Kit's Press Statement on the Special Press Statement of Conference of Rulers

Special Press Statement of Conference of Rulers – testimony of Malaysian nation-building facing a crisis of confidence after half-a-century of nationhood

The Conference of Rulers issued a special joint press statement at its 215th meeting in Kuala Terengganu on the social contract as the bedrock of the formation of Malaysia, in particular “on the role of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Malay rulers regarding the special privileges, position, eminence or greatness of the Malay rulers, Islam, Malay as the national language, the special position of the Malays, and genuine interests of the other communities in accordance with the Federal Constitution”.

This is an unprecedented document and is testimony of Malaysian nation-building facing a crisis of confidence after half-a-century of nationhood – in particular after the March 8 “political tsunami” seven months ago.

This was the theme of my 2009 budget speech in Parliament on Tuesday and Wednesday, where I raised many issues in my 2009 budget speech on the tsunami of crisis of confidence afflicting Malaysia - affecting the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister-in-waiting, the Attorney-General, the Inspector-General, the judiciary and on a whole spectrum of issues whether on anti-corruption, human rights or nation-building.

The special press statement of the Conference of Rulers should be seriously studied by all Malaysians, whether political parties, civic organizations or ordinary citizens for the unity, harmony, prosperity and greatness of the Malaysian nation must be regarded as the responsibility and challenge of every Malaysian citizen, regardless of race, religion or territory so that we can enhance our national competitiveness in the borderless era of information technology and globalization.

Protector of the Malay Race....

Daulat Tuanku

His Royal Highness the YDP Agung and Their Highnesses the Rulers of the States are the best protector of the Malay race and religion of Islam. Not UMNO, not anybody who claimed to fight for Malay rights. All have personal interest and agenda. It is the Royal Court that stands for independence, integrity, fairness and justice.

I totally agree that more power and immunity are to be vested upon our Rulers as the Rulers have significant role in the development of society in multi racial and multi religious Malaysia as such the institution must be strengthened and further enhanced.

Are the institution relevant? DEFINITELY THEY ARE.

Daulat Tuanku
------

KUANTAN: The Tengku Mahkota of Pahang, Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, wants Umno to make efforts to strengthen the institution of the Malay rulers to enhance its role as the protector of the people, especially the Malays, and Islam.

“It’s not that we want more power but we need to study (the matter) so that this institution is not humiliated, mocked or belittled by anyone,” he said in an exclusive interview with Khabar Pahang, the state government’s official newspaper.

He said the abolition of the immunity of the rulers some time ago had indirectly given the impression that the institution was not on a sound footing and could become irrelevant.

But everyone should realise that the institution of the Malay rulers had played an effective role in the country’s development, he said.

He said that while the nation’s leaders were fighting for independence, the representatives of the Malay rulers had also participated, including in the talks in London.

In this context, it was not a question of who had more power, the executive, the government of the day or the institution of rulers but rather, of the Malay rulers and the ruling party having the spirit to co-exist so that the well-being and sovereignty of the nation were preserved at all times, he added. -- Bernama

Press Statement by Malaysian Bar President regarding Karpal & Sedition

The role of the Rulers within the framework of the Federal Constitution is manifold. There are instances where they act on advice, where they have a discretion, and where they (the Conference of Rulers) are consulted (as in the appointments of the Chief Justice, Chief Judges of the High Courts and the Auditor General, to name a few). We have also seen in many instances the important advisory role they have played, and the moderating influence they have had in decision-making processes.

Even in instances where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acts on the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister, he is entitled to any information that he requests concerning the government of the Federation which is available to the Cabinet. In fact the Rulers provide an important check and balance in the many situations envisioned in our Federal Constitution. The State Enactments are also clear on the role of the Ruler particularly as Head of the Religion of Islam in their respective States. (In the case of Malacca, Penang, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territories the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is head of the Religion of Islam).

Apart from the cold print of the Federal and State Constitutions, there are conventions built up over time that operate, and that may vary from state to state.

The position and influence of the Rulers is built as much on the deference and respect accorded to them by all Malaysians, as it is on the provisions of the Federal Constitution, State Constitutions and conventions. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is in fact seen as a symbol of unity amongst the multi-racial, multi-cultural people of Malaysia.

Given the results of the recent general elections, however, it is unsurprising that issues have arisen that have brought to the fore debates on the scope and powers of the Rulers in the government of the State. Indeed, different views have been aired in the recent past concerning the events in Terengganu and Kedah.

