many intelligent, dynamic and youthful leaders combined with Dr M and his strong credibility within the Malay community proved to be a tipping point to cause an incredible outcome; the destruction of the UMNO Juggernaut.

This is a long preamble and I haven't dealt with the original point, the possible routes to reconstruction of the component parties of Barisan Nasional. They, together with PAS, are now His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Let's deal with it later. Now, Life beckons.

Iconoclasm - Malaysia's Constitution, Institutions and Procedures

Just so you know, it's mostly Dr Mahathir's fault that Malaysia's constitutional system of checks and balances has gone askew. I'm being bland and circumspect. This civility is not in deference to Dr M. It is out of respect of the subject matter of discussion here.

The Federal Constitution of Malaysia must be respected by everyone. It is the supreme law of Malaysia. It has a higher place even than DYMM Yang Di Pertuan Agong. In fact, the Federal Constitution begat the position of the Agong.

The Federal Constitution created the legislative branch of the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara and the paraphernalia of membership in those august chambers.

It also created the Judiciary which is intended to be the fount from which springs justice and fairness to all; Malaysian and non-Malaysian for so long as you are stepping on Malaysian soil.

And, unfortunately, it also created the Executive branch of government.

In a corporate context, the legislature is like the meeting place for shareholders representatives; all citizens being the shareholders.

The judiciary is like the statutory auditors that all corporate entities are required to engage.

The executive branch is the management.

This triangulation is the modern idea that carries the presumption so famously summed up by Lord Acton, that power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

By a miracle, one might say, Malaysia managed to maintain the tension of constitutional audit during its many years of nationhood and, thus avoided Lord Acton's axiom.

Once, in Tun Razak's era, the precipice of tyranny was avoided when Emergency Rule of 1969 was retired and the constitutional triumvirate restored in 1971.

Then, after Tun Hussein Onn's era, came Dr M.

This fella pretty much screwed the Federal Constitution and all its institutions.

He took down the monarchy's constitutional position in the legislative process in 1983.

He screwed the Judiciary in 1987.

Throughout his interregnum, 1981 to 2003, he emasculated the Legislature by disrespecting the importance of Parliamentary Debates and Question Time. 

He enlarged the the writ and power of the Executive by stacking the Judiciary, appointing sycophantic personalities in all key positions; be it the monetary authority, the attorney-general's post and the law enforcement agencies.

From the point of view of economic development and national pride, he did reasonably well and presided over two decades of reasonable significance. I am glossing over a helluva lot of flotsam and jetsam, I know, but, let's stick to the agenda, shall we?

It is generally accepted that when one refers to a generation, it means a period of anywhere between 20 to 25 years.

So, going by that wisdom, Dr M's interregnum spanned a whole generation.

Think about it. 

An entire generation of Malaysians grew up and grew old under a regime and regimen where everything is fair game ... for the greater good ... which "greater good" is seen from the perspective of Dr M.

This generation grew up accepting that if someone stands in your way, and if you are the Prime Minister, you just neutralise and neuter that person and his personage.

And, so, a potentially difficult monarch is in process of being elevated in 1983. Poof! Emasculate the legislative procedure.

And, so, a Lord President seemed to be getting in the way in 1987. Poof! Remove him. He's gone.

And, so, a restive Legislature and Opposition is coalescing in 1987. Poof! Preventively detain them.

And, so, a conscientious Fourth Estate of print media provides firmer reportage than before in 1987. Poof! Suspend their printing privileges.

This is what a whole generation of Malaysians were entreated to.

This form of constitutional iconoclasm has now embedded itself into the value system of Dr M's successors in title.

What we witness today is the embodiment and practises that Lord Acton's axiom warned against when people in power has the ability to amass and concentrate power.

When Arthur Schlesinger wrote The Imperial Presidency he fretted over the U.S. President's self-aggrandising process of giving the office of the U.S. President increasing power to authorise military action in Vietnam and Laos in the 1970s.

In Malaysia, we have been witnessing the growth of the Imperial Prime Minister's position since 1981.

This constitutional iconoclasm will be Dr M's greatest legacy.

When Dr M's hands were at the wheel, he was an able Nakhoda. Within his own psyche he bore his own peculiar set of values which in its own peculiar way held him back from doing certain things that he had the power to do but resisted doing.

He had a set of values. It could be upbringing. It could be education. It could be the fear of the audit in his Afterlife. Whether it was Nurture or Nature, Dr M had his own internal system of checks and balances.

The same can be said with much greater strength for Pak Lah. History will look kindly on Pak Lah. I look very kindly on Pak Lah's time at the helm of Malaysia.

The question that Tun Razak failed to ask and, the same question that Dr M failed to ask was, "What if this power that I have amassed in the Office of the Prime Minister is embodied in someone with less values and scruples than I?"

But, in the absence of any constitutional checks and balances, the Ship of State that is the current constitutional ethos is moving in any which way without any restraint. There are no longer any checks and balances.

Mind you, to an untrained eye and mind, the Federal Constitution is still here. The constitutional institutions are still here. Even the constitutional procedures are still writ.

