For Kambing’s sake!

April 13, 2019

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2019/04/04/for-goats-sake/

by Joe Samad

–

April 4, 2019 8:00 AM

 

 

 

 

Daim Zainuddin has advised the government not to take people for granted and treat them like idiots. “I have real faith in people, they are smarter than you think. If you are honest with them, they will understand. Do not take the rakyat for granted. People don’t like it if you treat them like idiots,” he said in an interview.

Even if we already know this, statements like this, coming from Daim who is close to the centre of power, do not help Pakatan Harapan’s (PH) image.

Disgruntled voters are saying in derogatory terms that the PH government is a one-term government. The honeymoon is long over and the feel-good factor is disappearing over the horizon. If people power could boot out decades of Barisan Nasional (BN) rule, it can do the same with the current government in the next general election. People now know that they can change governments by the collective power of their votes.

The BN government was good at treating people like village idiots. The blue water tanks gift is a good example. In the last two elections, thousands of blue water tanks were distributed to rural areas in Sabah and Sarawak. The blue water tanks were synonymous with BN rule.

Plastic tanks do not deteriorate and the kampung folk who were given the blue water tanks in GE-13 received the same in GE-14. What the people wanted was clean piped water and good roads, not another round of blue water tanks with a BN logo. Whenever you see huge truckloads heading for the rural areas, you know it’s election time.

While there are thousands of examples of BN’s arrogance and treating people like idiots, the same is being repeated by the PH government.

Idiocy has reached a dangerous level in Malaysian elections. Electoral watchdog Bersih 2.0 has called upon the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to investigate former Melaka chief minister Idris Haron for allegedly committing an election offence during the current Rantau by-election campaign.

Bersih said Idris’ promise to sponsor two goats for a feast in Taman Angsamas in the Angsamas polling district during a ceramah was tantamount to bribery.

The poor goats are now being used for election bribery. For Arians like me, it’s the greatest insult. The goat is the eighth in the 12-year cycle of the Chinese system. People born in a year of the goat are generally believed to be gentle, mild-mannered, shy, stable, sympathetic, amicable, and brimming with a strong sense of kindheartedness and justice. Being made the sacrificial lamb in a by-election is the greatest insult to the goat’s reputation.

Have we not “goat” better things to say and do? Does the constituency not have any real issues such as the need for better schools or more jobs? You are not talking about hundreds of goats for the slaughter, but two. Are we bankrupt of ideas? The voters deserve better.

If it’s not about a goat, it’s about race and religion. The goat was a short respite in an idiotic race to the finishing post.

PKR president Anwar Ibrahim has expressed hope that Rantau voters will not let Dr S Streram Sinnasamy’s race be an issue in the coming by-election and that they will see him for the work he has done.

“Why are we shunning him just because he is an Indian?” asked Anwar before reminding voters of all the good work he had done for the people.

So now the election boils down to an Indian and two goats. In an idiot’s narrative, the story ends when humans devour the goat in a celebratory feast. But is that the end of the story?

It was reported that former prime minister Najib Razak has been slapped with an extra tax bill of around RM1.5 billion by the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN). A financial daily quoted sources which said that a letter was sent to Najib by LHDN over backdated tax amount for the years 2011 to 2017. LHDN’s investigation assessment showed that Najib had not declared taxable income of close to RM4 billion for the period. Why is Najib not the main by-election issue? Why is “Bossku” still roaming freely?

Parliament is not spared the Malaysian idiocy. Recently, the entire opposition staged a walkout after a heated shouting match during Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng’s winding-up speech in the second reading of the Supplementary Supply Bill 2019.

The walkout was triggered after a shouting match between the opposition, the finance minister and government backbenchers, after Pengkalan Chepa MP Ahmad Marzuk Shaary (PAS) called Lim “pondan”. The Malaysian narrative has expanded to an Indian doctor, two goats and “pondan”.

Labelling someone as “pondan” or LGBT could have serious consequences if Lim were to visit shariah-compliant nations such as Brunei. But our tourism minister saved the day for Lim.

According to media reports, Mohamaddin Ketapi denied the existence of LGBT people in the country. Ahead of attending the ITB Berlin travel fair, he told German reporters that he wasn’t aware of LGBT people in Muslim-majority Malaysia.

