1. The Federal Constitution is the basic law of the country. It was drafted by a panel of judges from the Commonwealth countries. Before accepting it the multi-racial leaders of the country made some amendments including to protect the position of the indigenous people whose poverty and relative backwardness were acknowledged by the multi-racial leaders who felt that those needed to be addressed.

2. Subsequently the constitution was amended several times to make provisions for current situations which arose.

3. There were two amendments worthy of mention. The need for the Agong to sign all laws before they become legal seems to negate the right of the people to make laws through their elected parliament. Normally the Agong acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. In the United Kingdom their sovereign dutifully acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. But there was fear that in Malaysia the Agong may not. The amendments provided that if the Agong refuses to sign into law it should be sent back to Parliament and if Parliament passed it with or without amendments it will become law even if the Agong does not sign it after two months.

4. The second amendment created a special court to hear charges against a ruler. This was made necessary after a ruler assaulted a citizen.

5. But the principal provisions in the Constitution state that Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy.

6. A constitutional monarch has no executive power. This means that he may not be involved in the administration of the country. This was considered necessary because in the past the Malay states were ruled by rulers with absolute power and the people were forbidden from being involved in politics. The result was that tracts of land were given to foreign countries, concessions given to foreign businesses, and finally independence was surrendered to the British under treaties lasting for as long as there is the sun and the moon.

7. When war ended and the British returned, the position of the Malay rulers was precarious. In India all the Rajas and Maharajas had lost their thrones. In Indonesia the Sultans and sundry rulers had been deposed, if not killed. It was with this background that the British proposed to amalgamate the Malay states and the Straits Settlements into a Malayan Union to be ruled as a colony. The Sultans would only be heads of Malay customs and religion.

8. Harold MacMichael reminded the Sultans that recognition by the British depended upon their signing agreements ceding their states to the British. Should they refuse the British would recognise another royal who would sign. And there were many waiting to sign. Accordingly all signed.

9. The Malays were legalistic. Since the rulers signed they had to be maintained to refute their signatures. And they did and the status quo ante was restored.

10. It was because the rulers could be so easily persuaded to make wrong decisions that the executive authority was transferred to the elected Government. The Government and its leaders and Parliament were expected to be firm in defending the Constitution and the interest of the people and country. The Prime Minister in particular must be firm and not be swayed by customary adats or deference to the rulers. The rulers are to be paid handsome pensions and may not be involved in business. This was considered necessary because officers tend to defer to the wishes of rulers and would find difficulty in rejecting business propositions by them. There was also the belief that unscrupulous businessmen would make use of the Sultans to get an advantage over others and to bypass rules and policies.

11. The Federal Constitution is a good constitution. There were some breaches but the constitution has served Malaysia well.

12. Unlike Thailand we have no laws against insulting the King. To a certain extent the ISA was a deterrent. Now there is no more ISA. Already there is a tendency to criticise and insult the rulers. The constitution is being ignored.

13. People might go further as they know no action can be taken against them.

14. If they are encouraged by other instances of the constitution being ignored or bypassed, they might become even more blatant. It might lead to racial clashes or it might lead to demands for the constitution to be amended.

15. It is dangerous, therefore, for anyone, including royalty to disregard the limitations imposed by the constitution.


  1. Tun Perak Jun 16,2014 6:48 PM


    From historical perspective, the constitutional monarchy was created due to the weaknesses of the Rulers who seem not to have the courage or the knowledge to stop the Malayan Union ideas from being implemented. Dato Onn Jaafar has seen the effect of Rulers weaknesses and almost dethroned Sultan Ibrahim of Johor for foresaking the interest of the Malay and other subject during that period.

    Tunku Abdul Rahman went further by proposing for Independence that gave most of the administrative power to the common people. In fact, the administrative power was transfered from British to the Commoners and not from the Rulers to the Commoners.

    As mentioned and implemented by Tun – several ammendments was made , the most glaring were (1) The lost of immunity of the Rulers from being charged in court for illegal activities and (2) The ammendment not signed by YDPA would be approved by Parliament within 2 months time.