But, with persons who grew up and were fed with Mahathirist authoritarianism and his constitutional iconoclasm, can Malaysia depend on an individual leaders sense of personal values, upbringing and innate fear of the Afterlife? What if a leader has no such values or filter?

"So", asks the Minister in Malaysia's 2016 Federal Cabinet who grew up and was fed on Mahathirism, "what's the problem?"

This is why some of us are crying out for the restoration of the spirit and soul of the Federal Constitution, constitutional institutions and constitutional processes.

And, what is Dr M doing now?

Well, I can tell you that whatever it is that he is doing, he ain't hectoring for the restoration of the spirit and soul of the Federal Constitution, constitutional institutions and constitutional processes.

He's just asking for a change of personnel.

Go figure......

16 September 2015

This time around, Malaysians should celebrate our diversity.

Source here.

Bersekutu bertambah mutu. The English translation has always been published as, "Unity in diversity".

This is Malaysia's motto.

To give it meaning on 16th September 2015 and beyond we, Malaysians, will be mindful that we share a common past, a common destiny and a common future.

Malaysians are many things. We are, all at once, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans, Ibans and all suku kaums. We are at once, Sabahans, Sarawakians and people from each of the other 11 states and territories in Semenanjung Malaysia. And, yet, we are Malaysians.

I know it sounds corny and cliched. But, hey, when we commemorate key dates in out nation's history, all Malaysians should just let it out and celebrate our greatness at being a showcase of how diverse people can live under the same sky and the same land with a common past and a shared destiny.

We must shed our cynicism and leave aside, on 16th September 2015 and for some time after, our differences of opinion.

And, by the way, going by events in our local current affairs, Malaysia certainly has a robust democracy. 

We are transitioning. Even the most die hard cynic cannot deny that Malaysia's constitutional system has created a lot of space for civilised dissent. Let's, at least, celebrate Malaysia's federal constitutional system.

Selangor MB Matter : Constitutional Implications?

The Selangor Menteri Besar fiasco has quite rightly brought into stark relief, once again, constitutional processes that were often taken for granted by the citizenry and, politicians, if I may add.

Many constitutional scholars and observers have had to revisit the Perak MB episode. Others have dug deeper into episodes from the United Kingdom from where the Westminster constitutional model originated.

For some reason, no one has brought up the numerous little scrapes of the recent past where the menteris besar of various Malaysian states have had to endure testy relations with their respective state palaces. Names like Ghazali Jawi and Othman Saat probably rings no bells any longer with Malaysians of younger vintage.

Drilling down on past constitutional episodes

Back to Westminster history, no one has brought up the quite incredible episode of Queen Victoria's great sulk in 1839 when she quite clearly expressed her great discomfiture with having to deal with Sir Robert Peel who was a new leader of the Tories and had, at the time, gained ascendancy over the leader of the Whigs, Lord Melbourne who had so endeared himself to the young Queen.

The Queen had, in fact attempted to persuade the great Duke of Wellington, an ex-prime minister himself, to succeed Lord Melbourne as the new Prime Minister. The Duke had begged off due to his advanced years.

And, so, the constitutional impasse was resolved when Sir Robert Peel backed off in favour of Lord Melbourne who remained as Prime Minister.

It was only in 1841, when parliamentary elections proved beyond doubt that the Tories had won a clear victory was Queen Victoria persuaded to reluctantly accept Sir Robert Peel as Prime Minister.

The constitutional episode of 1839 gains added significance when one considers that the Westminster model was pretty much founded by Oliver Cromwell a few years after the defeat of King Charles II's forces in 1650, some 190 years before that.

Naturally, there are different interpretations the 1839 episode. That is why history is so interesting.

Stay with me....

You might already be rolling your eyeballs several times by now, wondering where all this is leading to.

Well, much has been said by constitutional scholars about constitutional conventions and practises and, how, HRH The Sultan of Selangor's unorthodox approach to the Selangor MB issue goes where no monarch has gone before.... (pardon the Star Trek reference).

With the greatest respect such a view is akin to the difference between how we mere mortals look at the growth of plant life in still life snapshots while Sir David Attenborough sees it with the stop motion camera technology that, when speeded up, gives us an idea of the dynamics of growth in plants.

Constitutional matters must, of necessity be seen from a historical perspective. And, the history of constitutional monarchy has shown many, many episodes where the palace and the parliamentary executive has had differences.

Some context

The key perspective is to note that ever so often, wisdom, civility and oodles of patience has resolved matters without tearing the flimsy fabric of constitutional monarchies.

As I have said in an earlier blog post, this Selangor MB fiasco started off as an internal party problem which, led to a dubious tactic of procuring the unnecessary resignation of an elected state assemblyman which, led to an unnecessary by election which, led to the election of a new state assemblyman which, led nowhere....

Instead, the sitting MB did not do the expected thing which was to accept his fate by tendering his resignation as required by constitutional convention.

To the voters of Selangor, nothing in this sorry episode has cast any redeeming light on any of the main players from Pakatan Rakyat. None of them have benefited from the ill conceived and ill considered plan to oust the sitting MB.

