I refer to the Malaysiakini report Protect Karpal's right to views, says Santiago .

The current political drama over Bukit Gelugor MP, Karpal Singh’s statement and police report against the Perak Sultan and the Raja Muda of Kelantan is an interesting one.

Certain parties such as the Perak Umno Youth, the BN Back Benchers Club and the Malay Unity Action Front have lodged police reports and there is speculation that Karpal Singh - who is DAP chairperson -may be charged for treason since he is alleged to have raised the sensitivities of the Malay community by raising the issue of the Malay Sultanate.

Commenting on this matter, Tengku Adnan commented that: ‘He had made a strong comment that the Sultan and royalty were subject to the law just like a normal citizen following the amendments to the Federal Constitution in 1993. The comments were like a warning to the Sultan of Perak and other Malay Rulers that they should not interfere in state administrative matters’.

There are at least ten reports lodged against Karpal Singh as was reported thus far but I would like to view this episode from another perspective since action speaks louder than words. The Malay sultanate is a permanent feature of Malaysia’s past, present and future. So strong is their influence that the second principle of our Rukunegara is ‘Loyalty to the King and Nation’.

In the 1991 publication of Pelindung , Chandra Muzaffar wrote that the British maintained the positions of the Malay sultanates even though they were the ones who actually wielded power in the Federated Malay States via the British Resident system. On the other hand, the Malay sultanate had more power and discretion in the Non-Federated Malay states.

Opposition to Malayan Union in1948 occurred largely due to the reduced role of the Malay Sultanate under the Malayan Union plan. It was a prelude to the formation of Umno. Umno’s main objective then was to protect the interest of the sultanate. One of Umno’s resolutions stated: ‘Terminating the powers of the Sultanate would spell the demise of the Malay States in the Peninsula’ ( Menamatkan kuasa-kuasa Sultan, maka musnahlah sama sekali Negeri-Negeri Melayu di Semenanjung Tanah Melayu ).

Chandra also noted a point in the reduction of influence of the Malay sultanate over the rakyat in tandem with Umno’s increasing influence. Fast forward to 1993, a major development took place in terms of the federal constitution. It is in this very year that the Umno-led Barisan Nasional government passed a major constitutional amendment that restricted somewhat the authority of the Malay Sultanates.

The Dewan Rakyat parliamentary bill , in its explanatory statement states that ‘the bill seeks to amend the relevant provisions of the Federal Constitution for the purpose of withdrawing the immunity of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Rulers from any legal proceedings in any court in their personal capacities and to make consequential amendments arising thereform’.

It is fascinating to note that the Umno that was formed to protect the Malay sultanate in 1948 had actually led the BN coalition to successfully amend the constitution to restrict the privileges of Malay sultanate whose roles were already becoming ceremonial in nature.

Shortly before the amendment was tabled in the august house, several issues such as the extravagant lifestyle of the royalty were highlighted in the electronic media, especially by the state owned RTM and TV3 television stations. This were done by the Mahathir administration to convince and justify the need for such an amendment.

These are some of the events that must be taken into consideration now. ‘Malays forget easily’ is a book title popularised by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad during his premiership. In this sense I would like to state that even Malaysians forget easily. Hence the above outline.

Post March 8, didn’t 22 BN state assembly persons almost launch a boycott of the appointment of Ahmad Said as menteri besar of Terengganu by Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin? The boycott did not materialise simply because Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi decided to back off and support the Sultan’s choice instead of his.

A similar scenario also took place in Perlis when Raja Syed Sirajuddin appointed Dr Md Isa Sabu instead of the incumbent Shahidan Kassim. The appointment was made in accordance to Article 39 (2) of the state constitution which states that the Raja can appoint whomever he feels has the trust of the members of the state legislative assembly to be menteri besar. Despite that, there was a gathering of 100 people in Putrajaya in support of Shahidan. Aren’t these acts defying the sultanate?

As events unfold, I cannot decide who is right and wrong but I would like to reiterate the fact that actions speak louder than words. If Karpal’s statements were seditious, wouldn’t the Umno-led BN’s concerted effort in amending the constitution in 1993 be equivalent to treason?

Lastly, I would like to stress the fact that the sultans are not just sultans for the Malays. They are the sultans for every single citizen residing in their respective states. They are the Malaysian sultanate and not simply the Malay sultanate anymore.