    Item (1) is straight forward. Hang Jebat has stated ” Raja Adil Raja Disembah Raja Zalim Raja Disanggah”. Adalah tidak adil sekiranya ada raja menganggap darah mereka suci dan darah rakyat tidak sama seperti darah mereka lantas boleh membunuh sesuka hati. Untuk keharmoniaan sejagat – undang-undang yang membolehkan Raja dihukum atas kesalahan seperti membunuh amat Adil dan Saksama sekali. Sedangkan Raja Muhammad bila membunuh anak Bendahara di hukum buang negeri. Inikan pula Raja yang hidup pasca zaman penjajahan.

    Frankly, I would not know the real reasoning for Item (2). It would be very subjective and debatable. For the cause of efficiency, any good laws passed within two months from the proposed date would be good for the nation. The Malay are very flexible yet they are cautious if any law is passed for the detriment of their interest would reflex the shift of support back from the administrator to the rulers.

    We know for sure what had happened to a southern state recently. The most lucrative business in Malaysia is the business of selling electricity and somehow a businessman who shouted Cronisme to the government is not ashamed to apply to become the Crony of the Ruler. Interesting deal was made. The Ruler under a special purpose vehicle would be only a sleeping partner while the controller of the operation of the lucrative business would be that businessman. If a businessman had claimed that he had been very successful by operating 85 % of his business outside Malaysia and awarded the most profitable IPP in Malaysia by the government as it is due to his own sweat without manipulating others, then I think he should not be given any other direct negotiation or free deal. In fact he should compete through an open tender exercise so that his really works what he claimed.

    I suggest another law should be passed – that is (3) Rulers (Sultan) should be prohibited from undertaking any business activities or else he would be made to look bad by his partners in business.

  2. hafizkenedelete Jun 15,2014 3:25 AM

    بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

    Salam Tun…
    Salam Warga Chedet..
    Izinkan saya Cincai2 tulis..

    Saya berasa kagum dan takjub melihat karangan Ahso sudah semakin panjang umpama karangan saya ketika UPSR dolu dolu.. Tahniah Ahso@Uncle kerana sudah upgrade your style of writing..vely vely implesive…Wow!!

    Tolak tepi cerita Ahso dan artikel copy paste beliau…..

    Saya pun ada nak karang cerita dari sudut pemikiran saya yg cetek ini…


    Ceritanya pendek, isunya pun pendek…
    soal kepercayaan saya sebagai rakyat terhadap pemimpin..
    Pemimpin kerajaan -Saya memang tak percaya diorang, awal2 berapi2 berjuang kununnya nak bela itu, nak bela ini, tapi bila dah berjawatan dalam kerajaan, bila duit dah bersepah depan mata, semua perjuangan pun hilang, terus buat program kira wang…

    Pemimpin pembangkang- saya cuba memahami dan mempercayai diorang, malangnya 2×5 jugak ngan kerajaan, mula2 berapi nak hapus penyelewengan, kronisme, dynasty, tapi bila dah tawan negeri Selangor dan Penang, , mereka lagi teruk dari kerajaan… pui pui pui…

    Saya nak harapkan Raja yg dijulang, tapi Raja juga sebok kira wang dan keuntungan…Sampai nasib rakyat berbilang kaum di anak tirikan…

    Jadi selaku rakyat marhaen, saya nak harap kat sapa?

    Jadi saya buat keputusan, kalau ada pihak selain kerajaan dan pembangkang dalam pilihanrayu akan datang, saya dan ribuan sahabat2 persatuan, akan vote bagi pihak selain diorang.. pecahkan monopoli diorang…

    Sedar tak sedar, karangan saya lebih panjang dari Ahso 45678 sembilan..

    Apa guna lagi lu orang sokong kalau dah nyata ini pemimpin serupa jembalang… Mari lawan dari luar dan dalam…


    kalo kita layankan, besok ini Malaysia pupus macam puak Mayan…
    Quang quang quang…

    anggap la kita ni macam DarulSyifa’ yang nak halau ini jembalang2 keluar dari tubuh pesakit yg bernama MALAYSIA bumi tercinta..

    Wasalam dan Sekian..
    P/s , ahso jgn marah saya sebab karangan saya memang AAA, lu punya c+..hahahahahaha..

  3. Hajar Jun 14,2014 2:09 PM

    Salam YAB & Yg diKasihi Tun,

    Mohon izin Tun:

    For ‘tebing tinggi’, June 10, 2014 at 11:21 PM

    Thanks for agreeing with me.

