Finding the right approach to royal controversies

Two cases of some interest recently emerged. The first is the alleged story that Daim Zainuddin summoned Chief Justice Mohd Raus Sharif and Court of Appeal president Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin to his private office and demandedthey resign.

The second involves writer A Kadir Jasin, his views on the monarchy, and reactions thereto. Surrounding these issues are questions of propriety, locus standi, and of course, the actual issues themselves.

On the whole, if the allegations are true regarding Daim, I agree with former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram and lawyer Ramkarpal Singh, that this was highly improper.

Daim has been called upon to perform a great many services to the country, and he appears to be answering the call with relish. I believe there is nothing wrong in acknowledging his present contributions (without necessarily forgetting his past controversies), and some of his new ideas are surprisingly progressive - including most recent suggestions about a basic income for the poor.

Nevertheless, surely he must appreciate the importance of what is proper and improper in the halls of governance and power.

However, controversial the appointment of the two top judges were, I agree that two wrongs don’t make a right and that if they are going to step down, everything must be done by the book, by the people correctly authorised and positioned to do so.

Some feel that Kadir had been overzealous in his criticism of the Malay rulers. Others feel that those who criticised those views, in turn, were the ones who were being overzealous.

Esteemed fellow columnist Bob Teoh appears to be among the latter, writing that Anwar Ibrahim’s public disagreement with Kadir’s writings may have been tantamount to a potential attack on press freedom.

In this particular matter, I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to say that Anwar overstepped any bounds.

Kadir expressed his views, and Anwar expressed his own views about those views. To some extent, one might even say that instead of trying to clamp down on freedom of speech, Anwar was exercising his own right to freedom of speech, taking into consideration that the has no formal position in government.

That said, I do suppose it’s understandable that Anwar’s interactions with the monarchs have raised a few eyebrows.

In the matter of the appointing of the attorney general, it was reported that Anwar met with some royals, and almost immediately thereafter, in the dead of night, it was suddenly announced that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had consented to the appointment of Tommy Thomas.

On one hand, if Anwar and Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed are working closely together on the understanding that Anwar is some sort of internal ambassador at large, I suppose that is all well and good.

On the other, the sequence of these events and the interplay of political interests here may strike some as passing strange.

The question of the Malay rulers deserves some scrutiny in and of itself as well.

There is no doubt that royal institutions have been the focal point of many an intense debate. I think it’s fair to say that a number of royals made some controversial statements and actions in the run-up to GE 14.

Shopping sprees and statements rather obviously expressing a preference for one candidate over another come to mind.

The same dictator?

All that said, that particular war is over. This is not to say that we should forget all that has happened. However, we should exercise some wisdom and magnanimity with regards to people who may not have been on the same side of us in that war.

I do feel that Kadir and others may have been a little too aggressive in their writings against the royals.

I read Kadir’s first article on the matter and found the tone on the haughty side. Feel free to judge for yourselves there.

What raised alarm bells for me was the larger context - who can forget, after all, Mahathir’s famous spats with the royalty during his first stint as PM?

One of the big questions on people’s minds regarding Mahathir’s candidacy was: will he be the same dictator as before?

Some may take these developments - rightly or wrongly - as signs that we are back to Mahathir 1.0. Daim summarily making demands of the sitting chief justice, meanwhile, may also bring to mind Salleh Abas and other old controversies.

In this regard, seeing themes from Mahathir’s past reemerge among his supporters do not seem to send the right signals.

Many others seem to have picked up the scent as well. I started seeing many messages going around, also criticising the monarchs, accusing them of lavish lifestyles and so on.

One other complicating factor is that much of the issues surrounding the Malay rulers are based in part on hearsay and speculation.

In the AG issue, it was not as if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong came out himself to say that he preferred a Malay candidate. There were few if any official statements regarding the palace’s actual stance on the matter.

The original rumour was that the objection was based on Thomas’ race, while if I recall, at another point there was information going around that it was not because of race, but because of the cases Thomas was involved in and so on.

Gossip and rumours are dangerous things. I have always found that if something does not come from the horse’s mouth, we should be very, very reserved in our judgements.

Ultimately, I don’t feel the Malay rulers need to be attacked quite so virulently.

I do believe that the government and the rakyat should indeed stand firm in their defence of the proper functioning of a constitutional democracy, where no party oversteps their boundaries but instead behaves in accordance to the letter and the spirit of the constitution.

That being done, there is no need to further fuel hate or stoke resentment.

For the powers that be, you have already won; use only as much of your power as you need to, and be wary not to be seen as vindictive, petty, or authoritarian. In the final count, I feel the power of the monarchs to cause serious instability is ultimately limited, in any case.

At the same time, I also do not believe in investigating writers like Kadir under the Sedition Act and so on. As many have correctly stated, that is a draconian law which has no place in our new Malaysia.

What I do believe has a place in said new Malaysia is a healthy respect for procedural correctness in all things government, and the adoption of a statesmanly tone in all things political.

To ensure that we right wrongs the right way, let us never forget the value of doing things by the book.

It is worth remembering that we don’t get a second chance to make a first impression. The unique thing about these weeks and months that we must not forget is that we are setting a precedent, for the way things are going to be run by our new government.

That precedent should include taking extra effort to make sure none of the improprieties of the past is ever repeated.

It should also include ensuring that any semblance of pettiness or the politics of hate will be left behind in favour of a dignified approach that is always respectful, and always inclusive.

---

NATHANIEL TAN is eager to serve. -Mkini