Yes, we are all being treated like idiots. Could it be that we elected idiots to represent us in the first place?

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

No repeat of ‘Dr M vs palace’ showdown, says analyst James Chin

April 13, 2019

 

by Malaysiakini  |  Published: 12 Apr 2019, 1:08 pm  |  Modified: 12 Apr 2019, 1:08 pm

 

Malaysians are watching the ongoing thriller between Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the Johor palace with nail-biting suspense. But those expecting an explosive climax could be disappointed, according to political analyst James Chin.

While acknowledging that most Malaysians agreed with Mahathir on the role of a constitutional monarchy, he does not foresee the current friction leading to a similar episode which rocked the nation in the 1990s when Mahathir, during his first tenure as premier, trained his guns on the rulers.

According to the University of Tasmania’s Asia Institute director, times have changed.

“Now you have instant public opinion via social media…

“We are living in the social media age. Back then, BN could control the narratives by the mainstream media like newspapers and television. Now, (the government) can no longer do this,” he told Malaysiakini.

Chin’s point is illustrated by the fact that the Johor crown prince Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim himself is using social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook to lock horns with the prime minister with regard to the Rome Statute, Ship-to-Ship (STS) hub and the appointment of the menteri besar.

---

Read more: PM spells out hazards of giving rulers absolute power

---

During Mahathir’s previous confrontation with the monarchs, the government-controlled media had launched an all-out offensive, detailing the rulers’ lavish lifestyles and how much the government spent on them.

Meanwhile, Chin also expected the police to crack down on those making hard-hitting comments regarding the ongoing tussle on social media.

“There are a lot of people out there who think they can speak like Mahathir. But they cannot get away with it. The only non-royal who can say anything is Mahathir,” he said.

Certain quarters have also accused Mahathir of exploiting the issue to cement his grip on power, especially in the wake of intense criticism against his administration over its reversals and unpopular decisions.

James Chin

However, Chin does not believe this is the case and pointed out that Mahathir was just being himself by responding to media queries which other politicians would sidestep.

“If you follow the timeline, in all cases, Mahathir was answering reporters’ questions (regarding his differences with the palace).

“The bottom line is most sultans want to appoint their menteri besar. There was the same problem during BN’s time. But (former premier) Najib (Abdul Razak) did not want to confront (the rulers).

“Mahathir is different. When a reporter asks him about this, he replies,” added the analyst.

Chin is also convinced that Mahathir and the Johor palace would reach a compromise on the menteri besar position.

“Of course,” he replied when quizzed on this.

“Dont forget, the menteri besar becomes menteri besar only if he is sworn in by the sultan. So the system will force them to compromise,” he added.

The Johor menteri besar post fell vacant after Bersatu’s Osman Sapian resigned on Monday.

The verbal jousting between Mahathir and the Johor palace erupted after Tunku Ismail tweeted that it is the sultan’s prerogative to appoint the menteri besar.

Mahathir, however, argued that if the rulers are allowed to decide on who becomes the prime minister or menteri besar, Malaysia would not be a democratic nation.

---

Read more: Quick recap – Mahathir’s first royal tussle

---

Meanwhile, Unisel’s communication lecturer Ismail Hashim Yahya questioned if Osman is a victim of a tug-of-war between certain parties in Johor.

In an article penned for Malaysiakini, he also focused on the drama surrounding the incoming menteri besar.

“The political tussle is not between the candidates of different parties but rather between the influence of Mahathir, (PKR president) Anwar Ibrahim and the palace.

“If there are elements… to safeguard certain interests or if a game of chess is being played behind the scenes, then it is no longer a rational consideration for the rakyat but a desire to take over,” he added.

 

 

Should Mahathir go now? Certainly not!

April 12, 2019

https://wordpress.com/post/dinmerican.wordpress.com/146656

Opinion  |  Mariam Mokhtar

Published: Today 6:50 am  |  Modified: Today 6:50 am

 

COMMENT | Let’s be clear about one thing. The only thing I share with Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is our initials – MM. That is all. I have been his critic for decades and was persuaded, just a few months before GE-14, to support/endorse Mahathir by two of his former critics, Zunar and Hishammuddin Rais.

