Extracted from The Malaysian Insider
“Today’s crisis in Perak is about the legitimacy of the process by which a new state government has been formed in Perak. It’s not about the status of the Rulers,” Tengku Razaleigh said in his latest post titled “1993”.
“In comparison, the constitutional crisis of 1993 arose from an ugly confrontation between Umno and the Rulers over a question that had direct and profound implications on their sovereignty and that of the Yang Dipertuan Agong. For good reason, the Head of State in most countries may not be prosecuted in an ordinary court of law. In 1993, the government campaigned to remove this immunity through amendments to the Constitution.
“I opposed these amendments,” the Gua Musang MP said emphatically.
Alluding to his political rival Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the veteran Umno leader said both the rulers and parliament were railroaded by the government of the day to pass the amendments.
“These are the very same amendments which today make it legal for a Ruler to be prosecuted. Mr Karpal Singh, though I disagree with him, was acting well within rights that an Umno-led government enacted in 1993 when he earlier proposed to sue DYMM the Sultan of Perak,” he added.
Reflecting on the irony, Tengku Razaleigh posed the question, “Umno serve the Rulers more genuinely by upholding and protecting the Constitution which guarantees their status, or by histrionic displays tuned for the coming Umno elections?”, in an apparent reference to candidates in the party elections who have taken to the streets and demanded action against the opposition.
"This had a bearing upon the kind of leaders and party that Umno members want," Tengku Razaleigh said.
“Was greater harm done to the sovereignty of the Rulers in 1993 through Parliament or a week ago on the streets of Perak?” Tengku Razaleigh asked.
“And is today’s Umno, with its inconsistent adherence to the rule of law, its inconstant respect for the key institutions of our country, a credible or effective defender of the Rulers and of the laws upholding this institution?
“Or do we actually harm what we claim to protect?” he said in ending his post, which also included two videos of his parliament speech in 1993 opposing the amendments when he was Semangat 46 leader after Umno was declared illegal in 1988. He rejoined Umno in 1995.
“In comparison, the constitutional crisis of 1993 arose from an ugly confrontation between Umno and the Rulers over a question that had direct and profound implications on their sovereignty and that of the Yang Dipertuan Agong. For good reason, the Head of State in most countries may not be prosecuted in an ordinary court of law. In 1993, the government campaigned to remove this immunity through amendments to the Constitution.
“I opposed these amendments,” the Gua Musang MP said emphatically.
Alluding to his political rival Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the veteran Umno leader said both the rulers and parliament were railroaded by the government of the day to pass the amendments.
“These are the very same amendments which today make it legal for a Ruler to be prosecuted. Mr Karpal Singh, though I disagree with him, was acting well within rights that an Umno-led government enacted in 1993 when he earlier proposed to sue DYMM the Sultan of Perak,” he added.
Reflecting on the irony, Tengku Razaleigh posed the question, “Umno serve the Rulers more genuinely by upholding and protecting the Constitution which guarantees their status, or by histrionic displays tuned for the coming Umno elections?”, in an apparent reference to candidates in the party elections who have taken to the streets and demanded action against the opposition.
"This had a bearing upon the kind of leaders and party that Umno members want," Tengku Razaleigh said.
“Was greater harm done to the sovereignty of the Rulers in 1993 through Parliament or a week ago on the streets of Perak?” Tengku Razaleigh asked.
“And is today’s Umno, with its inconsistent adherence to the rule of law, its inconstant respect for the key institutions of our country, a credible or effective defender of the Rulers and of the laws upholding this institution?
“Or do we actually harm what we claim to protect?” he said in ending his post, which also included two videos of his parliament speech in 1993 opposing the amendments when he was Semangat 46 leader after Umno was declared illegal in 1988. He rejoined Umno in 1995.
Source: The Malaysian Insider
Read the full text here at razaleigh.com
*****
Do they actually harm what they claim to protect?
Do they actually know themselves?
Do they? Huh!
********
2 comments:
constitution monarchy are just formal.
But in Bolehland, it is a freaking system "inherit" from British colonial system. Those monarch are nothing but "warlord". If not because of the British, all this feudalism warlords will start battle to kill each other like highlander.
In fact, all these "warlord" did little to the country social-economy. Besides giving some speech, can anyone tell me what have these "monarch" done".
true democracy and total monarchy doesn't exist together. either you are feudal state or republic, there cannot be both.
even Thai king don't interfere with the political situation there.
our sultan is the same, in our parliament, they exist for show only. should not interfere with the politics, and they should not be above laws as well.
Post a Comment