A debate steeped in ignorance (part 1)

For example, one of the terms of the Agreement was that all Chinese and Indians born in Malaysia would automatically be given citizenship. The Malays, Chinese and Indians agreed to this. However, if we allow unilateral decisions to a bilateral agreement, would that now mean the Malays can rescind that term in the Agreement and now rule that the Chinese and Indians no longer get automatic citizenship even if they are born in Malaysia?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I find that many comments over the last week -- most of which I deleted mainly because they were so off the mark -- are from people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. And this applies to Malaysians from all ethnic backgrounds.

One issue that was hotly debated is the role of the Monarchy. While I can appreciate that there will always be Monarchists and Republicans in any society (even in Australia it is 51% versus 49% respectively), those comments that espoused the abolishing of the Monarchy in favour of a Republic were entirely off tangent.

One ‘favourite’ comment is regarding the exorbitant cost to maintain the Monarchy. Another argues the low amount of tourist dollars that the Malaysian Monarchy brings in compared to that of the British Monarchy (which earns tourist money).

While to the mainly Chinese readers the issue would centre on how much money the country spends compared to how much it can earn from that expenditure, we cannot always justify something from merely the viewpoint of profit-and-loss. Sometimes profit-and-loss cannot be the criteria or the only criteria to consider doing something.

If it is only about how much we spend compared to how much profit we can make from that expenditure, then there would be many other expenditures we can attack first. In a turn-around exercise, the turn-around specialists would normally attack the top three cost items, which in most cases contribute to more than 50% and sometimes even 90% of the expenditure.

I will talk more about that later.

One issue raised by the anti-Monarchists was regarding the more than RM1 billion spent on the Agong’s palace. Who built this palace? Did the Agong build this palace or did he command that the palace be built? Which Agong was it that ordered the palace built? And whichever Agong it may have been, and assuming it was he who wanted that palace built, is he eventually going to live in that palace?

The truth is none of the Agongs wanted that palace built or ordered it to be built. It was the government back in 2006 (at the time when Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was Prime Minister and THREE Agongs ago) that wanted to build it. And it was built as a symbol for the country.

I repeat: the idea to build that palace was made at the time when Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was Prime Minister and THREE Agongs ago.

Now, whether Malaysia does or does not need such an exorbitant symbol such as a RM1 billion palace is another issue and another debate. However, to blame the Agong for building that palace (and the construction stretched over THREE Agongs: so which Agong are you blaming?) when none of the Agongs ever asked for such a palace -- and then use this excuse as the reason why the Monarchy should be abolished -- is way off the mark and downright unjust on top of that.

So now you know why such comments need to be deleted. It is because you do not know what you are saying and what you said can be blamed on your ignorance.

Now, back to the cost versus income or profit-and-loss issue.

Malaysia (just like all or most countries) spends more on defence than on any other item. And this is a total waste of money. At least if we spend that money on welfare, healthcare, education, etc., it will benefit the rakyat.What benefit do we get from that large amount of money spent on defence?

Do you know that most of the equipment we buy never gets used? Did we ever go to war with any country -- say like Singapore, Thailand, China, Indonesia, Brunei, Vietnam, Philippines, etc? In the end, because we do not go to war, most of the equipment ‘expires’ and gets scrapped. So why buy them if we do not need them and they eventually get scrapped?

Malaysia, plus almost every country all over the world, ‘wastes’ so much money on defence (which is never used in the end) for the security of the nation. In terms of expenses versus income it is a losing proposition.

Hence, as I said earlier, a turn-around manager would normally attack the top three cost items to cut out and defence would definitely have to be that item or one of those items to cut out. But we cannot do that because it is a ‘wasted’ cost that we need to keep in spite of the ‘wasted’ money.

Now, while on the issue of defence and security, how would the Monarchy fit in to this? Is the Monarchy merely a symbol (which in a way it is)? Is it a tourist attraction to draw in tourist dollars (which it is not)? What role does the Monarchy play in the bigger scheme of things to justify the cost to maintain and retain it?

This issue can, of course, be debated and both sides -- the Monarchists as well as the Republicans -- would have a valid argument. So there is no right or wrong here. There is only two differing viewpoints or two sides to the argument.

As I said, there is no right or wrong argument. There are only opinions. And I would like to give you my personal opinion, which can be either right or wrong depending on how you look at things.

And my viewpoint is as follows.

When the British decided to give the country independence and create the Federation of Malaya, they had to engage the nine Ruling Houses in negotiations. And one of the terms of Merdeka and the creation of the Federation was that the Monarchy would be retained but would be reduced to a mere Constitutional Monarchy. Hence this is what we call the Merdeka Agreement.

Now, there are those who argue that that was back in the 1950s and times have changed so we must review the Agreement and modify it to be in tune with the modern world where Monarchies are no longer applicable or practical.

Agreed, that is a good argument. Even the illegality of gay marriages, etc., are being reviewed ‘in tune with the modern world’ in spite of the Bible declaring that gay marriages are illegal or sinful (hence even God is being ‘overturned’ to keep in tune with the modern world).

However, if we really want to review and amend the Agreement (which is allowed, of course) can such reviews be done unilaterally? Agreements are entered into by two or more parties. So any review or renegotiation must be bilateral. It cannot be unilateral. How can we propose a unilateral review and then tell the other party to the Agreement to stuff it? Is this just?

This appears to be one point that has escaped many people proposing the abolishing of the Monarchy. An Agreement was made called the Merdeka Agreement. If you want to review and amend this Agreement then all parties to the Agreement have to be involved. One side alone cannot do this and then shove it down the throat of the other party.

The danger in allowing a unilateral decision to a bilateral agreement would be that the so many other terms of the Agreement might suffer the same fate.

For example, one of the terms of the Agreement was that all Chinese and Indians born in Malaysia would automatically be given citizenship. The Malays, Chinese and Indians agreed to this. However, if we allow unilateral decisions to a bilateral agreement, would that now mean the Malays can rescind that term in the Agreement and now rule that the Chinese and Indians no longer get automatic citizenship even if they are born in Malaysia? 

And one more point -- which I remind you is my opinion and does not mean it is right and does not mean if you disagree with me you are wrong -- is regarding the role of the Monarchy as the protector of democracy.

Currently, the Agong is the person who declares an Emergency, although on the advise of the Prime Minister (and the Agong can refuse to do that if the Prime Minister cannot justify such an action). Furthermore, the Agong is the Commander of the Armed Forces.

Without an Agong, the Prime Minister can declare an Emergency and the military would report to the Generals (and hence can also rule by Martial Law). Have you seen what happened in Egypt a few days ago? The same thing has happened in many Middle Eastern, Latin American and Eastern European countries as well.

At least with an Agong a certain level of democracy can be maintained. With the Prime Minister and/or the military in charge, anything can happen.

Can I guarantee this will not happen if we maintain the Monarchy? Of course I cannot. Nothing is guaranteed. I cannot even guarantee I will be around tomorrow to continue writing for Malaysia Today. But at least the risks of a military takeover or of the Prime Minister declaring an Emergency are much reduced -- unless they want to sidestep the Agong (which, knowing the Malays, they would most likely never do).