~penarik beca

Only when leaders show themselves to be driven by higher order goals can their followers feel fully assured that they are not somehow being deceived and manipulated into serving illegitimate or self-serving causes. Otherwise conflicting values and clash of interests will give rise to widespread civil apathy or, even worse, open disobedience - Raja Muda Perak

Saya memang peminat tegar pindaan Perlembagaan yang mengkudungkan imuniti raja-raja Melayu. Bagi saya, ia adalah sesuatu yang wajib dan sangat sedap disokong. Ada tiga perkara yang Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad lakukan yang saya menjadi penyokong tegarnya (lain-lain tu tak dapat nak ingat sungguh apa yang saya sokong. Yang tak sokong banyak) - kudungkan imuniti raja-raja, memecat Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan menjatuhkan Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Yang dia nak Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak cepat-cepat menggantikan Abdullah, yang tu tobat lahum aku tak sokong!!

Ketika kekalutan menjelang pindaan itu diluluskan, dalam kasih kepada saudara se Islam dan seperjuangan, Tuhan sajalah yang tahu betapa meluatnya saya kepada orang-orang PAS Pahang, PAS Terengganu dan PAS Kelantan pada waktu itu. Orang-orang PAS Pahang mengerumuni istana Pekan - konon-konon nak menghalang sultan mereka dari dipaksa menandatangani pindaan itu. Orang PAS Terengganu juga bagaikan nak jadi tembok kepada istana Maziah. Kalau tak silap dalam hujan lebat. Orang-orang PAS Kelantan pula entah berapa ramai banyaknya yang menghantar sultan mereka di Lapangan Terbang Pengkalan Chepa. Mereka menjerit-jerit "jangan sign tuanku! Jangan sign tuanku!"

Nasib baik Allahyarham Ustaz Haji Yusof Rawa berkeras menolak kecenderungan menentang pindaan itu. Beliau disokong oleh Allahyarham Ustaz Fadzil Noor. Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang juga cenderung kepada sikap berkecuali dalam pengundian pindaan itu di Dewan Rakyat. Masa tu kalau tak silap, Pak Yusof dah dekat-dekat nak mengundurkan diri sebagai Mursyidul Am untuk digantikan Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.

Tok Guru, mewakili PAS Kelantan, tidak setuju dengan pindaan itu. Antara kata-kata Pak Yusof kepada Tok Guru yang saya tak lupa dalam mesyuarat itu yang kemudian heboh disiarkhabarkan ialah, "Hang tau ka, Nik Aziz, patik tu makna dia anak anjing!"

Terima kasih Pak Yusof yang sangat dikasihi!

Saya rasa Pak Yusof mewakili sentimen majoriti orang-orang Melayu pada waktu. Dalam tulisannya "The Malay ruler's loss of immunity," Prof Mark R Gillen dari Fakulti Undang-Undang University of Victoria, Canada menyimpulkan:

The removal of the Rulers' immunity was a significant constitution al development in Malaysia. The move of the executive to rein in the influence and alleged excesses of the Rulers was brought about with apparent public support that is perhaps somewhat surprising given the historical reverence to the Malay Rulers and their importance as a symbol of Malay unity. The Government demonstrated a willingness to crack down on influence and extravagance, a step they would have been unwilling to take if it meant the loss of the precious support of the Malays.

Their ability to take the steps they did suggests a continuing change in the cultural attitude of the Malays to the Malay Rulers. The reduced degree of unquestioning reverence for the Malay Rulers and their symbolic significance appears to be more substantial than it was in 1983 given the relatively limited success of the Government in 1983 compared to 1993. The Malay Rulers had been exerting considerable influence in Malay society and politics in spite of the constitutional limits on their powers. However, the events of 1993 appear to have irrevocably reduced the significance of the Malay Rulers in Malay society and in the politics of Malaysia.

Berikut pula ialah petikan sebahagian tulisannya:

The Constitutional Amendments and the Events Leading up to the Amendments The Gomez Incident

There were allegedly several incidents over the course of at least the previous twenty years in which Rulers and members of the royal families had abused their privileges. However, the catalyst that brought these allegations into the open and was the linch-pin for the constitutional amendments was the Douglas Gomez incident.

Douglas Gomez was the coach of the Maktab Sultan Abu Bakar field hockey team. The team had made it to the semi-finals of the Malaysian Hockey Federation Milo Champion Schools Tournament. Its semi-final match was to be held on Wednesd ay, November 25th, 1992. A few hours before the match Douglas Gomez was instructed to cause the team to withdraw from the match on an order from the Johor Education Department director. This was just one of several withdrawals of Johor hockey teams from tournaments over several months prior to November 25th. Afterwards Douglas Gomez called for the resignation of all Johor Hockey Association principal office bearers and criticized the leadership for "destroying" hockey in the state.

This seemed to have little to do with any of the Malay Rulers. However, Douglas Gomez was summoned to the Istana (or palace) Bukit Serene in Johor Baru on Monday, November 30th. He was there for four hours. During the first hour he was briefed on palace etiquette and on how to ask for forgiveness if he made a mistake in his action s or communication s with the Sultan. The Sultan of Johor arrived and, according to Gomez, was surrounded by six men in jeans and T-shirts and 10-12 Johor Military Force personnel.