    Yes, “Harapkan PEGAR, PEGAR makan padi”. PEGAR is a type of bird (‘Ayam Pegar’).

    Saya dengar/baca ada Pemerintah (tapi saya tidak nampak sendiri dokumen jual-beli) yang jual tanah lebih 100 ekar..Jika ini benar, sudah semestinya DUIT yang diutamakan; ini contoh sikap tamak haloba; sanggup menggadai tanah Melayu kerana duit.

    Adakah kita boleh bergantung harap kepada Pemerintah yang menjual tanah kepada orang asing? Kebimbangan Tun memang berasas.

    Terima kasih Tun.

    *** Semoga Allah SWT sentiasa melindungi Tun sekeluarga. ***

  4. HBT456 Jun 12,2014 5:04 AM

    Free to Choose (1980)

    The key insight of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations is misleadingly simple: if an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.

    Ch. 1 “The Power of the Market”, page 13
    Whether it is in the slums of New Delhi or in the affluence of Las Vegas, it simply isn’t fair that there should be any losers. Life is unfair — there is nothing fair about one man being born blind and another man being born with sight. There is nothing fair about one man being born of a wealthy parent and one of an indigenous parent. There is nothing fair about Muhammad Ali having been born with a skill that enables him to make millions of dollars one night. There is nothing fair about Marlene Dietrich having great legs that we all want to watch. There is nothing fair about any of that. But on the other hand, don’t you think a lot of people who like to look at Marlene Dietrich’s legs benefited from nature’s unfairness in producing a Marlene Dietrich. What kind of a world would it be if everybody was an absolute identical duplicate of anybody else. You might as well destroy the whole world and just keep one specimen left for a museum. In the same way, it’s unfair that Muhammad Ali should be a great fighter and should be able to earn millions. But would it not be even more unfair to the people who like to watch him if you said that in the pursuit of some abstract idea of equality we’re not going to let Muhammad Ali get more for one nights fight than the lowest man on the totem pole can get for a days unskilled work on the docks. You can do that but the result of that would be to deny people the opportunity to watch Muhammad Ali. I doubt very much he would be willing to subject himself to the kind of fights he’s gone through if he were to get the pay of an unskilled docker.

    From Created Equal, an episode of the PBS Free to Choose television series (1980, vol. 5 transcript).

    The point to pounder: Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.

    Perkasa, isma, ngo malay and the raids of unmo baru and islamic authorities in terrorizing basic right of non-muslim voters have made malay rulers look bad in a secular country like malaysia that comprises of many different races. Sending a malaysian chinese in money laundering of 1.5 millions to 1942 years of jail just to made us look bad, but cow gate wrong doers can run away because they are umno baru, and above the law.

    The curse of rahman will be materialized in next general election.

  5. sibotak Jun 11,2014 5:56 PM

    I vely vely like grkumar of all his comment
    Reflects he is educated rational & positive
    grkumar sibotak salutes u !
    This is Gladiator !

  6. sibotak Jun 11,2014 5:41 PM

    Saya Berdoa antara Usaha saya sebagai anak Bumi
    Supaya UMNO dapat Bersatu dengan PAS
    Apa salahnya & apa Malunya kalau kita mendahului langkah Pertama
    Untuk menyatu padakan Ummah kita demi Kalimah

    Anwar sememangnya wajar di Singkir keluar Negeri
    Kerana Beliau sanggup & punca Perpecahan Melayu
    Demi nafsu & dendam beliau BUKAN Perjuangan untuk Malaysia
    Mungkin di Singapura sesuai untu Beliau & sesuai juga untuk Pemimpin sana
    Yg Sukakan Beliau juga

    Apa yg Belaku di Johor Amat Ketara
    Seolah Tuan Rumah sedang Tidur Lena & sibuk membuang masa sengketa sesama
    Lihat saja Tambakan Laut di Setulang Laut , Johor
    Apa Benda NAk Tambak Laut sedangkan Tanah Johor masih Luas
    Pasti Tak Perlu Bukti Ada Agenda tertentu
    Satu darinya Hancurlah Jambatan yang dirancang Tun untuk Kepentingan Johor .
    Alang alang Tambak berapa Meter Lgi Teruskanlah Tambakan
    BOLIH CANTUM dengan Singapura jika itu Keinginannya….Jangan malu malu…

