A Doctor in The House: A Memoir of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (72 page)

The British monarch also acts on the advice of the Minister authorised to get Her Majesty’s signature. The British Constitution is unwritten but I have not read about any British monarch refusing to sign any Bills of Parliament. But in Malaysia, written laws are needed to legitimise any act by the Government or the administration. Since there is no provision in the Constitution should the King fail to follow the advice of the Government, it was felt desirable that the Constitution be amended to provide specifically for this eventuality.

We needed to be clear about this as it would be an embarrassment to the Government if the King refused to take the advice of the Prime Minister. The Government could not afford to face an impasse in the administration of the country. Accordingly, an amendment was made to Article 66 (5) of the Constitution so that if a Bill in Parliament which has been passed by both Houses failed to get the signature of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, it would be considered as having been signed by His Majesty after 15 days had elapsed and would be regarded as having been duly passed.

The amendment to Article 150 provides for the Prime Minister, if he is satisfied that a state of Emergency has occurred and the safety or the peace of the Federation or any part of it is threatened, to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who must accede to that advice, to declare a state of emergency and make an announcement to that effect. The amendment to the Eighth Schedule also provided that if any state law is not approved by the Rulers after 15 days, then it too would be considered as having been approved by the Ruler and would become law.

In August 1982 both Houses of Parliament passed the amendments to the Constitution, and the Act was duly submitted to His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The Sultan of Pahang was then Agong and he decided to consult his brother Rulers. This was because the amendments applied also to the State Governments and their Rulers.

Sadly, the Rulers all disagreed with the amendments. I was left with the task of persuading them and, if that failed, I had to negotiate with the Rulers. I felt strongly that somehow the amendments must be a part of the Constitution.

I had good relations with the Agong then, but he would not go against the expressed wishes of his brother Rulers. His failure to take my advice to sign the amendments highlighted the very weakness that these amendments were designed to address. But at the same time, any law that affects the position of the Rulers in whatever way must have their consent.

I enlisted the help of Tengku Tan Sri Ahmad Rithauddeen, a Minister in the Cabinet who was the brother-in-law of the Raja of Perlis, but it was to no avail. The future Sultan of Perak who was then Lord President of the Supreme Court, Raja Azlan Shah, also interceded but again failed. In the meantime, the Rulers were conferring with each other unofficially. It seems they were conscious of the mounting feelings against them. They wanted to work out a solution.

I felt a need to explain the situation to the people. Public meetings were held and I explained that the amendments were not meant to do away with the monarchy, nor make the country a republic. It would not affect all the other provisions of the Constitution, including the special position of the Malays and the Bumiputera, the position of Islam as the official religion of the country, and of the other religions, etc. Generally the people were very supportive and wanted the Rulers to give their assent. We had to be careful not to allow excesses in their criticism of the Rulers. But there were some, and the Rulers were not put in a good light.

There were also dissenting voices even from within UMNO itself. The former Secretary-General of UMNO, Tan Sri Senu Abdul Rahman, circulated a letter against the amendments. Tunku Abdul Rahman advised that the Government and the Rulers should seek agreement through discussions and negotiations. PAS was also against the amendments and was bent upon making an issue of it.

The people were getting agitated and I felt that a solution had to be found soon. The trouble was that the amendments as passed by Parliament needed to be signed into law even if the Rulers wished to change it. There had never been a case of a law that had not been rendered operational being returned to Parliament for amendments for whatever reason.

Then the Yang di-Pertuan Agong went away on leave. According to the provision in the Constitution, the Deputy Yang di-Pertuan Agong would act in the King’s absence. The Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, who was the Deputy King, was made acting King. I knew the Yang di-Pertuan Besar well. Besides, his younger brother Tunku Abdullah, the Tunku Panglima Besar of Negeri Sembilan, was a close friend of mine. I prevailed upon Tunku Abdullah to talk to his elder brother on the need to settle the problem quickly.

I had received a note from the Rulers which gave their views on the amendments. They felt that 15 days was too short a time and they suggested that it should be 60 days. If the King did not sign after 60 days then the Bill would be returned to Parliament. Parliament would then review the Bill, taking into consideration the objection of the Agong. If Parliament felt that the Bill should be amended, it could do so. If not the Bill would be sent back to the Agong. If after 60 days the Agong had not signed the Bill then it would be considered as having His Majesty’s consent and would become law.

The Rulers also disagreed with the amendment to Article 150 on the right of the Prime Minister to declare a state of Emergency. They also objected to the amendment requiring the Rulers to sign into law any Bill presented by the state Governments within 15 days, failing which the law would be regarded as having been assented to by the Ruler .

I had an audience with the Deputy King at Istana Tetamu where he was residing during the period he was acting King. After prolonged explanations about the importance of the amendments being signed by the Agong, and after undertaking to make the amendments as proposed by the Rulers, the Deputy King signed the original amendments.

I was much relieved. The incident proved the need to make the amendments. In future, should the King refuse to sign into law any Bill, the way out would be very clear, i.e. after 60 days of the Bill not being signed by the King, it would be referred back to Parliament. Parliament may or may not amend it before sending it back to the King. Sixty days later, whether the Bill had the King’s signature appended to it or not, it would be considered as having had his assent.

It was an incident which I would not like to go through again. I hastened to repair my relations with the King and the other Rulers. I must say the Rulers were generous and prepared to forget the incident. The Kings who succeeded the Sultan of Pahang got on quite well with me, and my work as Prime Minister was in no way hampered. They gave their full cooperation.

Then came another incident which forced me to amend the Constitution again. This time it was to partially remove the immunity of the Rulers.

