Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Misleading rulers - is it a crime?

By now, re the Rome Statute and Malaysia's shameful failure to sign same, we know the story of why we, Malaysians, have let ourselves down as responsible citizens of the civilised world in refusing to support the moral imperatives of peace, justice and non-aggression.

Four academics prepared a paper and warned the Malay rulers that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court as the supreme commander of the country’s armed forces if our soldiers were to commit war crimes.

But first, what is the Rome Statute?

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (often referred to as the International Criminal Court Statute or the Rome Statute) is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome on 17 July 1998 and it entered into force on 1 July 2002.

The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

MM Online informed that the paper was purportedly prepared by Universiti Teknologi Mara’s deputy vice-chancellor and dean of Faculty of Law Prof Datuk Rahmat Mohamad, International Islamic University of Malaysia’s law lecturer Assoc Prof Shamrahayu Ab Aziz, and Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia’s law lecturers Fareed Mohd Hassan and Hisham Hanapi.

Was their advice relevant and helpful to the Agong and rulers?

The Star Online published Treaty on ICC no threat to royals which was authored by Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi, Malaysian Professor of Law in the University of Malaya, currently holding the Tunku Abdul Rahman Chair as Professor of Constitutional Law. He has served Universiti Teknologi MARA in Shah Alam, Selangor in various capacities from 1971 onwards. 

Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi 

He informed us (extracts):

As a member of the United Nations, Malaysia should support the moral imperatives of peace, justice and non-aggression and applaud the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Statute is about prosecuting offenders who commit the heinous crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

Instead, there are voices of opposition to the ratification of the Rome Treaty on the frivolous ground that it would destroy the immunity of the Rulers, the special position of the Malays and the position of Islam.

These fears are absolutely unfounded and bereft of logic, and appear to be based on advice that is motivated by politics, not law, emotion, not reason. The advice misleads Their Majesties and paints Their Royal Highnesses in a bad light.

It is as if Their Majesties are siding with defeated politicians who find fault with everything the government attempts. It is as if our Rulers condone genocide and other inhumane acts.

But if in the future some genocidal politicians, members of the police, army or militia commit such wrongs, then indeed the ICC will have jurisdiction over them. In fact, even if the Rome Statute were not ratified or if Malaysia were to withdraw from the ICC, international crimes can still be prosecuted in two ways.

First, the ICC may have jurisdiction if it is authorised by the UN Security Council. Second, the UN may create ad hoc tribunals similar to the ones for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. So, ratification or no ratification, in the present state of international law, perpetrators may have no place to hide.

The treaty has no impact on State Rulers as Their Majesties do not have any role in the army, the police or the execution of foreign policy. Neither are Islam or the Malay position threatened in any way other than in some people’s fertile imagination.
As to the Rulers’ immunity, the answer to that is that since the 1993 amendment to Articles 182 and 183 of the Federal Constitu­tion, the Rulers have no more immunity from civil or criminal prosecution within Malaysia.

Foreign immunity still exists (as under the case of Mighell v Sultan of Johor, 1894) but not for the four crimes mentioned in the Rome Statute.

The position of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is more complex. His Majesty is the Supreme Head of the Federation (Article 32) and the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces (Article 41). Could he, like President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, be prosecuted and convicted for the crimes committed by his subordinates?

Omar al-Bashir

It is submitted that His Majesty is not liable for any international crimes.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong acts on advice. There is a clear distinction between our Yang di-Pertuan Agong and dictators and absolute rulers like Bashir of Sudan. Bashir has been at the helm of the country for 30 years.

Our King is a constitutional monarch who is required by Articles 40(1) and 40(1A) to act on advice, save in some situations that are not relevant here.

There is a distinction between a person in whom authority is vested and the person by whom it is exercised. Our King is head of state but not head of government. He is the formal but not the functional head of state. [...]

... our fidelity to human rights demands that we join the 124 nations who currently subscribe to a system of international justice against mass murderers.

What do we do with academicians whose unsolicited (kaypoh) advice misleads their Majesties and paints their Royal Highnesses in bad light?

Was it sedition?

Should they be dismissed from their exalted academic positions for lying to the rulers?

Or ........


  1. Wakaka...the Club of Zombies...

    Universiti Teknologi Mara UiTM, International Islamic University of Malaysia
    Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia

    Not exactly the best and the brightest...Enough said...

    1. But they are anytime better and knowledgeable than Prof. Shad Saleem Faruqi.

    2. LLB and LLM from Aligarh Muslim University, India. Hmmm...

  2. Notable non-members of ICC:

    USA, Russia, China, India, Israel, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines Brunei, Laos, Myanmar.

  3. On the surface, yes, a number of Heads of State have been subject to ICC investigations and prosecution.

    Serbia's ex-President Slobodan Milošević and Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir have been indicted, there is an ICC investigation against Syria's Hafez Al-Assad.

    However, anyone delving deeper into the subject would have realised that these were Executive Heads of State i.e. Presidents who were their country's head of government, with Execuive powers which were at the core of the indictments.

    Even for Israel, which so many condemn, their President , who is a symbolic head and has no Executive powers, has not attracted any threat of prosecution.

    Shows you the intellectual quality, or lack of , of the Kangkung Academics who wrote the "Advice". Not the brightest bulbs in the room.

    Now...I wonder, why did the Conference of Rulers accept this low quality Advice, when there are so many other far more superior, credible authorities on the subject within Malaysia itself.

    Add to that, the Attorney General is specified by the Constitution of Malaysia as the Government's Chief Legal Advisor.
    Why did the Conference of Rulers choose to set aside the AG's advice ?
    Just because he is a Non-Malay / Non-Muslim ?

    Very disappointed with the Conference of Rulers.

  4. It is all the hidden workings of people of The Deep State even within the Royal households and the 4 legal advisers which advised the Royalty are very well known supporters of UMNO.

    There are just too many well paid political appointees of UMNO not only in Govt. but also in institutions of learning, NGOs, medias, GLCs etc.
    And they are still around helping to disrupt and overthrow the PH Govt.

    PH leaders will just have to purge all those known players by Hook or by Crook and replace them with those dedicated to serve the Govt. elected and the Nation.

  5. i dun think its a mislead. how could a western educated vip could easily mislead by others?

    1. There is somthing called "purposely allowed themselves to be misled"

  6. "Misleading rulers - is it a crime?"

    Of course. It's called treason to the Rulers and country and not try to run and hide under politiking.

    Soldiers are shot for treason but civilians should be jailed for life.