Tunku Abdul Aziz » ruler

Cash for honours – A Malaysian Dilemma

Tunku Aziz — Sat, 09 May 2009 07:41:27 +0000

WE ARE ALL familiar with a certain joke, much in vogue, about a dead certainty of a pebble thrown randomly high above a Malaysian gathering landing squarely on a Datuk.

Political jokes or cartoons, whether hilarious or not, apparently carry a message of sorts, and this particular one is stingingly pointed in its contemptuous condemnation of a widespread practice that has become a national embarrassment. State, federal governments and royal palaces, some more brazen, and others less so, have been responsible for debasing our honours system instituted, and rightly so, to honour citizens for bravery, for distinguished service to science, soccer, cricket, industry, community and whatever else considered worthy of public recognition.

Cash for honours in modern times was David Lloyd George’s answer to the eternal difficulty of raising money for party funds. Lloyd George, as some will recall, was the Liberal Party Prime Minister of Britain who in 1916 replaced Herbert Asquith. History tells us that while this practice was nothing new, it was the sheer scale of Lloyd George’s marketing of honours operations that alarmed the nation.

More recently, Tony Blair found himself mired in a similar scandal. It is worth noting that both Lloyd George and Tony Blair sold honours to augment party funds, and there has never been any suggestion that the practice was for self-enrichment. That does not mean that it was kosher. Cash for honours is no more acceptable than vote buying or seducing opposition politicians to cross over for cash.

Our state honours must represent our highest ideals and aspirations, sanctified by exceptional merit, nothing less will ever do, and dignified by an investiture in the presence of the king or a ruler. The honours system must be open and transparent. Persons who are honoured must be prepared to subject himself to public scrutiny, and the public must be told why he is being made a Datuk or a Tan Sri.

When we see a fully equipped and ceremonially uniformed recipient in his early thirties, standing self-consciously before a ruler of a state, we may be forgiven for thinking the worst. What has a scrap iron merchant, for example, contributed to that state in social, economic and social terms to deserve a title? Or worse still, we would be less than human if we did not associate the award with some form of a cash deal. This imputation of improper motive or motives is inevitable as long as the awards are shrouded in mystery.

In the case of one state which shall for now remain nameless to spare unnecessary blushes, there is not a week that goes by that does not see some business man or other being “ennobled” who is not even a subject of the ruler. What possible contribution could the Datuk have made to the state to deserve such a high award? I do not discount the royal prerogative to honour those from outside the state who have rendered personal services to the ruler, and if that is the case, please say so. It does seem odd that so many people are involved in the royal services industry. One or two palaces are giving the others a bad name.

The whole thing, if you ask the public at large, is an organised royal racket, and we know it. However, we are afraid to raise our voice in condemnation of a practice that not only debases the awards, but also the palace. At a time when we are all anxious to uphold the honour and dignity of our rulers so that they can more easily exercise their constitutional duties to the advantage of the citizens of this country, they ought to take a lead in promoting ethical standards of behaviour, always remembering that what is apparently legal or constitutional is not always necessarily ethical.

One way of stopping the spread of corruption of the honours system in individual states is to do way with the title Datuk. A person who has rendered exceptional service to a state should be awarded a pingat or medal carrying no title. They do this in Singapore and Australia and elsewhere, and they are no worse for not having Datuks tripping over one another. Honours carrying titles should only be properly conferred by His Majesty’s Government.

Our rulers, many of whom are truly excellent role models, must come down to earth in order to find out for themselves how they are viewed by the people, and they must accept constructive criticisms in good faith. We want the system of monarchy to be strong and relevant.

Our rulers should remind themselves of their solemn oath of office that places them under a sacred duty or obligation to do all in their power to protect their people by putting the interests of their subjects before their own. To me, this is what being a ruler is about. Forget all that nonsense about the “divine right of kings.” That was a belief, an article of faith, no less, that the kings and queens of Europe of old actively encouraged – to discourage dissent among the great unwashed who made up their subjects.

Happily, the world has moved on.

Published on May 9, 2009 | Mysinchew

Najib must clear his own mess

Tunku Aziz — Fri, 08 May 2009 07:23:43 +0000

I never for a moment thought I should live to see the day when a traditional hereditary ruler of a Malay State has taken such a rapid slide in his people’s estimation, approbation and adulation as has the Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak. It took one unfortunate, ill-conceived and ill-considered decision over a petition by the Pakatan Rakyat Mentri Besar Datuk Nizar Jamaluddin, to dissolve the Perak State Assembly that has turned Perak into a politically difficult and dangerous situation.

His Highness Sultan Azlan Shah is no ordinary ruler. As a former Lord President and head of the Malaysian judiciary, he ascended the throne of Perak as someone well-qualified by education and training for what, for all practical purposes, is a largely ceremonial sinecure. Be that as it may, the position carries a heavy constitutional responsibility.

It has become quite apparent that while his legal knowledge may be assumed to be extensive, his training more than adequate, his wisdom in dealing with a delicate and important political matter of public concern, on reflection, has in my humble opinion, turned out to be questionable. A great deficiency in a ruler who showed so much early promise of being a wise, liberal minded and benevolent leader.

When the final chapter of the Perak constitutional fiasco comes to be written, the country, and the world, will be able revisit and understand better the magnitude of the debilitating effects of the royal decision on the Malaysian body politic. Malaysians, in particular, will view with horror the ugly scars left on their nation’s nascent democracy, and they will be constantly reminded how one hasty error of judgement was enough to trigger a political tragedy of the worst imaginable kind. A Greek tragedy pales by comparison.

