PM Mahathir versus Johor Sultan

MM Online - Stay out of Johor’s affairs, Sultan says (extracts)

JOHOR BARU, April 10 — Johor ruler Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar has issued a warning to unnamed parties who have been interfering with Johor’s affairs, saying that the state still has a sultan.
“With regards to Johor, do not interfere with the affairs of this state because this sovereign state still has a Sultan.

“I am currently abroad, but have been following the progress in the country, especially for Johor, through various reports,” Sultan Ibrahim said in a Facebook post.

“I will make the best decision for my people when the time comes,” he added.

Sultan Ibrahim’s statement comes after Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had said that the role of appointing the new Johor mentri besar lies with the party that won the election, not with the Sultan of Johor.

As I've written yesterday, constitutional monarchs 'reign but not rule' - note plural in 'monarchs' as Malaysia has one Yang Dipertuan Agong (federal paramount ruler) and nine sultans as rulers of nine states.

The exceptions to having state rulers are the states of Penang, Malacca, Sarawak and Sabah, all being ruled directly by the Yang Dipertuan Agong or King).

Wikipedia informs us that:

British political scientist Vernon Bogdanor, paraphrasing Thomas Macaulay, has defined a constitutional monarch as "A sovereign who reigns but does not rule".

In addition to acting as a visible symbol of national unity, a constitutional monarch may hold formal powers such as dissolving parliament or giving royal assent to legislation.

However, the exercise of such powers is largely strictly in accordance with either written constitutional principles or unwritten constitutional conventions, rather than any personal political preference imposed by the sovereign.

In The English Constitution, British political theorist Walter Bagehot identified three main political rights which a constitutional monarch may freely exercise:

. the right to be consulted,

. the right to encourage, and

. the right to warn.

Many constitutional monarchies still retain significant authorities or political influence however, such as through certain reserve powers, and may also play an important political role.

The United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms are all constitutional monarchies in the Westminster system of constitutional governance.

Two constitutional monarchies – Malaysia and Cambodia – are elective monarchies, wherein the ruler is periodically selected by a small electoral college.

Also, the Federation of Malaysia has set rules (or laws) pertaining to state prerogatives, such as religious rights (where the state ruler is head of Islamic laws, governance, administration and policy making, and state land rights. Sabah and Sarawak enjoy more automous rights but this post does not intend to discuss those, yet anyway.

On the last state right of land, namely, state land rights, it is not to say the royal ruler of each state decides on disposal and administration of the state land (other than those he personally or as a ruler owns). The job is that of the Dewan Undang2 Negeri (DUN) where the MB is head of the state cabinet (exco) in the DUN.

But as we have seen recently, the Johor ruler has assertively made his claims over Johor land. Thus fra, no one dares to rebut him on his (this) assertion, but that doesn't mean HM has been correct.

Meanwhile MM Online has also published Dr M: Malaysia would be an ‘absolute monarchy’ if rulers allowed to choose PM, MBs (extracts)

KUALA LUMPUR, April 10 — Malaysia would no longer be a democratic country if monarchs were allowed to choose the prime minister and mentri besars, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said today.

Responding to Johor ruler Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar’s warning to unnamed parties to stay out of the state’s affairs, Dr Mahathir said Malaysia would have been ruled by an absolute monarchy if that were to take place.

“I am in the opinion that if we assume that those who chose PMs and MBs were the monarchs, we will no longer be a democratic country anymore.

“This is because a party that was rightfully chosen by the people that has the power to appoint MBs have had their rights denied and thus undemocratic. We would be a country with an absolute monarchy,” he said during a press conference in Parliament today.

Personally, much as I don't like Mahathir, constitutionally I have to agree with him, wakakaka.

Of course a MB has to be protocol-wise and practical-wise be accepted/approved by HRH of the respective state (or HM Johor), or the MB (CM) working with a hostile ruler would find his working life unbearable and almost (although not totally) impossible.

As I've written earlier, I respectfully disagree with my matey RPK who defends the royal presence as a vigorious 4th branch of government in Malaysia, namely, (1st branch) Executive (PM and cabinet), (2nd) Legislative (Parliament - Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara), (3rd) Judiciary and (4th) Royalty.

I subscribe to the original Westminster model where there is only the former three (minus Royalty).  Most Commonwealth nations who have inherited-adopted the Westminster model, eg. India, Australia, NZ, Canada, Singapore (and more) have complied with the same example as set by the British - those like India and Singapore have constitutional 'heads of state' (presidents or GG or 'Big Boss' or whatever) instead of a royal head.

Queen Elizabeth II of Britain, Canada, Australia & New Zealand

President Ram Nath Kovind of India

President Halimah Yacob of Singapore 

But I did acknowledge that in our still feudalistic-minded Malaysian society, RPK may be effectively-practically correct if not legally so.

Yes, in Malaysia the royals have successful burrowed into the mindset of their citizens as a factual if not legal component of the government.

And the more assertive the state ruler is, the more grip he would have amongst his (state) citizens. Indeed, compare the assertive personalities of HM Sultan of Johor with that of the previous (almarhum) HRH Sultan of Kedah (I apologise to the current HRH Kedah as I do not have the oportunity to observe his character).

Everyone knows the DNA of the Johor royal, with the previous (almarhum) ruler being the most terrifying, the current the most fair and loved, and the future (TMJ) as yet unknown though he has shown bits and pieces of his granddad.

When the current Johor ruler published his royal policy that he be addressed formally as 'His Majesty' (HM) rather than 'His Royal Highness' (HRH), I scented trouble with a capital 'T'.

I admit I had wildly speculated HM might be considering an autonomous rule for Johor, quite separated from (and with the minimum) Malaysian federal rule and polices, and very close association with (as well as guidance from) Singapore.

HM must have sensed Johor is in a terrific-strategic location as the state borders a 1st world nation and is also nearby to the very rich nation of Indonesia. Its eastern flank can be developed to receive enormous trading directly from China (including HK, Macau and Taiwan), Japan, South Korea and the rapidly developing Vietnam.

But please ignore me - as I have said I was wildly speculating, wakakaka.

Anyway, back to the core of this post, I smell trouble ahead for Putrajaya (Mahathir) versus Kota Iskandar-Muar (HM Sultan Johor), both of whom already have an ongoing vendetta from yester-years (with previous Sultan) and which has been further exacerbated by Mahathir's very hostile attitude towards Johor's Forest City development (because of Mahathir's hatred for Najib and Chinese).

Constitutionally-legally Mahathir is right that the Johor Sultan is a constitutional (and NOT an absolue) ruler and should reign (not rule) kuai-kuai, but then, how strong is HM's influence among the Malays? 

Related:

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