Today, there are calls for Mahathir to step down. No! He should not.

The most dangerous political scandal, since GE-14, is finally cracking open like a ripe durian. It is an attempt to bring down Mahathir, his cabinet and Pakatan Harapan.

Mahathir said Malaysia’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute was not because the international treaty was bad, but the confusion created by “one particular person who wants to be free to beat up people”.

He added, “I find that this particular attempt to get the rulers involved so that they can get leverage, and even trying to get the rulers to sign some order against me.”

You may have missed the bit about “getting the rulers to sign some order,” because most of us would have been fixated on the “one particular person”.

Can you imagine the dangers brought about by a power vacuum after Mahathir’s removal? Think Iraq or Libya.

Guess who has been whipping up anti-Harapan sentiments, and re-engineered his image on social media.

Guess who despises Mahathir, because he is the only one with the guts to stand up against them.

Their fatal attraction has been festering for 26 years. How can the rakyat act against people whose business interests are so powerful that they swamp the small-time trader? How can the nation be protected against powerful people who forge long-term business deals with foreigners?

Guess why the ulama have an intense dislike of Mahathir. He dares to scold them and tell them to understand their religion better, instead of confusing their flock with their own warped interpretations.

Guess who else abhors Mahathir. The civil servants who benefited from Najib’s largesse, some elite Malays who are crippled by their crab mentality, and the insecure Malays with their siege mentality. These form a volatile mixture.

Mahathir has started the job of cleaning up Malaysia, and he should continue. Moreover, he has to sort out the mess that lies between Putrajaya and that “red dot” across the Causeway.

Only Mahathir has the guts and political will to do this, but ironically, many Malays, on whom he has showered the most help, are among the most fractious, most fragile and most flippant. This is part of his unfinished business, and to ask Mahathir to leave now would be premature.

The Mahathir of today is not the Mahathir of the past. There are flashes of his former self, but by and large, he has most probably realised his mistakes and acknowledged that he needs to correct them before he retires for good.

Mahathir may be dictatorial, in that he brooks no dissent, but he is not a dictator. Mahathir and Harapan were democratically elected. There was no North Korean type of election, with only one candidate.

The Mahathir of today is a “milder” version of his former self. In the “golden age” of Mahathir, newspapers would be in fear of having to stop publication, and people would be locked up under the ISA. He compromised many institutions. He was the architect of Project IC. Having previously been accused of interference, he is now reluctant to be seen as a meddler, or tyrant.

Some of you may have the experience of buying a house, but when you moved in and found that the inside was full of old junk, the floorboards rotten, the roof leaking? You cannot put your own furniture in it, nor decorate it, until the repairs have been completed.

Malaysia is like this old house. Team Mahathir has moved into government and found 61 years of rot. Until most things are fixed, they cannot fully initiate the reforms.

Last year, soon after he was made PM, Mahathir knew who he wanted for attorney-general, and who should helm the key ministries. He has acknowledged that some ministers are disappointing, and he has ordered them to improve their act. Does he have enough capable people to make sweeping changes to his cabinet?

It seems to have taken a long time, but disgraced, former PM Najib Abdul Razak, Rosmah Mansor, Zahid Hamidi, Abdul Azeez Rahim, Isa Samad and Muhammad Shafee Abdullah are being investigated. The rest are being processed. Their time will come.

The waters around Putrajaya are still choppy. Until Najib has been punished for his crimes against the people of Malaysia, we cannot rest; therefore, now is not the time to change leaders.

Nor is it the time to have two leaders; a functioning PM and a PM-in-waiting. There is nothing more destructive than to pit two men against one another, with daily comparisons of their performance, as if it were a tennis match.

We would like to move forward, as a nation, to repair race relations, increase integration and improve the economy. We are sick and tired of the three “Rs” of race, religion and royalty. They are a distraction, especially when there are more important matters.

Mahathir must resolve the Malay dilemma. He should think long-term, and not opt for short term gains. He should break that impasse.

