Why the Terengganu Sultan is Wrong
I was surfing for articles on the Malaysian economy and John Lee's site, Infernal Ramblings, topped the search charts. A South-East Asian studies post-graduate student, he also wrote a piece entitled Why UMNO Was Right and the Terengganu Sultan Wrong, the gist of his argument being:
"Like pretty much all the countries following the Westminster system around the world, Terengganu requires the Sultan to appoint an MB who he believes can command the confidence of a majority of the state assembly.
It quite logically follows from this that the Sultan initially erred in appointing Ahmad Said. Maybe one could believe that Ahmad would gain the support of the state assemblymen, but once it became clear that they would oppose his appointment, the Sultan's judgement was wrong."
How do you 'balance' the constitutional rights of the monarchy against the will of the people? On paper the Sultan has the power to select, but the paper also includes a caveat which apparently isn't being met altogether.
Want to know what the 10 most expensive houses in the world are? Below is the (future) second most expensive one at $200 million per unit.
Posted at 05:27 pm by alwynlau
 | | |
Alwyn
April 2, 2008 01:40 PM PDT
hi John,
Thanks for dropping by! :)
Yes, it's a delicate, non-precise issue (to say the least!). But I appreciate your efforts to at least provide a 'standard' and to stick by it.
On the other hand, as you well know I'm sure, there are many problems related to Idris resuming his position (not least the charges of cronyism at the expense of state development, and so on).
So it's sad: What do you do when you 'know' a leader has abused the post THAT badly, but most of the assembly still want him in? Your solution is an option and, if the monarchy is even half as bad, perhaps no solution will be satisfactory this side of a BN simple majority? |
|
| | |
johnleemk
April 2, 2008 08:09 AM PDT
Hi Alwyn,
Thanks for the link! Unfortunately I am not doing post-graduate studies - I am an undergrad.
Having said that, the almost-constitutional crisis broke out because by convention the monarch only intervenes in a major crisis - Perak and to a lesser extent Selangor were nice examples.
The trouble with letting the ruler willy-nilly decide is that it sets a very bad precedent. It is too easy to start sliding down the slippery slope of letting the monarchy intervene in politics, to the point where they take it for granted as a right to overrule the democratic wishes of the people. That they believe they are acting in the state's best interest is a non-issue. |
|
| | |
Alwyn
March 29, 2008 11:51 AM PDT
We certainly shouldn't...but, u know, in M'sia, the question is usually NOT, "Who is a crook?" but, "Who is LESS one?" ;>) |
|
| | |
U-Liang
March 28, 2008 09:05 PM PDT
You noticed that AAB backed down after seeing the King and even UMNO supreme council accepted the appointment of Ahmad Said in the end?
Everybody knows Idris Jusoh is a crook-even evidenced by his 'contrition' in seeking the Agong's forgiveness.
It's not a constitutional crisis here-just plain common sense, you don't appoint crooks to power do you? |
|