On Tuesday, December 1st, after his visit to the palace, Gomez sought treatment at a local private clinic for bruises to his face and stomach. On Sunday, December 6th, he made a report to the police in which he alleged that he had been the victim of an assault while at the palace and that, although there were several people in the palace at the time, the only person responsible for his injuries was the Sultan himself.

The apparent connection between the Sultan of Johor, Douglas Gomez and field hockey was an event which occurred in July of 1993. The Sultan's son, Tengku Abdul Majid Idris was alleged to have assaulted the Perak goalkeeper after a championship final game which Perak won on a penalty stroke. The Malaysian Hockey Federation concluded that there was sufficient evidence that the assault had occurred and banned Tengku Majid from play for a period of five years. It was after this decision by the Malaysian Hockey Federation that the spate of withdrawals by Johor hockey teams from national tournaments began to occur.

Response to the Gomez Incident

The Gomez incident was followed by several days of news coverage in which outrage was expressed at the Gomez incident. Reports in the following weeks contained allegations of other abuses by the Sultan of Johor and the Johor Royal family. There were also allegations of abuses of privilege by other Rulers.

For instance, the Pahang Royalty was alleged to be putting pressure on the Pahang Government and its forestry officials for more timber concessions in spite of substantial concessions that had been made over the previous four years. There were other general allegations of excessive timber and land concessions being demanded by Royal families. There were complaints that some Rulers refused to pay debts and otherwise refused to comply with contractual obligations relying on their immunity from civil actions.

There were allegations that the privilege of allowing Rulers to import luxury cars free of duty had been abused by obtaining import approval permits for cars for other members of the royal families and for friends of the royal families. Concerns were also expressed with respect to alleged interference by Rulers in government affairs.

Caution regarding provisions of the Sedition Act, which deemed discussion of the issue of the Rulers' privileges to be an act of sedition, had apparently been thrown to the wind. Reports of sedition were made against various persons including opposition MP Karpal Singh and even against the Prime Minister himself.

The Proposed Amendments In response to the Gomez incident there were calls for steps to be taken to remove the Rulers' immunity. Within weeks of the first reports of the Gomez incident amendments to the provisions of the constitution concerning the immunity of the Rulers were being drafted.

Newspapers carried reports of support for the Government's strong stand on the Gomez incident and for proposals to amend the constitution to deal with the matter. According to the reports, support came from both coalition government parties and from non-government coalition parties. Support was also reported from several groups and organizations in Malaysian society.

There were also reports and letters containing opinions to the effect that constraining the alleged abuse of the Rulers would be consistent with Islamic principles. These proposed amendments dealt with the immunity of the Rulers, changes with respect to the Rulers' powers to grant pardons and changes with respect to sedition in the context of Parliamentary proceedings concerning the Rulers. The provisions of the Constitution providing for the immunity of the Rulers were to be amended to replace the general immunity with an immunity limited to their actions in an official capacity. The proposed amended version of Article 181(2) read, "No proceeding whatsoever shall be brought in any court against the Ruler of a State in respect only of anything done or omitted to be done by him in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under any written law (words to be add ed in italics)".

There was a similar proposed amendment of Article 32 with respect to the immunity of the King. A third clause to be added to Article 181 provided that any law which provided for the immunit y of a Ruler of a State in his personal capacity or attached sanctity to his residence would be void. Perhaps in the interests of garnering support from the Conference of Rulers, the proposed amendments provided that no proceedings could be taken against a Ruler in his personal capacity for anything done or omitted to be done by the Ruler before the amendments came into effect. The whole notion of Rulers being subject to the criminal proceedings before a court and the consequences of criminal proceedings with respect to members of the royal families could be next to meaningless if the Rulers could pardon themselves or their family members.

Consequently the provisions of the Constitution with respect to pardons were to be amended such that where a Ruler or his consort, son or daughter were involved the powers would not be exercised by the Ruler himself. Where the King, or his Consort, or the Ruler of a state, or his Consort, were concerned the powers would be exercised by the Conference of Rulers and the King or Ruler concerned would not be members of the Conference of Rulers for that purpose. Where the son or daughter of the King or Ruler of a State were concerned the power to pardon would be exercised by a Ruler of a State nominated by the Conference of Rulers who would act on the advice of a pardons board. The proposed amendments also dealt with restrictions on questioning the privileges of the Rulers in either Parliament or State Legislatures.

The proposed amendments provided that no person would be liable to any proceedings in any court against a person in respect of anything said by him of the King or a Ruler when taking part in proceedings of either house of Parliament or any committee thereof. However, one exception to this remained. The person could still be liable if he or she advocated the abolition of the constitutional position of the King as the Supreme Head of the Federation or the constitutional position of the Ruler of a State.

Similarly, no person would be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by that person of the Ruler of any State when taking part in any proceedings of the legislative assembly of a State or any committee thereof, unless the person advocated the abolition of the Ruler's position as the constitutional Ruler of the State.

