Jeopardising the nation

10 Feb 09
By Clive Kessler
The Nut Graph

“All great historical events happen twice — the first time as tragedy and the second, at times, as an unnecessary tragedy.”
(A witticism offered with apologies to both Hegel and Marx)

WHATEVER the impertinence, a comment by a not totally clueless outsider who holds Malaysia close in his attachments on the present constitutional crisis in Perak and its national political implications may prove useful and instructive.

Tough legal questions have been raised already with no simple answers. They are questions that serious Malaysian citizens are worried, and have the right to be concerned, about. I am too. Those questions need not be repeated here.

If I were the Sultan

Instead I shall compound my impertinence. Were I, however improbably, to have found myself in the position of the Sultan of Perak on 5 Feb 2009, I would have been strongly tempted — in good conscience and out of an impeccable sense of duty and for the best possible reasons — to have acted just as he did.

But I pray I would have resisted that temptation. I hope that, however tricky that different course might prove in the immediate and short term, I would have allowed the fate of a democratically elected government, under a system of constitutional monarchy, to be decided by the people in one of two ways.

Either on the floor of the people’s house by their own recently elected representatives, or else, if for some reason that was not feasible or acceptable, at an election that might explicitly test public opinion on the question. That way, the newly elected house, whether controlled by the Barisan Nasional or the Pakatan Rakyat, would authoritatively be that of the people’s, with whom modern democratic sovereignty originates.

Whether, as Ruler, I might have forced some resolution of the question on the floor of the house or acceded to the menteri besar’s request for a dissolution and new elections, the prospect in either case would have been one of an immediately heightened political temperature.

Either course would soon have seen mass public demonstrations of allegiance on both sides and, in their train, huge potential problems in maintaining civil peace and public order. That much is undeniable.

Any conscientious ruler or head of state would have to be deeply concerned at such a prospect.

As for the former option, I may be among the few surviving attentive witnesses to a similar episode long ago: the so-called “20 Aug 1968” peristiwa in Kelantan. Then, some half dozen or more PAS state assemblypersons were to have defected and sided with Umno at a sitting of the state assembly in the old Balai Besar in the palace precinct in Kota Baru. It did not happen.

The PAS government of Kelantan was not toppled. The frogs did not jump. They stayed under the sheltering tempurung of the party in whose name they had been elected.

But I still recall the very tense and at times frightening atmosphere as I travelled by motorcycle, through police and army roadblocks, the 25 miles from Bachok to Kota Baru and the roiling, ever-growing crowds that, along with me, were converging ominously there on that fateful morning.

These are not matters to be trifled with nor risks to be taken lightly — least of all by a constitutional head of state with a proper sense of public responsibility and duty. So avoiding that fearful possibility would have been a great temptation, and a not ignoble one. But it is a temptation that I hope I might have resisted. Why?

Learning from Australia

In Australia in 1975, the Governor-General Sir John Kerr chose to act similarly in a similar situation. He insisted on exercising his personal discretion that, as he understood the situation, his constitutional “reserve powers” entitled him to wield. He dismissed a government that arguably still had a majority within the people’s elected house of parliament.

The result was unfortunate, to say the least. It poisoned Australian politics, public culture, and (dare one say it?) the very soul of the nation for a generation. Its effects have not fully worn off away even now.

Malaysia could now be at risk of a similar outcome. I hope not but fear so.

For that reason, a test in the state assembly or snap polls would have been preferable whatever the costs and however messy the shorter-term practicalities of maintaining public order. As a matter of long-term public and national policy, that would have been better than a measure that substituted something else for the verdict of popular will.

In Australia it is now widely recognised that, if the government was not to have fallen on its own, it should not have been peremptorily dismissed. And if it was doomed to fall, as well it may have been, it should have been allowed to do so in the natural course of democratic events, through democratic processes. The impatience to force the issue may have saved a few days or weeks of delay but it plagued the nation with its consequences for thirty years until the matter began to be put decently to rest.

