Mahathir Mohamad and The Malay Rulers (1993)


August 27, 2012

http://www.malaysiakini.com

Mahathir Mohamad and The Malay Rulers (1993)

by Karpal Singh (08-26-12)

Dr Mahathir Mohamad (left with Mukhriz) has challenged me to prove that he has made seditious comments against the royalty during the Parliamentary debates leading up to the 1993 constitutional amendments on the monarchs’ immunity.

It would have been better for Mahathir to have agreed to be subpoenaed as a witness in my trial. The court would be a better forum to expose Mahathir. However, as I have been challenged, I am prepared to pick up the cudgel.

In tabling the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, 1993 to set up the Special Court to take away the immunity from legal process of the King and the Rulers, Mahathir, uttered the following, among the many other, seditious remarks during a time when he had no Parliamentary immunity from being charged in court for making those remarks:

Jika Malaysia ingin menjadi sebuah negara yang mengamalkan Demokrasi Berparlimen dan Raja Berperlembagaan, kekebalan yang diberikan kepada Raja-Raja perlulah dihapuskan. [Tepuk]’ [Hansard 18 January, 1993, page 16]

“Sebenarnya ketiga-tiga Perdana Menteri dahulu, sebagai Penasihat kepada Raja-Raja, telahpun menegur Raja-Raja berkali-kali semasa mereka berkhidmat. Saya tahu teguran ini dibuat kerana perkara ini telah dilaporkan dalam Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri dan juga Majlis Tertinggi UMNO berkali-kali.

“Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn semasa menjadi Perdana Menteri pernah dalam ucapan bertulis di suatu Mesyuarat Majlis Raja-Raja, yang dihadiri hanya oleh Duli-Duli Yang Maha Mulia atau wakil-wakil mereka sahaja, menegur dengan kerasnya perbuatan Raja-Raja yang tidak harus dilakukan.

“Tetapi teguran ini tidak berkesan. Pekara-perkara yang disentuh terus dilakukan juga, bahkan ditingkatkan. Apa yang tidak pernah dibuat di zaman British dan pada tahun-tahun awalan Malaysia merdeka, dilakukan dengan semakin ketara da meluas.’ [Hansard, Jan 18, 1993, page 19]…

“Kerajaan memang mendengar dan menyedari akan pandangan dan kemarahan sebilangan rakyat yang mengetahui perbuatan Raja. Demikianlah kemarahan mereka sehingga ada, terutama di kalangan generasi muda, yang menganggap Sistem Beraja sudah ketinggalan zaman.

“Tetapi oleh kerana Akta Hasutan dan larangan terhadap mengkritik Raja, Raja tidak mendengar dan tidak percaya kepada Penasihat mereka apabila maklumat disampaikan berkenaan kegelisahan rakyat. Raja dan keluarga Diraja nampaknya berpendapat bahawa semua ini adalah ciptaan Penasihat-penasihat Raja untuk menakutkan Baginda atau untuk merebut hak Raja.

“Dalam keadaan ini, Raja bukan sahaja akan meneruskan amalan-amalan yang tidak disenangi atau disukai oleh rakyat tetapi juga akan melakukan perkara-perkara yang lebih dibenci oleh rakyat. Jika trend ini tidak disekat, perasaan rakyat terhadap Raja tentu akan meluap dan menjadi begitu buruk sehingga pada suatu masa nanti rakyat mungkin tidak lagi dapat membendung perasaan mereka. Perasaan yang diluahkan dalam surat-surat kepada akhbar sebenarnya sudah lama wujud.

“Dengan izin, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya ingin membaca petikan daripada satu rencana yang dihantarkan kepada akhbar The Straits Times pada 1946 oleh seorang tokoh Melayu yang terkemuka, apabila British mencadangkan penubuhan Malayan Union. Tokoh ini kemudian memegang jawatan yang tinggi dalam Kerajaan. Rencana in tidak disiarkan oleh akhbar Straits Times tetapi ia disampaikan kepada saya baru-baru ini oleh penulis.