Now it appears that only Mr Karpal Singh is being threatened with a charge for participating in such a debate. Apart from the other demerits of the Sedition Act and of proceedings under it, the move against Karpal is unacceptable, more so when there is a lack of similar action against others who have exercised their freedom of expression in quite the same manner as Karpal has.

The Bar Council urges the authorities to exercise restraint in relation to their proposed action against Karpal Singh.

Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
Malaysian Bar

14 May 2008

Maka Kami, Rakyat Malaysia berikrar....

The title remind me the year 1988 when I was in Standard 6, of my head prefect and friend, Azmi in SRK Banda Hilir,Melaka reciting the Ikrar and Rukunegara of our dear country every Monday morning after we sang the national and state anthem the Negaraku and Melaka Maju Jaya respectively. So much so I am so proud to recite the Rukunegara almost every day if not at least three-four times a week until today subconsciously. It sticks in my mind and I gladly keep it in my heart.

Come the 12th General Elections, during the 13 days campaigning, I was gladly and more happy to recite the Rukenegara as I'm so proud of it. I keep on declaring it because I believe in the sanctity of a Malaysian race. As all Malaysians mempercayai kepada Tuhan. The draughtsman crafted the Rukenegara with such carefulness by omitting the word Allah but embracing the word Tuhan to encompasses the many religion of our country.

However what I intend to express is the second phrase of Kesetiaan Kepada Raja dan Negara. Loyalty to King and Country. It is the Country that we fight with our blood and to our King we love and exalt. Our loyalty is not to a political party or to the government of the day BUT to the King and Sultans that all Malaysians acknowledge as a symbol of truth and harmony reflecting a true identity of being Malaysian. I remember Raja Nazrin, the Regent of Perak, in one of his lecture stated the importance of the Monarch in uniting Malaysians of all race, religion and creed.

This pic was taken from KLPOS.COM. Look at
the word 'Natang'. What does that suggest?

Of course in seeing UMNO demonstrating showing their disgust against the authority of the Sultan of Terengganu who happen to be the present Yang DiPertuan Agong, Malaysians all over cannot accept the mannerism of UMNO Terengganu. I am so sad for the utterance of UMNO Terengganu against the Terengganu Royals and I must say Malaysian denounce such acts of treachery by UMNO Terengganu. What UMNO Terengganu did was a mockery to their own Sultan whom we all declare in our Rukunegara 'Kesetiaan Kepada Raja dan Negara" and more so against the peoples' praise for their Sultan as evidenced in the Terengganu State Anthem which they sing and uphold in their hearts.

So what happen to Kesetiaan Kepada Raja dan Negara? What happen to the oath of loyalty and the upholding of the Malay traits of Hang Tuah? Meaning is UMNO departing themselves from loyalty to King and Country. Are UMNO no more loyal? Or is UMNO showing their supremacy over the Royals and Constitution? These are questions bothering Malaysians because Malaysians can't afford for another constitutional crisis. AND I believe, that all Malaysian irrespective of race, religion and creed will defend the sanctity of the Monarchy and the Constitution. UMNO MUST APOLOGISE.

As such I feel that UMNO should just forget about Idris Jusoh as Menteri Besar and carry on with life. Forget about UMNO supremacy but identify with a Malaysian race that will be benefiting everyone. With the threat of globalisation and the uncertainty of our economy, we have to embrace ourselves in the coming economic tsunami.

PEOPLE'S APPEAL... taken from the People's Parliament

The People’s Appeal To His Majesty The Yang DiPertuan Agung

On 19/9/2007, the nation was rocked by another scandal, this time in the form of a video clip which exposed what appears to be a telephone conversation between senior lawyer VK Lingam and another person, allegedly fixing the appointment of ‘friendly’ senior judges.

A careful study of the monologue presented in the video clip leaves a very clear impression that the telephone conversation is indeed between VK Lingam and the present CJ, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and relates to the appointment and promotion of judges. Other judges are also named in the course of the conversation.

That Tun Ahmad Fairuz had, subsequent to the release of the video clip, first responded that he would need to first view the video clip before saying anything, then issuing a ‘no comment’ response and only lately and that too through a third party making a bare denial of being a party to the conversation leaves us, the rakyat with a sense that Tun Ahmad Fairuz has not responded with complete candour on this matter.