It was not a good deal. Not for anyone. Not for the ousted Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Not for his successor Malcolm Fraser who never overcame the “legitimacy deficit” that his manner of coming to power caused him. Not for Kerr who went into exile and died amidst widespread ignominy and contempt. Not for Australia, which was made to live for a generation under the shadow of what was widely seen as a quasi- or pseudo-constitutionalist coup against constitutionalism. And not, therefore, for constitutional principle and process itself.

That is an outcome and fate that Malaysia, I hope, will avoid. The lesson is there already to be learnt from others. The same price need not be paid again.

Malaysia these days has other urgent needs and priorities. It does not need, now to be paid exorbitantly on its own account, this distraction or these afflictions. The lesson is available free, there to be taken “ready off-the-shelf”, from Canberra.

Former Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim repeatedly insisted in his foundational written texts that in Malaysia, the constitution and nothing but the constitution is “the supreme law of the land”. Malaysia cannot afford to see constitutional principles imperilled, and constitutional processes jeopardised — not even out of an understandable impatience, or a conscientious determination, to see the urgent political and practical problems of the day speedily resolved.

Clive S Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the School of Social Science and International Studies at the University

  1. #1 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 9:02 am

    “Former Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim repeatedly insisted in his foundational written texts that in Malaysia, the constitution and nothing but the constitution is “the supreme law of the land”. Malaysia cannot afford to see constitutional principles imperilled …”

    The Perak sultan is also a former Lord President. So what gives??

  2. #2 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 9:05 am

    “As a matter of long-term public and national policy, that would have been better than a measure that substituted something else for the verdict of popular will.”

    UMNO-BN run government is not interested in anything resembling the ‘popular will’. All they care is that in a confrontation between popular will and their own, their will must not be allowed to lose.

  3. #3 by monsterball on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 9:06 am

    To get a ruler or a person elected with power to judge for the the people and with the people is impossible in a country…where huge corruptions and self interests are involved.
    It is a fact…MONEY long as UMNO rules.
    In the name of the heavenly father…to guide and do the right thing….are for dreamers. It is how best for one’s family and self benefits…..that a decision is made.
    UMNO have used that…and those who can benefit..holding power to decides..will never decide for the country.
    Malaysia is corrupted to the core with….selfish racialist leaders.
    It can never be unites as one…as long a these leaders have powers to decide the fate of our country.
    It is leading us to hell!!
    Every action..good or bad have an equal reaction.
    The pendulum is swinging….not accurately adjusted by few selfish with no morals nor ethics powerful decision makers.
    Our clock makers will give wrong information…no matter how easy not to..because of self interest and corruptions.
    Observers are the extend….by saying to themselves…”Don’t push us too far”
    It is because to right all the wrongs..very soon…only 2 or 3 years to wait…that unhappy vast majority Malaysians will stay peaceful and go about their business…waiting for the day….to elect and change for the better.
    The hope and expectations are very high for great news.
    Therefore….peace and harmony will prevail…no matter how hard cruel leaders try to provoke or bribe.
    Australia can look towards a guide them.
    In Malaysia…it is Mahatma Gandhi….non violence with no loyalty to these leaders…that will win our freedom…just as Babu did for India.
    All is well in Malaysia.
    We want it that way..till 13th election.

  4. #4 by sani on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 9:54 am


    It had been a long struggle for the Malaysian Nation, it will be some way to go yet.

    Look around this region, almost every country had their democratic institution hijacked + rules change by brute force. Some for the better, more for the worse.

    Only + only when the institution is respected, will a nation + a people prospers. Keep up the good work, YB.

  5. #5 by Bigjoe on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 10:13 am

    While its water under the bridge, I keep coming back to some questions

    1) What case did Nizar go to the Sultan with in his meeting? Did he cite Sarawak and the appropriate case for the dissolution of Parliament?

    2) Why did the Sultan, a former Lord President and known strict constitutionalist and legal stalwart, ignored precedence on dismissal of MB even if he did not agree with dissolution of State Assembly?

    The Sultan is handicapped from commenting and clarifying by virtue of his position and he is NOT required to. But surely on the first question at least, Nizar should find a way to clarify….