“Penulis ini menyatakan, dengan izin ‘All intelligent Malay leaders ought now seriously to give most profound and careful thought to the question whether the time has not arrived when the Malay Royalty (I mean the Sultan and Raja) should gracefully withdraw themselves altogether.’

“Jika pandangan seperti ini sudah ada pada tahun 1946, apakah ia tidak mungkin wujud semula pada tahun 1993 [Tepuk] jika Raja-Raja tidak dihalang  daripada melakukan perbuatan-perbuatan yang tidak diingini?” [Hansard, 18 January, 1993, page 20-22]…

Sebelum ini terdapat banyak insiden dimana Raja menganiaya rakyat, Raja menyalahi undang-undang civil dan criminal, Raja menyalahgunakan wang serta harta Kerajaan dan Negara, Raja menekan dan menganiaya pegawai-pegawai’ [Hansard, Jan 18, 1993, page 26]

These are among the passages in Mahathir’s speech as reflected in the Hansard. The passages exude serious and often explosive instances of sedition to which the Attorney-General has chosen to give a blind eye.

I challenge Mahathir to come to court voluntarily at my trial and testify and justify what he uttered in Parliament on January 18, 1993. I hope he will not run away from this challenge.

28 thoughts on “Mahathir Mohamad and The Malay Rulers (1993)

  1. Bean,

    I thought what is said in Parliament cannot be used in court. There is some sort of immunity. That is why Parliamentarians have to repeat what they said in the august House outside Parliament before they can be sued or challenged. Please educate me.–Din Merican

  2. The contentention for calling Mamakuty to give eveidence is not about utternances of seditous remarks, but is one to support the assertion that the rullers are subjected to judicial accountability in courts of law for their actions. I think that is what Karpal is trying to demonstrate. Correct me if I have missundertood the issue at hand.

  3. What ever he said in the parliment was to amended Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, 1993 to set up the Special Court to take away the immunity from legal process of the King and the Rulers, it is for the benefit of THE RAKYAT.. and are done LEGALLY and PROPERLY not like all goons like you all.. bantai sana sini ..

    What Tun Mahathir have done is with a PROFESIONALISME and INTERGRITI..

    Why must we charge him for SEDITION as it is been done PROPERLY and INFRONT of ALL MP’s??

    Are you stupid?

  4. Yes, immunity only to the ruling party, BN. Try, getting PK’s MP to do likewise. A police report is the beginning of home being raided, computers seized and a handcuff leading to a lock-up.

  5. Al Kutty is above the law mah. He is immune to anything and everything. Hopefully the Hansard with the above transcripts will remain in Parliament and not scooted off in the middle of the night by Nazri and his 40 thieves. In Bolehland everything is boleh.

  6. He is not immune to death. Wonder what will God says to him when they finally meet? Something like this is proper…”Go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect RM200.00″….hehe.

  7. Zulkarnain, I beg to differ. But like Tun’s style. This is what Chinese says, “borrow the knife (MPs) to kill your enemy (rules)”. He does not need to do the job himself.

  8. Whatever it is i feel that the Amendments 1993 must stay unperturbed. One of the better or salient ‘transforms’ made by Octo. Karpal is defending his right to comment in the Perak fiasco, in the light of the remarks made by Octo in the Hansard. Therefore, he had precursors albeit in Parliament. Selective persecution, indeed.

    To simpletons like me, what is spouted in Parliament is as good as said in the neighborhood mamak stall – it’s just a matter of legalisms. And most ordinary folks are not legalists.

    This constitutional monarchy has been dragged into the mud and slime, not only their own bad behavior. feudalistic hubris but as a punching bag for political expediencies of the day. Being the only rotational monarchy in the world is unique enough. When will they (with exceptions) mature, protect the Constitution and rise above the fray of mundane politicking? UMNO knows.