---

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army and president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO). Blog, Twitter.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

 

The real reasons for not ratifying the Rome Statute

April 11, 2019

What are the real reasons for not ratifying the Rome Statute

Opinion  |  P Gunasegaram

Published: Today 6:41 am  |  Modified: Today 6:41 am

 

QUESTION TIME | I am not confused at all – not one little tiny bit – about the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. But I am utterly confused about the reason why Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad said the cabinet won’t ratify the statute – the people are confused about it.

I don’t for a moment think the Malaysian people as a group are stupid – if they were, Najib Abdul Razak would still be prime minister and strutting around going about his business of running the government and stealing when the opportunity arises, while Mahathir remained in opposition.

Let’s not insult the Malaysian people – the bumiputera (including the Malays), Chinese, Indians and everybody else who collectively booted out the previous government. Yes, yes, I know, this government does not have the majority support of the Malays.

But remember, most Malays voted for the opposition in GE14, which included Harapan and PAS. And remember too, neither UMNO nor PAS had the majority Malay support. But the majority of Malays wanted UMNO out. That counts for more.

Back to the Rome Statute, what is there to be confused about? This is what the Rome Statute, an international agreement among nations and states on the setting up of an international court to try certain categories of criminals, states:

“The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes: (a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression.”

It goes on to state what these kinds of crime are. Only when these acts are committed would the Rome Statute kick in for any country which has ratified the statute. There is no question that members of the monarchy will not be affected by state actions as Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy.

Unless members of the Royalty commit the acts themselves, they will not be affected.

This is the position of the government and of constitutional experts, such as Shad Saleem Faruqi who dismissed fears of ratification thus: “These fears are absolutely unfounded and bereft of logic, and appear to be based on advice that is motivated by politics, not law, emotion, not reason. The advice misleads Their Majesties and paints Their Royal Highnesses in a bad light.”

It appears that the fears of the royalty over the ratification may have resulted from a paper which was presented to them by some academics. But why would the rulers just rely on such narrow advice and not engage the government and other experts?

However, Mahathir talked about a plan using the royalty to overthrow him – but he was not clear about where and how that would be carried out.

Uncharacteristically, despite agreeing that there was nothing wrong in ratifying the Rome Statute, Mahathir announced a withdrawal from the earlier commitment.

“The whole idea is to get royalty in Malaysia to go against the government. That is the motive. Because of that conclusion, we have made a decision not to recognise (the Rome Statute). We have ratified it, but still have time to withdraw. It is not because it is harmful to us, but because of the political confusion raised,” he said.

Why not just explain the situation and ratify it anyway?

A full transcript of Mahathir’s press conference reveals his thinking in respect of this. Here are extracts: “But having said all that against the Statute of Rome, we understand that this is a political move. A political move to get the rulers to back them up.

“Of course, some members of the royal family also may be involved, but the whole idea is to get the Royalty in Malaysia to go against this government. That is the motive.

“But because of this confusion, and the confusion also among the rulers, we have made a decision that we will not recognise the Statute of Rome. We have ratified it, but we still have time to withdraw, and we will withdraw.

“Not because the Statute of Rome is harmful to us, but because of the political confusion raised by some people, including some people who have some political ambition. We know this.

“Jadi kita punya keputusan kabinet this morning is that we will withdraw our ratification of the Statute of Rome kerana confusion, bukan kerana we believe it is going to be bad for us, but because of the confusion created by one particular person who wants to be free to beat up people and things like that. And if he beats up people again, I will send the police to arrest him, I don’t care who he is.”

The last paragraph is an oblique reference to members of the royalty who may have been involved in violent acts in the past. He continues:

“So, while we will withdraw our ratification of the Statute of Rome, it is not because we think it is harmful to our country, but it is because of the politics of this country where sometimes people are easily misled by emotional feelings, that what we are doing is against our own interest.

“So that is the true reason I have to explain to you.

“And I would like to say this of these cowards, who during the last regime saw Najib stealing money, doing all kinds of things, and they said nothing. There were a lot of cowards who want to benefit from Najib’s misrule so that they also can benefit.

“I am saying this directly at them. Who they are, you can guess. But that is the reason why they were silent then, but sekarang ni wah bukan main lagi jaguh nak pertahankan hak orang Melayu, kononnya.”

