Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Restoring Royal Immunity

   
   
       
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,392

    Restoring Royal Immunity

    PKR's plan for the monarch

    Posted by admin
    Friday, 12 December 2008 09:16

    It does not mean absolute or total immunity from prosecution, he noted, but that any case to be brought against the king must first involve his removal as the head of state so that he is not tried in his capacity as the Agong.

    By Deborah Loh, The Nut Graph

    KUALA LUMPUR, 12 Dec 2008: Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) is defending the Malay rulers' rights as part of efforts to balance the power currently concentrated in the executive, its vice-president R Sivarasa said.

    He said two areas in the Federal Constitution ought to be reformed to reflect a “true” constitutional monarchy. These involve the 1993 amendment that took away immunity from criminal and civil prosecution for the nine sultans, and another amendment the same year that removed the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong's check-and-balance role on bills passed by Parliament.

    This explains why PKR president Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail called for royal immunity to be returned to the rulers in her speech at the party's annual congress on 29 Nov. Lest this statement be misunderstood, Sivarasa said it must be explained in the context of the principles of a constitutional monarchy.

    It does not mean absolute or total immunity from prosecution, he noted, but that any case to be brought against the king must first involve his removal as the head of state so that he is not tried in his capacity as the Agong.

    Speaking to The Nut Graph, Sivarasa denied that PKR was trying to please the monarchy whom Pakatan Rakyat wanted to turn to in its unfulfilled 16 Sept bid to take over the federal government.

    TNG: PKR president Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail said in her speech at the party congress on 29 Nov that PKR was ready to “return the immunity of the rulers based on a constitutional monarchy”. Exactly what does that mean?

    Sivarasa: We are talking about our overall proposals on reform and one of it is about restoring the spirit of a true constitutional monarchy in our Federal Constitution. Our constitution now is incorrect on the principles of being a constitutional monarchy because our monarch (i.e. the Agong) has no immunity from civil and criminal prosecution. Every head of state in other constitutional monarchies, even in republics, has immunity. If we are to be a true constitutional monarchy, then the constitution should reflect that.

    Do you mean giving immunity from prosecution? Is it not regressive as a democracy to want to give immunity to royalty?

    According to the principle of immunity for a head of state, he or she has to be removed from his [or her] official position before he [or she] can be prosecuted or sued. It is a fundamental principle in any modern state that the head of state has immunity by virtue of [his or] her position — it has nothing to do with undermining democracy. Hence, some countries have impeachment procedures.

    In Malaysia, the Conference of Rulers is the right entity to remove the Agong, and then the Conference of Rulers should let the Special Court decide whether or not to initiate prosecution. It is not undemocratic because there are procedures. But the Agong must be removed as the head of state first, and only by the Conference of Rulers. Removal can be at the request of the executive if a criminal or civil case is to be brought against the Agong but it is for the Conference of Rulers to decide.

    What's wrong with the current procedure?

    Currently, after the 1993 amendment, the Agong can be tried in the special court at the mere say-so of the attorney-general (AG). This is no immunity. What we mean by restoring immunity is that, the special court can continue to exist but the AG should not be the one to decide whether to institute action against the king.

    Whether there is a case against the king, that decision should be made by the Special Court. Decisions to initiate prosecution as well should be left to the Special Court. At the moment, the AG by himself [or herself] (as a member of the executive) can bring a charge against the king. The Conference of Rulers would have no role in first removing him as the head of state.

    Effectively this means that we are only a constitutional monarchy in name and the reality is that all power is vested in the executive especially the prime minister as he [or she] would be directing the executive. Our proposal is intended to restore a true constitutional monarchy and return dignity to the Malay rulers.

    At the press conference after Wan Azizah's speech, PKR vice-president Dr Syed Husin Ali explained that PKR would not touch on restoring immunity from prosecution. Why are you now saying differently?

    Syed Husin was talking about not restoring immunity for the other rulers. It's not for the royalty as a whole, but for the king. The rulers of the nine states are immune in the sense that they cannot be removed from their official capacities, there is no procedure to remove them. But the constitution allows for the removal of the Agong by the Conference of Rulers.

