Police reports, bullets in the mail, angry protestsa and police
interrogations. These are threats that have been expressed and carried
out against individuals who have commented and criticised the
monarchical heads in Malaysia, the latter who seem to have garnered
more media attention as newsmakers and opinion leaders in the last two
years.
As
the Head of the Federation and an institution of the Malays, the
subject of the royalty is largely a taboo for the general populace. Not
unlike Thailand's lese-majeste law, the Sedition Act introduced in a
period of high ethnic tension, protects royals in Malaysia against
defamation under its very broad provision. Malaysia is a constitutional
monarchy where the sultans of nine states rotate on a five-year basis
as Head of the Federation, the Yang diPertuan Agong, and perform
legislative, executive and judiciary functions. At the state, the
sultans are are guardians of the Islam religion, and Malay language and
customs.
The spotlight is in the northern state of Perak,
where the head of the state Sultan Azlan Shahmade a crucial decision to
allow the ruling Federal coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN) to regain
control despite losing the state in the 2008 general election. The
decision was made after several state assembly persons from the
opposition pact, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) or People's Coalition, declared
their independence and support for the Barisan Nasional. However, a
public poll by the Merdeka Opinion Research Centre found that 74
percent of the people in Perak wanted a by-election to sort out the
changes in the state representation.
Not
new to questioning the monarchy, Karpal Singh, the chairman of the
Democratic Action Party (DAP), one of the partners in the PR, said that
he would be filing a suit against the decision of the Perak Sultan at
the special court for the royalty. Last year, Karpal also questioned
the jurisdiction of the Perak royalty when it re-installed the head of
the state Islamic council, against a transfer ordered by the state
government. In both cases, Karpal's statements attracted death threats
and a slew of police reports against him by inviduals and members of
political parties. In the latest controversy, Karpal received two
bullets enclosed in a mail spelling threats to him and his family
members.
Also
targeted in this episode were two bloggers: Ahiruddin Attan aka Rocky
Bru, also president of the National Alliance of Bloggers, and Jed
Yoong, a former writer for DAP's publication (Rocket). Ahiruddin was
questioned by police on 24 Feb over comments left on his blog about the
role of the monarchy by known and annoymous commentators, while a day
before the police interrogated Jed Yoong over her fiery critique of the
monarch in general in a posting on 12 Feb, which drew the ire of the
"UMNO Virtual Club" (Kelab Maya UMNO) who lodged the police report.
Mobilized
by UMNO, the dominant partner in BN, public demonstrations in support
of the monarchy were organised in Selangor, Malacca and Perak. The
UMNO-owned national daily, Utusan Malaysia became a platform where
Karpal's and the former Perak Chief Minister from Pakatan Rakyat, Nizar
Jamaluddin's defiance were branded treasonous and seditious.
The
current ongoings must be viewed with skepticism of UMNO's agenda
against the backdrop of the constitutional amendments in 1983 when the
same ruling government sought to curtail the powers of the Malay rulers
in the passing of legislation. Then, UMNO led a public campaign
against the royalty, which included public protests, suggestive movies
on the state televisions, and exposes of royal excessiveness. The
amendment was successful and royal assent of legislation is now a
matter of protocol. A decade later the same government again amended
the Federal Constitution to include a special court for the rulers.
These
contradictions are not highlighted at all in the mainstream media,
raising the familiar spectre of political control in the newsroom. It
is very clear that public discourse on the issue of the jurisdictions
and powers of the royalty is tightly controlled, where UMNO-linked
groups, media and individuals have the monopoly of setting and swaying
the national agenda. The lack of critical journalism on constitutional
and legal provisions mean that those who choose to be vocal or express
their disagreements are seen as anti-nationals and deserve to have
their citizenship withdrawn. Its time for the public to be more mature
in assessing information and their rights, and it is long overdue for
the media to play its role to provide adequate and fair space for
debate. Certainly, we do not want a situation where the mere mention of
the royalty will draw the kinds of reactions in neighbouring Thailand.
Issued by the Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia. For more information, contact Yip Wai Fong at (+603)40230772, or at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, or mail to 27C Jalan Sarikei, 53000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
|