    Lihat saja Siapa yg buat CIQ
    Selepas CIQ kesemuanya diDorong Laluan ke City Square milik Singapura
    Apa kurang ke Mall milik Malaysia
    Ini kan Tanah Kita Hak Kita Kenapa Kita begitu Dayus sekali

    Maka Kesemua ini perlu Pantaun yg Tegas
    Perlu adakan Elite Body yg memperhatikan pada setiap Sempadan yg ada
    Inilah Kunci Kelemahan Kerajaan Malaysia

    Langkah pertama yg Perlu Anda & Kita Lakukan adalah

    Meraka sememangnya suka melihat kita Berpecah Belah
    Begitu juga di Timur Tengah Kita menyalahkan orang Arab tidak Bersatu
    Kita merlempahkan Arab Islam Bodoh

    Musuh Pertama kita adalah apabila Kita Berpecah Belah

  7. grkumar Jun 11,2014 5:39 PM

    The fact of the Sultans being “controlled” or enjoying the patronage of foreigners is legend ( refer to the comments of Malaysia Bagus). There is ample evidence to support this comment.

    The recent positions taken up by the spouses of the Sultans in support of Christians and their unworthy causes to provoke Malay sentiment is an example of the Sultans abrogating their responsibilities as protectors of the Islamic faith and their Malay subjects.

    It is true as the Tun would suggest, that the Sultans ought to be the example of obedience to the constitution lest they create a precedent by which others will later follow in order to displace the Malays and everything Malay in Malaysia.

    The position privileges and immunity accorded the sultans needs to be reviewed in keeping with the times and the needs of the community. But that’s a matter best left to the Malays as their relationship with the Sultans (their traditional rulers) is not really a matter for the non Malays who do not ascribe to those traditions, customs and values that form a part of the Malay psyche.

    The number of Datukships literally sold to the non Malays by sultans need to be reviewed as well especially where these Datukships are brought into disrepute by insults to the office of the sultan by holders of these paid for Datukships.

  8. Malaysia Bagus Jun 11,2014 5:06 PM

    Salam Tun,

    how the Sultans and the Agong have so far SERVED their role as protectors of Malays and the Muslim religion is best described as only a RUMOUR.

    A rumour that is pleasing to the Malay’s ears, a sort of fantasy that there is gallant defenders of the last bastion of Malay privilege, knights in shining tengkolok and scary keris, men brave enough to risk their lives for the Malay “koman” people ( common people) – when in reality these so-called ‘protectors’ are so detached living in opulence and hedonistic existence.

    As Tun mentioned #7, their positions were once precarious. But now, they have managed to transfer it over to the rakyat, especially to the Malays to fight amongst themselves as in UMNO Vs PAS/PKR, so much so that the Malay political world is crumbling right under his Majesties tutelage.

    Raja dan Sultan sepatutnya menjadi lambang kesatuan bangsa. Tetapi bila orang Melayu berpecah belah, Raja dan Sultan tak berfungsi apa-apa kecuali angguk sana angguk sini. In the meantime, untold thousands of hectares of Malay land is being exchanged for easy money.

    And Sultan as the protector of Muslim religion? Just have a look HERE and you will know what I mean. Ampon Tuanku, patek mohon sembah derhaka!

  9. Tanggang Jun 11,2014 11:28 AM

    Salam Yg Bhg Tun

    Sekarang tiada lagi British sebagai penasihat memperkudakan negeri Melayu. Kini DAP pula memperkudakan bangsa Melayu. Walaupun mereka tidak menjadi Menteri Besar ketika dahulu, tetapi melalui rakan pakatan PAS mereka, berjaya melanjutkan ‘lease’ kampong2 baru mereka kesatu tempoh yang kurang waras yaitu sehingga selama 999 tahun.

    Harapkan pagar pagar makan padi , harapkan sokong , sokong membawa rebah .

  10. tebing tinggi Jun 10,2014 11:21 PM

    Salam Tun,

    I would agreed with Hajar suggestion , but the leaders now, are no more listening to RAKYAT ,they just do what the best for themselves .

    Rakyat as supreme authority of the nation ,had to decide ,whether they should let these leaders around.

    Harapkan pagar pagar makan padi , harapkan sokong , sokong membawa rebah .

