KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 28 - Malaysia's royals have begun asserting themselves in ways that would have been unthinkable just eight months ago.
Over successive days this week, the ceremonial rulers of Perak, Selangor and Negri Sembilan have criticised a fatwa - or Islamic ruling - by the National Fatwa Council that banned the practice of yoga by Muslims. The
council had ruled that yoga contained elements of Hinduism that could lead Muslims astray.
Only a month previously, there had been another fatwa outlawing "tomboys" among Muslims - how that would be defined is still anyone's guess.
The royals asserted that guidelines involving Islam should have been brought before the Rulers' Conference and endorsed before being announced.
Malaysia's sultans are the heads of religion in their respective states but fatwas have rarely, if ever, been brought to their attention. Now, it appears that they might be although the council has yet to say so.
The resurgent assertiveness among the country's royals marks an increasing trend first witnessed after the March 8 general election, at which the ruling National Front and its dominant party the United Malays National
Organisation, or Umno, fared dismally.
Shortly after the election, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi failed to push his choice of chief minister in both the states of Perlis and Terengganu after their monarchs rejected his candidates and suggested others instead.
In both instances, which happened in quick succession, Abdullah backed off and obeyed their wishes. Such a response was also unprecedented and would have been unthinkable during the tenure of former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Since then, the royals have had considerable influence in shaping the opposition state governments of Selangor and Perak, and have commented on a wide range of issues, from Malay unity to race relations - something that they would not have done previously.
Malaysia has a unique system of constitutional monarchy whereby nine out of 13 states have royal houses, whose heads take turns every five years to become the Yang di-pertuan Agong. By and large, however, the
royals are much respected by Malaysians who see them as the final check against executive abuse of power.
It was Dr Mahathir who went the furthest in stripping the royals of their already constitutionally circumscribed power. In 1983, he attempted to push through constitutional amendments that curbed the power of royalty
to veto parliamentary bills.
But that was a hard fought battle because the royals did not take it lightly and, in the end, Dr Mahathir worked out a compromise that gave the monarchs some room to manoeuvre.
In 1992, Dr Mahathir went for the jugular after a royal from Johor state was reported to have assaulted a hockey coach. The press were given information about royal indiscretions - both personal and financial - and assailed the royal houses mercilessly until they agreed to new constitutional amendments that stripped their immunity in both civil and criminal matters.
The royals could be looking to go back into the future. Speaking at a seminar on the monarchy on Wednesday, Tengku Naquiyuddin Tengku Jaafar urged the authorities to restore immunity for the royals, describing its removal as the biggest blow inflicted on the institution.
"Bring back the immunity, debate it and define it," Negri Sembilan's regent told the audience. "Let us be on a par with other constitutional monarchies." - Business Times Singapore
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
I guess this is no coincidence with the recent court order against the previous Negeri Sembilan ruler. I respectfully disagree with Tunku. The immunity (impunity?) removal is one of few achievements of Dr Mahathir's era. Let Malaysians be careful what they wish for: more democracy, not a return to the days of feudalism.