    PKR suddenly appears to be championing the monarchy, and at a time when certain rulers have shown leadership by responding to the people's feelings on racial polemics and controversial fatwas. Also, in the run-up to 16 Sept and the anticipated government takeover by Pakatan Rakyat, the Agong was brought into the picture as recourse if the present government did not agree to hand over power. It didn't happen, and the perception is that PKR is now trying to get on the good side of the monarchy.

    As far as we're concerned, we just want to put certain things in the Federal Constitution back in their proper place to preserve the fundamentals of a parliamentary democracy in a constitutional monarchy system. We're not about to make concessions to the monarchy which we cannot justify on these principles. Unless we go beyond the principles outlined, we cannot be accused of trying to get on the good side of the monarchy.

    What about wanting to restore power to the Agong to veto bills from Parliament?


    Prior to the constitutional amendments, the king had a check-and-balance role with the ability to send bills back to Parliament if he disagreed. Currently power is completely in the hands of the executive. We want to restore this balance.

    But a constitutional law expert has said that the Agong never had veto power in the first place.


    We're talking about going back to the pre-1993 constitutional amendment, when the Agong could reject and send legislation back to Parliament once. After that, once Parliament represents the bill, either amended or in its original form, the bill becomes law even if he doesn't give his royal assent. So the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is maintained.

    Now however, the constitution states that he must assent in 30 days or it becomes law even without his assent. Before 1993, he had the ability to send laws back. We want that right for him to be returned. It doesn't give the king any extra power, but it is a way of allowing him to signal to the public his concerns with the proposed law, and that has value. It gives due respect to the role of the institution of the monarchy.

    But the timing and the perception that PKR is trying to curry favour with the monarchy — there are so many other issues that need reform, why this? And what about criticism by the MCA that this is a political ploy?


    The MCA is entitled to its views. This is not the only reform we are pushing for and it is not out of the blue. It is one part of overall reform to balance the executive, the monarchy and the judiciary. We're currently vesting all power in the hands of the executive and that is not good for the country.
    All other areas of reform have to work in tandem to function as checks and balances on executive power, including the monarch. We're now pretending to be a constitutional monarchy, but we're not really one. In the original constitution, the monarchy had a balancing role, but no more.

    http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/15931/84/
    py

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,392

    PKR's questionable fix

    PKR's questionable fix

    Posted by admin
    Friday, 12 December 2008 09:10

    Commentary

    Sivarasa explains that these proposals are meant to return a check-and-balance role to the monarchy. But PKR's call for the Agong to have the power to reject bills at least once is largely symbolic.

    By Deborah Loh, The Nut Graph

    WHAT are Malaysians to make of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)'s proposal to “return the immunity of the rulers” which it plans to implement if it comes to federal power?

    Firstly, the party seems to have picked a good time to raise this, given that the royalty is more popular with the masses now than before, even among non-Malays.

    Public perception over the past few years has been that some sultans are a voice of reason and restraint, and understandably so. Just when racist polemics seem to be getting out of hand, some of the royalty have called for an end to excessive politicking, asserted that Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians, and promoted diversity.

    The rulers have also demonstrated they have their own minds. After the 8 March elections, they have broken deadlocks and gone against the executive in the appointments of the menteri besar of Perak and Terengganu.

    And when the recent fatwa declaring yoga as haram frustrated and confused Muslim practitioners, the Sultan of Selangor told the National Fatwa Council to refer future edicts that affect the public to the Conference of Malay Rulers first. Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Dr Nazrin Shah concurred.

    Then on 26 Nov, the Regent of Negeri Sembilan, Tunku Naquiyuddin Tuanku Ja'afar, said royal immunity should be reinstated. He claimed this would enable the rulers to exercise their duties to the people, and to be on par with other constitutional monarchs who enjoyed immunity from prosecution.

    It was three days after that that PKR president Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail called for a return of royal immunity. “We are ready to return the immunity of the rulers based on a constitutional monarchy,” she said in her presidential speech.

    That was all she said then but in her press conference later, she and vice-president Dr Syed Husin Ali clarified that PKR would not reinstate the rulers' absolute immunity from criminal and civil prosecution.