  11. Hajar Jun 10,2014 8:55 PM

    Salam YAB & Yg diKasihi Tun,

    1. Tugas Raja-raja dan Sultan Melayu ialah untuk melindungi rakyat, terutamanya kaum MELAYU dan agama ISLAM.

    2. Jika ada rakyat yang dianiaya oleh mana-mana Pemerintah, sewajarnyalah Pemerintah tersebut diadili kerana Pemerintah pun manusia biasa dan melakukan kesilapan/kesalahan.

    3. Harap2, tiada lagi tanah2 di Malaysia terutamanya tanah2 Melayu yang tergadai semata-mata kerana tamakkan duit. Duit boleh habis dalam sekelip mata saja.

    4. Kerajaan mesti naikkan CUKAI tanah2 milik orang asing (’foreigners’). Ini dapat MENGEKANG pemilikan asing, dan pada masa sama menambah pendapatan negara.

    5. Lebih elok jika pemilikan tanah oleh orang asing secara KEKAL tidak lagi dibenarkan. Penjualan tanah kepada ’foreigners’ patut dibekukan. Mereka cuma boleh ’lease’ saja.

    Terima kasih Tun.

    *** Semoga Allah SWT sentiasa melindungi Tun sekeluarga. ***

  12. milshah Jun 10,2014 7:55 PM

    Assalamualaikum Tun,

    This article by you is brilliant. It has all the hallmarks of Tun Mahathir. The article is written in simple English for everyone to understand. The article serve as a reminder how our our country which was once ruled by Sultans with absolute power, and through their error in judgement, caused our beloved country to be ruled by foreign powers. The foreigners simply needed to influence and controlled the Sultans, to occupy the country. The British were very smart at influencing the Sultans. They would have advisors to the Sultan. But the advice from these advisors would have to be followed by the Sultan. In effect, they controlled the country since they controlled the Sultans.

    It was the introduction of the Malayan Union that finally broke the camel’s back. After hundred of years being occupied, the rakyat finally had enough and no longer relied on the Sultans to protect their interests. They rebelled against the British.The Malayan Union would have turned the Sultans to mere “kadi”, having a say only on religious matters and losing any remaining powers they had left. It was the rakyat that rebelled against the the British. It was the rakyat that restored the royal institutions. The rakyat could have turned Malaya into a republic as at that time many kingdoms fell and became a republic. Instead, the rakyat chose to continue to have the Sultans. The rakyat continue to hold the Sultans in high regard.

    However, to avoid foreigners from ever controlling the country by controlling the Sultans, as what happened in the past, the executive powers were separated from the Sultans and given to the government elected by the rakyat. And so our country turned from being ruled by the Sultans with absolute power, to a constitutional monarchy.

    I think this event in Johore is a blessing in disguise. Everyone, whether sincere or not, acknowledges that our country is a constitutional monarchy. This means the executive powers lies with the government elected by the people. No one is disputing this.

    In future, should there ever be a conflict over who holds the executive powers, what happened in Johore, shall take precedence.

  13. grkumar Jun 10,2014 1:05 PM

    The constitution does provide that the Sultans and the Agong have a role as protectors of Malays and the Muslim religion. There is no ambiguity there. Maybe a misinterpretation.

  14. grkumar Jun 10,2014 12:53 PM

    The very unfortunate interpretation of the constitution being the basic or “supreme law” (as it is written in the Constitution) itself is misleading. It is neither. The constitution is a the legal framework which sets out the rules by which a country is governed.

    It cannot be changed without a referendum or by any other means prescribed of itself or supporting legislation being attended to first.

    The Malaysia constitution does say it is the supreme law of the country and whoever wrote that ought to have been shot for that line.

    The definition of a law is this simply: A command by the sovereign (state or legislature or king on other instances) to be obeyed on pain of punishment or sanction.

    The constitution if departed from carries no legal sanction as such but there are other remedies.

    Having said that, I will turn to the role of the King. The King in Malaysia (the Agong) is titular head of the Federation. He is as monarch King or Agong holder of the office of Agong and ought not to exercise that power without complying with the strictures of his office. And there are many.

    He is to be advised by the Prime Minister or by parliament or by the chief justice (although these are not expressly set out in the Malaysian Federal Constitution) for a number of reasons which are too long to go into here.

    The fact that the Queen and her ancestors the Kings of England indulge in religion and in politics is legend. It is a fiction of the Constitution that she dutifully respects the Constitution.