  6. #6 by ch on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 10:13 am

    Dear All,

    My personal observation is that in most of the Malaysian elections, be they State or Parliament, the electorate tend to vote for the party rather than the candidate. Most of the issues being debated are national issues and the views put forward during the campaign were those of the respective parties. Having said that, except for a few or handful of state representatives or parliamentarians who are quite articulate and vocal and who are able to influence and move the voters based on their respective personality, the majority are voted in based on the strength and stand of their respective party. In a developed society, switching party would not be possible, be they due to disagreement with the leaders or financial inducement. Ethics and conscience and social standing would dictate that such a move would be unacceptable and any such person would be branded a Pariah or pest to the society. As demonstrated, even Dr. Mahathir was unhappy to note that BN resorting to such tactic in order to regain control of Perak. Unless of course the move is supported by majority of the voters. Guess with the current development, he has to set further back his date for vision 2020. As it turned out, Malaysians have a long way to go before they can call themselves a developed society.

    The Perak power tussling or grab has also showed us that many dignitaries are extremely fond of issuing rhetorics with no intention of exercising what they say in relity.

  7. #7 by yhsiew on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 10:21 am

    Perak’s case is a choice of EITHER:

    1) a cash-rich government which has all the resources and means to develop Perak but at a sacrifice of democracy in making the choice.


    2) a government which depends on federal assistance for the development of Perak but with democracy upheld in making the choice.

    The final decision depends on whether one sees development is more important than democracy, or democracy is more important than development.

  8. #8 by king cobra on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 10:29 am

    Kelantanese had made a very firm choice , they choose pas to be their state govt instead of cash rich bn to govern kelantan !!!!!!!

  9. #9 by Ken G on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 10:38 am

    I disagree with the author that testing the confidence the MB commands in the state assembly or dissolving the assembly for new elections hold any risk for public disorder. On what basis does following the constitution and rule of law and in doing so take the moral high ground risk causing public disorder? Indeed, the sultan acting as he did in sacking a legitimately elected govt unconstitutionally and acting partially to an immoral takeover by BN hold a much greater risk for public dissatisfaction and disorder.

  10. #10 by Loh on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 10:39 am

    ///Instead I shall compound my impertinence. Were I, however improbably, to have found myself in the position of the Sultan of Perak on 5 Feb 2009, I would have been strongly tempted — in good conscience and out of an impeccable sense of duty and for the best possible reasons — to have acted just as he did./// — Clive Kessler

    The Sultan found himself in that position because Najib in Putrajaya seemed to offer an easy way out, but that path was loaded with poison. Had Najib not made the press conference on 5th February to show that BN could form the state government but indicateed preparedness of the government to go to the poll instead, then supporters of both camps would be happy to vote a second time. The state has carried out 12 elections, and the people are not burdened to vote once more.

    Najib should have realized the people reaction if the Sultan chose what he preferred the Sultan to do. That action would be similar to the one taken by the Governor of Sarawak in dismissing the CM Stephen Kalong Ningkam, and the Court subsequently found the Governor acted conventionally unconstitutional. In creating the situation where the action could be second-guessed because of a precedent, Najib put the Sultan in a catch 22 position.

    Najib said that in dispute, the case can go to court. UMNO youth is organizing mobs to protest against Karpal Singh for saying that he would take legal actions. UMNO youth wants the case settled on the streets. Has Najib no control over UMNO Youth?

  11. #11 by Thinking Two on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 10:46 am

    Government spent all money on buy-out katak.

    Now no money to print and send Income Tax Return Form!!!!

  12. #12 by taiking on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 10:49 am

    Najib has been insisting that it was anwar who started the whole thing. And he went further to use that fact as justification for his unconstitutional action in perak. But didnt the bota idiot left umno and joined pakatan on his own accord in the first place. And look. Now that he has decided to rejoin umno (after attending a forced-meeting with najib) there was no mention by him of enticement or pressure or promise of any sort on the part of pakatan to get him over. On the contrary, umno used money to entice pakatan people. The two are simply not the same. In any event if the first was in fact wrong, then it can not serve to justify the later. Further, money politics is part of umno culture. Anwar did not start it. Najib simply exported umno’s culture to the state of perak believing (wrongly of course) that it would be applicable and relevant. He now has got himself stuck. Bad move and stupid pre-cursor to his pm-ship. In fact (as it the c4, aircraft and submarine acquisitions scandals are not enough – all of which he denied) he now got himself into something in full view of the world – something which he cannot deny doing.