In this cacophonous sea of confusion HRH The Sultan of Selangor has had to carry out an unorthodox procedure to canvass for suitable MB candidates to succeed the outgoing chap.

The monarchical "constitutional initiative"

Now, why didn't HRH The Sultan just do the formal constitutional thing, which is to just sit back on His throne and let the politicians do their thing; and, by so doing satisfy the constitutional convention that scholars so crave?

If I may hazard a viewpoint; one key reason must have been that the loose alliance between PKR, DAP and PAS did not have a consensus on the ouster of Tan Sri Khalid as the MB. Nor did they have consensus on the choice of his successor.

Everyone can pull out their Casio calculators and produce any number of scenarios of how the Selangor State Assembly will vote on the choice of another MB. But there is one unavoidable fact. The loose alliance that is Pakatan Rakyat no longer had consensus on the matter of the MB.

From where I stand, HRH The Sultan has exercised a constitutional initiative that was unusual but, still within the provisions of the Selangor State Constitution to resolve the MB imbroglio.

This has led to the appointment of Azmin Ali who will be the 15th Menteri Besar of Selangor when he is sworn in on 23 September 2014.

How to prevent further monarchical "constitutional initiatives"

My humble suggestion to all political players is that to prevent HRH The Sultan or any other state monarchs from exercising this "constitutional initiative" in future, stop screwing around with your petty power plays and start instituting your own party culture and discipline so that all your elected representatives speak and act in unison.

PKR's peculiar and populist habit of taking in what I call "helicopter candidates" has created a "diva culture" that is not consonant with a successful political party. Such an ad hoc approach to electoral politics never translates well into administrative politics.

Unless such matters are addressed fully and squarely, my crystal ball tells me that we may witness further recurrences reminiscent of the disastrous and cacophonous Arab Council that Lawrence of Arabia tried to set up.

Praise for the dignity of the key players

With everything having been said and done, I must applaud first HRH The Sultan for having acted with wisdom. What He did to resolve the MB fiasco is almost like Alexander the Great drawing his sword to cut through the Gordian Knot.

Kudos also to the grace with which Wan Azizah has accepted the decision of HRH The Sultan. As everyone in Malaysia knows by now, in the dung heap that is PKR's internal politics, Wan Azizah is the radiant flower.

source here

Selangor: The Sultan and the Constitution

The constitutional matters in Selangor surrounding the matter of the position of the Mentri Besar is, in the first instance, an unnecessary event that had arisen purely due to a factional matter within a political party.

Some of us may recall recent events in Westminster-style democracies where the sitting Prime Minister has had to tender his or her resignation due to  intra-party convulsions. The most famous recent example would be Margaret Thatcher's unfortunate resignation due to a party revolt. When the tide turned against her, Mrs Thatcher did the honourable thing. She sought an audience with the Queen and tendered her resignation as Prime Minister.

This was probably the scenario that was intended to be played out in Selangor. But, as with all things in this real world of ours, as opposed to the make believe world of scenario planners and, some say, strategists, the main players in this Selangor saga exhibited and unexpected sentience.

Sentience in third parties and among plebeians is a very annoying phenomenon for people in power. 

Sentience forces people in power to explain things that are better kept in their sick and twisted minds.

In the present matter, sentience as exhibited by the sitting Mentri Besar is proving to be a serious thorn on the side of his own party and, has spilled over to threaten the very fabric of the loose political pact that administers the State of Selangor.

To make matters worse for these people, the constitutional issues and procedures surrounding the position of the Mentri Besar is proving to be another unexpected major matter.

sourced from here.

It appears that His Royal Highness The Sultan of Selangor has also exhibited  constitutional sentience. 

HRH The Sultan has asked the three political parties to submit a list of possible successors to assume the role of the Mentri Besar.

The question that has arisen is whether it is constitutionally proper for HRH The Sultan to make that request.

As with all legal issues, there is no straightforward answer. This is something that people without formal legal training and, many with such training, fail to understand or, to accept.

In my considered opinion, HRH The Sultan is perfectly on point to make such request.

Firstly, the language of Section 53(2)(a) of the Constitution of the State of Selangor makes it plainly clear that in the matter of the appointment of the Mentri Besar, HRH The Sultan, "shall first appoint as Mentri Besar to preside over the State Executive Council, a member of the Legislature Assembly who in His judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly".

The constitutional phrase, "in His judgment" is quite clearly a reference to a personal discretion to be exercised by HRH The Sultan. What this means, in effect, is that HRH The Sultan can use any constitutional and reasonable means to establish whether any single member of the State Assembly is likely to receive a majority support in the Assembly.

HRH The Sultan can wait for a vote of no confidence to be held in the State Assembly. Or, he can do what He is doing now, which is to canvass the views of each of the 3 political parties that had earlier coalesced. It's literally a straw poll, as the Americans call it. 

Is this procedure wrong? The Federal Court in the Perak Mentri Besar case has said this is a proper procedure that can operate in parallel with the traditional process of requiring a vote of no confidence. Many legal practitioners and constitutional scholars have clearly and publicly confirmed this to be a proper procedure.

