Johor minefield

In the Malay Mail Online House buyers welcome new Johor bill Chang Kim Loong who is the secretary general National House Buyers Association (HBA) appeared at first glance to be saying something totally at odds with the opinions of most Malaysians including both sides of politics.

malay mail online photo

What he said about the controversial proposed housing board bill to be tabled at the Johor state assembly today, was that it would be a step in the right direction.

However, if you read on, he then qualified his rice-bowl (= profession’s) statement by stating: “The bill is a welcomed enactment by HBA but we feel rulers should not be part of the set up as the Sultan should not be involved in the administrative business of the elected state government. After all, the state government has the executive power to run the state.”

Chang is in the end of the same opinion as most Malaysians.

However, his professional counterpart, Michael Yam, president of Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association Malaysia, is typically Chinese in being more (oxymoronically or yang-yin-ishly) forthright yet circumspect, an old Chinese specialty which younger Chinese Malaysians have not been well taught on, wakakaka.

What Michael Yam opined on the Johor Housing & Real Property Bill has been: “We are on sensitive ground here, and I would not like to speculate until the full understandings and implications of the act is [sic] known.”

But even then, he couldn't resist saying “Needless to say, all legislation emanating from the state should be aligned both in principle with the constitution,” thus revealing his inner feelings on the issue, wakakaka.

One highly sensitive issue in Malaysia, even more so than religion, has been and still is the sacrosanctity of a Malay ruler, who captures in his royal self all that Malays menjunjung tinggi (uphold highly or very dear), a God-King status not unlike the Chinese 'Mandate of Heaven' for their respective Emperors.

Chinese and Indian Malaysians are well advised to ether stand clear of or excise extreme prudence when commenting on or about a Malay ruler.

Strangely, many older Chinese and Indians are actually staunch monarchists at heart, perhaps possessing closer memories of their respective homeland dynastic monarchs as well as their ethnic social-cultural (and in the case of Indians, also religious) indoctrination. My own maternal granddad was a staunch monarchist.

Few would be the Indians who do not thrilled to the exploits of Rama, the son of a king and eventually a king himself, despite recent scholarly dissertations he was quite a cad in his treatment of his wife Sita. He also exhibited the most arrogant ketuanan mentality and injustice in justifying his sneak-murder of Vali, King of the Vanara.

King Vali, murdered by Rama

And we know that quite a many Chinese and Indian Malaysians take pride in being honoured with awards by the rulers, though we accept that yes, some of them aim for such honours only for practical business reasons, wakakaka.

Anyway, Malay rulers! Chinese and Indian Malaysians! Do you notice any issue standing out?

Well, if you don’t then just hang on for a while, wakakaka.

Now let me share some of my earlier (post 05 March 2008) thoughts with you. There was a brief hopeful and near orgasmic moment (or two, wakakaka) when I thought HRH’s of Perak and Selangor, both being well-educated and modern thinkers, would come in from the left field and innovatively approve non-Malays as MB in their respective states. 

But in Selangor, not even a non-Malay deputy MB was allowed, let alone a MB! This relates to a 2008 hope amongst Pakatan (or rather, DAP wakakaka) supporters in Selangor that sassy Teresa Kok might be appointed deputy MB.

Teresa Kok

a Chinese Malaysian mystery, a Selangorean yet not a Selangorean

 wakakaka

Then state secretary Muhammad Munir claimed that the deputy MB should ideally be a Malay to assist the MB in Islamic and cultural duties. But Professor Abdul Aziz Bari pordah-ed that argument.

The Prof said: “The Sultan of Selangor does not need the menteri besar or the deputy menteri besar in matters pertaining to religion and Malay custom.”

According to the Prof, the sultan, as the head of Islamic matters and the Malay adat, was (still is) in fact THE PERSON in charge of such matters in the state, and not the MB or his deputy.

He said: “Matters cited by the palace are entirely within the sultan's jurisdiction. As the sultan may act on his own discretion on these matters, the constitution provides that a council may be appointed to assist him. This is what is commonly known as religious councils or majlis agama, which looks after the religious department or the jabatan agama. In the other four states and federal territories, the Agong will have the same establishment.”

Prof Aziz also commented that a prolonged delay in the appointment of a deputy MB was unnecessary and might even be unconstitutional.

But when Khalid Ibrahim was asked whether the appointment of a Deputy MB had been postponed or scrapped altogether, he as usual side-stepped the issue by stating the need to explain the matter (what?) properly to the people (who?), and that he would do this after the executive councillors had been sworn-in (why?).

But had he ever done that?

That was one of Khalid Ibrahim's greatest shames which over the last five years we have come to realize even more, with increased regrets. 

In the end, Teresa Kok was NOT appointed as deputy MB in the previous DUN session, enabling Khalid Ibrahim to live happily ever after ... well, until now, wakakaka. 

