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

their collective role strengthened when the Malaysian Parliament was restored in 1971, following its suspension at the time of the racial riots in 1969. Controversially, the Constitution was amended to require Conference of Rulers' consent in the passing of a number of important kinds of legislation, including some constitutional amendments. Principally, the laws entrenched in this way relate to matters popularly known as the "sensitive issues": citizenship, the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak, and the legitimate interests of others, the national language and the rulers themselves.[5] Moreover, both the Constitution and the Sedition Act were amended to make it illegal to question these matters, even in Parliament. These severe restrictions were imposed on freedom of speech and expression to limit public discussion of topics that might again upset racial harmony. Reinforcing the rulers' position by adding "reassurance to assurance", as one analyst termed it, was part of a multi-pronged effort to make Malays feel more secure about their place in multi-ethnic Malaysia.[6]

While the arrangements worked fairly well in the early years, there were signs that some of the rulers had not fully subscribed to the concept of constitutional monarchy. Based on the Westminster model, Malaysia's Constitution is one in which convention rather than law is a major source of rules.[7] The sultans had a different notion of their prerogatives from that which is scrupulously observed by their British counterparts.[8] For example, they found it hard to grasp that while they held "discretionary powers" to appoint the state political leader — the chief minister, known as mentri besar in the sultanates — it was no longer their prerogative to do so. According to the principles of constitutional monarchy, they were expected to accept the nomination of the ruling party, which usually meant the prime minister's choice. Similarly, giving royal assent to laws passed by elected state legislatures was supposed to be a formality. But some rulers still interfered in the appointment of chief ministers and members of executive councils, which functioned as state cabinets. They also lobbied hard and embarrassingly for increased personal allowances and handouts, while spending conspicuously and often frivolously.

In 1963, Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman reminded the sultans of Perak and Selangor, who were at odds with their state governments, that they were symbols and must steer clear of politics. The same year he also had to settle a fuss made by the Selangor sultan, who called a press conference to complain about conditions that the state government imposed on ten acres of land it granted him in Kuala Lumpur. Declaring himself personally insulted, he said, "As a ruler, I have power over land matters in the state of Selangor."[9] True enough, under the Federal Constitution land was a state responsibility — and a source of wealth as the Malaysian economy took off and the New Economic Policy kicked in — but control of land was devolved to elected politicians. Yet this sultan and others were able to exert considerable influence because the momentum of their traditional role carried over into what was ostensibly a fully representative and democratic system.[10] The Constitution notwithstanding, it was simply hard to say "no" to a ruler. In Kelantan in the 1970s, the sultan demanded and received a new palace "for his indulgence towards certain questionable dealings in timber and other concessions", by which Chief Minister Mohamed Asri Muda attempted to raise funds simultaneously for the state budget, his Parti Islam Se-Malaysia and private pockets.[11] As the New Economic Policy opened business opportunities for bumiputras, a similar "economic nexus in ruler-executive relations" spread to nearly every Malay state.[12]

As the Father of Independence and a prince himself, Tunku Abdul Rahman was uniquely placed to offer gentle advice to erring sultans and their ever more numerous — and sometimes arrogant, wayward and avaricious — relatives. For the most part, though, the subject remained taboo, with potential critics deterred by the constitutional prohibition on questioning the sovereignty of the rulers, the widened Sedition Act, and a general belief that they were courting trouble if they spoke up. Chandra Muzaffar, a prominent intellectual, made a cautious case in 1979 for critically examining the behaviour of rulers. He said some aspects of the institution could — and should — be discussed in public: "The alleged utilization of public funds for private purposes, the apparent extravagance in lifestyles, involvement in businesses, interference in strictly political matters, the inability to uphold high ethical standards and most of all, the absence of an image of excellence which can inspire emulation...".[13] Although his study was a persuasive argument for a responsible public debate, it was not forthcoming.

Dr. Mahathir's tenure as deputy prime minister coincided with a bout of "political activism" by the royalty, which began in the mid-to-late 1970s.[14] The Sultan of Kelantan persuaded the regent, who happened to be his son and crown prince, to postpone dissolution of the state legislature, recommended by Chief Minister Mohamad Nasir after he lost a no-confidence vote. The sultan was manoeuvring to keep Parti Islam Se-Malaysia in power without having an election, but the UMNO-led federal government stepped in amidst the turmoil and imposed central control on the state. In Perak, the sultan got rid of Chief Minister Mohamed Ghazali Jawi after a long campaign, expressing his delight by shaving off his protest beard and turning the occasion into a fireworks and drum-beating celebration for family members, civil servants and community leaders. A similar situation occurred in Johore, where the sultan prevailed on the federal government to remove Chief Minister Othman Saat.

In the case of Pahang, Prime Minister Hussein Onn, who was committed to reducing corruption, imposed his choice of Abdul Rahim Bakar as chief minister on the protesting sultan. While the sultan sought to invoke the principle of consultation, with the implication of a possible veto, he was actually seeking a "malleable" chief minister who was "essential for the rapid or rule-bending processing of land alienation at preferential rates".[15] Already feeling slighted, the sultan was doubly annoyed