Updated : Any Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth

Looks like this is already a hot topic. AIDC has this to say :

Anwar Mahu Krisis Perlembagaan Di Selangor  :   “Yang Anwar nak buktikan adalah Selangor adalah permulaaan kepada perubahan Perlembagaan di Malaysia. Kuasa Raja mesti dihadkan." 

Here is an excerpt from a Pakatan supporter (its not a crime or a sin ok)  writing in The Star sometime ago :

• 1.  Brave New World  (The Star)  By Azmi Sharom
• Sultans and Rajas are constitutional monarchs and have powers determined by the Federal Constitution  (My comments : Clearly then this should include the Undang-Undang Tubuh, if any, for the respective States? Since the Federal Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, it should also override all State Constitutions). 
• DAP chairman Karpal Singh’s desire for the Sultan of Perak to be brought to court is reasonable and allowed for by law. Besides, I think it is a good thing that the King and the Sultans can be brought to court.
• You see, the days of the all-powerful king is gone now and that is, for me at least, progress. It shows that we are a society that values democracy.
• Yes, we have Sultans and Rajas, but they are constitutional monarchs. This means that they have powers determined by the Constitution and not some divine power to do as they wish. This being the case, surely if they overstep their boundaries, if they behave in an unconstitutional manner, they should be challenged – respectfully, properly – in a court of law.
• Now, did the Sultan of Perak act in a way that was unconstitutional when he appointed a new Mentri Besar? It is arguable.
• The power to appoint a Mentri Besar is clearly at the discretion of the Sultan. This is one of the few real powers that he has. A power that he does not have is to dismiss an existing Mentri Besar.

2.  Here is a very short paragraph from a book on the Malaysian Constitution etc.

Malaysia (The Federation of Malaysia) by Gordon P. Means  :  

In the 1980s, Prime Minister Mahathir decided to reduce the scope of royal powers by a constitutional amendment that would allow 15 days for royal assent to bills, after which assent was deemed to have been given. A crisis ensued when the Paramount Ruler refused to assent to the amendment passed by Parliament. Eventually, agreement was reached with the Sultans that royal assent could only be delayed for 30 days. Later, in 1993, constitutional amendments revoked the Rulers’ power of delay in conferring royal assent, eliminated their immunities for personal actions and terminated their power to grant pardons

3.  Here is part of the speech by Tun Dr Mahathir abrogating parts of the Malay Rulers' rights and privileges, Malaysian Parliament , 14 Febraury, 1993.

57.  Hence, the Government proposes that Article 38 and 42 of the Federal Constitution be amended as in Clause (2) Article 28 and Clause (12) Article 42. 

Clause (2) Article 38 of the Federal Constitution isamended – (a) by substituting the comma at the end of the paragraph (c) with a semicolon; and (b) byinserting after paragraph (c), the following paragraph: “(d) giving pardon, reprieve and respite, or toremit, suspend and reduce sentences, under Clause (12) Article 42,”. 

Article 42 of the Federal Constitution is amended by inserting, after Clause (11), the following Clauses: “(12) Notwithstanding the contents of this Constitution, if the powers mentioned in this Article – 

(a) have to be carried out by the Yang di-Pertuan of a State and are required to be carried out on himself or his wife, his sons or daughters, these powers have to be carried out by the Chief Minister of the State that will act on the advice of the Board of Pardons formed for the state under this Article and needs to be chaired by; 

(b) are required to be carried out on the Agong, a Raja of a State, or his Consort, according to whichever is applicable, these powers needs to be carried out by the Council of Rajas and the following provisions are required to be used: 

(i) when attending any proceeding under this Clause, the Agong cannot beaccompanied by the Prime Minister and other Rajas cannot be accompanied by their Chief Ministers; (

ii)before making any decision about any matter under this Clause, the Council of Rajas must considerwhatever written opinion that may be given by the Attorney-General about this matter. 

(c) are required tobe carried out by the Agong or the Raja of the related State with his sons or daughters, accordingwhichever is applicable, the powers have to be carried out by a Raja of a State named by the Council of Rajas and that Raja has to act according to the advice of the relevant Board of Pardons formed under this Article. (13) For the meaning of paragraph (b) and (c) Clause (12), the Agong or respective State Raja,according to whichever is applicable, and the State Yang di-Pertuas cannot be made members of theCouncil of Rajas”.

58.With this amendment, the Raja cannot hear the plea and pardon himself. If the Raja or his Consort whopleas for pardon, the Council of Rajas will hear and decide on the respective case.

59.The Raja also cannot listen to the plea of and pardon his offspring. The Council of Rajas will appointanother Raja to hear and decide on the pardon pleas of a Raja's offspring.

60.With the abolishment of the immunity of the Rajas from legal action, except when carrying out officialduties, it is believed that a Raja will not commit acts that can be charged in courts. With this, the Raja willbe honored by the People.

61.The abolishment of the ban applied on Members of Parliament and the Dewans Undangan Negeri by theSedition Act will prevent the Rajas from committing any act that may attract the criticism of therespective members of the house.

62.The abolishment of the powers to pardon himself will make legal action more effective.