This scandal now casts serious doubts on the suitability of Tun Ahmad Fairuz to head the judiciary as well as on the propriety of the appointments and promotions, made on the recommendation of Tun Ahmad Fairuz, of several judges of the High Courts, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

We, the rakyat, no longer have any confidence whatsoever in the judiciary.

We, the rakyat have noted for some time that some very senior judges have been constantly overlooked in the numerous promotion exercises that have proceeded during the tenure of Tun Ahmad Fairuz, with junior judges being preferred.

We the rakyat have also noted that it was recently reported that Their Royal Highnesses acting through the Conference of Rulers rejected two nominations by Tun Fairuz for the position of President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of Malaya although these positions had been vacant for a long time. It is rumoured that those nominated by Tun Fairuz were junior in comparison with many other more senior serving judges.

We, the rakyat, have further noted that there is at least one judge promoted to the Federal Court who, it is reported, has failed to deliver written judgments in up to as many as 35 cases, with the result that appeals by many who have been convicted of offences and are in prison are unable to have their appeals heard.

This most recent scandal also raises again real concerns about the sudden change of the trial judge in an ongoing murder trial in Shah Alam.

We, the rakyat, are also gravely concerned about the recent decisions in several high-profile cases and whether these were ‘fixed’ by Tun Ahmad Fairuz and, if so, the implications it has in relation to the other judges of our superior courts.

The reaction of the Prime Minister, other members of his cabinet and the Attorney-General to the matter of this video clip give us, the rakyat, no reason at all to believe that this scandal will be honestly investigated so that the truth of the matter will never be known.

We, the rakyat, do not believe that the Prime Minister and his present government are committed to getting to the bottom of this scandal and, if ascertained to be the truth, to take all necessary steps to restore the judiciary as a constitutional institution emplaced to independently defend the constitution, the rights of the rakyat, and to uphold the rule of law.

In this regard, the announcement on 25/6/2007 by the Deputy Prime Minister of a 3-man panel to be headed by one who was implicated in the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas in 1988 to now investigate this scandal fortifies our belief that the present government is determined that the truth in relation to this scandal never becomes known.

We, the rakyat, are gravely concerned that if this scandal is left to be investigated by the administration of the Prime Minister, the police or the Anti-Corruption Agency, the rakyat will only witness another cover-up, leaving us, the rakyat without any recourse to justice, ever suspicious whether the judiciary is to protect the rakyat or the interests of a chosen few.

This most recent scandal raises concerns whether the corruption that has become so prevalent in the management of this country has now also made its way into the judiciary.

For these many reasons, we, the rakyat, now pray that Your Majesty may be so moved and in the exercise of the full powers conferred on Your Majesty to :-

1. direct the establishment of a Royal Commission to inquire into, consider and/or determine whether in fact the conversation reflected in the said video clip did occur between VK Lingam and Tun Ahmad Fairuz and the veracity of the assertions made by VK Lingam in the said video clip and, if found to be so, that the Commission be further mandated to enquire into, consider and/or determine:-

1.1 the involvement of all those named in the said video clip in connection with the appointment and promotion of judges;

1.2 cases in which VK Lingam was involved and which were heard and / or decided by Tun Ahmad Fairuz and / or any of the other judges named in the said video clip;

1.3 all acts carried out by Tun Ahmad Fairuz during his tenure as Chief Judge of Malaya, President of the Court of Appeal and Chief Justice, more particularly:-

• the basis of the appointment and / or promotion of judges by Tun Ahmad Fairuz with particular emphasis on the other judges named in the said video clip;
• the manner in which the members of the panels of the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court were selected by Tun Ahmad Fairuz during his tenure as President of the Court of Appeal and Chief Justice; and
• the manner in which files were allocated to the panels of the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court by Tun Ahmad Fairuz during his tenure as President of the Court of Appeal and Chief Justice.

2. the Royal Commission having ascertained that the conversation reflected in the said video did occur between VK Lingam and Tun Ahmad Fairuz and assertions made by VK Lingam in the said video clip to be true, to :-

• direct the Prime Minister to take all necessary steps to appoint a tribunal under Article 125 of the Federal Constitution to remove Tun Ahmad Fairuz and/or any and all judges found by the Commission to have been implicated, directly or otherwise by the acts of misconduct of Tun Ahmad Fairuz; and

• direct the Prime Minister to take all necessary steps to suspend Tun Ahmad Fairuz and/or any and all judges found by the Commission to have been implicated, directly or otherwise by the acts of misconduct of Tun Ahmad Fairuz, pending the reference to and/or report of the tribunal.