    The sacking of the Whitlam Government in Australia in 1971 is but a single and outstanding of many examples of her intervention in the business of a duly and popularly elected government of the people. (In Australia the Governor General is the Queens Representative and acts in the capacity of the Queen in many respects).

    She has been used to advance the causes of the Tony Blair government in justifying the attacks on a sovereign state Irak without legitimacy in her speeches on TV, Radio, the print media and in parliament.

    Her statements have been said to be statements made on the advise of her Prime Minister. That’s the only part of it that protects her office from disrepute by doing what she has done.

    Her ancestors Charles I was hanged for his usurpation of power of the people something that could well happen in time to the current monarchies anywhere. Thailand included. That country has a logic defying relationship with their King. But their constitution links God and King together.

    The Wars of England are fought in the Queens name. She makes the pronouncements and signs the ordnances that send her troops to war in the name of her country. There are many many more examples where these fictions of the constitution appear in reality to be far from the theory of constitutional government and the doctrine of the separation of powers.

    The idea of parliamentary supremacy and sovereignty though is not properly understood by many in parliament or in the spheres of the legal profession like the Malaysian Bar and many amongst it s judiciary.

    Curtailing the powers of the rulers as you had done in the 1980’s in the extreme case of the Sultan of Johore was a prime example of the proper exercise of a constitutional power in the hands of the executive not understood by Malaysia’s legal fraternity.

    The Prime Minister and his Ministers are part of the legislature and executive. And there are reserve powers vested in them.

    The sacking of former Justice of the Malaysian High Court Tun Salleh Abbas is another example of executive leadership which confused an unenlightened Malaysian bar. They ran from pillar to post trying to figure out what part of it they failed to understand by throwing accusation of “police state” and “undemocratic government” all round. But for these powers to be understood and to be properly exercised one needs good legal counsel. The recent misdirected acts of the Agong and Prime Minister points to an incompetent Malaysian bar advising them behind the scenes.

    The removal of judges is a power that government can exercise through various means other than by bringing them before both houses of parliament to answer for their misconduct before being removed.

    In the 1980’s in Australia a judge of the industrial court was removed by his position being simply made vacant. he was pensioned off. There was no need there for an address to both houses of parliament. He had to go and there was criticism of the way in which he was removed.

    The Agong must not be brought into politics. The office of the Agong must not be politicized either.

    When Ambiga Sreenivasan the radical Tamil lawyer cum agitator went before the Agong prior to Bersih 2, the Agong should not have received her. She had no status or position nor a mandate of the people as such to be granted an audience before the king any more than you, Ahmad, Ah Chong or I. And her audience was political. It was to legitimise the riot called Bersih 2 in breach and defiance of a law not to march that she went there.

    In allowing Ambiga that audience the office of the Agong was politicised. He had been ill advised especially because here was the power of a group without a mandate seeking to challenge unlawfully the authority and the position of a lawfully elected and legitimate government.

    By giving her the audience she demanded the Agong legitimised in some form her position and her methods of seeking to remove a legitimately elected government leading to a perception that anyone who now makes a loud enough noise and usurps the legitimate authority of parliament can be made legitimate.

    In doing what the Agong (and government) did with Ambiga, there is no reason why Perkasa, UMNO, or any of the other Malays groups (Ketuanan Melayu) cannot now lawfully take to the streets in defiance of government and seek to be recognized. The precedent has been set by the current government and the reigning Agong. That’ precedent if given the broad interpretation one may give to it is this:

    A large well organized loud group of agitators may take to the streets and bring about the downfall of a legitimate government using the unconstitutional means Ambiga and Bersih 2 did in July of 2013.

    It would be patently unfair for the government now to stand in the way of a majority (Malay Muslims) doing the same thing as Bersih did to remove government. And for supporting and creating the Bersih precedent the government of Najib Razak may have difficulty getting in their way without creating a crisis of its own.

    As for the ISA, if the Malays were to unite in defence of what they believe are an attack on their basic rights in the erosion of the NEP, there is no doubt the Malaysian Bar and their mainly Chinese supporters will seek to introduce draconian laws such as detention without trial till the situation calms.

  15. Malaysia Bagus Jun 10,2014 11:17 AM

    Salam Tun,

    you have many times in this blog reminded us all about the dangers of mortal human being, especially those in the corridors of power entertaining the fantasy of having “absolute power”. The power to bend and amend our constitution.