 

OK, understood. There was a plan to overthrow Mahathir and to get the royalty behind that plan using the ratification of the Rome Statute. But who was behind this plan? How far advanced was it? And how were they were going to do it? The public deserves to know the answers to determine what were the threats to democracy and how serious they were.

Why succumb to these pressures like this? Surely that will embolden them and make them even more demanding in future and try to confuse the public even more.

The best thing to have done is to convince the public by clear argument why there is nothing wrong with endorsing the Rome Statute and then go ahead and ratify it, even if the royalty objects.

The government and the larger public cannot be held to ransom by the dark side or the deep state, whatever that may be. Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah had talked about a vague deep state which may overthrow a democratically-elected government through undemocratic means, implying a coup.

This is a very serious allegation. It is incumbent upon this government to get to the root of the matter and establish if there is any such move to overthrow the government and bring the perpetrators to book. We are talking about treason here, nothing else.

If no such evidence is forthcoming, then members of the government should stop such fear-mongering and go on about the business of running the country efficiently, honestly and with regard to all citizens, keeping as much as possible the promises they made during the last election campaign.

I fail to see how the withdrawal of the commitment given to the Rome Statute will stop those who want to overthrow the country through unconstitutional means. It will only give them greater courage to continue doing what they are doing.

I still do not understand the reasons for the Harapan government abandoning the Rome Statute. I suspect a lot of us don’t.

P GUNASEGARAM says when things are not what they seem, something else is happening somewhere else.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Thailand’s misstep on the way back towards democracy

February 18, 2019

18 February 2019

By Editorial Board, ANU

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2019/02/18/thailands-misstep-on-the-way-back-towards-democracy/

Last week, Thailand’s upcoming elections took a bizarre turn when Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya (pic above), Thai King Maha Vajiralongkorn’s elder sister, was registered as a prime ministerial candidate by Thai Raksa Chart, a Thai political party affiliated with the exiled billionaire and former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The King swiftly condemned the move as unconstitutional and an inappropriate interference of the monarchy in Thai political affairs. But both interventions on the way to the 24 March elections leave many questions about the country’s transition from military rule along the road back towards democracy.

By most reckoning, Thailand is the second most important member of ASEAN. Thailand is Southeast Asia’s second largest economy although its growth rate, which had been running at 6.5 per cent before martial law was imposed, is now languishing at under 1 per cent. Its people are more prosperous than the population-large Indonesia and, although stalled in the middle income trap, its economy includes the most advanced industrial production networks in Southeast Asia and is highly integrated into the East Asian economy.

Thailand’s economy is flexible and globally connected. Its production networks enhance regional productivity and efficiency. ASEAN efforts at regionalising its market and production depend on re-igniting Thailand’s success — positioned as it was at the leading edge of Southeast Asian modern industrial development. Its political troubles of the past half-decade have posed the usual issues for international investor confidence for Thailand itself, but they’ve also raised serious issues about its ability and commitment to deal with ASEAN’s challenges in an uncertain world economy and the new shape of geopolitics in the region.

This year, Thailand chairs the ASEAN group and in that position it will play a crucial role in trying to frame the region’s response to perhaps the most testing international and economic environment that the regional organisation has confronted in the more than 50 years since it was founded. Thailand’s return to democracy after the coup five years ago is in part preparation for the leadership role for which it now has responsibility.

At its roots, the fracture of Thai political stability five years ago was a consequence of the nation’s failure to build a stable consensus about how to distribute political and economic power across society, ordered around the monarchy, the military and bureaucratic elite, and the people, gradually enfranchised through elections after the student uprisings in 1973. The restoration of a measure of democracy this time round depends on the commitment of the most powerful interests in the nation, including the palace and the army, to respect electoral mandates. If things go badly wrong again, Thailand — one of the most successful societies in Asia and a society that is comfortable with its positive international and regional standing — will not only find it more difficult to re-establish its place back on the perch, it will weaken ASEAN’s new determination to assert its centrality in regional affairs.