  13. #13 by hennesy on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 11:15 am

    Let’s be practical. The world is not fair, it never was & will never be. It is how we look at the situation & how best to react to circumstances that gives the best result.

    Off course we Perak ppl are pissed with the outcome of events there, but what can we do? Protests & rioting is not our way in Malaysia. We still believe in peace & stability. Perak is slowly dying off from it’s glory tin-mining days in the 1980s. There hasn’t been any major projects or any help from the federal gov, yet year after year we supported the opposition to make them a force to be reckoned with, but what has that left for us? Ipoh especially, feels very much like an old folks town. Scores of youngsters leave for Penang, KL & Singapore to find better employment & business opportunities. Leaving behind their families. Just observe the number of outstation cars returning to Ipoh during CNY, it’s amazing!

    Perak ppl used to boast about how well educated & respectable their Sultan Azlan Shah was, how he was a ex Lord President & frequently spoke about justice & accountability matters. But after his decision on the recent outcome, many of us felt that he no longer has the people’s interest at heart. We felt sidelined.

    Although Nizar did a good job restructuring administrative matters in Perak, it was still not good enough. Without strong economy & employment opportunities, we are just fighters for a lost cause.

    I feel Nizar should step down & focus on being an opposition force to be reckoned with. BN may have taken over Perak by force, but they will not cherish the victory. The opposition should pressure them to develop the state & improve the social & economic status of the state. Show us that our leaders care!!!

  14. #14 by LALILOo on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 11:42 am

    In summary, the sultan wielded his royal power and chose a knowingly unpopular decision.


    After all, he could have simply be neutral and chose a popular decision that the rakyat would be happy.

    I guess it could all possibly boils down to the sultan being:
    – non-neutral, pro-BN
    – favourable to scratching each others back
    – favouring lucrative family business deals with UMNO as partner

    If not, then what?
    Ultimately, he is just a human being, just like you and me. Human makes mistakes, to err is human, so they say. When the mind starts to make some sense, it is never too late to right a wrong. Even the US president admit making mistakes.

    Just as long as one realize, it is never too late…………

  15. #15 by dawsonruby on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 11:57 am

    Do you think it’s useful if we keep bickering here over the net? You and I clearly know that the opposition will never win, even if they managed to win the hearts of the public, they still can’t win the huge and rich UMNO management which could use $$$ to buy souls over.

    Malaysia is doom, leave the country before it’s too late!

  16. #16 by despin on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 12:05 pm

    If Perak were a football match, and we needed an impartial referee, most of us would have chosen Sultan Azlan or Raja Nazrin. Alas, the referee messed up big time. From now onwards, both men should refrain from lecturing the rakyat on values because they have lost their moral standing.

  17. #17 by raven77 on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 12:23 pm

    When summoned, Nizar should have taken along with him Karpal or Sankaran Nair…no point going there with kuchirat legal advisers……..this ought to be a lesson when the PR faces a similar situation in future….

  18. #18 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 12:28 pm

    Power struggle game has never been something which will reside permanently in a static and unchangeable state of nature. The power struggle game will always develop in a continual dynamic process. Sometimes the absolute power will tend to concentrate at one end of the power continuum when there are several concurring opinions which exert the same directional forces towards such an end of the power continuum. However, there are also other times when two or more parties found that one holds a dissident opinion or a dissenting opinion from another and thus there is a tug-of-war in the power struggle game among all the parties concerned. The political unrest is usually the consequence of such a tug-of-war process of the power struggle game.

    If Pakatan Rakyat finds that it has a dissident opinion or a dissenting opinion from that of the Sultan, it should seriously consider surrendering the dispute to the high court to seek judicial review. Our political structures have been built upon five pillars, namely
    c) Executive
    d)Monarch and
    e)Election Commission.
    As the leveller and adjuster of injustice to all and the arbiter to redress gievances of all, the judiciary shall be made supreme over other pillars of the Malaysian government.

