AS DR M BACKS ANWAR, SELANGOR PALACE LOSES MORAL GROUND

For one thing it was Mahathir who instructed Anwar, who was then an Umno vice-president, to lead a negotiation with the rulers after Umno lost Kelantan in the 1990 general election. 

Aziz Bari, The Ant Daily

It is not really necessary as the law and practice on the point have been very clear. But when former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad revealed on Sept 11 that he, when he was Umno president, actually submitted one name to the palace, the octogenarian had virtually vindicated his arch nemesis Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The latter had, two days earlier, apologised to the Sultan of Selangor for just submitting one instead of two as HRH has required. The Sultan has made his displeasure public and he rebuked both PKR and DAP. Only PAS has complied with the palace request.

Apology notwithstanding Anwar, like DAP, stuck with the name of Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail as the MB-designate as it was, the Pakatan Rakyat leader said, a matter of constitutional principle.

Not many people know that Mahathir actually disliked the Umno-led power grab in Perak in 2009 when the Malay party depended on the royal assistance to wrest the state back after losing it in the 2008 general election. I had the privilege to hear this from the horse’s mouth itself over a meal. Mahathir knew that making such matter public would incur the wrath of Umno which was desperate to claw back to its former glory.

Be that as it may, for those who were old enough to see how Mahathir fought tooth and nail to circumscribe the rulers’ powers and influence during his two-decade premiership would not be too surprised.

For one thing it was Mahathir who instructed Anwar, who was then an Umno vice-president, to lead a negotiation with the rulers after Umno lost Kelantan in the 1990 general election. The Malay party was humiliated 36-0 by PAS who was with Semangat 46, a splinter party led by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

The party general assembly that followed was filled with attacks on the nine rulers, most of which would have caught the net of Sedition Act 1948. Umno eventually came out with one resolution: that power to appoint menteri besar at the hands of the rulers must be abolished. Back to the negotiation itself the rulers were then led by the late Sultan Azlah Shah of Perak who used to be the Lord President – the judiciary chief – before he ascended the throne in 1984.

Given the amendment procedure in the Federal Constitution itself, as well as the unpredictable nature of general elections, Umno later realised that such abolition could not be done. But somehow the Malay party still wanted to score political points. Hence their insistence on putting on a limitation on what Umno claimed the rulers’ interference in politics. This was spelt out in a document, officially known as Declaration of Constitutional Principles 1992, which was actually concluded after a series of talks between the rulers and the Umno team led by Anwar.

Up to now, I would say the consistent practice has been along the line laid down by the Federal Constitution. Thus what has been done by the Sultan of Selangor – ignoring the prevalent majority in the house and insisting on new names to be submitted – stands as the only deviation from the otherwise smooth transfer of power in Selangor following the sacking of Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim from PKR on Aug 9.

If we narrow down the law to situations prevalent after a general election or change of guard during the term, the precedents are overwhelmingly against the Selangor palace. I know some will raise the points put up by two lawyers – Datuk Sallehudin Saidin and Datuk Param Cumaraswamy – on Sept 10.

My short response to them is that we need to understand the provisions of the Federal Constitution within a parliamentary context, hence the need to refer to the practice of Commonwealth countries. This was recommended by the Reid Commission that drafted our constitution. The two lawyers apparently took the provisions out of that context. And that is why they came out with strange result.

The overwhelming precedents I mentioned above include the smooth transfer of power between Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Abdul Razak in 1970. Other occasions include the one between Datuk Hussein Onn and Mahathir in 1981 and the one between the latter and his successor Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in 2003. We saw the same pattern in 2009 when Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak succeeded Abdullah. The fact remains that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, to use the term by constitutional authority Professor Rodney Brazier, did not play any significant role in the process: a mere bystander. Indeed this is what is expected from a good referee who must stand above the fray.

We have similar law governing the states. That is why we saw the similar phenomenon in Sarawak and Terengganu earlier this year. Even in Selangor we went through the same route. Remember 1997? The Sultan accepted the one name submitted by Mahathir. And it is interesting to note that the MB-designate then was not even a member of the Selangor Assembly: the MB designate Datuk Abu Hasan Omar was still a federal minister in Mahathir’s cabinet! As such, one finds it weird that Wan Azizah, after showing the 30 statutory declarations with her on Aug 14, is still waiting for the royal audience.

Dr Abdul Aziz Bari is formerly IIUM law professor who now teaches at Unisel. He is also Senior Fellow at independent think tank IDEAS and state-owned Penang Institute.