    Since Wan Azizah's statement, PKR has found the need to provide lengthy explanations about what the party is pushing for. This is not least because people still remember the allegations of royal excesses from abusing royal privileges, to not repaying debts and customs taxes, to demands for timber concessions.

    Indeed, it was the public outrage at the assault of a hockey coach by the Sultan of Johor that led to the 1993 constitutional amendment that stripped the rulers of immunity from prosecution for actions committed in their personal capacity.

    PKR vice-president R Sivarasa has explained the party's stand, which is that reforming the constitution so that Malaysia is a “true” constitutional monarchy is but one part of all reforms needed to provide checks and balances to the executive.

    But consider the backdrop to PKR's proposal.

    What's in it for PKR


    In the run-up to the much-touted 16 Sept federal government takeover, Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was to have sought an audience with the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong after premier Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi rejected Anwar's call for a discussion on a peaceful transition of power. That audience never happened. It was with this in mind that the MCA issued a press statement calling the PKR proposal “a political ploy”.

    Bear in mind also that PKR has been accused of selling out Malay Malaysians with its inclusive politics of needs-based, instead of race-based, policies. Against Umno's branding as guardian of Malay Malaysians, it's easy to conclude that PKR's call for royal immunity is a two-prong populist approach — to win over the royals on one hand, and the rakyat on the other.

    It also bears remembering that Anwar was party to the 1993 amendments, which his party now wants reversed, when he was a cabinet minister. How can he explain his change of heart now? And if Pakatan Rakyat comes to power, might he find it better to maintain the status quo so that uncooperative monarchs cannot interfere with government?

    Relying on monarchs


    Sivarasa explains that these proposals are meant to return a check-and-balance role to the monarchy. But PKR's call for the Agong to have the power to reject bills at least once is largely symbolic. Shouldn't a robust democracy, if that is what PKR is aiming for, be dependent on democratic systems such as a strong and accountable legislature rather than an individual of royal lineage?

    As it is though, Pakatan Rakyat has been reluctant to form a shadow cabinet, or to even name its shadow committees for each ministry, to at least demonstrate that it can function as a robust opposition in Parliament.

    Sivarasa also argues that taking away power from the attorney-general (AG) to initiate prosecution against the Agong, and placing it with the Special Court, will also reduce power concentrated in the executive. But this begs a question. Has that executive power been abused? Is there a problem that needs fixing when since 1993, only one ruler has been tried by the Special Court and no Agong has yet been charged?

    The idea to let the Conference of Rulers first remove the Agong of his official position as the nation's sovereign before facing charges also has no checks and balances in itself. What if the rulers chose not to, to protect a peer, or to save themselves from a similar situation in the future? What would compel the Conference of Rulers to make the right decision? While the AG's chambers is a public office, the Conference of Rulers isn't.

    Or what if the Agong is removed and later found innocent by the special court, would the Agong have been removed at the cost of unnecessary public vilification, hence undermining the monarchy?
    Nobody would disagree that the over-concentration of power in the executive needs to be overturned. The question is, will restoring the powers and position of the monarchs be the best way to achieve it?

    http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/15928/84/
    py

Visitors found this page by searching for:

immunity of ydpa

royal immunity malaysia

royal immunity 1993

royal immunity

cases related to royal immunity in malaysia

yang di pertuan agong immunity first case

agong immunity

stripping away the Yang Dipertuan Agongs immunity in 1993yang dipertuan agongs immunity was stripped away in 19931993 amendments of yang dipertuan agong immunitythe yang di pertuan agong immunityamendment of royals immunity in the malaysia constiwhat will be if malaysian king do not give his royal assent to the billimmunty of ydpaimmunity for ydpacase regarding royal immunities in malaysiaroyal immunities in federal constitutioninternational immunities for the yang di pertuan agongimmunity of royaltyimunity of ydpamalaysian royalty immunitywhat happen if YDPA does not want to give royal assent to a bill yang dipertuan agong immunityroyals immunity malaysia 1993royal immunity malaysia 1993
SEO Blog

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •