It is known that hadn't the sultan allowed the change of government in Perak, there wouldn't be so many problems interfering with the peace of this nation.
The rakyat had thought that everything had settled down after the March 8 election when they had given mandate to the Pakatan to govern the state before the sudden change of government consented to by the sultan himself.
And guess what? It seems that the sultan is now blaming certain quarters of ‘parties' for causing this political upheaval.
How could the sultan not respect the will of the rakyat? How helpless are we when the government of our choice can be overthrown overnight with the sultan's consent?
Because he thinks that he is above politics, it doesn't give him the right to refuse to give an explanation to the rakyat of his actions.
I believe that the constitutional monarchy in Malaysia has been eroded. Its powers are rooted in the principles of democracy and the rule of law, and therefore, it should uphold those principles.
However, it seems that the monarchy has many vested interests in supporting the BN government. What has it done to ensure the separation of powers in the country?
Because of the lack of participation of the monarchy in the process of monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the government, most of us have the impression that the rulers are just indulging in the extravaganza of their palaces.
I strongly urge the rulers to be more proactive in performing their roles as the guardians of the abovementioned principles which are the foundation of our constitution.
The monarchy has to be more relevant to the constitution of Malaysia for if not, it risks being rendered irrelevant and dysfunctional.
Perak Sultan Raja Azlan Shah was correct when he said that rulers were above politics and therefore could not answer or debate allegations against them.
But then why did the Perak ruler without hesitation install Zambry and his BN cohorts to replace the Pakatan Rakyat government knowing fully well that the two former PKR assembly persons were charged with corruption and could have acted under duress?
The dubious takeover by BN was therefore hanging on a slim majority and what would happen should the two assembly persons be convicted of the corruption?
Under such a climate of political uncertainty would it not be logical for the ruler to entertain the incumbent MB's request for a dissolution of the state assembly?
And why did the ruler showed favouritism by declining the former MB's request for a dissolution and instead installing BN's Zambry as the legitimate menteri besar of Perak?
Rulers need not be vocal to display their partisanship in politics. Mere actions which are contrary to public expectations are enough to render their oft quoted statement that they are above politics meaningless.
The Perak ruler's statement that individuals and groups were ‘disregarding the law for the sake of attaining power' should be directed at BN and not Pakatan Rakyat.
The Bukit Gantang by-election should have been an eye-opener to the ruler that the people want dissolution of the state assembly.
Instead the ruler chooses to turn a blind eye and further add legitimacy to Zambry's government by bestowing royal awards on him and his three other exco members when they have not even earned or deserve the awards.
Rulers who by their actions are partisan are bound to attract ridicule.
A wise ruler should know by now that history has shown that it is not the government that will help to preserve the royal institution but rather the will and mandate of the ordinary people.
When Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj was still alive at a time when Dr M's regime were bent on curtailing the constitutional monarchy's powers.
Conferences on the Merdeka constitution were held to discuss the role of the monarchs.
This was the night be before Dr M's Operation Lallang swoop. Universities and the Bar Council were among the bodies running these conferences with the common thread, ‘30 years after Merdeka'.
Personages who were involved one way or another with the Reid Commission and close to the Tunku came to offer invaluable insights to what was imagined, what was drafted and the grey areas which are left to the imagination of Malaysians.
It would be helpful for those who were on these panels who are still with us, to share the concerns.
Malaysiakini
21/04/09
The rakyat had thought that everything had settled down after the March 8 election when they had given mandate to the Pakatan to govern the state before the sudden change of government consented to by the sultan himself.
And guess what? It seems that the sultan is now blaming certain quarters of ‘parties' for causing this political upheaval.
How could the sultan not respect the will of the rakyat? How helpless are we when the government of our choice can be overthrown overnight with the sultan's consent?
Because he thinks that he is above politics, it doesn't give him the right to refuse to give an explanation to the rakyat of his actions.
I believe that the constitutional monarchy in Malaysia has been eroded. Its powers are rooted in the principles of democracy and the rule of law, and therefore, it should uphold those principles.
However, it seems that the monarchy has many vested interests in supporting the BN government. What has it done to ensure the separation of powers in the country?
Because of the lack of participation of the monarchy in the process of monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the government, most of us have the impression that the rulers are just indulging in the extravaganza of their palaces.
I strongly urge the rulers to be more proactive in performing their roles as the guardians of the abovementioned principles which are the foundation of our constitution.
The monarchy has to be more relevant to the constitution of Malaysia for if not, it risks being rendered irrelevant and dysfunctional.
Perak Sultan Raja Azlan Shah was correct when he said that rulers were above politics and therefore could not answer or debate allegations against them.
But then why did the Perak ruler without hesitation install Zambry and his BN cohorts to replace the Pakatan Rakyat government knowing fully well that the two former PKR assembly persons were charged with corruption and could have acted under duress?
The dubious takeover by BN was therefore hanging on a slim majority and what would happen should the two assembly persons be convicted of the corruption?
Under such a climate of political uncertainty would it not be logical for the ruler to entertain the incumbent MB's request for a dissolution of the state assembly?
And why did the ruler showed favouritism by declining the former MB's request for a dissolution and instead installing BN's Zambry as the legitimate menteri besar of Perak?
Rulers need not be vocal to display their partisanship in politics. Mere actions which are contrary to public expectations are enough to render their oft quoted statement that they are above politics meaningless.
The Perak ruler's statement that individuals and groups were ‘disregarding the law for the sake of attaining power' should be directed at BN and not Pakatan Rakyat.
The Bukit Gantang by-election should have been an eye-opener to the ruler that the people want dissolution of the state assembly.
Instead the ruler chooses to turn a blind eye and further add legitimacy to Zambry's government by bestowing royal awards on him and his three other exco members when they have not even earned or deserve the awards.
Rulers who by their actions are partisan are bound to attract ridicule.
A wise ruler should know by now that history has shown that it is not the government that will help to preserve the royal institution but rather the will and mandate of the ordinary people.
When Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj was still alive at a time when Dr M's regime were bent on curtailing the constitutional monarchy's powers.
Conferences on the Merdeka constitution were held to discuss the role of the monarchs.
This was the night be before Dr M's Operation Lallang swoop. Universities and the Bar Council were among the bodies running these conferences with the common thread, ‘30 years after Merdeka'.
Personages who were involved one way or another with the Reid Commission and close to the Tunku came to offer invaluable insights to what was imagined, what was drafted and the grey areas which are left to the imagination of Malaysians.
It would be helpful for those who were on these panels who are still with us, to share the concerns.
Malaysiakini
21/04/09
No comments:
Post a Comment