Hence Malay rulers, Chinese and Indian Malaysians!

And there’s buggerall the nons can say anything, for as I've mentioned earlier: One sensitive issue in Malaysia has been and still is the sacrosanctity of the Malay rulers, which Chinese and Indian Malaysians are well advised to ether stand clear of or excise extreme prudence when commenting on.

Thus yesterday I was shocked and yet not shocked (wakakaka, that’s the Tao part in me and I'll come to it later) when I read TMI’s Utusan says will snub Johor palace over criticism on new bill which reported:

Utusan Malaysia today said it would not answer any royal summons to appear before the Sultan of Johor, following the paper's criticism against a controversial plan to include the ruler in the state's administration. […]

The Umno mouthpiece said if the Johor palace was unhappy with the criticism and wanted to reprimand or clarify, it could send a representative to meet the daily's editors.

Of course the UMNO mouthpiece (in the editorial pseudonym of Awang Selamat) couched its Jebat-ish defiance with courtly words like "Awang does not think that Sultan Ibrahim will cheapen his status as a ruler by calling Utusan Malaysia to appear before him. Awang believes that Sultan Ibrahim, although known to be firm, is a gentleman."

... something which everyone including kaytee have been doing, wakakaka, when we do not support the bill.

It's not unlike my mum telling me "It's for your own good" when she caned the living daylight out of naughty me as if those altruistic words could have mollified me or take away the sting of the rattan, wakakaka.

But unlike Chang Kim Loong and Michael Yam mentioned above who (being Chinese) were both more circumspect, Utusan could not resist continuing in Jebat-ish fashion:

"Moreover, times have also changed. The media must stop being overly worried about criticism involving the rulers.

"This is the common question among media practitioners every time a sensitive issue arises regarding the Johor palace. "The anxiety of media practitioners towards this issue should stop immediately. There is no reason for such anxiety in today's new media landscape.”

TMI also reported: Awang said there was no reason for high-ranking palace officials to reprimand reporters and editors.

Instead, he said in other countries with monarchies, it was a common practice for the media to send their representatives to the palace.

"That is how it is done in palaces in Europe, Japan and Thailand, even the royal institutions in other states in Malaysia. This is to avoid misunderstandings as if parties are being bullied."

Has Utusan signalled that it's open season for the royal royalty hunt?

Now, recall I said (after reading above Utusun's blast) that I was shocked and yet not shocked.

My shocked part had been as per above where the mouthpiece of UMNO, meaning it's UMNO itself, multiplied by Dr Mahathir's warning plus Najib's soft yet unmistakably disapproving statement, have shown their collective disapproval of the Johor MB's intention to air a bill which would alter the construct of constitutional monarchy as we know it, and perhaps unwittingly set the monarchy on a gradual path towards absolute rule.

My 'yet not shocked' part has been my recollection of the 10 December 1992 parliamentary session, when an UMNO bloke walloped the rulers as follows:

"How can we continue to uphold rulers who are known to be robbers, adulterers, drunkards and kaki pukul(thugs)?" [...]

"They (the rulers) must be made to realize that they do not own this country. They are not Superman but placed on their thrones by the people."

"The real power did not lie with them, but with us - the representatives of the people."

Aiyoyo, rulers who are known to be robbers, adulterers, drunkards and kaki pukul (thugs)? Imagine if a Chinese MP had said that!

Another UMNO bloke wakakaka, said the following:

"After the struggle for India's independence in 1947, Deputy Prime Minister Sardar V Patel was given the task of negotiating with the Rulers to phase out them.:

"Patel rounded up the Maharajas and put them in a hotel. On the first day of discussion, he could not get them to agree to the Government's proposal.”

"On the second day, he placed soldiers around the perimeter of the hotel. On the third day, he cut the electricity supply; on the fourth day, he stopped the water supply and on the fifth day, he stopped food from being brought in. On the sixth day, all the Rulers, who were confined to the building, agreed to the government proposals.”

"When Patel was asked why he did not obtain the consent of the Rulers in a normal fashion, Patel replied, 'Do you ask the consent of the chicken before it is slaughtered?'"

"A similar approach could have been taken to solve the present problem with the Rulers."

[above quoted from a post at Dewan Pemuda PAS Serdang blog]

Wow, slaughtering our rulers like chooks a la the Maharajahs? Who would dare say that other than an UMNO person, who of course would have been sanctioned by UMNO.

But these have been exactly what Dr Mahathir, Royal Dentist Extraordinaire (wakakaka), warned about recently when he stated: "There is already a feeling of disrespect for the royals. This may lead to other forms of disrespect."

do you have a toothache?

wakakaka

I observed that ever since Dr Mahathir retired there was a sort of Operations Royal Clawback, as we had noticed in Perlis, Terengganu, Perak and now perhaps Johor.