Meetings of the Rulers with government representatives led to some last minute changes in the proposed amendments before they were presented in Parliament. The changes provided for the creation of a special court to deal with cases involving the Rulers. If civil or criminal actions were brought against a Ruler or the King these would, under the revised version of the proposed amendments, be dealt with by a special court.

The special court would consist of the Lord President of the Supreme Court, who would act as chair of the court, the Chief Justices of the High Courts, and two other persons, chosen by the Conference of Rulers, who are or were judges of the Supreme C ourt or High Courts.

The Rulers were said to have generally agreed to accept the proposed amendments on January 17, 1993. However, at a special meeting on January 18 they issued a statement saying they were not in a position to give consent to certain proposals in the Bill without further deliberation and consultation. The Rulers, while acknowledging that "there cannot be two systems of justice in the country" and that they agreed "to the formation of an effective mechanism to hear the [people's] grievances against them", expressed concern for the "far-reaching consequences on the sovereignty of the Malay Rulers".

They were of the view that a special court was not the most suitable forum for determining matters relating to the Rulers and proposed the creation of an Advisory Board to make recommendations to the appropriate State authority for the removal of a Ruler before he was charged or sued.

Nonetheless the proposed amendments, as revised, were tabled in the Dewan Rak yat (lower house) on January 18th, 1993 and were passed by both houses by January 20th.

Umno's Justification for the Amendments and Opposition to the Amendments

Umno's justification for the amendments was that they were necessary to protect the Rulers and preserve the institution of the Rulers as constitutional monarchs. In response to claims that the amendments represented the first step towards the creation of a republic, Umno pointed to the amendments on sedition which continued to make persons liable for statements in Parliament or a Legislative assembly advocating the abolition of the monarchy.

Otherwise amendments to the provisions on sedition were said to be necessary because although abuses by Rulers were known of in the past, little could be done because no one could voice criticisms of the Rulers even in Parliament or the State Legislatures and thus the public could not be made aware of the problems faced by the Government.

Semangat '46, an opposition party that was formed upon the breakup of the former Umno party, opposed the amendments, taking arguably the strongest pro-royalty stance of any party. While it agreed that some steps needed to be taken so that the Rulers could "hear the grievances of the Rakyat (the people)", it claimed that the proposed amendments interfered with the sovereignty of the Rulers and were a step towards the formation of a republic. They argued that the ultimate removal of the Rulers would take away an important aspect of Malay culture and tradition and a symbol of Malay unity.

The Democratic Action Party (DAP), a primarily Chinese opposition party which is part of an opposition coalition with Semangat '46, originally supported the government in December when it expressed the need for action to be taken in light of the Gomez incident. It also initially supported the amendments.

However, it abstained from voting when the amendments were introduced in Parliament in January. The reason they gave for the abstention was that the Constitution required the consent of the Rulers to amendments affecting their privileges and such consent had yet to be given. According to DAP the consent was required before the amendments could be introduced in Parliam ent. DAP was accused of sacrificing its principles in favour of preserving their opposition coalition with Semangat '46.

The Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS), a Malay pro-Islamic party and part of the opposition coalition, supported the government's call for action and the move to lift the Rulers' immunity in light of the Gomez incident but later abstained from voting on the amendments introduced in Parliament in January.

Although it claimed to be in favour of the removal of the Rulers' immunity because it was not in accord with the principles of Islam, it said that the amendments were not "comprehensive enough" and that it did not like the manner in which the wrongdoings of the Rulers were exposed in the House. PAS was arguably in a difficult position in that it may have wanted to avoid alienating the Kelantan royal family whose support could be influential in staying in power in the state of Kelantan.

The Rulers' Compromise

The decision of the Conference of Rulers not to consent to the proposed changes to the Constitution was followed by stepped up pressure on the Rulers. It was announced that henceforth the payment for the expenses of the Rulers would be limited to those that were expressly provided for by the law. The government would no longer pay for the building and maintenance of rest houses, additional palaces, private wards in hospitals, yachts and aircraft.

The refusal of the Rulers to give their consent to the p roposed amendments was followed by a barrage of media coverage exposing alleged excesses of the Rulers. There were also further reports of influence by the Rulers in government affairs.

Eventually, on February 11, it was announced that a compromise had been reached and that the Rulers agreed to give their consent to the proposed amendments but with certain changes that wee agreed to. There were two changes to the amendments tabled in the House on January 18. One was that a Ruler charged with an offence in the Special Court should cease to exercise his functions as a Ruler. Pending the decision o f the Special Court a Regent would be appointed to exercise the functions of the Ruler. A Ruler convicted of an offence by the Special Court and sentenced to imprisonment for more than one day would cease to be the Ruler of the State unless he received a pardon.

A similar provision was added with respect to the King. The other change was that no action, civil or criminal, could be instituted against the King or a Ruler of a State with respect to an ything done or omitted to be done in his personal capacity without the consent of the Attorney General. Overall the modifications appeared to be relatively minor. The revised amendments were submitted to Parliament and were passed by both Houses on March 9, 1993.