[Analytics] Malaysia’s monarchy vs Mahathir: a battle for supremacy

Syed Saddiq bin Syed Abdul Rahman, Minister of Youth and Sports, Malaysia speaks during the 'Asia Matters' conference at the JW Marriott Hotel in Admiralty. 24JAN19 SCMP / Nora Tam

The political clashes have spanned boxing bouts to who has the power to appoint ministers, but observers say the crux of the matter is a tussle over the exact constitutional role of the monarchy. This is the second of a four-part series on Malaysian politics a year on from the Pakatan Harapan coalition’s historic election victory on May 9, 2018. Tashny Sukumaran specially for the South China Morning Post.

As PM Mahathir Mohamad nears his first anniversary back at the pinnacle of Malaysian politics, his bumpy history with the country’s royal houses is resurfacing – and proving to be one of the biggest headaches for his fledgling administration.

The Pakatan Harapan government, victors in last year’s historic election, has found itself mired in skirmish after skirmish with the country’s hereditary monarchs.

The clashes span a range of issues, but political observers say the crux of the matter is a tussle over the exact constitutional role of the Malay sultans, who can trace their lineage back to the 12th century.

Mahathir, back in power after serving as prime minister from 1981 to 2003, has long held that the monarchs’ powers in modern-day Malaysia should be subordinate to the elected government – similar to how it works with Britain’s monarchy.

But the royals’ recent words and actions show they do not hold the same view.

The most dramatic showdown between the two sides emerged in early April, after the royal households appeared to successfully pressure the government into rescinding its decision to accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – a treaty that grants The Hague-based body powers to take action against national leaders involved in war crimes and genocide.

Acceding to the treaty was one of Pakatan Harapan’s manifesto goals, as it sought to boost the country’s dismal human rights record.

The Johor royal household – with which Mahathir has had a particularly testy history – emerged as the most strident critics of the move.

Sultan Ibrahim Ismail, ruler of the southernmost Malaysian state, slammed the government, claiming the treaty was unconstitutional and that the statute would disturb the “powers of the monarch, Malay special privileges, and the sanctity of Islam in this country”.

His son Tunku Ismail Ibrahim, meanwhile, staged a concerted social media campaign against ratification of the statute.

The crown prince, owner of the popular football club Johor Darul Ta’zim FC, is prolific on social media, with public accounts on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.

The resistance worked, and the government relented. In announcing the policy U-turn, Mahathir obliquely referred to the royals as the reason for the decision. He zoomed in on “someone who wants to be free to beat up people and things like that” as the person who had sowed confusion over the issue. Some observers suggested he was specifically talking about Tunku Ismail.

Analysts say the showdown cannot be taken lightly, given the considerable sway that the monarchs hold over the country’s Malay majority – especially in rural areas.

The administration is particularly sensitive to the issue of Malay support because it won last year’s election despite only receiving about one-third of the majority ethnic group’s votes. Further damage to its approval rating among Malays could have costly political consequences, analysts say.

At the moment, the palace of Johor is seen as the upholder of the institution of royalty and “regarded as representing all the interests of the other Malay rulers”, according to noted political observer Awang Azman Awang Pawi. “If the other rulers were to speak out it would be publicly seen as a sign of discontent towards Mahathir and Pakatan Harapan. This could further worsen the situation between the monarchy and the government,” he said.

Alarm over the stand-off has heightened because the Rome Statute saga is not the only instance of fireworks between Mahathir and the royals. Last year, the government backtracked on another international treaty, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, after discontent among the Malay population. Tunku Ismail took to social media that time as well to question accession to the treaty.

The monarchy – helmed by the king, or Yang di-Pertuan Agong – has also appeared to stall on giving its assent to government appointments regarding key office holders.

This week, Mahathir suggested the process to appoint a new chief justice was taking longer than expected because the king, Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah – who began his five-year term in January – was conferring with other Malay sultans on the government’s choice, when he need not have done.

