From Magna Carta to Menteri Besar – Rama Ramanathan

Great Britain, the nation which stitched together 11 disparate states, then, “gave” Malaya its independence on the basis of a Constitution 57 years ago, does not itself have a document called a Constitution.

What Britain does have is a Magna Carta, or Great Charter. Lord Denning called it "the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot."

The Magna Carta was signed in 1215 AD by King John of England before the Barons of England. England then was not the democracy it is now. Then England was a serfdom, a nation in which all the land belonged to the King and everyone was a tenant: a system of government called Feudalism.

High in the hierarchy, just below the King, were the Barons who were the tenants-in-chief. The King “gave” portions of land to the Barons.

The Barons sub-divided their lands and “gave” them to Knights who had proved valiant in battle. The Knights had titles such as Duke and Earl. They could use the land pretty much as they pleased, on condition that they collected taxes for the King and provide soldiers to him whenever he asked.

At the low end were serfs. All were the King’s tenants. Feudalism was created by King William I when, by war, he unified England in the 11th century. He also created the Domesday book, named after the old English spelling for “doom,” signifying the day of judgment and destruction. The Domesday book established who owned what in England and therefore should pay taxes.

The Domesday book was compiled after a comprehensive survey of everything and everyone in England. A contemporary of William had this to say about it: “so very thoroughly did William have the enquiry carried out, that there was not a single piece of land, not even an ox, cow or pig which escaped the notice of the survey".

Persian kings, Mughal kings and Turkish Sultans also ruled through satraps, administrators and book keepers who lived in constant fear of losing their life and liberty at the whims of their kings.

In England, the Magna Carta was the beginning of the end of the sole authority of the King. The Magna Carta was the solution the King agreed with the Barons who, together with their serfs, said “enough already” to the heavy taxes and soldierly extractions by Kings to wage wars.

When the King signed the Magna Carta, he granted the right to twenty five Barons to set curbs on his authority. But the Magna Carta was much more. It promised laws that were just and fair; the right to defend oneself against accusations; free and fair trials. It would take many centuries, but ultimately the Magna Carta resulted in the full recognition of the equality of all before the law. Eventually the people would decide who would be taxed and for how much.

In Malaysia, creation of the office of the Supreme Ruler, the Agung was one of the agreements the Alliance party and the Malay Rulers – both groups from the same strata of society as the Barons of old in England – extracted from the British.

After independence other nations became free of the burden of supporting royal families. We in Malaya added an extra royal office, that of the Agung. Due to the abundance of natural wealth and foreign labourers who were brought in to work as serfs, Malaya became very prosperous and could support the system which has worked to-date, 57 years after independence.

The Constitution did place curbs on the Rulers. In 1957, the Rulers relinquished much of their power over civil society and agreed to become subjects of Parliament and State Assemblies elected by the people. They gave up their rights (though many say the British Residents were the real rulers) in return for privileges which they negotiated and are also enshrined in the Constitution.

I have been recalling the history of royalty in Malaya and elsewhere in order to get a better perspective on news reports that HRH the Sultan of Selangor has requested that he be given the names of several candidates for the office of Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) of Selangor so that he may decide who will be appointed to the office.

The request for the names of multiple candidates is out of the ordinary in a democratic nation with a constitutional monarchy. The accepted understanding under such a system of government is that the monarch’s role in appointment is ceremonial, as in say Great Britain or the Netherlands.

I know that in recent times HRH has been given much bad advice, particularly by those who hold Islamic offices. Christian gatherings have been disrupted, Christian Bibles have been confiscated and beliefs of Christians have been vilified in the name of Islamic zeal. I pray that HRH will choose wisely whom he listens to, and keep in mind the promises made in 1957.

Malaysia’s premier Constitutional experts have weighed in with their opinions.

Professor Abdul Aziz Bari is reported to have told a public meeting that “The role of the Sultan is a formal one, a very ceremonial role. Just hand over the appointment letter, as simple as that. And let the government do its business.”

Professor Shad Salim Faruqi has, in a newspaper column, reminded the public of the legal opinion written by former Lord President Raja Azlan Shah (who later became Sultan of Perak): “When the party which obtains the majority of seats … decides to nominate one of its members of the assembly for appointment as mentri besar,... the Ruler has no choice but to appoint him.”

I pray that Pakatan Rakyat, the coalition with the majority of seats in Selangor, and HRH will make the right decisions. I hope we can at least say of both what Winston Churchill said of the Americans: “The Americans will always do the right thing...  after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.”

* Rama Ramanathan reads The Malaysian Insider.