Perhaps the apposite question is, why aren't the 3 political parties convening an emergency sitting of the State Assembly to initiate a no confidence motion?

Secondly, it is absurd for any person to make an issue of the role of HRH The Sultan in this fracas. HRH The Sultan is being required to play his constitutional role due to events created by the political parties.

HRH The Sultan was and, to my mind, is still acting in full dignity above the political fray in requiring names of 2 or more Mentri Besar candidates to be submitted by each of the political parties in the loose Selangor Pakatan Rakyat coalition.

So, I implore people to cease and desist for casting any unfair and inappropriate remarks against HRH The Sultan or the Monarchy. The State Monarch has acted with dignity and fully in accordance with proper constitutional process. 

It is proper that He does not descend into the cesspool of politics.

The political parties in this wrangle who are in the cesspool should conduct their mud wrestling at that level without attempting to throw any mud let alone pull HRH The Sultan into that dirty pit.

HAPPY MERDEKA DAY.

DR M: HARMONI DAN KESAMARATAAN

Methinks the ever vulpine Dr M is being disingenuous in his latest post entitled, HARMONI DAN KESAMARATAAN. He has chosen to ignore the fact that the new slew of legislation that deals with national unity and harmony will ALWAYS be subject to the operation of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

More to the point, all legislation passed by all legislatures in Malaysia, be it at the federal or state level, must be subject to the operation of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

So, what, in the name of the Heavens, is Dr M talking about in his latest post? There is no threat to the current policy involving the NEP/DEB.

Each of the 3 pieces of legislation will be subjected to constitutional provisions such as Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. 

Why is Dr M choosing to cry wolf when all I see are sheep behaving in a bovine fashion?

As I said, "vulpine" and "disingenuous" and, if he was a younger man (which he isn't) I might have added the words, "naughty" and "mischievous" too.

Phantom voters in EC rolls

I have never really thought very deeply about the allegations about phantom voters in Malaysia's electoral rolls. But, as it turns out, I have recently been informed by good friends who have lived overseas for quite some time due to career and work commitments (so this is first-hand) that their names have mysteriously been shown as having been registered in the Election Commission's electoral rolls.

Quite naturally, I was sceptical and I asked the one who has recently returned to Malaysia, a Malaysian of Indian descent, to give me his identity card number. I typed in the number at SPR's website.

Lo! And, behold! My friend's name popped up as a registered voter in Subang Jaya. What gives, EC?!!!

The other two, Malaysians with Chinese and Kayan genes, are registered as voters somewhere in Kuching, Sarawak and, they told me that, for all it's worth, they have lodged complaints to the Election Commission. 

I say, "for all it's worth" because Judge Vernon Ong has just thrown out Charles Santiago's complaint.

This is a serious concern.

I have not participated in any of the Bersih rallies... but, I am forced to acknowledge that Ambiga and the Bersih people weren't crying wolf. 

The electoral rolls need to be seriously reviewed and cleaned up. 

The shitty part is that I'm a voter in Charles Santiago's constituency in Klang. This means that if I vote for him, my vote would be negated by the phantoms that he has alleged, exists in the Klang voter rolls. 

If I vote against him phantoms would not negate my vote.

Hmmmm...... decisions, decisions.......

Federalism in Malaysia

Tomorrow, we celebrate the 47th Anniversary of the formation of Malaysia. All Malaysians know that Malaysia is a federation of 13 states and the Federal territories. But, what is a "federation"? What does it mean?

Daniel Elazar has described it as follows-

“The contractual sharing of public responsibilities by all governments in the system appears to be a central characteristic of federalism. Sharing, broadly conceived, includes common involvement in policymaking, financing, and administration of government activities. 

In contemporary federal systems, it is characterized by extensive intergovernmental collaboration. Sharing can be based on highly formal arrangements or informal agreements. 

In federal systems, it is usually contractual in nature. The contract – politically a limited expression of the compact principle – is used in formal arrangements as a legal device to enable governments responsible to separate polities to engage in joint action while remaining independent entities. 

Even where government agencies cooperate without formally contracting to do so, the spirit of federalism that pervades an ongoing federal system tends to infuse the participating parties with a sense of contractual obligation."

This view permeates the Cobbold Report (1962) and the Inter-Governmental Committee Report (1962) which formed the basis for the formalisation of the Federation of Malaysia in the Malaysia Agreement 1963, the Malaysia Act 1963 and the 1963 amendments to our Federal Constitution.

Going back to Elazar's description, we are reminded, from time to time, by various communities and groups in both Sarawak and Sabah that the central government has short-delivered its end of the contractual bargain.

Is this sentiment a fair appraisal of the federal experience of Sarawak and Sabah?

This question is a most difficult one.

In the past decades, there has been substantial vocalisation on federalism by the likes of the late Datuk Amar James Wong of Sarawak (one of the founders of the now defunct Sarawak National Party or SNAP) and  Datuk Jeffrey Kitingan of Sabah.

Fairness in allocation of economic resources

Many of my Sarawak and Sabah friends privately express cynicism about the fairness in allocation of economic resources by the central government to their states.