  19. #19 by Brats195 on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 2:41 pm

    I don’t understanding why everyone, oops… NOT everyone, only those with vested interest, seems to have forgotten DEMOCRACY is about RAKYAT.

    How can 4 uneducated individuals who has no moral value decide against the RAKYAT?

    It is RAYKAY who voted individuals to be the assembly men or women.

    It is RAYKAT who voted which coalition should lead state of Perak.

    It is RAYKAT who place the vote on individuals with the understanding he/she belongs to PR or BARISAN.

    Anyone with moral value and right frame of mind would have demanded these 4 individuals to return the seat back to RAYKAT and let them decide who should or should not be the assemblymen or women.

    SHAME on these 4 individuals…
    SHAME on those decide against the wishes of RAKYAT…
    SHAME on those who betray RAKYAT…..

  20. #20 by sightseeing on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 2:59 pm

    The Perak case is not a complicated constitutional crisis. It is a simple case of corruption. The crisis would not have happened if Malaysia has a truly independent anti-corruption commission like the ICAC of Hong Kong. The newly formed MACC has turned out to be a political stooge of BN, answerable to UMNO only. The ruler could have used the incidence to flush out corruption and money politics. Instead and unfortunately corruption was handsomely rewarded.

  21. #21 by NewDAP on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 3:12 pm

    Interestingly, UMNO factions organized a demonstration last year against the Sultan of Terengganu after he rejected their choice of chief minister, Idris Jusoh, and picked another UMNO official, Ahmad Said, instead. Nonetheless, Mingguan Malaysia, a Malay language newspaper owned by UMNO, said in an editorial that “never in the history of the country had any Malay so openly defied and humiliated a Malay ruler like Nizar. If this was Thailand or any Arab country, anyone who humiliated the royalty would have faced immediate punishment including from the public.”

  22. #22 by Thinking Two on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 3:50 pm

    Mahathir also took away some of the benefits of the Royal Families, so the umno youth
    – cannot make noise or protest? or
    – dare not make noise or proest?

    These youth know nothing but just a copycat.

  23. #23 by gofortruth on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 4:25 pm

    Before this unfortunate episod I can safely say our Sultan of Perak enjoys total respect & love from all 26 millions of Malaysian for his wisdom & care about his subjects. But it seems by a single act, he has SHOCKED & disappointed his subjects to no end and now stands to lose/ has lost the respect of half the population.

    He better rethinks his decision.

  24. #24 by m.malaysia on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 6:46 pm

    This article reflects the feeling of the general public, especially the feeling of the Perakians:

    The philosophy of legitimacy — The Malaysian Insider
    FEB 11 — He does not get it. Legitimacy cannot be bestowed by royal decree or through the dishing out of generous handouts or even by occupying top political office.

    Heck, even Zimbabwe’s strongman Robert Mugabe knows that winning a rigged election cannot buy him the precious commodity called legitimacy.

    But Perak’s newly-installed Menteri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Kadir does not get it. He snapped at troublesome journalists asking troublesome questions today.

    When asked if he had the support of the majority of Perakians, he became defensive. When the reporter pushed further and pointed out that he and Barisan Nasional did not wrest control of the state legislature through an election, he fired back: “What do you mean? This is a democratic process. Do you understand democracy? I am asking you, do you understand the political philosophy of democracy.”

    The reporter did not reply and stoke the fires of confrontation. Zambry is a likeable chap but he is deluding himself if he believes that the voters of Perak are interested in what Rawls and Weber have to say about the philosophy of demoracy.

    He is on more dangerous ground if he believes that Barisan Nasional is guaranteed legitimacy by virtue of being participants of the swearing-in process in Kuala Kangsar and the soiled motives of Pakatan Rakyat in triggering the defection dance.

    Something only becomes legitimate when someone approves of the action. In a democracy, approval is given when the government is subject to the will of the people and when proper processes and procedures are followed.

    These important ingredients have been missing in Perak. When the Sultan of Perak directed Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin and the Pakatan Rakyat state government to stand down in favour of Barisan Nasional, he may have been exercising what he considered his rightful constitutional powers.

    But the ensuing public debate on the correctness of his action suggests that many Perakians do not believe that the process was followed.

