Constitutional Monarchy...

Running Head: CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

Constitutional Monarchy in Malaysia should not be abolished.

Constitutional Monarchy...

CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

Abstract In the extension of research on the relevancy of constitutional monarchy in Malaysia, the present study analytically reflects modern Malaysia stance of the institution as being germane to the legal setting of Malaysia. Through analysis of the Malaysian Constitution, relevant books and journals, the issue is examined in every angle ranging from the constitutionality to the practicability of the institution in the present Malaysia. To contend the irrelevancy of the institution is tantamount to constitutional supremacy. The direct link to past events moulding the identity of a State is cut off and the impartial office to act in the absence of politically bias mindset would be of inexistence. Recommendations for research in this paper support the sustainment of the institution.

Constitutional Monarchy...

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract I. II. Introduction Arguments Argument 1 Argument 2 Refutation Counter-Argument III. Conclusion Islamic Perspective IV. References

2 4

5 7 9 10 12

13

Constitutional Monarchy...

INTRODUCTION Ever since Malaysia gains her independence, the issue on the bearing of constitutional monarchy has been the talk of the town. Of course then, the talks occur only among the nonMalays as Malays are well known as loyal subjects to the monarch since the Malacca Sultanate in 1402. However, as time passes, the Malays began to question the relevancy of the system. This implies the transition of the Malays mentality on the monarchs and as they are the back backers of the monarchs, this phenomenon have potential to create a fundamental change in the administration of Malaysia as a whole (Smith SC., 2006). Some quarters argue that the monarchs interference with national issues such as protection of Islam, Malays rights and morality or the lack of it are not welcomed even though they have the rights under the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. It is perceived that constitutional monarchy is an impediment to the implementation or cancellation of certain governmental policies. Others hold the view that the institution should be retained. The debate continues without proper platform as the matter is confined under the Section 3 and 4 as an offence due to the element of seditious tendency (Sedition Act, 1948). This paper seeks to address the issue on purely academic basis. Although some may strongly disagree, it is firmly believed that constitutional monarchy should be retained for the sake of protection to constitutional supremacy and national heritage as well as good governance.

Constitutional Monarchy...

ARGUMENT 1: Constitutional Supremacy First of all, as the Federal Constitution is the backbone of every laws governing Malaysia, the constitutional supremacy ought to be safeguarded in all intents and purposes. Constitutional monarchy is the intended form of government provided by the Constitution and abolishment of such would amounts to infringement of the constitutional supremacy. According to Article 4 Clause (1) of the Federal Constitution (1957), This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of inconsistency, be void (p.14). This provision serves the standard to be followed in the administration of our country and this particular standard is the fundamental law of the nation hence must be adhered to in exchange of an effective political system. For instance, if laws in Malaysia depend solely on the whim and fancy of parliamentarians without reference to a paramount standard of the nation, then the laws in Malaysia will change as the governmental policy changes. This would create chaos in the society and cause our country to lose its identity. For this reason, the Constitution shall remain supreme. On the other hand, the supremacy of our mother law should be preserved as the Constitution contains the elements that are essentially local in origins and character of our society. The Constitution is drafted in contemplation of the sociological values in Malaysian pluralistic society without neglecting the historical background of Malaysia. Since monarchy is such an integral part of the then Malaya, this element should not be set aside as it will give a detrimental effect to the society. However, absolute monarchy as practiced in Malaya is not a practical approach in the modern society thus constitutional monarchy system was adopted including government elected by the people in the administration of Malaysia whilst retaining

Constitutional Monarchy...

the institution of the monarchs. Abdul Aziz Bari (2003) explains the indigenous nature of Malaysian Constitution when he writes, As it has been argued in the foregoing chapter the developments and negotiations that led to the adoption of the Independence Constitution in 1957 were in themselves clear enough to show that despite its Westminster form the Malaysian Constitution is virtually a locally inspired constitutional document. Furthermore, whatever the interference or influence the British had in those days, the constitution has been equipped with methods of amendments which could be used to adjust the constitution to the changing needs and circumstances. To put it differently, what we have today is basically what we have decided to accept and retain (p. 43).

