The Malay rulers will protect us

It is indeed inspiring for me, personally, that the Johor sultan will be the next Yang di- Pertuan Agong.

I entered the state of Johor at the age of five in 1960.

My father, a Tamil Muslim, was then operating the popular Islamic Capitol Restaurant at Jalan Meldrum in Johor Bahru, an area which at the time comprised many members of both the Chinese and Indian business communities.

My father had already set up his restaurant at Jalan Segget in the early 1920s, partly sharing it with the main tenant, a Chinese coffee shop. Their fellowship was so close that when the coffee shop owner’s son qualified as a lawyer and wanted to set up his law firm at the unit, my father readily agreed to vacate the premises.

At the time, the two businessmen were harmoniously operating their respective businesses under the watchful eyes of the Southern Palace, which was just a walking distance from the shop.

In the modern day, it would be unthinkable for a Chinese and a Muslim man selling their traditional food in the same shophouse to also reside on its upper floor, but that was how it was then.

My grandfather, an Indian Muslim from Thopputhurai in Tamil Nadu, India, was already in Johor before the First World War. He was employed by the royal family households of Muar and Batu Pahat, towns that also saw the Chinese and Indians prospering under the Johor rulers.

In my younger days it was not unusual to witness members of the Kerabat Johor, the state’s military officers and politicians, regularly patronising my father’s restaurant.

In fact, on one occasion I was playfully helping with the preparation of various mee dishes when the sultan himself showed up. His secretary placed an order for a “mee sayur”, and my father rushed to attend to them. The sultan, however, signalled for him to let me continue.

It was also quite routine to see the sultan, without any security detail, visiting an aquarium opposite the restaurant. Those in the vicinity would keep their distance as a mark of respect. It occurred to me then that the sultan was quite comfortable being in the presence of his subjects.

How simple and people-friendly the sultan was. The public in turn had immense respect and gave him their undivided loyalty.

I also witnessed several politicians, often referred to as “cikgu” then, bring with them forms and documents to brief and assist the public in their application for citizenship. I was too young to understand these niceties at the time, but I did recall my father assuring applicants that the Malay rulers would always protect us and ensure our safety.

If not for the rulers agreeing to give away some of their rights to administer the country, as well as honour the residents with citizenship, many of us would have found ourselves displaced in an unfriendly environment.

Over the years, my father’s mantra that the Malay rulers would protect us became etched in my mind. It eventually became the cornerstone of several judgments in which I expounded on the supremacy of the rulers, whom I consider to be the fourth pillar of government.

My analysis of the Federal Constitution has led me to the conclusion that our founding fathers only gave the traditional three pillars – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary – a licence to administer the country.

The final say, as I understand it, has always remained with the rulers.

For that reason, I believe it would be wrong to interpret the constitution in a way that reduces the rulers to merely being a rubber-stamp for executive action and advice.

In fact, there are many provisions that say otherwise, assigning to the rulers the positive role of sustaining the rule of law.

For example, although Article 40(1) requires the king to act on the advice of the Cabinet or its representative, he is not obliged to act immediately, and is entitled to ask for additional information.

The constitution also gives the king the sole discretion when it comes to appointing the prime minister under Article 40(2), as well as in several other actions.

Article 38 gives wide powers to the Conference of Rulers in several important aspects of the country’s administration listed there.

In criminal matters, the power of pardon and the final say on sentences are vested entirely with the rulers.

Next, Article 181 preserves the rulers’ prerogative powers. In my considered view, these powers may be used to sustain the rule of law in the event it is violated by any of the three pillars of government.

Both the army and the key to Parliament are also placed under the rulers.

Finally, the absolute power to proclaim emergency as per Article 150 is, in my view, the hallmark of the Malay rulers’ supremacy.

Over the years I have noticed that the traditional three pillars – the executive, legislature, and judiciary – have not acted as per their oaths of office, which require them to preserve, protect and defend the Federal Constitution.

That omission has allowed corruption and corrupt practices to flourish, undermining social justice and rule of law, and resulting in the doctrine of separation of powers becoming a myth in this country.

In my view, such endemic corruption, misconduct on the part of politicians designed to create disunity, division and hatred, and the liberal misuse of racial and religious rhetoric for political one-upmanship may entitle the rulers to issue a proclamation of emergency.

To my mind, the Malay rulers, through the king, are constitutionally empowered to participate in the administration of the country as and when necessary. Arguments of constitutional jurists and pundits attempting to say otherwise are unsustainable within the framework of our constitution.

For that reason, I welcome the prime minister’s statement that he is prepared to consider the views and suggestions of the incoming king. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.