Meanwhile, Youth and Sports Minister Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, a close ally of Mahathir, revealed another possible reason for the stand-off this week.

He said Johor’s crown prince had made “immensely uncomfortable” political demands, such as requesting the cancellation of a boxing bout in Kuala Lumpur featuring Filipino star boxer Manny Pacquiao, which the minister was unable to fulfil.

A war of words also broke out this month between Mahathir, Sultan Ibrahim and Tunku Ismail over who has the constitutional power to choose a chief minister.

With so many layers to the feuding, some Malaysians are wondering just how far the stand-off will go. In Mahathir’s first showdown with the royals in the 1980s, he got his way after he pushed through laws to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s absolute right to veto new legislation.

MEMORIES OF THE PAST

In the last major bout – in 1993 – Mahathir was also widely viewed as having come out on top, after he removed the monarchy’s legal immunity in the wake of an assault on schoolteacher Douglas Gomez by the then-Sultan of Johor.

In an interview with This Week in Asia , Gomez’s son Brian recalled the outrage following the incident.
“There was genuine support for these amendments on the ground,” he said.

“My dad received hundreds and hundreds of letters, and the majority were from Malays who were supportive of him … people had lived through this [errant behaviour] and whispered about it for years.”

In the years since Mahathir was last in charge, there has been a marked change, however, with the two men who held the office of prime minister in the interim – Abdullah Badawi and Najib Razak – both being considerably more dovish towards the monarchs.

“There’s a lot more support now – back then, people were fed up with what was going on,” Gomez said. “But then the royals went quiet for so many years, and now there’s an entire generation that has no idea what they were capable of pre-1993. We are seeing the beginnings of them becoming more involved again.”

Another element to the saga is the proliferation of anti-monarchy views on social media. Such comments are not only taboo – given the revered status accorded to the sultans – but are against the law under the country’s tough Sedition Act.

According to constitutional lawyer Lim Wei Jiet, the rise of these unflattering comments can be attributed to “certain members of royalty … what they have said and the extent they have breached constitutional boundaries”.

Under federal law, he says, the role of the monarchs is clearly delineated as part of an institution to be consulted by the government when it makes major decisions.

“They are supposed to offer their advice and serve as a symbol of unity. But when they go beyond that role and try to meddle in everyday political affairs, making jabs at certain ministers on a regular basis, that is abusing privilege and public respect of the institution as a political tool to forward personal interests,” he said.

“That is damaging to the monarchy and to Malaysian democracy, as there will be unelected parties trying to dictate major political decisions in the country.”

For Awang Azman, the veteran political watcher, the situation needs to be deftly managed to avoid a full-on confrontation between the government and the monarchy.

He said the monarchs had been emboldened by some among the electorate who believe the institution of royalty should serve as a “check and balance” on the executive.

Publicly, Mahathir’s lieutenants have moved to quash talk that the stand-off is escalating, though the prime minister himself has not suggested he is backing down.

This week, he penned a commentary on his blog outlining why he believes the elected government, and not the royals, have the power to appoint chief ministers and members of the executive council of states – a direct rebuke aimed at the Johor palace.

Yet Home Minister Muhyiddin Yassin – widely viewed as having amicable ties with the Johor royals – suggested on Thursday that Mahathir’s administration was ready to smooth over relations with the monarchs. Sultan Ibrahim also extended an olive branch, issuing a statement calling for disagreements to be settled through talks.

Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah, speaking to This Week in Asia last week, rebuffed questions about whether the government’s skirmishes with the royals were part of a bigger impending stand-off.

Rather, he said he “takes cognisance of the fact that there are royalists in the country who still dream that we are under … some kind of monarch with power. That is a problem.”

The government’s plan was to stick to the facts, he added.

“Like what we are doing now, explaining the [Rome Statute] after it was wrongly presented by some quarters. We need to call their bluff … [by explaining the issue] you explain the role of the monarch.”

Share it


Exclusive: Beyond the Covid-19 world's coverage