‘A wise ruler should know by now that history has shown that it is not the government that will help to preserve the royal institution but rather the will and mandate of the ordinary people.'
On A new dimension of constitutional monarchy?
Theng Kai Chi: I would like to express my utter amazement at the ironic views of the sultan.
It is known that hadn't the sultan allowed the change of government in Perak, there wouldn't be so many problems interfering with the peace of this nation.
The rakyat had thought that everything had settled down after the March 8 election when they had given mandate to the Pakatan to govern the state before the sudden change of government consented to by the sultan himself.
And guess what? It seems that the sultan is now blaming certain quarters of ‘parties' for causing this political upheaval.
How could the sultan not respect the will of the rakyat? How helpless are we when the government of our choice can be overthrown overnight with the sultan's consent?
Because he thinks that he is above politics, it doesn't give him the right to refuse to give an explanation to the rakyat of his actions.
I believe that the constitutional monarchy in Malaysia has been eroded. Its powers are rooted in the principles of democracy and the rule of law, and therefore, it should uphold those principles.
However, it seems that the monarchy has many vested interests in supporting the BN government. What has it done to ensure the separation of powers in the country?
Because of the lack of participation of the monarchy in the process of monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the government, most of us have the impression that the rulers are just indulging in the extravaganza of their palaces.
I strongly urge the rulers to be more proactive in performing their roles as the guardians of the abovementioned principles which are the foundation of our constitution.
The monarchy has to be more relevant to the constitution of Malaysia for if not, it risks being rendered irrelevant and dysfunctional.
Richard Teo: Perak Sultan Raja Azlan Shah was correct when he said that rulers were above politics and therefore could not answer or debate allegations against them.
But then why did the Perak ruler without hesitation install Zambry and his BN cohorts to replace the Pakatan Rakyat government knowing fully well that the two former PKR assembly persons were charged with corruption and could have acted under duress?
The dubious takeover by BN was therefore hanging on a slim majority and what would happen should the two assembly persons be convicted of the corruption?
Under such a climate of political uncertainty would it not be logical for the ruler to entertain the incumbent MB's request for a dissolution of the state assembly?
And why did the ruler showed favouritism by declining the former MB's request for a dissolution and instead installing BN's Zambry as the legitimate menteri besar of Perak?
Rulers need not be vocal to display their partisanship in politics. Mere actions which are contrary to public expectations are enough to render their oft quoted statement that they are above politics meaningless.
The Perak ruler's statement that individuals and groups were ‘disregarding the law for the sake of attaining power' should be directed at BN and not Pakatan Rakyat.
The Bukit Gantang by-election should have been an eye-opener to the ruler that the people want dissolution of the state assembly.
Instead the ruler chooses to turn a blind eye and further add legitimacy to Zambry's government by bestowing royal awards on him and his three other exco members when they have not even earned or deserve the awards.
Rulers who by their actions are partisan are bound to attract ridicule.
A wise ruler should know by now that history has shown that it is not the government that will help to preserve the royal institution but rather the will and mandate of the ordinary people.
A Kamal: I remember a time when Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj was still alive at a time when Dr M's regime were bent on curtailing the constitutional monarchy's powers.
Conferences on the Merdeka constitution were held to discuss the role of the monarchs.
This was the night be before Dr M's Operation Lallang swoop. Universities and the Bar Council were among the bodies running these conferences with the common thread, ‘30 years after Merdeka'.
Personages who were involved one way or another with the Reid Commission and close to the Tunku came to offer invaluable insights to what was imagined, what was drafted and the grey areas which are left to the imagination of Malaysians.
It would be helpful for those who were on these panels who are still with us, to share the concerns.
On Two unusual deaths, two post-mortems
Peter Ooi: This piece by is indeed a revelation. Doctors, pathologists included, should have professional integrity and admit to errors and omissions they make and not hide behind impressive titles or so called ‘years of experience'
They are mere mortals like the rest of us and prone to mistakes and in this instance perhaps twice.
Furthermore, they should also have the humility to recognise that a ‘Dr' title does not confer on the holder omniscience in medical practice which in itself is not a discipline with exact answers and solutions.
Yuvan:
Dr Abdul Karim Tajuddin, the first pathologist in the Kugan case, has 26 years of experience behind him. So what?Do we have to force ourselves to agree that he is an expert and that all his findings have to be accurate, just because of his long service or experience?
While it is true that competence comes with experience, we must also remember that years of experience alone do not necessarily make a person competent and intelligent. This applies to professionals in any field.
Even experts can make mistakes and arrive at wrong conclusions. If the Health Ministry officials affirm that Dr Abdul Karim Tajuddin cannot go wrong based on his long experience, then they may as well amend whatever rules they have.
Make it known that ‘long service' alone is sufficient for all medical professionals to be ‘qualified' as experts in their field of work and that nobody, including the courts, should dispute their expertise!
Frankly Xroy: He is the past. Will someone in the BN have the guts to tell him that?
That is the message we should send to this person who has meddled in the government, brought down a prime minister and is now trying to assert his authority over the latest PM of Malaysia whom we all know will succumb as much as he may not agree with it.
If Najib is a man, if Najib is to be a leader in his own right, he should ban the crooked bridge issue and all radio stations should declare a black out on the crooked bridge issue.
On 'Democracy tree' gets 19 companions
Jazzdaman: Who are MBI to go around autonomously planting trees in places that are not beneficial to the public?
What is more, the people are paying for the planting of these saplings. Who are they MBI to act so arbitrarily?
Not only will these saplings suffocate each other for nutrients, sunlight and water, if they ever grow to full size, what an ugly sight it will be.
I call for them to relocate these extra trees!
