A dangerous precedent in Selangor By P Gunasegaram

QUESTION TIME Most legal authorities and previous judgments on such issues are clear on one thing – the sultan/governor/Agong must choose the candidate who is most likely to command the support of the majority of the state assembly or Parliament for the post of menteri besar/chief minister/prime minister.

And where it is clear that a single candidate commands that majority support, there is no need for the titular head of state to ask for any other names to be nominated but he has to follow the constitutional duty of endorsing the candidate who legally commands the majority support.

This is what a constitutional monarchy is about, where the the head of state lies above politics, does not interfere in the administration of the state, and whose only role here is an important, non-partisan one of ensuring the person who commands the support of the majority of the assembly is the chosen one.

That is the essence of Parliamentary democracy and this must not be allowed to be played around with by any party as the will of the people is reflected through elections in the composition of the state assembly and Parliament. The role of the monarch is to ensure that the will prevails no matter what.

The sultan of Selangor had insisted on other names to be submitted for consideration, but this was not done by PKR, who said that they need to submit only one name. And indeed, according to most sane legal opinion, that is correct.

What happened in Selangor is a dangerous precedent because the candidate who enjoyed the majority support of the Selangor state assembly, PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, as indicated in statutory declarations, was not even so much as considered for the position of menteri besar, let alone chosen.

Imagine if you will a situation in the next general elections: if BN wins, can the Agong demand that the coalition submit a few names for him to consider for prime minister? And if the Pakatan Rakyat coalition wins, can the Agong turn down the person who commands a majority in Parliament for prime minister when he satisfies all other conditions?

Yes, unthinkable. So what’s the difference now?

The issue is not that Dr Wan Azizah is Anwar Ibrahim’s wife or of nepotism, whether it exists or not. What matters is that, if she meets qualifying conditions, then she is entitled to become the menteri besar so long she commands the majority support in the assembly.

But PKR’s decision to name only one candidate was pilloried in the mainstream press which supports the BN, including one that is currently making a big show of endorsing bold and brave views towards moderation.

It was made to appear as if Anwar was being rude and even treasonous to the sultan, and Anwar uncharacteristically apologised to the sultan while gently maintaining that the decision to nominate one person was correct. Indeed it was.

Constitutional crisis?

PKR had its infamous differences with PAS over the issue. The way the whole thing proceeded, it threatened to take the nation into a constitutional crisis which promised to be long, drawn-out, and involve a series of battles in court.

But in what seems to involve backstage bargaining and posturing, the eventual person chosen as menteri besar, Azmin Ali (left), was not even on the list of candidates submitted to the sultan by PKR and PAS.

How can that be? And why are all parties so quick to accept a solution that goes so much against constitutional law in Malaysia? Why has PKR backed down on its insistence that just one candidate is all that it should nominate and now supports Azmin?

Perhaps for PKR, the consolation is that the new menteri besar is from PKR and is its deputy president. For BN and the sultan, the acceptance from PKR avoids a potentially damaging and embarrassing constitutional crisis whichever way the courts decide. And for Selangor and the nation, it means things can go forward.

The question that remains unanswered in this sad and sorry saga is this – why is Azmin, deputy president of PKR, acceptable as menteri besar, and why is Dr Wan Azizah, the president of PKR not? Especially when she commanded majority support of the assembly in the first place.

One more question – why is everyone now agreeing that Azmin be menteri besar? Expediency perhaps, political expediency. But this does not come without a cost.

The biggest loser from this prolonged crisis and its eventual unsatisfactory outcome is the rakyat because the people’s right to chose their leaders has been eroded. An incident like this one is only likely to encourage the palace’s greater interference in choosing the country’s leaders.

And in future, together with the politics of brinkmanship which Malaysia is increasingly heading towards, one wonders what this means towards a smooth transition of power according to the wishes of the people.

Democracy was the major loser in how the Selangor menteri besar was chosen, and by extension, the people whose right to choose had been curtailed.

Where are the honourable men? BY DATUK ZAID IBRAHIM

SOME years ago, a low-ranking police officer in a Midwestern state in America struck a lottery. Just before the draw, he frequented his usual pancake parlour for breakfast; and as part of his usual banter with the old lady who had been serving him over the years, promised her that he would give her half of his winnings if he got lucky.

Well he got extremely lucky soon after, when he struck close to a quarter of a million dollars. To the surprise of the pancake lady, and the whole community in that small town, the policeman gave her half of his winnings.

He need not have given her the money, for what he said was a gratuitous promise, unenforceable in law. He could have just given her a small part of his winnings if he wanted to keep the old lady happy, but not half.