One view is that Thailand can manage its regional responsibilities, as chair of ASEAN, and continuing political turmoil at the same time. There will be no repeat of the 2009 episode when protesters forced the cancellation of that year’s ASEAN Summit and badly dented ASEAN’s international standing. That’s probably a sanguine view of Thailand and ASEAN’s situation today. The region and the organisation are under intense pressure and searing critical examination. If Thailand’s missteps along the road towards democracy spill over into uncertainties about the process of setting a new strategic direction for ASEAN, the costs will be non-trivial.

The monarchy appears to have shown decisiveness and appealed to worthy principle in dealing with the fiasco created by Princess Ubolratana’s unusual entry into Thai politics via Thaksin’s clumsy tactic. Yet our first lead piece this week by Patrick Jory speculates that the King may have had knowledge of his sister’s and Thaksin’s move. Were that so, it would forebode continuing febrility in the relationship between the monarchy and the bureaucratic elite.

On coronation, it’s believed, the King could in fact extend political amnesties to cement the progress of constitutional monarchy under his reign. If that extended to Thaksin, however, there would certainly be further trouble down the track. Meanwhile, the role of the military and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha will be decisive. He was nominated as a prime ministerial candidate by the Phalang Pracharat Party at the same time as Princess Ubolratana’s spectacular flameout. Although this was not unexpected, it raises difficult questions. Prayut’s nomination for prime minister by Phalang Pracharat can be argued to compromise the military’s interest in respecting the electoral mandate. The appointment of senators (who have a vote with elected parliamentarians on the choice of prime minister) is by the National Council for Peace and Order of which Prayut’s chair. Senate votes could carry the day in the likely event that there is no decisive majority outcome from the popular electoral vote.

In our second lead piece this week, Greg Raymond canvasses these and other political problems in Thailand today.

‘Much is still to play out,’ says Raymond, ‘but there are reasons to think that both sides of politics may see it in their best interests to act with restraint. One of the beneficiaries of what has occurred is without doubt Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha’. Prayut looks like he has a strong chance of being elected prime minister. He needs to secure 126 seats from a coalition of his own and other smaller parties, and command virtually all of the 250-member Senate (as is expected given senators are appointed by the junta) to get a winnable 376 seats to ensure his installation as prime minister.

But political emotions are inevitably running high and Thaksin’s might not be the only misstep. Were the military to cancel the election in the light of what has happened, or take excessively punitive measures against the Thai Raksa Chart party, it could trigger unrest and make a volatile situation more so. The Pheu Thai Party, the main Thaksin-affiliated party, is still in the contest if it can preserve its cool and insulate itself from whatever happens to the Thai Raksa Chart party, including possible dissolution.

Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, Vice Rector of Thammasat University, has urged Prime Minister Prayut to stand back and withdraw from the Prime ministerial contest in order to avoid a conflict of interest for the National Council for Peace and Order in its role in the appointment of senators. That would be an act of great statesmanship, but an unlikely turn of events. There is quite a way to go before Thailand restores its rank among the democracies and many uncertainties along the path over the next several months.

The EAF Editorial Board is located in the Crawford School of Public Policy, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University.

 

Hoping for a vibrant, noble monarchy

January 31,2019

Opinion  |

by Nathaniel Tan

https://www.malaysiakini.com

Published: 25 Jan 2019, 6:35 pm  |  Modified: 25 Jan 2019, 6:35 pm

COMMENT | We have a new Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, Daulat Tuanku!

Each new Agong brings his own set of values and style to the monarchy. Hopefully, we will be maintaining the best traditions of our monarchy, and leaving any unsavoury elements behind.

In the wake of the last Agong’s resignation, there were a number of critical comments made that led to people being hauled up by the police for questioning it, employees being compelled to leave their jobs and so on.

These actions were taken purportedly to “defend the dignity” of the monarchy. Moving forward with a new monarch, this may be an opportune time to ask what is the best way to protect the dignity of the monarchy?

There are a number of possible answers to this question. No doubt, there are some who believe that the best way to do so is to via extreme punitive actions.

This school of thought believes that anyone caught saying anything negative at all should be hit with the full force of the law and be subject to punishments such as fines, prison and whipping.

