Book
Review: Zaid Ibrahim’s Ampun Tuanku
M.
Bakri Musa
Second of Three Parts: The Origin of the Daulat Myth
[In
the first part I discussed the sultans’ rationale for seeking extra
constitutional powers based on their claim of daulat. This claim of divine
dispensation is a myth. In this section
I discussed the current political dynamics that led to the sultans wanting to
reassert their special status.]
Zaid begins his book by briefly
tracing the history of Malay sultans.
Unlike the Japanese Imperial family that stretches as far back as 600
BC, or the British to the 11th Century or even earlier, Malay
sultans are of recent vintage. The Raja
of Perlis was established only in 1834, while that of Johor only slightly older
(1819).
In modeling the Malaysian
constitutional monarchy along the British one, the Reid Commission assumed that
Malay sultans were like English kings.
That was the first major blunder.
To Zaid, it also underscores the pitfall of trying to adopt wholesale
foreign concepts or models, not just in law but also much of everything else.
Those English monarchs have had
centuries of working with a democratically elected government. Earlier, a few of them have had to pay dearly
for their errors. Consequently today
their system works smoothly. Not so with
Malay sultans. Up until British rule,
Malay sultans were literally Gods; those sultans could actually take your
life. Displease the sultan or prevent
him from grabbing whatever you own including your daughter or priced kerbau (water buffalo), and you risked
being beheaded, banished, or enslaved (kerah).
Those sultans were not above the law as
there were no laws then; they were
the laws.
Malays like me have a lot to be
thankful to those colonials for ending those odious royal traits of our
culture. No, that is not an expression of
my being mentally colonized, rather one of deep gratitude.
Malaysia has a disproportionate
number of monarchs, 9 out of the nearly 40 worldwide, as Zaid and others have noted. The error in that frequently cited observation
is the assumption that our sultans are comparable to those other kings and
queens; they are not. There is little in
common between Malay sultans and the British Queen or Japanese Emperor. Instead, Malay sultans have more in common
with the tribal warlords of Africa and Papua New Guinea, from their insular
worldview to their fanciful costumes.
The Papuan tribal chiefs have their elaborate colorful headgear, as well
as their prominent penile sheaths which they proudly display; ours have their
equally ostentatious desta and tanjak.
Like those tribal chieftains, our
sultans’ too are afflicted with their feudal habits. Modernity has not erased our sultan’s medieval
mentality. When Malaysia became
independent, those odious habits began creeping back. Those sultans are not to be blamed entirely,
however.
“The Rulers’ unwillingness to remain
within their constitutional roles has been further aggravated,” Zaid writes,
“by a lack of conviction and courage by the institutions that are supposed to
protect and preserve [our] … constitution.”
Stated differently, our sultans have many enablers. We
allow them to regress. We tolerate them when they flout the
rules.
Members of the Malay royal family
are perfectly capable of behaving themselves and keeping within the rules if
they were to be told in no uncertain terms that their tantrums would not be
tolerated. Consider their behaviors
during colonial and Japanese times. It
was the sultans who sembah (genuflected
to) the colonial and Japanese officers. Today
when these Malay princes and princesses are down in Singapore for example, they
obey even the basic traffic rules. Those
rajas would not dare pull their silly stunts down there; they would be immediately
punished. Likewise, if one of our sultans
were to skip on his Vegas casino gambling debts, our ambassador would have to
quickly bail him out of the county jail.
Just as a child whose earlier
tantrums had not been corrected would grow up to be an intolerable brat, likewise
when our sultans strayed earlier on and there was no one to restrain them, that
only encouraged them to go beyond. A few
decades later their excesses would trigger the constitutional crises of the
1980s and 1990s that led to the amendments ending respectively the rulers’
power to veto legislations and stripping them of legal immunity in their
personal conduct.
Both were possible because of the
strong executive leadership of Prime Minister Mahathir. Today with a government with a
less-than-robust mandate and a leader with a banana stem spine, the sultans are
emboldened to re-exert themselves; hence the insistence of their daulat or special status.
With that, their old brute feudal
traits began to re-surface. Consider the
ugly spectacle a few years back in Singapore involving the Kelantan Royal
family. They tried to essentially kidnap
the estranged Indonesian wife of one of the princes. Had that incident happened in Malaysia, rest
assured that a “helpful” minister or religious leader would have “counseled”
the poor young girl to return to her obnoxious husband.
In Singapore where everyone is equal
under the law, that prince would not dare claim his special status. More importantly, no one would grant him such. Consequently that poor Indonesian bride of the
prince was able to escape from her palace prison.
On a much more grotesque scale,
there was the case involving a Brunei prince and his British lawyers. As the dispute fell under American jurisdiction,
we get to see in open court the peccadilloes of that prince. Not pretty, in fact hideous. You can assume that his counterparts in
Malaysia are no different, only that their ugly acts are willfully concealed.
As a consequence of the constitutional
amendment of the 1990s, the late Yang di Pertuan Negri Sembilan was
successfully sued for his unpaid debts.
In the past, his creditors would not have even dared challenge him. To the royal class, those peasants should be
grateful that their “tributes” were accepted.
While the royal tribunal is an
advancement, its learning or even deterrent value was minimal or non-existent
as the proceedings are secret. Had they
been open, the lavish lifestyles and obscene unpaid bills of our sultans would
be exposed. They could not then readily
claim their daulat under such ugly circumstances.
Zaid advocates that those royal
tribunal proceedings be open to the public, as with any court hearing; I
agree. Such exposures would also help
humanize our sultans, showing to the public that they are susceptible to the
usual human foibles and weaknesses.
Deadbeats, even royal ones, do not have daulat!
Next: Last of Three Parts:
Opportunities for Sultans as Head of Islam
2 Comments:
Definitely a must read!
Dear Sir,
Do you provide Post RSS or allow users to follow your blog?
Post a Comment
<< Home