The extraordinary generosity of the policeman epitomised the true character of a man of honour. Honourable men like the policeman keep their word and their promise with no exception.

To them, honour and integrity supersedes all other matters in their lives. This is a far cry from men who claim to be moral and religious, for these men do not always keep to their word, using their position in society to selectively apply their morality as determined by them.

Let’s examine what happened at the PAS muktamar. Many strange things took place, which should open our eyes to how religious people conduct themselves.

There was a delegate who lambasted his opponents through prayer, which allowed him to exceed the permitted time limit for each speaker and to use words that would not otherwise be allowed in a speech – but because it was camouflaged as a “prayer”, the chairman didn’t dare stop him.

Next, we were given a lecture by certain groups of senior ulama who said that a promise, commitment or an undertaking need not be observed if Islam demanded a departure. How conveniently these religious people make rules to suit themselves.

Even the PAS president accused two of the party’s state assemblymen in Selangor of “treachery”, and he used words that we less religious folk would not think appropriate to use.

As such, I think the people of Malaysia must be very careful when it comes to trusting so-called religious leaders regardless of which political party they come from.

The religious outlook of some of them might be just for show – they know that many voters are easily im­­pressed by those who speak Ara­bic – and to them, Islam is a selling point: when they go to the Holy ci­ties for their pilgrimage, they make sure the media is present to show they are pious men of God.

When they speak they always invoke God’s name, so there will be no opposition and to give their words divine force – to question them would be to impair one’saqidah or faith.

These people are actually the new tyrants. They tell lies and stab their friends in the back with impunity, and their lack of integrity and moral compass is staggering.

As leaders, they will not help the people of Malaysia in any meaningful way. Instead, they will retard the growth of the rakyat – both physical and moral – to no end.

It would be better if Malaysians were to put more trust in leaders who were honourable and who ac­­tually conducted themselves with integrity instead of “religious” lea­ders who trade on little more than public demonstrations of piety.

The ulama can always abandon accountability, change their positions, disregard their commitments, or even issue new “rulings” to the contrary of what they preached before because they can always invoke God to defend their actions.

It’s a strange irony that the PAS secretary-general warned in his speech that the party would be blind without the ulama: from where I stand, it’s the ulama who appear to be blind. They are blind to Malaysian women, to friendship, to what is right and wrong and to honourable conduct.

Honourable people are more reliable: they keep their word, they do not make false promises, and even if they have to take actions to their own detriment and personal loss, they will do so to defend matters of principle and honour.

The reason why our country was able to forge unity amongst the different races during the time of independence, and later on to form Malaysia with Sabah and Sarawak, was because our leaders then were honourable and could be trusted.

Those same leaders would fail miserably by today’s “standards”: in their day, there was a nice bar on the lower floor of Parliament – and a few of them would even gather at the race track – but they were sincere, honest and, most importantly, they were principled.

Malaysia benefited from their leadership and service and from the values they imparted towards the governance of our country.

There is no doubt that honourable men are much preferred to those religious ones.

The measure of their character is visible and quantifiable. The benefit such men confer to the community is easy to identify.

They do not pretend to be anything other than their true nature; and they do not find it necessary to tell lies, antagonise their opponents or mislead them into believing anything that is untrue.

They do not seek God’s name to justify their actions or use religion to further their own ends. So next time we have a by-election, the rakyat should not be too preoccupied with the religious outlook or the dress mode of their candidates. They should rely a bit more on the character of the candidate, whether he is a man of honour.

THE GREAT TANAH MELAYU DEBATE

We hear UMNO’s cries for “Brain Gain”, caused by excruciating “Brain Drain”, in the wake of hundreds of thousands of Malaysians who are fleeing their country. We’ve heard the many alleged reasons provided from both sides of the fence. One of the strongest seems to be the fact that UMNO is asking all “pendatangs” to leave the country if they are not happy.

By Michael Chick

Well, Robert Kwok certainly did just that. And along with him, his entire businesses worth billions in “Tax Drain”. BTN has also been copiously assisting, by enthusiastically brainwashing simple minds into thinking that “Tanah Melayu” is reserved for Orang Melayu. Of course, they quickly tell you that anyone can become an Orang Melayu by speaking, dressing, and behaving like one (whatever that means, who knows?).

Well, UMNO managed to achieve one thing. The BTN-type morons, and their predecessors, have been overwhelmingly successful in brainwashing todays’ 27 million citizens. Who says that the Peninsular was ALWAYS called “Tanah Melayu”? This is a recent British Term!! Let me dedicate this Article to the foremost “so-called reknown Historian” of the country. Prof Dr Emeritus Khoo Khay Khim (and anyone else who claims to be as competent in History as well).