The saddest part of all is that the resultant unseemly legal wrangling could have been avoided. The fact that the flawed decision was not reversed, within a day or two when it became abundantly clear that the decision not to dissolve the Assembly and call for fresh elections was manifestly unfair and unethical, was nothing if not sheer carelessness, in all the circumstances. I maintain that even now it is not too late to reverse that politically fatal decision and bring to an end this disgraceful episode in the history of participatory representative government in our country.

There is no disgrace or humiliation in coming to terms with one’s honest mistake. No one, even the wisest among us, is infallible. If the Sultan believes, as we know he does passionately, that his royal duty is to serve the public interest, then NOW is the time to give that commitment practical effect.

The Perak fiasco is not about to run out of steam. We must accept that the situation will get worse before it gets better. I saw the images from the State Assembly “sitting” on national television at lunch time today (7 May 2009) with a sense of unbounded revulsion. The scene of warring politicians shouting invective was not a joy to behold.

To use a medical analogy, the Perak affair will be a running sore. Only the Sultan of Perak can provide an effective cure. To ignore what is obviously an untenable constitutional position is an act of grave irresponsibility, and while the Prime Minister thinks it is a great idea for him to give the impression that he is above it all, I should like to remind him that he is not blameless, far from it. It was his active act of muddying the Perak political waters that brought about this current crisis in the first place.

He now has a chance to show that he is not a partisan prime minister, but a national statesman who is prepared to intervene decisively to put matters right in fairness and equity.

Looking back, it was not such a clever personal coup after all. His machination was so abysmally repugnant even judged by the consistently low ethical and moral political standards of UMNO/BN that I find myself wondering whether I could trust him enough to buy my next second-hand car from him; this is the same man trying to persuade us to buy his 1 Malaysia. What a man! (With apologies to G.B.Shaw)

Published on MAY 7, 2009 | The Malaysian Insider

Rulers must not lord over us

Tunku Aziz — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:04:09 +0000

UNEASY LIES THE HEAD THAT WEARS A CROWN – William Shakespeare’s Henry the Fourth.

“The role of the constitutional monarchy goes beyond what is stipulated in the constitution. The rulers have a far wider responsibility in ensuring that the spirit of the constitution, the philosophy behind the written law, and the interest of the country and the people are safeguarded at all times.” – Sultan Azlan Shah.

I am sad to note that there are among us those who have chosen to interpret Sultan Azlan Shah’s rendering of the role of the constitutional monarchy as an example of our rulers seeking to act outside the remit of their constitutional authority. A ruler naturally cannot act arbitrarily, for example, by ignoring any of the provisions of the constitution without inviting formal strictures.

The Sultan of Perak was making a distinction between the formal functions of a Malay ruler as set out in the constitution of his state and his traditional duties as a hereditary ruler. A ruler of a Malay state is, therefore, more than a constitutional creation; he is the embodiment of all that is noble, virtuous, fair and just. Many rulers naturally have not lived up to these ideals, but, on balance, it can be fairly argued that they are conscious of their duty to their people. They have a duty that goes beyond the constitutional framework which has neither spirit nor soul and which only a wise and caring ruler can give.

Sultan Azlan Shah is right to remind us and himself in particular that as a ruler he is above politics. We would not have it any other way. It is unfortunate that his handling of what I call the Perak Affair has given rise to suspicions that he was not above politics. The presence of Najib in the palace ostensibly as the UMNO state liaison chief was all grist to the rumour mill. To crown it all, he was the deputy prime minister, and not some common garden variety Perak politician.

No one underestimated his political clout. This in turn produced an unstoppable chain of unsavoury bush telegraph messages, all claiming irrefutable inside information that the Sultan had been bought by Najib.

All extremely unfortunate, but for me, what was unpardonable, in this day and age, is the total absence of any explanation by the palace why the menteri besar’s request for fresh elections had been so summarily and cavalierly rejected, with indecent haste.

Palaces the world over no longer behave as they used to in dealing with information of public interest. Buckingham Palace is a case in point. The Queen of England does not presume that what she does is entirely her own affair. The Perak palace should be prepared to put all of its decisions on political matters under the closest public scrutiny. It is said nowadays that father no longer has all the answers, and even a ruler as learned as Sultan Azlan Shah is not infallible.

I now turn to a consideration of what rulers have to do in order to earn the love and respect of their subjects. First, they must uphold the dignity of their position by behaving in ways that will set them apart from the rest of us, as models of decency, honour and rectitude. This means, in effect, that they must set high moral and ethical standards of behaviour for themselves in keeping with their anointed role in life.

A ruler must, for example, steer clear of any involvement in partisan politics. Equally unacceptable in the eyes of their subjects is for sultans and their royal children to reduce themselves to being supplicants – petitioning politicians for land and government projects.

There is no quicker way of losing their self-worth than by their being seen to be behaving in this way. There is no difference, then, between the rulers and the ruled. Rulers have to make up their minds whether they want to rule over us or to compete with us their humble subjects for business handouts from corrupt politicians.

I wish to assure all the Malay rulers that when I have occasion to disagree with them on issues of state, there is no wish on my part, to use the Sultan of Perak’s words as reported in the New Straits Times, “to provoke them (the people) into dismantling the system and institution as this could create chaos in the country.” Even though I may be a million miles from any throne, in a manner of speaking, I am one of you, and why would I want to destroy an institution that is still in working order?

Published on APRIL 22, 2009 | MySinchew