YOURSAY | “Don’t confuse a ruler’s voice with a ruler’s veto.”

Pua questions royal role in politics, wonders about Sedition Act risk

GP2025: DAP's Tony Pua asks legitimate questions the answers to which everyone knows. What I can't understand is why our leaders, both royal and elected, don't know the Federal Constitution and therefore fail to act according to it?

It is the MPs who must ensure compliance with the Constitution, not the royals. If a course of action is suggested that is unconstitutional, they should advise the royals in the presence of the attorney-general so that the constitutional way is followed.

The people don't see this happening. How to trust these MPs to uphold the Constitution and govern according to the law?

What we are seeing are bills being proposed in Parliament that give the Agong the choice of appointment. The public prosecutor-AG separation bill is an example.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman said the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on Human Rights, Elections and Institutional Reform was recommending that the executive be removed from the PP selection process by the Judicial and Legal Services Committee (JLSC) and, instead, a list of names be presented to the Agong to choose one candidate.

Is this a realistic and practical proposal? Do we have a wide pool of high-calibre civil servants that it is possible for the JLSC to give the Agong a choice?

In most of the cases, the choice always boils down to one. But the MPs can't seem to understand the constraints with which the government works.

Are they thinking of good governance or playing politics in not upsetting the Agong? Such a recommendation in a bill is a precedent that should not be set.

In Johor, with regard to the choice of MB, not one party or coalition has said it will abide by the constitutional process. Umno doesn't have to declare it because their MB choice has already been royally picked.

The problem is not the royals but MPs who don't know the Constitution to confidently advocate it and act accordingly.

What is more important than the AG-PP and two-term limit for the PM bills is for Parliament to set a convention or a process by law to call for a confidence vote in the event of a hung Parliament in choosing the PM with the majority support of the MPs.

This is preeminent in establishing a constitutional government. A constitutional government provides the basis for political and government stability.

This is the issue that must be resolved first before reform bills are introduced.

When it is practised in Parliament, the state governments have to follow suit, and we won't have this problem of whether the choice of the people is dismissed by royal appointment.

Our MPs are not using their heads in ensuring good governance according to the constitution, but politicking. Don't blame the royals.

Undecided: “When senior members of the royalty get openly involved directly (or even indirectly) with politics and political campaigns, demonstrating bias and partiality, are they then not subjecting themselves to rebuttals and retorts?” asked Pua.

“In that case, are these royalty members above reproach? Will the Sedition Act still apply?” he added.

I believe all politicians know what Pua means, but few dare to speak out for fear of political backlash.

That sums up the problem we have in Malaysia, when politicians do not focus on issues which strengthen our Constitution but instead focus more on the possible political consequences.

Mazhilamani: Whether Pua is brave or foolhardy is for him or for the people to decide.

He is definitely representing the many remaining silent. His concern should not be seen as a criticism against any particular person.

Pua has never deterred from speaking his mind. He was the very first person to speak about jailed former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak's involvement in 1MDB.

The matter of voting is for the rakyat to decide. This country practices a democratic system of government; the person's choice of an elected representative is very personal and strictly private.

Kucklehead2: When royalty steps into the political arena, does the Sedition Act suddenly apply?

It’s telling that only former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad once dared to raise such uncomfortable truths, while the rest of our politicians scurry away with tails tucked.

This is Malaysian politics at its finest where courage is punished, silence is rewarded, and the law bends depending on who speaks.

Nada Villa: Johoreans are told to worry about revenue leaving the state. Fair enough.

But they are equally entitled to ask how much wealth created within Johor by its many strategic developments is finding its way back to the rakyat, rather than merely enriching those already close to the centre of power.

The difficulty, as Pua alludes to, is that such questions are not always asked on a level playing field.

A public debate where one side risks investigation under the Sedition Act for raising legitimate questions is akin to a boxer entering the ring with one hand tied behind his back.

PinkJaguar7289: On the question - did Johor Regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim overstep by hitting back at the prime minister over Johor's leakage? - the constitutional answer is no.

The Federal Constitution binds the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act on the advice of the Cabinet (Articles 40(1) and 40(1A)); it does not muzzle a ruler from speaking.

There is a world of difference between exercising a constitutional function and exercising what Walter Bagehot called the monarch's residual rights - to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn.

When the regent said Johor pours more than RM40 billion a year into federal coffers and sees a fraction returned, that the people of his state wait on Putrajaya to fix their schools, hospitals and roads, and asks plainly "who suffers - the rakyat or those at the top?", he is not bypassing anyone's advice or seizing any executive power.

He is doing precisely what a ruler is entitled, even expected, to do: speak up for the welfare of his people.

This is advocacy about the terms of fiscal federalism, not interference in who governs. The line the Constitution polices is the one between word and unlawful act, and on the revenue question the regent stayed firmly on the lawful side of it.

One may agree or disagree with his 25–30 percent demand on the economics; that is a debate for the federal-state fiscal table.

But to dress a legitimate grievance about revenue-sharing in the language of a constitutional transgression is to confuse a ruler's voice with a ruler's veto. They are not the same thing and only the latter is constrained.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.