Malaysia's constitutional monarchs as "Sovereign who reign AND also rule".

Yesterday I posted Government, stop scaring Malaysians with coup d'etat ogre in which I said (extracts):

I find it difficult to believe HM Sultan of Johor has been clueless about the Rome Statute. What is His Majesty of Darul Ta'zim thinking and doing?

Has HM's problem been an issue of one-upmanship or dissatisfaction with Mahathir and not with the current government?

Was the alleged coup d'etat brought nearly to the boil to remove Mahathir per se?

Earlier today, I followed above up with Malaysia's 'Deep State"? in which I quoted MKINI's columnist P Guanasegaram (extracts) as follows:

The government and the larger public cannot be held to ransom by the dark side or the deep state, whatever that may be. Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah had talked about a vague deep state which may overthrow a democratically-elected government through undemocratic means, implying a coup.

This is a very serious allegation. It is incumbent upon this government to get to the root of the matter and establish if there is any such move to overthrow the government and bring the perpetrators to book. We are talking about treason here, nothing else.

If no such evidence is forthcoming, then members of the government should stop such fear-mongering and go on about the business of running the country efficiently, honestly and with regard to all citizens, keeping as much as possible of the promises they made during the last election campaign.

I continued in above post with some extracts of an article by FMT's columnist A Kathirasen, as follows:

... in an elected government there is a coterie of political leaders and their businessmen friends who actually rule – as happened during previous administrations. But at least the government of the day is duly elected.

Is the existence of this “deep state” the reason for reforms initiated by the government being stymied?

... and also asked my own question, to wit:

... is the current Pakatan government seizing such a 'story' to explain away what Kathirasen has just written, to wit, the reason for reforms initiated by the government being stymied.

Well, before I can answer my own question, TMJ has come out with his twin six-shooters blazing away, as reported by MM Online's Johor crown prince confirms MB to be swapped, but on sultan’s decree.

Extracts from that article said:

Johor Crown Prince Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim confirmed speculation that Mentri Besar Datuk Osman Sapian will be replaced but not on orders from Pakatan Harapan.
Instead, he said on Twitter said that Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar decreed months ago that a successor be found for Osman.

“However, somebody else is taking the credit and mileage, claiming that he ordered it,” he said on his official Twitter account today. [...]

In a later tweet, Tunku Ismail expressed hope that the new Johor MB will not be a “yes man” to the federal government but a person who prioritised the welfare of the state and its residents.

Well, he (TMJ) has done it, giving Mahathir two fingers in saying the Johor Sultan will decide who's to be the new MB and Putrajaya stays the eff out.

Constitutionally, in a Westminster style democracy, TMJ nor HM Sultan of Johor cannot do that. Thus effectively, they too have given the "bird" to the Constitution.

While protocol says the Sultan "picks" the MB, constitutionally HM has to "pick" the winning state candidate who has the confidence of the majority party after the state election.

Alas, this constitutional requirement, of appointing a MB or CM, has been ignored several times by royalty of various states (Perlis, Terengganu, Selangor and now Johor).

But my matey RPK, in defending those royal prerogatives, has often said that in Malaysia we have four, not three, branches of the government, namely, (a) Executive (PM and cabinet), (b) Legislative (Parliament - Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara), (c) Judiciary and (d) Royalty.

I respectfully disagree with him though in practice in our still feudalistic-minded society, he may be effectively correct if not legally so.

Thomas Macaulay has been said to be the person who defined a constitutional monarch as "A sovereign who reigns but does not rule".

And that's who HM the Suiltan of Johor is, a constitutional monarch who reigns but must abide by the people's voice as expressed through their elected representatives.

But today, his son TMJ has given two fingers to that. It's not a pleasant scenario, and as I suspect earlier, it has to do with the bad vibes between the Johor Royal House and Mahathir. 

STOP PRESS

MM Online - Dr Mahathir confirms Osman Sapian quits as Johor MB, says successor to be named soon.