The revered former Lord President and current Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah finally broke his silence since the controversy surrounding the constitutional issues that plague Perak, the land of great food and pretty ladies on the occasion of His Highness’ birthday.
Ah…I do not have the text of His Highness’ speech and will try to get my hands on them. Whatever I have read is taken from the printed Star and Sun. (lol…no Moon?)
Anyway…the point that Rulers are above politics is certainly paramount and His Highness’ justification for remaining silent all this while. It is a laudable move but at the same time, an amazingly convenient excuse. That might be how some perceive it, but personally, I would rather believe that it is the right thing to do by not playing to the crowd. Nonetheless, by relying on the pretext that Rulers are above politics, it places an enormous burden for their Highnesses’ to be impartial.
Reading into the quotations printed in the Star (20 April ’09), they seem to allude to the allegations made by prominent opposition figures especially with regards to legal action that could be taken against the Sultan.
“These groups and individuals feel that they are faultless and immune from any action, to the extent of disregarding the law for the sake of attaining power.”
I am just an ordinary citizen. But from the man collecting recyclables in trashcans and sleeping on the sidewalks to the Rulers themselves, are subject to the Constitution. Hence, NO ONE is immune. There are exceptions of course. Diplomats in their official capacity are also immune. Rulers too. I have been following the entire chronicle and I find that the statement is, although general and not directly targeted at anyone in particular, carry connotations that are hard to ignore.
If I know that I am right and that the law is on my side, how can the other then warn me of the rule of law? Then again between a former Lord President and a counsel, the battle is indeed an interesting one. To be fair, I find both parties to be equally right and that they are on the right side of the law. No issue, then isn’t it? So the statement is then perhaps just a warning in advance to anyone who would want to insult the sovereignty of the Rulers.
What riles me up is then how the politicking then starts. Everyone, and I mean from both camps of the political landscape (though one side seems to use it even more) would play up this issue. I have not seen anyone in the papers who have insulted the Sultan. Then again, I’m not an insult expert. Why then threaten one another in the name of the Rulers? They are above politics so leave them out!
‘In facing the global economic crisis, too much politicking is not helpful to the people who are struggling to make ends meet.’
That is certainly true. Stop politicking! So we have a new Assembly and a “new” MB. Move on, I say. His Highness has already exercised his prerogative and elected Datuk Dr Zambry Kadir. (Though there are hearsay stories are not substantiated and therefore remain khabar angin and not to be believed – a certain member of the Royal Family is intimately connected to a few corporations that have recently been removed from governmental contracts in the opposition-run Penang. Hence, the decision to go ahead with Datuk Dr Zambry’s appointment. Again, this is not to be believed because there is no credible evidence that is open for scrutiny in public.)
Of course, I would like to discuss more about the constitutional issues but it’s so late at night now and I was actually supposed to read up on my Bankruptcy. Perhaps I will attempt to do a more coherent analysis (sounds professional isn’t it…but I assure you, I am really crap…) in the morning. If I feel like it that is. I was just reading the newspaper, ergo this post. I leave with this parting thought…Just how powerful is a Speaker in a State Assembly? I find that a very interesting issue.
On a different note, the assembly session under the tree in Perak. Hahaha…to creating a plaque, vandalizing it, selling the fragments, to now the planting of more young trees around it. I find it hilarious but meaningful symbolically. Apparently
the Economist does so too. Symbolically meaningful, that is.