This sentiment is precisely the matter that dogs the federal centre. This sentiment is also a source of frustration for the federal centre.

There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, on the part of many Sarawakians and Sabahans that their state governments have been under, what Gordon P. Means called, "federal tutelage" from the inception of Malaysia.

Is this a true and fair view? The jury is still out.

What cannot be denied is that such a perception colours the sentiment of Sarawakians and Sabahans.

This is especially true when the topic of petroleum resources comes about.

The perception is that the petroleum largesse is transferred to the federal centre and trickles back to the states of Sarawak and Sabah in the form of capitation grants and road grants.

Is this a true and fair view? The jury is still out. But, the perception is strong.

Race and community relations

All my Sarawakian and Sabahan friends are aghast at how separate the communities are in Peninsular Malaysia. They are fearful that such a way of life will infect the happy inter-ethnic and inter-communal ambience that still exists in Sarawak and Sabah (though signs of invisible walls being built are growing).

This is not the federal influence they want.

The challenge for the federal centre

Apart from the acculturation issue (which all Sarawakians and Sabahans should rightly reject), the core issue must surely be whether Sarawak and Sabah can lay claim to a fair share of the economic resources generated from within their states.

I recall being told by a Sabahan friend some time ago that when they watch the tv and see the images of sparkling skyscrapers of glass and steel and well-lit multi-tiered highways in KL, they cannot feel any sense of excitement or share the pride that such images were intended to inspire. Such images actually engender an opposite emotion.

So, beyond the temporal politics of today, the federal centre must renew and redouble its efforts to win the hearts and minds of the people of Sarawak and Sabah that their forebears did the right thing when they signed on to the Malaysian adventure; not a nightmare.

The importance of consultation

I have written extensively (in an academic context) about the importance of consultation as a feature of federalism. Consultation is, in fact, the MAIN feature of federalism.

Our Federal Constitution has many references to the need for consultation. Some of it are formal on issues such as-

• Appointment of judges
• Land
• Local Government

Others are informal but, still, constitutionally necessary. These include the issue of natural resources such as water and minerals.

The importance of federalism for Malaysia's democracy

Malaysians have a narrow view of the democratic process as something that we eat kuaci and sip teh tarik over when any political elections loom.

We also should be aware and be constantly reminded that each of the thirteen states, particularly the states of Sarawak and Sabah, are sovereign in their own right and, they chose to form the Federation of Malaysia. In any way that we may wish to look at it, the undeniable fact is that we have a set of contractual relationships between the federal centre and its 13 partners.

This is as it should be.

For the states of Sarawak and Sabah, they signed onto the federation with stronger conditions than the other 11 states. It gives Sarawak and Sabah greater say over many aspects of the affairs of their states.

But all 13 states have residual sovereign rights. These sovereign rights may be limited by the Federal Constitution; but they still exist.

This is what Malaysia is. 

British Malaya: Balik ke pangkal jalan

Better hit the iron on the anvil while the metal is still hot. In this instance, the hot topic is our history involving the role of the British. As with all things historical, one must approach the matter with full objectivity and free oneself as far as reasonably possible from the taint of bias.

We are fortunate to have reprints of the source documents from which the British sought and obtained a legitimate legal presence in Peninsular Malaysia. 

Among the more significant treaties entered into between the British and the Malay Rulers was the Treaty of Pangkor that was signed in 1874. The preamble to the Treaty is an interesting read-

Whereas, a state of anarchy exists in the Kingdom of Perak owing to the want of settled government in the Country, and no efficient power exists for the protection of the people and for securing to them the fruits of their industry, and,

Whereas, large numbers of Chinese are employed and large sums of money invested in Tin mining in Perak by British subjects and others residing in Her Majesty's Possessions, and the said mines and property are not adequately protected, and piracy, murder and arson are rife in the said country, whereby British trade and interests greatly suffer, and the peace and good order of the neighbouring British Settlements are sometimes menaced, and,

Whereas, certain Chiefs for the time being of the said Kingdom of Perak have stated their inability to cope with the present difficulties, and together with those interested in the industry of the country have requested assistance, and,

Whereas, Her Majesty's Government is bound by Treaty Stipulations to protect the said Kingdom and to assist its rulers, now,

His Excellency Sir Andrew Clarke, Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements, in compliance with the said request, and with a view of assisting the said rulers and of affecting a permanent settlement of affairs in Perak, has proposed the following Articles of arrangements as mutually beneficial to the Independent Rulers of Perak, their subjects, the subjects of Her Majesty, and others residing in or trading with Perak, that is to say:-

(I have just selected the pertinent Article for you)

VI. Sixth. - That the Sultan receive and provided a suitable residence for a British Officer to be called Resident, who shall be accredited to the Court, and whose advice must be asked and acted upon on all questions (emphasis mine) other than those touching Malay Religion and Custom.

The next extract that I offer you is the Treaty of Federation that was signed in 1895. This treaty created the Federated Malay States comprising Perak, Selangor, Pahang and Negeri Sembilan.