  9. ” Whatever it is i fee lthat the Ammendments 1993 must stay unperturbed…” CLF
    There are two competing rights & obligations here, albeit mutual and reciprocal.On one hand, the Constitution confers rights, privileges to the Rulers above those accorded to the rakyats.
    On the other, a Ruler is appointed by & under due process of law, so termed as Constitutional Monarchy, and in the concept of the Rule of Law, everyone is EQUAL before the Law, and subject to the same law of the land.

    The so-called ” removal ” of the Immunity started off by the episode of the Hockey player Gomez who had made a ‘report’ of assault. Followed by the incident of two fishermen having been shot for having been wrongly perceived as ” smugglers”, and then the incident of the Caddy being assaulted with club – the preludes in the move to /clip the wings’ manner of speaking.

    In effect, it was not removal of Immunity as such, but the move was a Restatement of the Law, of equality before the Law and subject to the Rule of Law….
    ( In legal parlence there was no absolute ” Immunity” on the part of anyone in the first place.

  10. At the end of the day what matters is the former dictatorial person denied making such remarks about the Rulers..He either lied or has selective memory to best suit himself.

  11. As the Rt. Honorable Member of Parliament very well knows, to repeat it outside Parliament and not during the course of one’s duties as an MP and not on the floor of Parliament, would expose the Old Goat to charges of sedition. Two old goats locking horns is no guarantee it will make anybody horny.

    The Old Goat is not gonna fall for it. He’s not stupid.

  12. thought what is said in Parliament cannot be used in court. There is some sort of immunity. That is why Parliamentarians have to repeat what they said in the august House outside Parliament before they can be sued or challenged. Please educate me. – Din Merican

    Some protection from civil action for slander and libel. It is thought that fear of being sued for slander and libel would hinder Parliamentarians from discharging their functions. It does not give carte blanche to MPs to say anything he wants however — because of Article 8 (1) of the Federal Constitution 1957.

  13. vic-Luke 6.37, Thou Shalt Not Judge
    Although Dr Mahathir has made much mistakes,but I believe like the late Chairman Mao,who Chinese Communist Party rate as 70% good /30% bad,Dr Mahathir will get his final rating from God soon.

    I think the biggest contribution of Dr Mahathir to mankind is the fact that he exposed the legalised corruption of Western Capitalism and his effort to expose President George Bush as a war criminal which few leaders are willing to do publicly.Thank you.
    ______________
    Jack, perhaps you should consider this. He did all that to hide ugly Mahathirism and give it a good image. That is possible, isn’t it?–Din Merican

  14. Jack,
    I don’t agree with your assessment on Mao although he’s a significant or important leader in making china great. Otherwise,mao wife & her gang of wife along with their kakis & kakis’ kakis would be running the country today.
    There is a grand debate or more like the purge between deng & ultra conservatives. The fight still carries on even until today. Forget about clf’s argument that tiananmen square is about the call for democracy. Bullshit la! It’s about power struggle forcing deng’s to intervene. Just as what Lky did on the Marxist conspirators within the catholic church. ( take note : I don’t agree with Lky preemptive strike. So did dhanabalan, who may have become the first yindian Singapore pm instead of tony tan. Gct didn’t even come close. He’s fourth in line behind ong teng cheong).

    Guys & gals,
    Like I say, this commentary not lengkap if you don’t put in tengku razaleigh parliamentary speech made in response to this. I understand the debate is whether any charges can be put against mamaktir. But as the debate goes along, some might argue of having the
    Royal immunity removed. But then, like I say, I agree but why just stop there. Go ahead declare Malaysia a republic then. Why mamaktir stopped at half measure?

  15. Looes74 – thank you for your reply.
    Please allow me to clarify that I was quoting that assessment from CCP China and not my own,in fact,I would disagree strongly.

    I was a mad worshipper of Mao when I was a young Chinese school student,but right now I do not agree with most of things that CCP leaders are doing in China,economic wise,my view basically is in line with Professor M Mettis and Pofessor Patrick Chovanec (both have popular blogs) and both believe strongly that CCP is on a destructive path.

