Royals in Trouble: Malaysia's Sultans Have a Role
International Herald Tribune
January 7, 1993
Philip Bowring 

It has been a bad period for monarchs, an elite understandably conscious that what affects one affects them all. They are supposed to be symbols more than substance, so in theory their behavior should not be a major issue. Yet from Britain to Monaco and now to Malaysia, the royals are finding that behavior is as important as blood if they are to survive.

Of all the current royalty issues, the most important constitutionally is that in Malaysia. The country has a unique system, reflecting its history and the federal nature of its constitution. The nine sultans take turns to become king of Malaysia for five years.

At a special session of Parliament beginning on Jan. 18, Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad plans to push through constitutional changes ending the sultans' immunity from prosecution. But the sultans, who are due to meet Mr. Mahathir this Saturday, are resisting.

They are bound to lose in Parliament, where the governing coalition has a two-thirds majority, enough to amend the constitution. However, the sultans, who are hereditary rulers in nine of Malaysia's 13 states, could still fight in the courts. So in the end, a compromise may be negotiated.

Neither way is the outcome likely to lead to any immediate political drama. Yet it may profoundly affect the balance between central and state power in Malaysia and, indirectly, the balance between majority and minority rights in this racially mixed, geographically diverse and increasingly prosperous country of 20 million.

The trigger for the attack on royal prerogative was the alleged beating up recently of a hockey coach by Sultan Mahmood of Johor. The government-guided press has been beside itself with indignation at his behavior and has been trumpeting calls for the sultans to be brought within the law. In doing so, the press has tapped a deep vein of resentment, particularly among urban middle-class Malaysians, over the privileged and high-handed actions of a number of the royal families.

The extravagance of some has been legendary, while others have been variously accused in Kuala Lumpur's often accurate gossip circles of extortion, rape of both their subjects and forests, and even murder. All in all, conduct unbecoming modern monarchs.

Mr. Mahathir cited the recent problems of the British royals in support of his moves, which he argued were intended to protect Malaysia's system of constitutional monarchy from falling into disrepute.

However, the issue is not quite so simple. With so many sultans, not to mention scores of lesser royals, it is almost inevitable that at any one time there will be several of questionable character or sanity. Some systems may have ways of removing or quarantining rogue royals, but the Malay rulers have never bothered to devise a way of disciplining themselves.

In the light of Sultan Mahmood's long history of violent behavior, few Malaysians are keen to defend the current immunity from prosecution enshrined in the constitution. Yet many question Mr. Mahathir's motives in moving against the sultans now. Traditionalists accuse him of undermining a cornerstone of the nation for short-term political considerations.

Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Mahathir, who is of part-Indian descent, has no aristocratic Malay connections and sees the hereditary rulers as typifying feudal attitudes. He wants Malays to cast such attitudes aside so that they can compete more effectively with Chinese and Indians in a modern Malaysian industrial society.

He has taken on the sultans before. In 1983, he forced them to surrender their right to refuse assent to laws passed by Parliament. Recently he has been at loggerheads with several state rulers, accusing them of interference in politics, backing his Malay political opponents and frustrating the central government.

But the root of the issue is not the behavior of one or two sultans, who can never be more than irritants to Mr. Mahathir. It is the issue of central power versus both states' rights and the complex checks and balances built into Malaysia's constitution to accommodate its racial and geographical diversity.

The prime minister wants a country with a strong central government and concentration of power in the hands of the prime minister and cabinet, untrammeled by states' rights, royal prerogatives or a strongly independent judiciary. In 11 years in office, he has greatly increased the authority of the prime minister at the expense of the judiciary, the press, the states and royal rights.

Once the powers of the sultans were seen as one bulwark of indigenous Malay rights against the economic power of non-Malays, particularly the Chinese. But today, after years of rapid economic growth, many Malays believe that their political supremacy is secure and that centralism helps their economic advancement.

Non-Malays generally have few reasons to sympathize with the sultans, who have never been known to use their residual powers to help their minority subjects but instead have exacted massive tribute from them. Many Chinese and Indian Malaysians would be content to see the royals go the way of their counterparts in Indonesia or Germany, with only titles and palaces to cling to. However, many non-Malays do express concern about the erosion of constitutional barriers to centralism and to possible oppression of the minorities by the majority.

The Malaysian monarchy reflects the diversity of the nation. It is thus different from other Asian monarchies, such as Thailand's and Japan's, which are symbols of unitary, ethnically homogeneous states.

Removal of immunity from the sultans will not just mean that they can no longer carry out criminal acts with impunity. It will open them up to all kinds of legal pressures relating to what the constitution does and does not allow them to do - for example, vaguely worded constraints on their ability to engage in business or politics. In effect, the sultans will be politically castrated.

The Malaysian royals have mainly themselves to blame for the fix they are now in. But there is a danger of throwing out the system with the sinners and upsetting the balances that keep Malaysia's complex society open, stable and prosperous. Constitutional monarchs may not be beyond the law, but they are supposed to be a bulwark of the constitution. There is a lot at stake in Malaysia for federalists and monarchists everywhere.

Copyright © 2006 The International Herald Tribune