Prior to “Tanah Melayu” being a British Tag in the 19th century, the peninsular was formerly known as Malacca in the 15th century. The newly-renamed book “Sejarah Melayu” (previously known as “Asal-Usul Raja-Raja”) mentions every other place from India to China, including the tiny-speck-of-dirt called Temasik EXCEPT “Tanah Melayu”. Why was Tanah Melayu NEVER MENTIONED in Sejarah Melayu? Simple!! Because that was not it’s name!!  

Tanah Melayu was NEVER the name until the British came and colonized the Peninsular.

(please see map below) 

Since UMNO has a habit of believing that “whatever is older is better”, let’s take a short walk down this slippery slope of history. (Also, BTN-Baru syllabus planners should start taking notes.)

For starters, “Malaya” in Tagalog means “Peaceful” (go ask your Pinoy maid).

“Malai” means “Hill” in Tamil; as in “mini-Himalaya” to describe the Titiwangsa Range on the said Peninsular since the 2nd century by the Gujerati Traders who helped the local Malays set up their formidable Hindu Empire at Lembah Bujang.
ref: Prof Nik Hassan, Tom Harrison, and H.G Quatrich Wales

Also read here: http://www.astigan.com/2009/03/06/ppag-unearths-evidence-of-iron-industry-in-lembah-bujang/ 

Only in the 19th Century was The Peninsular known as “Tanah Melayu”.

In the 15th Century, the Peninsular was known by no other name than “The Malacca Peninsular”.

Before “that Rebel-Indonesian Guy” came over here (look, he wanted to kill his own father; what else do you want me to call Parameswara?), the Peninsular was known as “Barr Kra” in the 10th Century. Before that, the Peninsular was known as the “Golden Chersonese” since the 2nd Century. 

“Golden Chersonese is the ancient name to refer to the Malay Peninsula by Claudius Ptolemy or Claudius Ptolemaeus (Greek: Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαῖος; c. 90 – c. 168). Known in English as Ptolemy, he was a Greek-speaking geographer, astronomer, and astrologer. During Roman times, the Malay Peninsula developed an international reputation as a source of gold; hence the name was given.” 

By the way, “Barr”  simply means “Land” in the Persian Language. And Barr Kra above, means “Land of Kra” (as in reference to the Isthmus of Kra).

But I’ve saved the best for last, as usual. And I hope all you soon-to-be “Brain Gain” people are sitting down reading this …. 

The earliest known Arabic Maps refer to the Peninsular as “Barr CHIN”. 

Where Chin refers to CHINA! Why did the Arabs call this Peninsular “Tanah China” instead of “Tanah Melayu”? When Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. spoke about “Exotic Tanah China”, was he actually refering to Malaya? After all, according to records, Malayan Gold Mines was already famous 500 years BEFORE the Prophet was born!! As his wife, Khadijah was a Great Trader. He must have known!

Footnote: Chin is spelt “Xin” by the Portuguese, but always pronounced as Chin.

Alright, it’s now public!! The oldest known Arab Maps called the Peninsular “Barr Chin”; which translates to “Tanah China”, or “Land of Chinese”. BTN can now implement this new found knowledge into their syllabus. You cannot deny that you don’t know it now! Perhaps if you spoke Hokkien, dressed like a Hokkien, and practised Hokkien Customs, the Hokkiens might be gracious enough to accept you. Sounds absurd? Absolutely; and so does the other “Great Race-Changing Trick” practised by UMNO. And I quote Prof Dr Anthony Milner (ANU), “If it’s so easy to join a race, it must be equally easy to ‘un-join’ that race …” 

Alright, Prof Khoo, your turn now … 

This will be the first exercise in “Brain Gain” which UMNO is allegedly proposing, for the greater good of1Malaysia; plus, I’ll even give you a hint: (because I’m nice and assume that you actually really, really, really, don’t know ….)

It’s a Dark Green Hardcover Book about an inch thick; usually reserved for Academicians like yourself. So you won’t find it in Popular, MPH, Wiki, Amazon or any Pasar Malam. I’m sure that Great Historians like yourself, have your own Jstor Account number. 

Unfortunately, it’s written in English, so UMNO people cannot possibly understand it; because, as they say it so eloquently, “…that English sounds like strange babbling ….” So be nice, Prof, and please translate it for them. And in my best Manglish, “Can translate or not? Please?” 

Me? I’ll take a nice stroll over to the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies here in Leiden, to read more on this …. I’d better put on a Jacket too, it’s a little nippy today. 

“Doei!!” Pronounced, ‘do-we’ in Dutch.