I reproduce two pertinent paragraphs of the Treaty-

1. In confirmation of various previous Agreements, the Sultan of Perak, the Sultan of Selangor, the Sultan of Pahang, and the Chiefs of the States which form the territory known as the Negri Sembilan, hereby severally place themselves and their States under the protection (emphasis mine) of the British Government.

4. The above-named Rulers agree to accept a British Officer, to be styled Resident-General, as the agent and representative of the British Government under the Governor of the Straits Settlements. They undertake to provide him with suitable accommodation, with such salary as is determined by Her Majesty's Government, and to follow his advice on all matters of administration (emphasis mine) other than those touching the Muhammadan religion.

Everything needs a proper context. The Treaties mentioned above and the background to which each of the Treaties were arrived at has been studied and, is being studied by historians as they should rightly be.

Does the language of the Treaties effectively make the role of the British that of a colonial master?  

What is the difference between a "Protectorate" and a "Colony"?

I have my views. But, some times it is more fun to leave rhetorical questions.

1963: Swatches of history

By now any reasonably regular visitor to this blog would know how much of a history buff I can be. This is especially so at this time of the year, every year. It is the most important fortnight for our nation.

Here's 2 articles on Malaysia written in 1963 for Time magazine. It has an immediacy that I find very appealing. And, it's interesting to bear in mind that in 1963 the Cold War was raging in its full frozen fury. The feeling that there were Commies under every blade of grass was very real.

Nations were being formed, including Malaysia.

There was much concern in the U.S. as to whether the enlarged Malaysian nation could withstand the domino-effect that Communism could catalyse from Beijing to Hanoi to Vientiane to Bangkok to Kuala Lumpur to Jakarta. This was the nightmare scenario. 

As an aside, writing the sentence above reminded me of the late Nordin Sopiee's Ph.D thesis on the formation of Malaysia, which, made pretty cogent arguments along the above lines as one of the primary motivations for U.S. and British support for the formation of Malaysia.

It is in this context that the 2 articles below should be read.

Malaysia: Tunku Yes, Sukarno No

Friday, Sept. 06, 1963

In steamy, palm-shaded Kuching, capital of Sarawak, the day's biggest excitement is the firing of the 8 p.m. cannon on the lawn of government house. "What a dull place," said a United Nations official. "I don't know how we're going to survive three weeks here." At the insistence of Indonesia's President Sukarno, an eight-member U.N. team is present to "ascertain" whether Sarawak and North Borneo really want to join the Federation of Malaysia, which Sukarno bitterly opposes. As the U.N. ascertainers began to sample opinions around Sarawak, they were nearly stoned, not bored, to death.

In the Chinese-dominated town of Sibu, the Red-infiltrated Sarawak United People's Party (SUPP) staged a demonstration that turned into a 90-minute, stone-throwing riot. Only after police fired warning shots to disperse the mob could the U.N. team sit down —amidst broken glass in a Methodist schoolhouse—to interview local councilors. In Miri, Sarawak's oil-refining center, 3,000 Chinese-SUPPorted youths, wielding stones and bottles, screamed anti-Malaysia slogans until the police opened fire, wounding two, and tear gas forced them to scatter.

Date Set. Such outbursts will slightly delay but not derail the formation of Malaysia, originally scheduled for Aug. 31. In last summer's general elections, voters in both Sarawak and North Borneo decisively defeated anti-federation parties. 

Although Indonesia's shadow looms large, the Borneo people know they have nothing to gain from Djakarta but economic chaos and demagoguery. Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and British Colonial Secretary Duncan Sandys, who hastily flew to the scene, last week set Sept. 16 as the new birth date for the federation —two days after the U.N. mission's findings will be made public. Both are sure that the U.N. will find a clear majority in favor of Malaysia, but they insist that the federation will come into being regardless of the report. The British last week also turned over internal self-government to Borneo and Sarawak.

In a wrangle over details with the British, Indonesia failed to send observers to the U.N. mission, thus giving Sukarno an excuse to question the U.N. findings later. But faced with British determination to defend Malaysia by force, if necessary, Sukarno said: "If the Borneo peoples agree to join Malaysia, we will have to bow our heads and obey." But, added Sukarno, in an unbowed postscript: "Indonesia maintains its opposition to Malaysia."

Book Learning. An Indonesian guerrilla campaign against Borneo and Sarawak may well continue, since Djakarta always needs a foreign diversion to draw attention from domestic difficulties. In Indonesian Borneo, which adjoins Sarawak, Sukarno has set up guerrilla camps along 200 miles of border, and is training 1,000 Red-lining Chinese from Sarawak, following the guidelines of Indonesian Defense Minister General Abdul Haris Nasution, an expert on guerrilla warfare who has written his own book on the subject. Bands of his guerrillas pushed across the border to raid Dyak villages, clashed with patrols of British-led Gurkhas and Sarawak police. In a fire fight ten miles inside Sarawak, the Indonesians killed a British lieutenant and wounded several Gurkhas before being routed with heavy losses. Meanwhile, British officers are studying Nasution's book for clues to stop further Indonesian incursions.

