For sure, Umno is more evil towards the Monarchy than Bersih

UMNO-owned Utusan Malaysia’s delusional statement that Bersih and the Selangor government had disrespected and were guilty of treason against the Sultan of Selangor and the Agong is laughable and an insult to the monarchy itself.

It is clear that Utusan Malaysia is merely mouthing such accusations in order to drum up public support against the Pakatan-led government of Selangor much in the same way that it drew support to amend the Federal Constitution back in 1993 to strip the Royals of their immunity, and thus subjugate the Sultans and the Agong under the thumb of UMNO which was at that time led by Mahathir Mohamad.

The changes, which saw the amendments of Articles 32, 38, 42, 63, 72 and 181 in the Constitution of Malaysia, was implemented in March 1993. The rulers were extremely unhappy with the government's calls for the removal of legal immunity, and initially dissented with the government.

Removal of legal immunity and several other powers

The proposed amendments also came with the rule that allows commoners to criticise the Sultans, even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong without fear of the Sedition Act, with the exception of questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy of Malaysia. In addition, the proposed amendments also sought to limit the power of the Rulers to pardon offences of family members.

Public criticism of the Rulers was also allowed by amendments to the Sedition Act, which makes it no longer an offence to criticise the royalty except to areas pertaining to their legitimate existence.

The government used a two-pronged approach of persuasion and coercion to obtain the assent of the Rulers for the amendements.

The government-backed media, on its part, launched a series of reports between 1992 and 1993 detailing alleged misdeeds by members of the royalty not only by the Johor royal family, which had provided the basis for jump-starting the move to amend, but also on the other royal houses, questioning their extravagant lifestyles and misuse of moral authority to gain alleged concessions.

The Pahang royal family, in particular, was criticised for the way which they allegedly gained favourable timber and forestry concession rates and the unusually high shares which they were accorded in the timber and forestry firms.

In Kelantan, Sultan Ismail Petra was also heavily criticised for failing to pay import duty taxes after he purchased a convoy of imported Italian luxury sports ca. The Kelantan Ruler was also accused of supporting the Semangat 46 by Mahathir Mohamad and for violating the constitution, which states that monarchs have to take on a neutral role in political affairs. The leader of Semangat 46, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah was a member of the Kelantan royal family.

The views of the Islamic Religious leaders were also well publicised, and they played to Mahathir's script - criticising the royal excesses and also placing members of the royalty as being only equal with the commoners in the eyes of Allah.

Browbeaten, the Rulers gave their assent to the proposals to remove the irlegal immunity, which was implemented in March 1993.

UMNO's hold on the Rulers

Professor Mark R. Gillen from the Faculty of Law University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia, Canada pointed this out in a paper he presented entitled ‘The Malay Ruler’s Lost of Immunity’ where he said :

“The removal of the Rulers' immunity, and the apparent public support gathered has put the Government in a better position to leave the Rulers to pay for unbudgeted expenditures presented to state and federal governments after they have been incurred.

The Rulers can now be sued for those expenses. Many of the alleged actions of the Rulers through which they exerted influence may now be the subject of legal proceedings before the Special Court.

The form which the removal of immunity ultimately took also appears to give the executive additional leverage over the Rulers. Three of the five judges of the Special Court are the Lord President and the Chief Justices of the High Courts who are appointed at the behest of the Prime Minister.

The proceedings, civil or criminal, can only be undertaken with the consent of the Attorney General, and, in the context of criminal proceedings, expose a Ruler to the potential loss of his position as Ruler.

This seems to give the government a significant tool for bringing an unwieldy Ruler into line."

Power to prosecute can be abused

Indeed, the late Raja Aziz Addruse, a lawyer and editor of the Journal of the Malaysian Bar (and member of a royal family), had said, “..the amendments will arm the Executive with the power to subjugate the Rulers through threats of prosecution for any offences, however minor. The Rulers will beat the mercy of the Executive. ... The power to prosecute is a powerful weapon which,in the hands of the ruthless, can be abused to great advantage - not by prosecuting the alleged offender but by withholding prosecution in return for his cooperation.”

So who then have been pulling the strings to reduce the Royals to mere puppet state? Who then have been the greater evil against the Royals in Malaysia?

Utusan Malaysia when flaming up these issues concerning the Royals should first check the history of their political masters who have done more damage to the Royals then any other body within Malaysia.

The late Raja Aziz Addruse was right when he pointed out that the Prime Minister who is the president of UMNO has subjugated the Rulers. Is not this the highest form of treason?

Was it not Najib Razak, President of UMNO who promised Bersih the use of a stadium to hold their gathering and within the same week went back on his promise, in full view of the Agong?

Do not the actions of UMNO go contrary to its very vocal claim to be protector of the Sovereign? No doubt, the right hand does what it pleases while the left does the opposite.

- Malaysia Chronicle