Mind, RPK in his Johor triggering a constitutional crisis, yet again wrote:

The Johor palace has always had what we could probably call ‘special powers’, for want of a better term, compared to the other eight Malaysian royal households. Even Singapore ‘closes one eye’ to the antics of the Johor royalty rather than risk rubbing them the wrong way — which is unique for Singapore which takes no shit from anyone (other than just the Johor royalty).

The Johor palace has always attracted controversy that makes the other royal households cringe and shudder. For example, ............ [...]

The Johor palace has always reminded me of England in the 1500s. The King was capable of sacking the Pope and of inventing a new branch of Christianity with him as the head (plus he put to death all the Papalists) just to show who is the boss.

And that is what the Johor palace is, a power above the law with a Sultan appointed by God. And because of Johor, most likely the days of the Republic of Malaysia may not be too far down the road. But then again this may not happen just yet in our lifetime. Nevertheless, if the members of the royal family are not careful, it will eventually happen one day in the future.

So be warned!

Exactly what Dr Mahathir had ominously warned a few days ago!

But harkening back to 7 November 2008, Malaysiakini published Raja Nazrin: Rulers will not act on wrong advice in which the regent of Perak but now-Sultan Raja Nazrin talked about “the rulers are part of national institutions whose role is to strengthen the democratic system by carrying out the check and balance responsibility and the function as an independent tribunal for the legislative, executive and judiciary branches.”

He stated that “Generally, the rulers act based on the advice by government leaders elected by the people. Nevertheless, the rulers cannot accede to acts which do not symbolise justice or sanction moves which do not mirror truth.”

He was basically saying (as reported by Malaysiakini): The rulers would not agree with the advice from government leaders which goes against the spirit of the constitution, rule of law and universal principles of justice.

The way I had read it, he was attempting to carve a role for rulers beyond that of a constitutional monarch. 

Instead of some actually rejoicing that we might be benefitting from some so-called royal ‘check & balance’, au contraire I was then filled with dread.

But yessiree,I was/still am a Chinese Malaysian who has had to shut my mouth on such sensitive issues surrounding royalty, but ampun Tuanku, I have to confess I was then not impressed in the least by HRH's speech.

The democracy of Malaysia, warts and all, already has a system of ‘check & balance’, which admittedly didn't work too well until around 2008, but then, when it didn't work well, where were the royalty?

Yes, that 'part of national institutions whose role is to strengthen the democratic system by carrying out the check and balance responsibility and the function as an independent tribunal for the legislative, executive and judiciary branches', as pronounced by HRH, just where was it?

Why then did our democratic system of the tripartite ‘check & balance’ (executive, legislative and judiciary) begin to awake from its Rip-Van-Winkle-an slumber sometime around 2008 (perhaps slightly earlier)?

I then thought maybe AAB had loosened the shackles, maybe Anwar Ibrahim (wakakaka) had provided the leadership, maybe the people had been sick of the arrogance of unfettered racism and the rampant exploitation of politics for reasons of individual avarice, and thus would be more prepared to exert their voice, etc?

hehehe, dah pencen liao lah

A kid of 'sudahlah' awakening, so to speak!

Whoever, whichever, whatever, our political reawakening and enjoyment of a more liberal political environment had/have been attained without any help from royalty! Not an iota! None whatsoever!

Besides, there was none forthcoming!

They were deafeningly silent when they should have spoken out, but now, like us they too would like to flex their own Mahathirised-atrophied muscles (wakakaka) in the changing socio-political environment, and reinvent their role in and relevance to society, to enhance their personal status and claw back their stripped down power.

But alas, there's not much a 'non' could have done, not previously nor currently, for we have to stay away from what was/still is an obvious socio-politico-cultural minefield, wakakaka.

Ultimately, it's all up to the Malays for afterall, wasn't it a Malay who had dared to say: Raja adil raja disembah, raja zalim raja disanggah (A fair king is a king to obey, a cruel king is a king to fight against).

No, I'm not referring to the son of Tan Sri Muhammad Ali Hashim, former Johor Corp (JCorp) chairman, who returned three state medals to the Johor Council of Royal Court, after the latter accused him of ridiculing the Sultan of Johor in an eulogy to his son. He published his son's poem in Sinar Harian on 02 Dec 2013, and which contained the above Malay quotation. Incidentally Tan Sri has also spoken out against the proposed bill.

The author of those words was Hang Jebat.

Bro, our fight will become both a problem and example for future generations, a troubling dilemma for them

In concluding, I leave you with what seems to be a constitutional advice by Karl Otto von Schonhausen Bismarck:

Der Konig herrscht aber regiert nicht (The king reigns but does not govern).