So far, Indonesian terrorist attacks have only served to create a surge of pro-Malaysia feeling in Borneo and Sarawak. Almost nightly, the Indonesian embassy in North Borneo is plastered with slogans reading "Tunku Yes, Sukarno No." Although his people stopped head-hunting years ago, one Dyak chief told the U.N. fact finders that "if any more Indonesian bandits come into our territory, they may lose their heads."

Malaysia: Hurray for Harry

Friday, Sept. 20, 1963

When pretty Catherine Loh was elected Miss Malaysia last April, the pert beauty from the oil-rich British protectorate of Brunei fully expected to preside over the independence ceremonies of the newly formed Federation of Malaysia. But that was before Brunei withdrew from the planned federation in a state of pique, leaving Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo to go it alone. Brunei's defection not only left this week's joyous celebrations without a beauty queen but it also took Malaysia out of the running for the Miss Universe contest.

The beauty queen flap was low on the list of last-minute labor pains attending the long-awaited birth of Malaysia. At the insistence of Indonesia's belligerent President Sukarno, who bitterly opposes the federation, Malaysia's independence had been postponed two weeks beyond the original Aug. 31 starting date, while a United Nations team investigated whether or not North Borneo and Sarawak really wanted to join. Hoping to influence opinion against federation, Sukarno began moving paratroopers into Indonesian Borneo along his 900-mile-long border with the two territories. Some Indonesian guerrillas even sneaked through the jungles into Sarawak to stir up trouble; they were relentlessly hunted down by tough little British army Gurkhas, aided by half-naked Iban tribesmen, who hung up at least one Indonesian head in the rafters of their longhouses.

Fearful that Indonesia might extract further delays out of Malaya's easygoing Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, the architect of the federation, Singapore's brilliant, shifty Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who regards Sukarno as "an international blackmailer," swung into action. Flying to Sarawak and North Borneo, "Harry" Lee picked up the chief ministers of both territories and brought them back to Kuala Lumpur to stiffen up the Tunku. Britain's Commonwealth Secretary Duncan Sandys was also on hand, working hard to get agreement. Threatening to declare Singapore an independent state, Lee pressured Abdul Rahman into holding firm for the federation's Sept. 16 deadline.

Last week the final obstacle to independence was cleared away when the U.N.'s Malaysia team reported that both North Borneo and Sarawak favored the federation. As the new nation prepared to unfurl its red-and-white-striped flag, Harry Lee was quick to capitalize on the occasion. With his popularity at its zenith for his major role in bringing the federation about, he scheduled immediate elections in Singapore.

Merdeka

To all Malaysians near and far, I wish you SELAMAT MENYAMBUT HARI KEMERDEKAAN.

Constitution of the State of Selangor

The Constitution of the State of Selangor.

I have attached above the url link to the Constitution of the State of Selangor.

pix from here.

This time is a good opportunity to understand the importance of constitutions.

There are many explicit provisions and procedures in constitutions.

At the same time, there are many practices or conventions that have been taken for granted or overlooked.

pix from here.

This is as good a time as any to flick the dust of the Constitution of the State of Selangor and look at it with an objective and unbiased mind.

Nor should politics and partisanship dilute the executive powers vested in the Menteri Besar of Selangor.

What is the proper procedure for the appointment of the State Secretary of Selangor?

Who initiates the process of appointment of the State Secretary of Selangor?

Does the Menteri Besar of Selangor have any constitutional role to play in the appointment of the State Secretary of Selangor?

In these inquiries, let the Rule of Law be our guiding principle.

And, let not politics and partisanship affect the dignity and standing of DYMM Sultan Selangor.

Allah lanjutkan usia Tuanku.

-extracted from the State Anthem of Selangor-

The Parliament

Certain things need to be cherished and upheld as immutable and, yes, even sacred.

Even after 53 years of Merdeka, Malaysia is still a young country. We are still learning how to conduct ourselves as a parliamentary democracy. We are still growing and developing our multiracial and multireligious culture.

Iconoclastic subversion of constitutional institutions

Over the past two decades iconoclastic behaviour by previous leaders have led to a younger generation of political leaders who have no understanding, appreciation or respect of the importance of constitutional institutions.

In 1987, the Malaysian Judiciary was assaulted. The head of the Judiciary, then known as the Lord President, was unceremoniously sacked. This was followed by the sacking of three Judges of the apex Malaysian court, then known as the Supreme Court.

The Malaysian Judiciary has yet to recover from that shock. The quality of the Malaysian Judges has declined since 1987. Of course, we have some fine brains still in the Malaysian Bench. But the average judicial and legal intellect has dropped. That is a fact.

The Malaysian Civil Service has also been compromised during the same period. Intelligent civil servants of integrity have been supplanted by those who exhibit sycophantic behaviour; the colloquial term for them is kaki ampu.

Dilution of quality of political leaders

Within the rank and file of political parties strong characters have been actively marginalised and removed in place of more kaki ampu. Quantity, that is to say, the size of the membership prevailed over the quality of members.

This is a clear attempt at dilution. The Merdeka parties like UMNO, MCA and MIC are good examples. This is the trend and state of affairs that prominent bloggers like Sakmongkol has consistently railed against.