    My personal view is that CCP under Deng was basically doing the right things to uplift the living standard of Chinese people,Tiananmen square was his mistake as he saw it as a threat for stability and he was a die hard communist ,but he did
    make a good decision to make the posts of President and PM through intra -party democracy with fixed term of maximum 8 years.

    LKY had bad experience with the pro-Communist elements within PAP,and it became his phobia for a fairly long time,but his highly self-assured character made the so-called Marxist conspirators affair a tragedy.
    LKY is a Chinese chauvinist deep in his heart,I doubt he would allow an yindian Singapore PM even today,but his intention for a Lee’s dynasty is cleared enough for most Singaporeans,he was looking for a creditable seat-warmer and he managed to find a very good one.

    Thank you for reading my humble opinion.

  16. Jack,
    Do you know that first Singapore senior minister was an Indian. It’s none other than rajaratnam. Din adored him as a reputed person. A thinker. He was humble too when he attended to meet the peoples session himself rain or no rain. Kampung glam was an area notorious with all the happening then. Bean can share his experience especially with rais aka I burnt my bridge yatim. Lky just came to conclusion that majority of Singaporeans may not accept dhanabalan as pm. Pity because besides dhanabalan, jayakumar beri good. Heard how jaya led the Singapore team to run pedra branca at icj. That idiot botak talks about groupa around that islet. What la
    For tiananmen incident, you must watch Li ao dissertation of entire event. Very refreshing. I don’t think Lky is a Chinese chauvinist. Else, he die die wont allow Chinese schools. One of the biggest mistake he make.
    Lky will rebut point by point made by clf on the glorification of western civilisation. Anyway hydro Christianity is not wholly western

    • Looes74 –

      Yes,I do know Rajaratnam the SM,a thinker and the man who drafted the national pledge which every school students in Singapore must pledge every day.But I may not agree with your speculation that LKY made his decision based on the conclusion that majority of Singaporeans might not accept an Indian as PM, it might be a minor consideration but I reckon that the safety of Lee’s dynasty dream was a major one.

      There are two famous incidents involving Dhanabalan:
      -S Dhanabalan ‘Why I quit” 16 Dec 2007 – The ‘slapping incident’ was extracted from a recent book by Australian Ross Worthington

      http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-071216.htm

      -S Dhanabalan’s discomfort with the way the government dealt with the “Marxist Conspiracy” of 1987 eventually led to him choosing to leave Cabinet:

      Jayakumar,I am afraid, not many thinking Singaporeans share your positive view,but they admit that he is a good legal brain.

      LKY is a Chinese chauvinist- yes,we can agree to disagree. Let me make a statement about the politics of Singapore,under LKY. All the national elections have been 100% free but 0% fair until 2012 when new media became a powerful force in Singapore, it is now 100% free and probably 50% fair, that is not to say that I believe that 100% and 100% fair elections are possible even in Western democracies.

      One of the factors ,apart from MSM manipulation and control,I can point out is as explained below about the appointment of all PAP MPs as Grass-Roots advisers but none of the opposition MPs.

      ‘Let’s play fair at the grassroots level’ | SingaporeScene – Yahoo …by JeaNette Tan Chee Juan ,28 May 2011

      http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/let-play-fair-grassroots-level-114032726.html

      Thank you.

    • Looes74 – thank you for your reply.
      Please allow me to clarify that I was quoting that assessment from CCP China and not my own,in fact,I would disagree strongly.

      I was a mad worshipper of Mao when I was a young Chinese school student,but right now I do not agree with most of things that CCP leaders are doing in China,economic wise,my view basically is in line with Professor M Mettis and Pofessor Patrick Chovanec (both have popular blogs) and both believe strongly that CCP is on a destructive path.

      My personal view is that CCP under Deng was basically doing the right things to uplift the living standard of Chinese people,Tiananmen square was his mistake as he saw it as a threat for stability and he was a die hard communist ,but he did
      make a good decision to make the posts of President and PM through intra -party democracy with fixed term of maximum 8 years.

