(Translated from Malay by CPI)

As human beings, we are endowed with the capacity to think so that we can question and thereby gain a better understanding, even if the subject under scrutiny is felt to be thorny.

To pose a question is not to be disrespectful (‘kurang ajar’). On the contrary, to question is the first step in seeking true knowledge and overcoming ignorance.

The culture in our country is unfortunately one where the general public is reluctant to question and refrains from it. Or the public tends to be passive and fails to engage in reflection. Statements, concepts or policies framed and implemented by the powers that be, for example, the government, ministers or rulers are often accepted as correct and appropriate without much opposition.

This attitude is not surprising as the political history of our country has been coloured by feudalism for many centuries. Feudalism is an ideology that calls for deference to authority. This culture is fully ingrained in the great majority of Malaysians. However, if we are to accept and acknowledge that every man is created equal then this antiquated culture needs to be erased. 

The cry 'Daulat Tuanku' is often heard amongst those who support Barisan Nasional when they defend the actions of the Perak Sultan in rejecting Menteri Besar YB Nizar Jamaluddin’s petition to dissolve the state assembly, and when Sultan Azlan Shah instructed YB Nizar to resign his post. The reasons for His Highness’ action were not divulged to the public even though it was a sensitive episode involving the democratic rights of the people.

Are the words and decisions of a sultan or king beyond fault (or ‘sacred’) and beyond question? Is the public not entitled to know the rationale behind his royal command? Are not the rulers accountable to the people given that the citizenry pays tax to bear their living expenses? Where would kings be without their subjects?

Kings are only human and to be human is to err. There are state rulers who have been implicated in misconduct such as in the cases cited below:

• Assault and battery: The Sultan of Johor was alleged to have beaten one of his assistants with a golf club, and to also attack a hockey coach,
• Torture: An Indonesian girl has accused her husband, a Kelantan prince, of physical abuse,
• Punch-up: A quarrel between the grandsons of the Sultans belonging to the royal households of Negri Sembilan and Johor in a night club resulted in a revolver being brandished

 

Are they deserving of adulation on the premise of 'Daulat Tuanku'?

Those who occupy lofty positions are naturally keen to defend their privileged standing at all cost should they feel their position to be threatened.

They may feel compelled to take extreme actions which are against the grain of the responsibilities entrusted them by the rakyat. If even parents have been found to abuse their own children, what guarantee do we have that kings and other top leaders will not tyrannize the rakyat, especially if they desire to protect their own interests?

How can the rakyat ensure justice for ourselves if we are not permitted to question the actions of any of the protected groups? In an era where there is a free flow of information, are the elites of society really more knowledgeable and wiser than we are?

The rulers have their roles as clearly spelled out in the Constitution and this provision is accorded our respect. After the British left Malaya, the sultans who previously wielded power under the feudal system soon became irrelevant in a political system based on the voice and rights of the people.

A nation belongs to all its citizenry, and not to the kings. In retaining a monarchy symbolically as representing Malay culture, the rulers were granted their role as one of the highest authorities in the land on the matters of Islam and Malay custom.

The rulers were also granted a few other ceremonial powers such as swearing in a menteri besar.

Their role as protectors of the Islamic faith can have the effect of moderating the behaviour of extremist factions in our midst. For example, when Selangor’s Sultan Sharifuddin Shah summoned PAS state exco Hassan Ali to explain his directive curbing the sale of alcohol in Shah Alam, it could be that this directive was contravening the state law and conflicting with the principles of human rights.

If the rulers adhere to the boundaries on their power as contained in the Constitution, then perhaps this is all for the good. On the other hand, if their action oversteps their jurisdiction as defined in the Constitution, or if their action raises doubt, or is improper, then this action must be questioned.

Even so, Karpal Singh was accused of being ‘biadab’ and charged under the Sedition Act for merely stating what is fact, i.e. that the Sultans can be taken to court. Why not then press charges as well against Dr Mahathir who had been the one to strip the rulers of their immunity?

And why is it that a Hollywood actor Bruce Willis is free to to sue a Negri Sembilan prince, whereas there were strong objections raised when it was suggested that the action of the Perak Sultan be subjected to judicial review?

 

 

______________________________________________

This article ‘Menyoal seruan 'Daulat Tuanku' was originally published in the author’s blog ‘Suara Keramat Pak Sako’ on Sept 18, 2009.

Also translated by CPI, Pak Sako on:

The party and its slogan ‘PAS for all’: a critical assessment