A mistake to think that a constitutional monarch is strictly limited to defined aspects — Hafiz Hassan

 

 In his Facebook post, Tony Pua wrote:

“We have a constitutional monarch. The powers of the monarch varies [sic] a little from state to state. However, by and large, the powers of the monarch is [sic] strictly limited to defined aspects such as Malay customs, Islam and constitutional roles such as the appointment of Menteri Besars, and approval for the dissolution of the state assemblies.”

“We do not live is a system whereby the monarch can issue binding decrees which legislates all aspects of our lives. We have the Parliament and State Assemblies, comprised of representatives elected by the people to make such laws and rulings.”

Some would say Pua isn’t wrong, as a constitutional monarch is the head of state, but who does not rule the country. Governing is undertaken instead by an elected parliament and government.

A constitutional monarchy is a system in which the head of state is a monarch, but that person does not rule the country.

It is true that a constitutional monarch does not reign or rule. But as I reminded readers five years ago, he may remind.

The author argues that while Malaysia’s constitutional monarchs do not govern directly, their role extends beyond powers explicitly defined in the Constitution, encompassing the broader rights to be consulted, to encourage and to warn within the constitutional framework. — Picture by Firdaus Latif

Shortly later, I reminded readers what Walter Bagehot (1826-1877) ― a banker, journalist, editor, biographer, literary critic, economist and political analyst but also well-remembered as the author of The English Constitution ― wrote of the three rights of a constitutional monarch: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.

The three rights were duly endorsed by none other than the giant of the Malaysian judiciary, Lord President Raja Azlan Shah who ascended the throne of the State of Perak in 1984 as the silver state’s 34th Sultan and subsequently elected as the 9th Yang di-Pertuan Agong in 1989.

In 1982, as the head of the judiciary, His Royal Highness memorably wrote:

“A King is a King, whether he is an absolute or constitutional monarch. The only difference between the two is that whereas one has unlimited powers, the other’s powers are defined by the Constitution. But it is a mistake to think that the role of a King, like a President, is confined to what is laid down by the Constitution. His role far exceeds those constitutional provisions.”

So, a king is a king, Pua.

It is a mistake to think that a constitutional monarch is, in Pua’s words, “strictly limited to defined aspects” as laid down by the Constitution. malaymail

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.