63.The real reason for these amendments is not because the Government or the People want to drag theRajas to court as they like. The reason is so that the Rajas will constraint themselves from committingacts that can negatively cause legal action. Hence, the Rajas will be respected more.

64.It should be reminded that the respect of the People towards the Raja cannot be determined by laws.With your permission, 'Respect must be earned'. Having laws that scare the People will not bring 'respect'.With the realization that the Rajas can be brought to court, Rajas will certainly avoid committing acts thatwill cause the people not to respect the Rajas. Hence, the Raja Institution will be better respected andbetter preserved.

65.To strengthen the efforts to preserve the Rajas and Raja System, any suggestion or exertion to abolishthe Raja System is interpreted as sedition and will be charged under the Sedition Act.Mr. Speaker Sir,

66. I feel very sad that today I am forced to present to the august House a Bill to amend the Constitution thathas in some way contaminated the good name of the Rajas and the Raja Institution. With a heavy heart Ipresented and explained the suggested amendments.

67. That the Government made the decision to amend the Constitution is not without reason. Actually, as Ihave said, the Government has refrained from making these amendments since the start when weachieved independence. But this approach does not alleviate the situation. On the contrary, the situation became worse.

68. In the end, an incident in which a Raja assaulted a citizen and before this another incident in which the son of a Raja assaulted a citizen. The Government cannot look lightly at such events without jeorpardizing the Government's credibility as responsible leaders.

My comments : All the above basically touch on the powers of the Malay Rulers. All the above points became real issues as a result of unavoidable collisions between an older more feudal way of life and a modern, democratic society.  

In Europe, true to their more violent culture, they changed their feudal ways through revolution and bloodshed. The French emperor literally lost his head in the French Revolution. The last European royalty who suffered the same fate were the Romanovs of Russia.  Even the English King Charles suffered the indignity of lese majeste.  However the Europeans effected these changes beginning hundreds of years ago. Their monarchy have now become tourist attractions and fodder for the fashion commenters. 

Undoubtedly the extinction of feudalism has been primary in creating the modern, vibrant and very successful European societies of the 20th and 21st centuries (plus their successful offspring in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand).  

Coming back to the here and now, Anwar Ibrahim will most likely win in the Kajang by elections. The question has now arisen : If the Pakatan wants him to be the MB of Selangor, will the Sultan of Selangor object? Can the Sultan object?

The Selangor State "laws" say that a Malay (and therefore a Muslim) must be the Menteri Besar.  It does not say that the person must be Selangor born. There is no grey area. It does not say so.   

If the Sultan objects to Anwar's appointment (on any grounds at all, except the "being Malay and Muslim" part) it may lead to a tussle between the Sultan and the Pakatan government in Selangor.  

Lets do a walkabout.  Say Anwar wins in Kajang, he wants to be MB and the Sultan objects. What can happen?  The Pakatan government can put it to a vote in the Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor. The Speaker, a Pakatan appointee, can call for the vote. 

Since the Pakatan controls 44 (out of 56) seats in Selangor they have way above 2/3 majority. They can carry the motion. Not only that but their majority is enough to amend the State Constitution as well. 

If the majority of the Dewan confirms Anwar as their choice of MB, can the Sultan still object, legally? Of course the Sultan can deny signing the instrument of office (surat watikah) appointing Anwar as MB.  Which will spark a standoff. But can Anwar still carry out the day to day running of the State government?

Lets ponder another situation. What if some day in the future the Agong does not agree with the appointment of a Prime Minister. Can the Agong legally prevent anyone who is a member of Parliament and who has the support of the majority MPs in Parliament from becoming Prime Minister? I dont think so. 

Because if the Agong can object, then it does make quite a mockery of the entire democratic process.  We may as well become Brunei, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. No need for Parliamentary democracy.  (Folks - all this is just thinking aloud. Bukan sedition ok.)

Because the Constitutional Amendments of 1983 (the first one done by Dr Mahathir) says that if the Monarch does not agree to any Bill or legislation, after 30 days the bill will be sent back to the Legislature. If it is confirmed by Parliament again then it becomes law, with or without the agreement of the Monarch.  

Stretching this 1983 Constitutional amendment even if the Agong refuses to sign the Prime Minister's 'surat watikah' or refuses to attend the 'swearing in' or oath taking ceremony of the new Prime Minister, he or she will still be Prime Minister. I dont think this is exaggerating too much. 

With the Constitutional Amendments of 1983, Parliamentary legislation does not need the consent of the Monarch anymore. So for the practical purposes of running the country, what Dr Mahathir did in 1983 has already changed the country into a republic.  It is just that todate no situation has arisen where this portion of our Constitution has had to be tested. Somehow I get the feeling that it will not be tested at all. 

Of course if the Agong does not agree to the appointment of a Prime Minister, such an event will be quite tumultuous. More for some than for others. 31 years ago in 1983 there was considerable support for the Prime Minister. This is now the 21st century. How does the balance hang? 

So, if there is no breach to the "undang-undang tubuh" can a Sultan object to the choice of Menteri Besar by the majority of the Dewan Undangan Negeri? Will Anwar become the first "republican" Menteri Besar of Selangor?