|
 •
Tunku Naquiyuddin ada kepentingan: Nazri
•
Nazri: Immunity call has to come from Conference of Rulers
©New
Straits Times (Used by permission)
by Irdiani Mohd Salleh
KUALA LUMPUR: There is conflict of interest in the call by the Regent of Negri
Sembilan Tunku Naquiyuddin Tuanku Jaafar for full legal immunity of the rulers
to be restored, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri
Aziz said yesterday.
"I don't like to be impolite, but I think the matter was
raised by the Regent solely because the Yang di-Pertuan Besar (his father) was
found to have owed money in a recent decision made by a special panel of
judges," he said. Tunku Naquiyuddin's father Tuanku Ja'afar Tuanku Abdul Rahman,
is the Yang Dipertuan Besar of Negri Sembilan.
Nazri was responding to a speech by Tunku Naquiyuddin on Wednesday in which he
said full immunity was critical for rulers to be effective guardians of the
Constitution.
The rulers' immunity was partially stripped in an amendment to the Federal
Constitution in March 1993 which allowed civil and criminal suits against them.
The amendment was introduced after an alleged assault of a Johor hockey coach by
the Sultan of Johor in November 1992 which triggered a public outcry against the
excesses of royalty.
A special court was established to try errant rulers. Last
month, the special court ordered Tuanku Ja'afar to pay US$1 million (RM3.6
million) to Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia to honour a commitment made in
connection with a business deal.
Nazri said Tunku Naquiyuddin's statement was not made in the spirit of the
amendment to the Constitution in 1993.
"So, I don't think that I want to take seriously what he had said. To me it's a
conflict of interest," Nazri said.
"For it to be taken seriously, it must come on paper...a request from the
Rulers' Conference.
"Then probably we'll look into this. A statement from one of the regents does
not make it a necessity for us to discuss it."
DAP national chairman Karpal Singh, a lawyer, said there was no basis for full
immunity to be restored.
He said in no way could restoration of immunity enhance the role of the rulers
and this should be "averted at all costs".
"The king, as was the position before March 8 (1993), still largely acts on
executive advice. The position is likewise in the states which have rulers," he
said.
"I cannot see how, after the amendments to the Federal Constitution in 1993
allowing legal redress against rulers with the establishment of the special
court, the rulers cannot play the same significant role which was earlier their
right in the constitutional structure of the country.
"In fact, subjecting the rulers to the law, just like any other citizen, places
Malaysia in a unique position which perhaps should be emulated by other
countries who have royalty."
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
SIF FAQ II Case Study 1
Save a tree (square) (10475)
"I don't like to be impolite, but I think the matter was raised by the Regent solely because the Yang di-Pertuan Besar (his father) was found to have owed money in a recent decision made by a special panel of judges,"
Well done Dato’ for being so brave and saying what others may think of saying but are afraid that they will be charged under sedition. If this statement was made by any opposition members or even the average man on the street, there will be marches, illegal (wait a minute!! I bet my last dollar that if it is by pro government protestors, them it would be a legal gathering) gathering calling for the arrest and imprisonment and some may even dare say ISA. I am saying this because; I believe that the Malays would consider these words to be an insult to the Malay Rulers.
Then again, Y B Dato’ said it. I am sure there will be people standing up for him. They will do research on commonwealth jurisdiction and justify their inability to take action. I for one find the statement to be distasteful towards the Malay Rulers. I would give the Regent the benefit of doubt and say that the Regent has the Rakyat at heart when the statement was made.
However, I must also state that long and serious considerations must be taken before immunity is restored, as Theodore Roosevelt once said ‘no man is above the law and no man below it’.
I am waiting patiently to see if any pro-Malay groups demand that Y B Dato’ makes an immediate apology (apology only applies outside of Parliament, as I am sure Y B Dato’ never meant to mislead anybody) and retract his statement or face the consequences.
Karamjit Singh a/l Harbhajan Singh