As a result, constitutional monarchy should be retained as it is one of the indigenous characteristics of our Constitution and abandonment of such element is detrimental to the sociological balance of our society. Henceforth, seeing that the constitution is the key to such balancing, the preservation of its supremacy and pre eminence is essential.

Constitutional Monarchy...

ARGUMENT 2: National Heritage Secondly, the institution of monarchs provided by the constitution should be retained for the sake of the protraction of national heritage. It is natural to see that the identity of one nation is tied to the monarchs and the most appropriate example would be the British Royalty of the United Kingdom. The British is known for their politeness and various protocols and this has been kept intact until today via the monarchs projection of these values especially in the official ceremony and this has become the Britishs legacy. Diamond (2004) further emphasizes, nation and post national States differs in which the former monarchical State is founded upon an peculiar identity exclusive of one nation such as language, customs and most importantly universal human rights is viewed via the nations goggles. On the other hand, post national states are founded upon political ideologies giving the example of the States unified under the Nazis and economic policies of the European Union. Henceforth, seeing that such unification is essential in the modern world, we can perceived that the only way to sustain a national identity naturally conceived is through the constitutional monarchy where the State is administered by one common government but the institution of monarchs is retained for the purpose of protracting national identity. Similarly, in the Malaysian context, the monarchs project a diversity of nine federated States identity in their official capacity as Head of State. Malaysia originally consists of nine sovereign States which were united into one Malaysia officially in the 16th day of September 1963 with addition to British Colonies of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak (Wan Arfah & Ramy Bulan, 2003, pp 30-33). These nine sovereign States each conform to their own peculiar identity and their respective rulers project their very own national heritage in the

Constitutional Monarchy...

official capacity as a head of State. For instance, monarchs lifestyle promotes the aesthetical value of a particular culture of a State such as the protocols in traditional Malay wedding reception, exclusive hereditary delicacies recipes and arts. Henceforth, monarchy acts as a guardian of a nations heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shaped it. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty and a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Separating the positions of Head of State and Head of Government also makes great practical sense; the monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing.

Constitutional Monarchy...

REFUTATION There are those who argue very strongly that the institution of monarchs in the present modern world is no longer relevant. The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically monarchs and their immediate family receive substantial amounts of money from the State to maintain luxurious lifestyles, complete with servants, expensive holidays and hobbies. The state also spends a great deal to maintain and run palaces and other royal residences, which are seldom accessible to the general public who support them through their taxes. Security costs are also very high.

Moreover, Royal families have become national embarrassments. In an age of massmedia monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man. Instead kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures (The Star, 2010, May 11). As their wardrobes, squabbles and failing marriages have become constant sources of media scrutiny, so many remaining respect for monarchy as an institution has waned. There are many people travelling abroad sadly find their Head of State, and by extension their whole country, is a source of much amusement to foreigners.

Constitutional Monarchy...

10

COUNTER ARGUMENT Whilst this position has its supporters, their arguments are untenable as to effect in the abolishment of the institution. This means that, the institutions promotion of good governance out do the isolated flaw in the system. First of all, monarchy is highly costeffective when compared to the expense of maintaining a Presidency with a large staff and equally stringent security requirements. Royal residences are held in trust for the nation, and would require the same upkeep costs whether they were inhabited by a monarch or not. Monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. Constitutional experts such as Abdul Aziz Bari (2003) and Diamond (2004) point out that the impartial nature of the office of Head of State free from any political party is essential to ensure good governance. In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. Constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies. Furthermore, setting aside the disputable lifestyle of the royal families, constitutional monarchy is a very effective political system. A hereditary Head of State acts as an important element of continuity within a democratic system. The real powers as opposed to purely theoretical ones of the monarchs are negligible. But as unelected figures above the political conflicts of the day, they retain an important symbolic role as a focus for national unity. Our Rulers have in their own way proved to be courageous and loyal to their people in this time of political uncertainty.