    You have not only spoken about it, but yourself in the Krisis of early 1990’s, managed to put a stop to all the nonsense. You were then described by my Royalist relatives as a “Hitler” who wished to be the Chancellor of Malaysia. You were the #1 enemy of the Malay loyalist then. You were the “koman” man who envied the blue bloods. You were considered a pariah in all palaces. There were even talks then to put Tun to sleep if Tun ever step a foot in that state.

    Tun be careful. These people have the Yakuza room service at their disposal.

  16. sibotak Jun 10,2014 11:11 AM



  17. sibotak Jun 10,2014 10:39 AM



    Apabila Parti Pembangkang DAP di Terajui , di Dukung
    Di Perbelakangkan Anasir Luar seperti PAP Singapura

    BEGITU juga jika seharusnya Sultan menedengar Keputusan Menteri Besar
    atau Sebaliknya Menteri Besar mendengar Titah Sultan
    DALAM masa yg sama Kedua dua Mempelai ini mendengar Hasutan Luar
    mendengar Keinginan Luar Keinginan Asing


    Jika ini berlaku

  18. mubarakchan Jun 10,2014 8:00 AM


    With the present legal set-up at the Federal and State level as governed by the Constitution, it is impossible for anyone to attempt a paper coup-de-tat. Why an attempt was made at all is beyond my logic ? Anyone with a sense or knowledge of Malaysian history would have realised that all the Rulers of the different States were bound together as one by means of Agreements or Legal Instruments to act as one under the Federal Constitution. And it is the Constitution which holds sway over the State laws. In the event if each State attempts a retrogressive legislative manuvere to reverse what was agreed in 1957 to form an independent Malaya, it is impossible to do so. It is only a pipe dream. This sort of ill-advised adventure is absolutely illegal amounting to treason by the perpetrators whoever they are. The significant point is all the Federal Laws under the Consititution are consonant with the State laws. This is how Malaysia works legally.

    As a matter of fact, the Mentri Besar maybe challenged in the highest courts in the land as any attempt outside the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara to amend laws within the ambit of the Constitution, is a futile exercise. I believe the hudud matter is this category. There must be conformity in the Laws otherwise the whole couintry is in anarchy. It is astonishing that the State Legal Advisor and the Attorney General of Malaysia are silent in the present important fiasco.

    The main theme of any country throughout the World in a constitutional monarchy and democracy is the separation of powers between the Ruler and the elected Legislature. The lines between the two have always been clearly drawn and defined to mean that the Ruler is strictly non-executive and the elected Legislature executive. This is the basic understanding for those who rule over us. Clever words to mask hidden intentions cannot be hidden in this World of 2014 which will exposed those who uttered them to ridicule.

    All the hot air leads one to think why a new Housing Bill is required at this time and place ? With the old Law, there were decades of smooth and happy relationship between the non-executive and the Legislature in implementation of whatever projects which were proposed. Why revise the Law now and introduced a controversial Bill which seem to take POWER OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEGISLATURE WHICH IS THE EXECUTIVE TO THE NON-EXECUTIVE ?

    As I commented before, this embarassing fiasco would have been avoided if the 3 GOLDEN ATTRIBUTES are observed eg.





  19. sudin Jun 9,2014 7:18 PM

    Salam Tun.

    There is this perception that the Rulers seem to be protecting the Malays, as though they stand steadfast and most influential in ensuring the constitutional rights of the Malays are safeguarded.

    There is also the perception that the Malays need the Rulers’ protection, which culminated in the former to give wholehearted, undivided and unquestionable support.
    However there don’t seem to be any details as to what kind of protection, and how they can protect the Malays when the need arises.

    I have always blamed those alibabas as the thorn and an enemy to the Malays, and the worst alibabas are the Malay leaders and Malay rulers. They are not ashamed to grab and then sell openly to ahmeng and ahkow, the economic cake meant for the Bumis.
    These alibabas leadres and rulers are actually misusing the support given to them by the Bumis, to help bring down the same Bumis that have continually supported (blindly) their position.

    Let there be no more on the likes of the Menteri Besar-select called Ahmad Said and also the Perlis dilemma back in 2008 happen again.
    Don’t ever let any Malay leader be like another useless Pak Dol.

Leave a Reply