The case involved a Ruler slapping a member of the public, a hockey coach. Apparently the Sultan was incensed by the Malaysian Hockey Federation banning his son from playing for five years. The coach, David Gomez, was summoned to the palace where he was allegedly slapped. He lodged a police report in which he claimed the Sultan had assaulted him.

I and my Cabinet colleagues felt this was not right. It is true that the Rulers had immunity before the law but it was assumed that they would not abuse this privilege. The rights of the citizens to seek legal redress needed to be maintained. People would not be comfortable if they could be assaulted by the Rulers with impunity. The incident took place in 1993, 10 years after the previous amendment. I was not keen to have another contretemps with the Rulers but I felt it was my duty to ensure the citizens of this country were protected by the law.

The immunity conferred on the Rulers was really to free them from any liability in the performance of their official duties. It should not extend to personal acts which were not in any way connected with the performance of their duties. Malaysians as a whole respect and honour the Malay Rulers. Usually they avoid criticisms of royalty. Even the Government would try to cover up serious misdemeanours committed by the Sultans. The occasions when the Government had to do this were few and far between, but certainly some involved serious cases. I will not elaborate on this but I know that if ordinary citizens were to commit these acts, they would be charged in court and if found guilty, would be very severely punished indeed.

The unfortunate thing is that other members of the royal families seemed to think their royal status also conferred immunity on them. There were cases involving assault against members of the public by children of royalty. Out of respect for the Sultans concerned, the police and other officials would try to hush up such cases. But when a citizen actually made a police report and this received much publicity in the Press, the Government could not be seen to ignore the matter. The Cabinet discussed this issue at length and concluded that the immunity of the Rulers should be better defined so that incidents such as that involving the hockey coach would not happen again.

There was also much talk about royalty being involved in business. As mentioned earlier, such involvement was thought unbecoming of the Rulers and they should therefore not lend their names to business ventures. This is because when their names are connected with a business, Government officials would find difficulty in applying the normal criteria before approving or rejecting the application. This means that others in the same business would be discriminated against.

Their involvement in business may also lead to the Rulers becoming liable for debts or losses incurred by their enterprises. If the Ruler failed to honour his commitments, legal redress would not be available as he was immune to court action. Many felt that if the Ruler wished to be involved in business, then he must be liable for any breach of trust or laws like everyone else. There was also always the possibility of business people making use of the Ruler as a front for activities that breached the law, such as operating illegal gambling establishments.

The assault incident mentioned above involved one Ruler, but it would not be possible to provide a law that did not apply to the other Rulers as well. I felt certain that the other Rulers would not feel happy. From the experience with the previous amendment to the Constitution regarding royal assent to Bills of Parliament, I anticipated a lot of resistance on the part of the Rulers. Nevertheless, I asked the Attorney-General to draft the necessary laws for presentation to Parliament.

Essentially the amendments provided for three things.

Firstly, for the immunity of the Rulers to be limited to the performance of their duties as constitutional Rulers. Should they breach laws in their personal capacity, they would be liable for court action.

Secondly, should a Ruler make an appeal to the pardons board at Federal or State level, the Ruler concerned should not sit and chair the board. Another Ruler selected by the Rulers Council would preside.

Thirdly, members of Parliament or state councils may not be subjected to charges of treason if they speak regarding the wrongdoings of the Rulers during the course of their debates in Parliament or state councils.

On 10 December 1992, Tun Ghafar Baba tabled the amendments regarding the constitutional rights of the King and the Rulers for First Reading in the Dewan Rakyat. The amendments contained the three items mentioned above.

The Rulers reacted immediately. While Raja Nazrin Shah, who at that time was the acting Ruler of Perak, said that the rights of citizens and their freedoms must be protected, the other Rulers disagreed. They held an unofficial meeting in Alor Star and in Negeri Sembilan to discuss the amendments. A meeting of the Barisan Nasional Council was called on 12 December and it was decided to hold a special sitting of the Lower House of Parliament to amend the Constitution as planned.

In a meeting on 9 January 1993, the Rulers requested for time to consider the amendments. Several more unofficial meetings were held by the Rulers to discuss them. The people were getting agitated by talk that the Rulers would not agree to the amendments. Well-known Malay writers and intellectuals had a meeting at the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka and issued a declaration urging the Rulers to be conscious of the wishes of the people.

I found it necessary to explain at length that the King and the Rulers would retain their immunity when performing official work. The Act was only concerned with any action by the Rulers in their personal capacity, which may involve assault against individuals or other criminal acts or breaches of the law.

The Act would also prohibit any proposal or resolution to abolish the system of Malay Rulers. Such proposals would constitute subversion and would be punished under the Act as treason.

Many public meetings were held to explain to the people the provisions in the amendments, especially on the worries of the Malays that we were going to abolish the institution of Malay Rajas and make Malaysia a republic. On 17 January, together with Deputy Prime Minister Tun Ghafar Baba, Minister of Finance Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, I met six of the Rulers unofficially to try to find a solution to the impasse. In the meeting, the six Rulers appeared to agree with the Bill.

Parliament met on 19 January even though the Rulers refused to give their consent at the last minute. After I presented the Bill, the Barisan Nasional members and some Opposition members thumped the tables in a show of support. The Bill was passed with the DAP, the PBS of Sabah and four independent members voting with the Government. I must admit I was reluctant to have the Bill passed without the Agong’s signature although there was provision for this. The debate in Parliament saw many members vehemently demanding that the Rulers must be prevented from going against the laws of the country.

I remember Tun Hussein Onn, during his tenure of office, being very unhappy with some of the Rulers and he informed the Cabinet that he would have a special meeting with the Rulers to advise them against doing anything against the laws of the country.