Constitutional Monarchy...

11

8 March 2008 General Election provided numerous tests for the institution. In the Menteri Besar issues in Perlis and Terengganu, the Raja of Perlis and the Regency Council of Terengganu appointed the individual who commanded the confidence of the majority of the State Assemblymen and thus the electorate that they represent. This may have contradicted the wishes of the Federal Government and ultimately the UMNO Presidency, which had become accustomed to appointing Menteris Besar, but these actions were entirely upheld by the state constitutions. The Rulers acted as bulwarks against the centralisation of power, and the people appreciated it: thousands upon thousands thronged Kuala Terengganu to welcome their Sultan after the incident. Respective Rulers have also stepped in during potentially explosive issues created by certain parties. The Sultan of Selangor for example reiterated his position as the Head of Islam in the state and the role of the Islamic Affairs Council during a proposed fatwa on the practice of yoga (Leslie Lau, 2008). This statement alleviated the tension that was created. The statement on the Social Contract by the Conference of Rulers was also released to ease widespread anxiety. By reasserting facts already in the public domain about the Constitution and Social Contract they showed astuteness in reading the mood of their subjects (New Straits Times, 2009). Therefore, notwithstanding the Royal personal lifestyle brouhaha, the institution still maintains its importance since the system ensures good governance. This means that the system is already good and this eliminates the need to abolish the office due to the imperfection of the office holder. The Conference of Rulers and the Judiciary in the Special Royal court should play their respective roles in remedying the problem (Federal Constitution, 1957).

Constitutional Monarchy...

12

CONCLUSION In conclusion, despite certain arguments against the institution of Constitutional Monarchy in the present day Malaysia, the sustainment of such institution is substantial for the sake of protecting the constitutional supremacy and national heritage as well as promoting good governance. It is firmly believed that it is fair to say that regardless of the monarch obsolete powers under the Constitution, the monarch has been the guardian in the essence of our mother law such as democracy and constitutionalism at times when the government in power is reluctant to do so or in abuse of it. The institution also serves as guardian of national heritage through their ceremonial duties and living testimony of historical nature and its impartiality will ensures good governance. In addition to that, Al-Quran in Surah An Nisa (4:59) provides that Obey Allah and obey Rasul and those in authority before you. The person in authority here may be interpreted as the Head of State of whom we should provide allegiance for as long as the monarch acts in accordance of Allah S.W.T command and the guidance of our beloved Prophet Muhammad S.A.W as the verse connotes. For that reason, constitutional monarchy in Malaysia should not be abolished so long as the monarch is righteous in their official capacity and if they are not, so long as there is a way to remedy such weakness whilst sustaining the system.

Constitutional Monarchy...

13

References Al-Quran, Surah An-Nisa: 59 Abdul Aziz Bari, (2003) . Malaysian Constitution: A Critical Introduction. Kuala Lumpur, KL: The Other Press. Diamond, E. (2004) . Hegels Defence of Constitutional Monarchy and Its Relevance within the Post-National State. Retrieved from http://www.swgc.mun.ca/animus Federal Constitution of Malaysia Jocelin Tan, (2010, May 11) . Concerns over escalating Royal Wrangle. The Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestaronline.com.my Leslie Lau, (2008, December 7) Social Contract means Compromise. Retrieved from http://www.themalaysianinsider.com Sedition Act, (1948) Smith, SC. (2006, March 1) . Moving a little with the Tide: Malay Monarchy and the Development of Modern Malay Nationalism, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Volume 34, pp. 123-138. Sultan: Dont Harp on Social Contract. (2009, August 19). New Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.malaysianbar.org.my Wan Arfah & Ramy Bulan, (2003) . An Introduction to The Malaysian Legal System. Shah Alam, SA: Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn Bhd.