3. direct the immediate establishment of an independent Commission for the appointment and promotion of judges to the High Courts, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

The Role of the Monarchy per HRH Raja Dr Nazrin Shah

I can't help but to post this below, taken from Raja Nazrin Shah, the Raja Muda of Perak on the role of the monarchy today. He suggested that the role of the Monarchy is different from that of yesteryears. And what he Highness say is so true. That they are above politics. Contributing to public life by redefining their role as that "of helping to uphold justice, maintain peace and resolve conflicts between contending parties, in much the same way as judges serve society".

His Highness also states that the monarchy strengthens the institutions of governance and enhances, rather than detracts from, the democratic process. They symbolises the virtue of he identity, continuity, unity and strength. It is a symbol of unity because it is a focal point for citizens of all races, religions and political persuasions to rally around. And it is a symbol of strength because it exemplifies the virtues of justice, mercy and honour. Contrary to some opinion, the Malaysian monarchy is not all form and no function. As a result of that they have a larger role to play in developing a society of understanding.

His Highness also bring the monarch in memory lane whereby, many monarchies around the world have disappeared because Rulers took their status as a divine right to some even liken a demigod right rather than a responsibility. They did not bother to re-evaluate and reinvent their roles as guardians of the welfare of their subjects and, not surprisingly, did not retain the public's acceptance and trust. Monarchies came to be closely associated with autocracy, megalomania, tyranny, cruelty and feudalism.

For the monarchy in Malaysia to continue to function effectively as one of the main national axes around which society pivots, it must remain fresh and vital by fulfilling the role expected of it. It is an often overlooked or under-appreciated fact that the monarchy in Malaysia is supposed to play a productive role by being a healthy check and balance in the system of governance. The Federal Constitution mandates the monarchy to be the guardian of the just rule of law, an impartial arbiter in the democratic process and an overseer over the pillars of state. Some believe that the Rulers are supposed to do so only in a purely ceremonial sense, but Raja Nazrin argued that this contradicts the true spirit of the Federal Constitution.

People Power (Part 2)

Just yesterday I post about the importance of getting the Rakyat to be involved in decision making as we are stakeholders of this nation. We have seen many laws passed which resulted in unfairness at great length. Our Constitution has been amended 42 times within the space of 49 years. Sad but its true. Our Constitution has been diluted and raped in such a way to a certain extent without the consent by the people. Our Wakil Rakyat to a certain extent betray our trust as guardians of the constitution.

As such why not a proposal that let the powers be given back to the people. There is a need to see the people getting involved with policy and decision making in this country that affect us all. Now is the time let the people decide and then only the PM can say that he is the First Civil Servant.

I'm glad to hear the brilliant words of Raja Nazrin recently on good governance as the citizens are more educated and equipped. The government cannot lie to us any more and treating us like kids. I quote what His highness remarked, "They demand a progressive and representative form of government. They want to be part of decision-making that affects their lives and livelihood." He also noted that society today was more interested in achieving results than merely obeying the rules.

Having said that, I'm of the opinion that the people wants a governments that is approachable and consultative, some sort of an open government whereby the views of the people are noted. The Rakyat do not wish to be told all the time what they can do or can't do. The Rakyat wants a progressive government that will take into account the voice of the people. This is in fact a true democracy. All voice MUST be heard and that includes the voice from the Opposition and the Non Governmental Organisation.

I must also make mention a special remarked he made is this, I quote, "While public officials should be accorded sufficient power to deliver good governance, there must be effective restraints on the arbitrary exercise of that power so that the general interest and not special interests are served." I must applaud for his openness and frankness and this must be make known to our current government.

Rulers vs PM

Unbelievable or rather believable, as it can only happen to Bolehland, Malaysia. I was pretty upset to read in the NST today under the heading “PM makes decisions on key judicial posts, says top judge”. Reading it literally makes a mockery to the Rulers as the Constitution do stipulate that the Rulers must be consulted in appointments of key judicial posts such as the Chief Judge of Malaya which is currently vacant. The Chief Judge had also being reported, which I hope that the report is not true that, and I quote from the report, "Consultation means you consult. It is not binding on you. The prime minister consults me and it is not binding on him. I cannot force the prime minister to accept what I want. It is not binding, the prime minister still decides."