      LKY had bad experience with the pro-Communist elements within PAP,and it became his phobia for a fairly long time,but his highly self-assured character made the so-called Marxist conspirators affair a tragedy.
      LKY is a Chinese chauvinist deep in his heart,I doubt he would allow an yindian Singapore PM even today,but his intention for a Lee’s dynasty is cleared enough for most Singaporeans,he was looking for a creditable seat-warmer and he managed to find a very good one.

      Thank you for reading my humble opinion.

  17. Looes74 –

    Yes,I do know Rajaratnam the SM,a thinker and the man who drafted the national pledge which every school students in Singapore must pledge every day.But I may not agree with your speculation that LKY made his decision based on the conclusion that majority of Singaporeans might not accept an Indian as PM, it might be a minor consideration but I reckon that the safety of Lee’s dynasty dream was a major one.

    There are two famous incidents involving Dhanabalan:
    -S Dhanabalan ‘Why I quit” 16 Dec 2007 – The ‘slapping incident’ was extracted from a recent book by Australian Ross Worthington

    http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-071216.htm

    -S Dhanabalan’s discomfort with the way the government dealt with the “Marxist Conspiracy” of 1987 eventually led to him choosing to leave Cabinet:

    Jayakumar,I am afraid, not many thinking Singaporeans share your positive view,but they admit that he is a good legal brain.

    LKY is a Chinese chauvinist- yes,we can agree to disagree. Let me make a statement about the politics of Singapore,under LKY. All the national elections have been 100% free but 0% fair until 2012 when new media became a powerful force in Singapore, it is now 100% free and probably 50% fair, that is not to say that I believe that 100% and 100% fair elections are possible even in Western democracies.

    One of the factors ,apart from MSM manipulation and control,I can point out is as explained below about the appointment of all PAP MPs as Grass-Roots advisers but none of the opposition MPs.

    ‘Let’s play fair at the grassroots level’ | SingaporeScene – Yahoo …by JeaNette Tan Chee Juan ,28 May 2011

    http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/let-play-fair-grassroots-level-114032726.html

    Thank you.

  18. “Legalized corruption of western capitalism”, Jack? It begs the question, what is legalized corruption? Please elaborate for us ignorant folks.

  19. He wanted to be addressed as DYMM Tunku Apanama Al Putaralam Billah. making him a notch above the other common royalties.

    Jack said Mahathir exposed Bush as a war criminal, how about his statement to shoot the boat people and later said he was misquoted, he meant to “shoo” “shoo” these people. What does he think the boat people are cats and dogs to shoo shoo? That crime against humanity.

  20. Jack, perhaps you should consider this. He did all that to hide ugly Mahathirism and give it a good image. That is possible, isn’t it?– Din Merican

    Dato,yes,agree but I do have some sympathy for him as a Malay nationalist who lost his way completely.

    Mr Bean

    “Legalized corruption of western capitalism”, Jack? It begs the question, what is legalized corruption? Please elaborate for us ignorant folks.

    I meant legalised corruption which is a Singapore term for LKY’s theory of giving high pay to prevent corruption based on the so called ‘Himalayan pay packages’ enjoyed by Western bankers.

    The truth behind the High salary to prevent corruption theory
    http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/03/13/the-truth-behind-the-high-salary-to-prevent-corruption-theory/

    orang malaya
    Yes,I agree with you.

  21. I believe in seditions means you actually say something bad or harmful to some one, but if we look at the what Tun said in parliment, it cannot be define as sedition, its a statement or argumement to pass or propose a bill.

    I am not a supporter of Tun neither Karpal, but Tun Mhathir is trying to curb the illegal activities from the rulers in the right way, by going in the parliment and proposing a bill to repeal whatever immunity they have.

    What is so wrong about it? It is good wasn’t it? I feel that we need the rulers in Malaysia – YES, but they are just as a symbol, hence not immune to any law.

    Its my opinion.

    Regards.

  22. I believe it is widely if not generally known that Dr. Mahathir is not a monarchist. In a public address he mentioned about the Malay race been “colonized” for hundreds of years before the British. So, it was time for the Malay race to take the destiny of their well being into their own hands. So, he said.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.