Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times by Barry Wain (fantasy novels to read .TXT) 📕

the monarchy in a bruising, episodic battle that extended over more than a decade gave him the chance to display his formidable political skills and grit.

The failure of some of the sultans to stay within unwritten limits invited Dr. Mahathir to cut them down to size, which he did by reducing their standing in the eyes of the Malaysian public. Historically, the sultans were seen as the protectors of Malay interests, in return for which their subjects gave them unquestioned loyalty, though the rulers lost some of their prestige when they failed to back nationalist campaigns against the British colonial authorities. Dr. Mahathir had to overcome fear in the Malay community that his constitutional changes would undercut the privileged position of the Malays in a multiracial society in danger of being destabilized by the effects of modernization. His audacity in facing down the monarchs, diehard royalists and political opponents testified to how strongly he felt about his development agenda, and how ready he was to crush anyone or anything that got in his way.

Dr. Mahathir's personal triumph, however, came at a cost to both constitutional development and missed opportunity to genuinely reform the feudalistic monarchy. Malaysia's separation of powers doctrine, with power divided among different organs of government — legislative, judicial and executive — provides for a system of checks and balances. The Conference of Rulers — comprising the Malay hereditary rulers of the nine states, who routinely choose one among themselves to serve a five-year term as king, and the appointed governors of four states — is part of the system. Dr. Mahathir's two major clashes with the monarchy upset the balance of powers by strengthening the executive at the expense of the rulers, the balance further skewed by his simultaneous subordination of the judiciary.

Malaysia is one of four nation-states in Southeast Asia where once prevalent kingdoms, empires and principalities survived the depredations of Western colonialism or the nationalist revolutions it spawned. The nine royal houses were the remnants of as many as 30 small sultanates that prospered a thousand years ago along the Malay Peninsula. The grandest was Malacca, a great cosmopolitan trading port that flourished in the fifteenth century, before falling to European invaders. Surviving Malay monarchies benefited from indirect rule, in which colonial Britain found it expedient in the nineteenth century to impose control through traditional political structures. Outside Malacca and Penang, which were colonies where non-Malays formed a majority of the population, Britain kept the facade of royal legitimacy to simulate Malay political sovereignty. In reality, the sultans were obliged to accept the advice of a British official stationed in each state in all matters except Malay custom and the Muslim religion.

British intervention strengthened the royal houses by centralizing power within each state and regularizing succession in a single line. Chiefs, who headed major regions and lower divisions down to village level, lost out. Provided with funds to carry out their royal duties as well as substantial personal allowances, the sultans saw their prestige rise along with their lifestyle. British recognition of the sovereignty of the sultans, amidst massive Chinese and Indian immigration, turned them into living symbols of the status of all Malays as the true sons of the soil.[2]

After World War II and the Japanese occupation, the returning British introduced a radical plan that stripped the sultans of their sovereignty and combined the nine states with Malacca and Penang to form a single colony called the Malayan Union. Although Malay nationalists were able to mobilize and form UMNO to block the Malayan Union, the rulers stood accused of selling out. They had signed treaties transferring sovereignty to the British crown, and though they claimed they acted under duress, the demystification of the monarchy had begun.[3] Malay-language newspapers charged the rulers with betraying the Malays and committing treason. UMNO's first leader, Onn Jaafar, coined the cry "Hidup Melayu", long live the Malays, adapted from the familiar "Hidup Raja-raja Melayu", long live the rajas, kings. The rulers heeded an UMNO warning not to attend the inauguration of the Malayan Union in 1946, marking the point at which the will of the people prevailed over traditional power.[4]

The Federation of Malaya, negotiated with the British by a joint committee of UMNO and the rulers and formed in 1948 to replace the Malayan Union, recovered the thrones for the sultans. They became constitutional monarchs, remaining the head of religion in their own states, to safeguard Malay rights and privileges and be symbols of Malay identity and paramountcy. Under the Federation of Malaya Agreement, the sultans had special veto powers on immigration, which could be employed to prevent a further influx from China and India. Each state got its own constitution, and the sultans governed in accordance with British advice as before. Non-hereditary governors were appointed in Malacca and Penang. Although each sultan exercised the authority of the state, it was a pure formality as he was required to give assent to bills passed by the state legislature.

At independence in 1957, the Federal Constitution stipulated that a king would replace the British High Commissioner as head of state. The unique concept of the rulers regularly electing one among themselves to be Yang diPertuan Agong, king, was adopted at the suggestion of Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first prime minister and head of UMNO. Malay supremacy was thus symbolically extended to the whole of Malaya, including Malacca and Penang, and to Sabah and Sarawak as well on the formation of Malaysia in 1963. The king was to give effect to provisions safeguarding "the special position of the Malays", such as fixing quotas in the civil service, schools and universities, and allocating scholarships and commercial licences, a duty he exercised in practice on the advice of the prime minister. The Conference of Rulers, which for some specific purposes consists of only the nine sultans, was given a veto over any laws directly affecting their "privileges, position, honours or dignities".

Having stayed above the turbulent political fray in the 1960s, the rulers had