Now who is the Chief Judge to compare with the Rulers and the Yang DiPertuan Agong (the Supreme Leader). Though the role of the Yang DiPertuan Agong is largely ceremonial in Malaysia's constitutional monarchy, the PM in my opinion should treat the advise as important and not a mere rubber stamp. Though legally under Article 40(1) of the Federal Constitution, the Yang DiPertuan Agong was bound by the Prime Minister's advice, yet at the same time His Highness must show respect to the views of the Conference of Rulers as the Rulers have the right to express their opinions and concerns.

I would prefer the views taken by Prof Shad Faruqi, Professor of Law at UITM who pointed out that even though there was no provision in the Federal Constitution to by-pass the King in making the appointment, the letter of appointment must come from the King. So legally, that would mean that the Rulers were a party to the appointment process of key government posts and as such must be consulted.

It is true that our conduct is stated in the constitution, there are many grey areas that aren’t stipulated and as such convention and customs play a pivotal role in seeing the harmony between procedures and laws. More so, why is it the framers of our Constitution stipulates the importance of consultation by the Rulers in the first place? Now having said that, there is a great possibility that the roles by the Rulers are deemed to be important so as to give some check and balance on the conducts of the Executive. As such the Rulers views must be consulted at all times.

Daulat Tuanku

Thank God for the Rulers. I must say at the end of the day, justice will always prevail no matter how long and how much it takes because God is in control not the government of the day. There are laws to follow and as such follow the law laid down by the Constitution and Parliament. The government of the day cannot at anytime do in their wimps and fancy, dictating terms as though they are the royals.

I must admire the boldness of the Rulers in flexing their Highnesses muscles to protect the constitutional foundation of our country thus providing proper check and balance on the administration and that includes the Judiciary. At times when there is a gloomy day, there is always a ray of hope that will take precedence over it. And this time it came from the Conference of Rulers.

----- News taken from The Straits Times, Singapore

KUALA LUMPUR - MALAYSIA'S sultans have refused to endorse the government's candidate for a key judicial post, setting the stage for a possible impasse between the rulers and the administration.

The Conference of Rulers last month asked Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi to reconsider the candidate named for the post of Chief Judge of Malaya (CJM), the third highest-ranking official in the judiciary.

The Constitution requires the Prime Minister to 'consult' the Conference of Rulers, comprising the nine hereditary rulers, and their highly unusual move to withhold approval has created a stir in the legal fraternity.

The position of CJM has been vacant for seven months since Tan Sri Siti Norma Yaakob retired in January. There are currently eight judges in the Federal Court who qualify for the appointment.

'There were concerns as to why the candidate was picked over three other more senior judges,' said a source, alluding to a possible reason for the lack of royal approval.

When asked by reporters about the matter, Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim declined comment, saying judicial appointments were a confidential matter classified under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

Under the Malaysian Constitution, the rulers are to be consulted on certain key government appointments such as judges or members of the Election Commission.

In the case of judicial appointments, the Prime Minister makes the recommendations after discussing with the Chief Justice.

However, while they rarely reject recommendations, the Conference of Rulers has always been active in debating the appointments.

One of its most senior members, Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak was head of the Malaysian judiciary in the 1970s. PM Abdullah is believed to have met the Perak Sultan over this matter.

Legal opinion is divided on whether the rulers' refusal to accept the candidate will stymie the appointment.

The Constitution is silent on this point, while in the case of Bills passed by Parliament, it states that they automatically become law after 60 days if the rulers withhold assent.

A similar case arose in 1999 when sacked deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim tried to disqualify judge Mokhtar Sidin from hearing his case.

He argued that the judge might be biased against him as he had represented the administration at a Conference of Rulers' meeting which declined to accept Datuk Mokhtar's appointment to the Court of Appeal.

Datuk Mokhtar was nevertheless subsequently appointed to the bench.

The court ruled then that 'to consult does not mean to consent', and the rulers' views are not binding on the prime minister.

However, in his 2004 book 'Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance', Sultan Azlan Shah noted that this goes against the grain and spirit of the Constitution.

The consultation process is meant as a mechanism of checks and balances, he argued.

Yesterday, Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz, who has been acting as CJM for almost seven months, would only reveal that the No 3 post would be filled before the end of the year.

But to add to the complexity, the post of the President of the Court of Appeal - the No 2 post - is currently also vacant following the death of Tan Sri Malek Ahmad in June.

Tun Ahmad Fairuz himself is also due for retirement in October.