There is a clear inverse proportional effect between the size of a political party and the quality of its leadership and policy goals.

Patronage in the purest feudal sense has pervaded Barisan Nasional parties. This is a bad thing.

Over the past two decades, people who joined BN parties did so to gain economic advantage. They did not join for ideals. Now these people are in the majority. That is why it is impossible for BN component parties to institute reforms.

The importance of the Parliament Building

So, where does the Parliament fit into all of this, you may ask?

I hate to say this because it is not 100% accurate. But, in many ways the Parliament is well and truly the last bastion for Malaysia as nation.

Of course, a nation is a sum of its peoples. That is true.

But, peoples are an amorphous mass. It is shapeless and has no fixed direction.

The shape and direction is given by the Federal Constitution.

It is the Federal Constitution that legitimately creates the constitutional institutions such as the:

• Yang Di Pertuan Agung;

• Federation of eleven Peninsular States, Sabah and Sarawak;

• Conference of Rulers;

• Parliament (Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara);

• Prime Minister;

• Cabinet;

• Civil Service;

• Armed Forces;

• Police;

• Election Commission and so on.

Almost every one of the constitutional institutions enumerated above has been compromised over the past two decades, possibly with the sole exception of the Dewan Rakyat.

pix from here

The ONLY reason why the Dewan Rakyat has stood out immune against the subversion is because it is the ONLY institution that requires a renewal of mandate every 5 years or less.

And, the Parliament Building, is the home of the Dewan Rakyat.

To ordinary Malaysians the Parliament Building is the symbol of their right to send a message to the great power that is known as the Malaysian Government.

Take away the Parliament Building and, Malaysians will further lose our bearing.

I am not exaggerating.

Do not allow any attempt to move Parliament away from the Parliament Building. It is hallowed and sacred property.

In its hallways walk the ghosts and aura of the greatest Malaysians.

Please have some respect for them and for Malaysia's brief but meaningful history.

Lessons of History

It was my sister who, in the 1970s was (and, still is), a rabid Readers Digest subscriber, who received a sample book. The book was Lessons of History (1968) which is the prelude to an eleven volume work entitled The Story of Civilization, which was written over a stupendous span of four decades by the husband and wife team of historians, Will and Ariel Durant.

Since I first picked up the book I haven't let it go. We couldn't afford the eleven volumes, but we had the free book.

I feel sad that Readers Digest is experiencing financial problems presently, a victim of the changing fortunes caused by technology. But, I'm certain that it will rebound. It's brand value is sound. Their management should have gone further down the route of Hallmark (which started off as a mere greeting cards company) into the electronic media. It was just a case of poor product positioning. But, the brand value is there.

I have digressed.

pix from here

Back to the Durants and their seminal book.

I think it was the elegant prose that engaged me the first time. It was Love at first sight.

After that came the wisdom contained in the prose that were parenthesised by pivotal historical events.

Here's what I mean; the first chapter is modestly entitled, Hesitations, and it starts with this passage:

As his studies come to a close the historian faces the challenge: Of what use have your studies been? Have you found in your work only the amusement of recounting the rise and fall of nations and ideas, and retelling "sad stories of the death of kings"? Have you learned more about human nature than the man in the street can learn without so much as opening a book? Have you derived from history any illumination of our present condition, any guidance for our judgments and policies, any guard against the rebuffs of surprise or the vicissitudes of change? Have you found such regularities in the sequence of past events that you can predict the future actions of mankind or the fate of states? Is it possible that, after all, "history has no sense," that it teaches us nothing, and that the immense past was only the weary rehearsal of the mistakes that the future is destined to make on a larger stage and scale?

As you can judge for yourself, how can a teenager, reading the foregoing first passage of a book with such prose and, such penetrating questions, put it back down? And, the first chapter ends thus:

Since man is a moment in astronomic time, a transient guest of the earth, a spore of his species, a scion of his race, a composite of body, character, and mind, a member of a family and a community, a believer or doubter of faith, a unit in an economy, perhaps a citizen in a state or a soldier in an army, we may ask under the corresponding heads - astronomy, geology, geography, biology, ethnology, psychology, morality, religion, economics, politics, and war - what history has to say about the nature, conduct, and prospects of man. It is a precarious enterprise, and only a fool would try to compress a hundred centuries into a hundred pages of hazardous conclusions. We proceed.

I was enthralled.

Over the decades, the book has become an old and, ever wise, friend.

I just re-read one of the chapters of the book and found the following passage to be resonant:

Democracy is the most difficult of all forms of government, since it requires widespread intelligence, and we forgot to make ourselves intelligent when we made ourselves sovereign. Education has spread, but intelligence is perpetually retarded by the fertility of the simple. A cynic remarked that, "you mustn't enthrone ignorance just because there is so much of it." However, ignorance is not long enthroned, for it lends itself to manipulation by forces that mold public opinion. It may be true, as Lincoln supposed, that "you can't fool all the people all the time," but you can fool enough of them to rule a country.

- Will and Ariel Durant-
Lessons of History (1968)