In evaluating this approach, let us stop to think of places and times in history where this approach to instilling love and respect for rulers may have been considered successful.

I stopped for quite a while and was not able to come up with any such examples.

There are countless examples of using this tactic to successfully invoke fear, but none that I can think of where it has nurtured genuine love and respect towards a ruler.

The reason for this should be apparent to any parent, older sibling or teacher – you simply cannot frighten or intimidate someone into loving or genuinely respecting you.

For the purposes of today’s article, let us leave aside for now deeper questions of the relevance or legitimacy of a monarchy in today’s world.

Suffice to say here that it is no doubt an institution steeped in tradition and history, revered by a significant part of the population, and full of potential to play a meaningful role in governance and society.

Primacy of good deeds

I think the short answer to the original question of how we can best protect the dignity of the monarchy is through the actions of the monarchs themselves.

No matter what the rest of us do around the monarchs, including arresting and prosecuting those who say unpleasant things about them, the esteem in which they are held will always be proportional to the role they play in public life.

If they are seen to live upstanding, exemplary lives, and execute their official duties according to the highest standards of nobility, they will be loved and revered, regardless of what the government or the rest of us do.

In recent times, one of the most visible portrayals of a monarch in public imagination is that of Queen Elizabeth II, in the Netflix television series, The Crown.

Far be it for any of us to fawn over our former colonial masters for no reason (least of all a semi-fictionalised one), but perhaps the series can give us some ideas of how monarchs can come to be revered.

One underlying theme in The Crown is the idea of personal sacrifice in pursuit of public service. The queen is portrayed as someone who has to make various compromises and difficult personal decisions to protect the eponymous crown.

She is seen to repeatedly defer to tradition and convention, even when she would personally much rather not, and at considerable cost to her personal relationships.

At some points in The Crown, Queen Elizabeth contrasted with the behaviour and decisions of her uncle, who was crowned King Edward VII, only to abdicate his throne in less than a year, as a result for his love for a divorced socialite.

This abdication was treated as a considerable scandal. Driving not far from my home soon after the recent announcement of resignation here, I saw that abdications were treated somewhat differently in Malaysia, with an enormous poster of the former Agong having appeared overnight, with the words “Daulat Tuanku”.

In any case, I obviously have no quarrel with the former Agong’s decisions, and consider the personal lives of public figures as something we should mostly not concern ourselves with.

We should also note that in recent times in the UK, no one is ever censured for “insulting” the Queen. There is a particular scene at the end of the movie Johnny English Reborn, where my favourite funnyman Mr Bean is portrayed to be banging the head of the queen with a silver tray.

I can’t imagine how many decades of prison doing something like that might earn someone in countries more like ours but one has to ask, has it affected Queen Elizabeth’s popularity in the least?

No to vitriol, yes to transparency

One could even argue that the more strictly you enforce a restriction against criticising a ruler, the less popular the monarch becomes – and surely this is not in the interests of a monarch or the monarchy.

I have written previously that the tone taken by critics of the monarchy such as A Kadir Jasin was excessive and a little vindictive.

I think there is little to be gained from launching vitriol filled with rough words at the royals at this juncture.

That said, police investigations (especially under the Sedition Act) and compelling people to leave their jobs seem somewhat excessive punishments.

For all of Kadir’s harsh criticisms, he is no less than an advisor to the prime minister; if he can still hold such an important position, perhaps we should consider whether the action taken on other critics by their employers is appropriate.

Speaking of Kadir, while I disagree with his tone, his underlying point that monarchs are funded from the public purse was far from irrelevant.

As such, some degree of transparency regarding how this money is spent would, of course, be a good thing.

Opacity, on the other hand, can give rise to all sorts of unsavoury rumours – which is no good for anyone.

At the end of the day, the monarchs have a great deal of agency over how they are perceived by the public.

If they abide by the highest code of conduct and standards of integrity, while continuing to show compassion for ordinary Malaysians, their popularity is all but guaranteed.

---

NATHANIEL TAN, who works at Emir Research, a think tank focused on data-driven policy research, was concerned to read about the rise of pro-monarchy vigilantism. The episode of The Crown that deals with precisely that is called ‘Marionettes’.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.