    The fact that BN did not have the opportunity to test its popularity at the ballot box has also hurt its legitimacy in the eyes of some voters. This is something that Zambry should understand quickly.

    And as Ivo Daalder of Brookings Institution said: “Legitimacy is not a luxury for the powerful and a necessity of the weak. It is what’s necessary to translate power into success.”

  25. #25 by bclee on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 8:35 pm

    on the midst of the world crisis our Bn government still sleeping at thier scope of power restling.
    democracy in malaysia fails many times.
    almost all banks in USA today in the state of insolvency. we are in the very deep of world recession. corporate will cut expenses and jobs worldwide we are no inmune on this coming crisis as well.
    i hope the government will focus more on how to create more jobs for the rakyat than any other issues now.
    i think our banking will no avoided this crisis as well when thing drag more deep, when more peoples lose thier jobs.
    printing more money by us government will no solve the financial crisis this time, it will make thing worsen further. the fear factor still very much intact masive selling off on world equities will be longer than you can think off.

  26. #26 by vsp on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 9:58 pm

    First they have negotiated tenders for contracts. Now they have progress to negotiated agreement to sell the state government to the most corrupted bidder.

  27. #27 by gyp on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 11:07 pm

    Does anyone want take action to this 4 individual who have digrace the Perak Sultan by raised a crisis near Sultan Birthday?

    Is this 4 individual have been planned all this crisis many months ago?

    Why all this matters happening during the Perak Sultan 25th Jubilee Birthday to the throne?

    Is it happened during Perak Sultan 25th Jubilee Birthday it is because they targetting to destroy Perak Sultan 25th Jubilee Birthday?

    The 4 should know Perak Sultan is having a grand birthday celebration this February Perak Sultan 25th Jubilee Birthday to the throne.

    Why the 4 raise this crisis near the Perak Sultan 25th Jubilee Birthday?

    Are the 4 are not interest to loyal and celebrate Perak Sultan 25th Jubilee Birthday?

    So they planned all this to sabotage Perak Sultan 25th Jubilee Birthday and destroyed.

    Otherwise, why this crisis created by the 4 individual happened during Perak Sultan 25th Jubilee Birthday.

    They are interest loyal to the Sultan, this crisis wil not happen during Perak Sultan 25th Jubilee Birthday and sabotage this grand birthday celebration.


  28. #28 by shamshul anuar on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 - 11:16 pm

    Dear NewDAP,

    In Trengganu, Idris Jusoh was then the incumbent Menteri Besar before the election. He survived the election and manage to keep the state under UMNO despite onslaught from PAS.

    Naturally, he should be the Menteri Besar. It would not be nice not to reappoint him. PM was in delicate situation in this matter. INsisting on Idris is only practical but in doing so may anger the Sultan.

    And no Malay politician( except Nizar) wants to be seen as “derhaka ” to the Sultan. In this case, PM reluctantly agree.

    In Nizar’s case, He ceased to command the allegiance of majority, prompting the Sultan to use his absolute discretion to ask Nizar ro resign. Nothing unsonstitutional here. Just because the decision is not in favor of PR does not mean that Sultan is not fair.

    As for M.Malaysian, perhaps you should advise Anwar on the danger of immoral stand on party hopping. Nizar may still be the MB if Anwar “did not buy” that UMNO assemblyman.

    If Anwar thinks that he can “reap reward” by enticing others, he must accept that the other divide will react. And when they did act, they toppled Nizar.

    So, I hope he learns his lesson. Please do not be confused that I tolerate switching allegiance half way . I just say that if PR is so willing to play dirty, it must be willing to accept the consequence. I must also reiterate that in no way I condone enticing MP even by BN.

  29. #29 by cemerlang on Thursday, 12 February 2009 - 7:20 am

    If the Royal family, including all the Sultans, the Rajas and should also include the governors ( who are not royal blooded ) are for the rakyat, then why should UMNO thinks that the Royal family, the Sultan, the Rajas and the governors are UMNO or Barisan Nasional supporters ? Just because of history ? Just because they were there before there is a Barisan Nasional or UMNO ? Could not help but remembering the tri affair of Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat and Sultan.

You must be logged in to post a comment.