This has nothing to do with Oxford’s education but everything to do with how one uses such education for one’s purposes which depends on whether one is a scholar/intellectual or politician! Whilst a Scholar grapples with the true and abrtract meaning of patriotism, democracy or ethics, a Politician would be concerned with how to manipulate these concepts to rise to power and consolidate it!

Hate-speeches of the Nazis give good lessons on how to rise to power. A politician needs people support. He has to tell them what they want and need to hear. He is more effective to stir and appeal to their emotions – especially promodial and tribal racial sentiments – than their intellect.

Since nothing brings people closer than a common enemy, create a common enemy and galvanise hatred towards that enemy. Hitler scrapegoated the Jews. Here it doesn’t matter it is Karpal or Nijar the person, or non Malays or whatever else. The institution of Rulers as embodiment of Malays culture values and heritage offers a good platform to create the “common enemy” so that hate speeches may be directed against it to unite supporters behind the “champion” fighting the common enemy.

Any attempt by Scholar to apply logic, constitutional law to prick and contradict the bladder of lies, distortions, hate speeches of the Politician is a waste of time because the Politician’s and a Scholar’s goals are divergent. Can a chicken talk to a duck? Or one who seeks Truth to one who seeks Power???

Here knowing F.I.Law is departing from position of political patronage soon, so ambitious S.I.L is in a hurry to do what he could to build up political stock within confines of UMNO Ketuanan ideology as quickly as he can. He seizes on this issue : perceived defiance of Rulers as symbols of the supremacy of that ideology.

There’s nothing more to it. Oxford has taught how and what to say – to evoke the support – of a target audience by addressing the same securities and concerns that political predecessors had played up to ascend politically. It is a well trodden route. It has guaranteed success in the past and up to now. The Question is whether there are new conditions at play nowadays for such strategy to work as effectively.

Hitler exploited the Great Depression of the 1930s. Farmers couldn’t fetch the prices for their produce to survive; workers lost their jobs, middle class their savings. With many unemployed, they were compensated a unique sense of identify and belonging if the joined the Nazi party. They looked to it to make a living. They rallied around the ideology of fatherland (German Patriotism) whipped up by vilifying the common enemy of the Jews within German borders and the Western powers, outside, that had humiliated Germany by several “unfair” treaties restricting German re-armament after World War I.

Flash forward to today, and we face another Economic Crisis promising as great an effect as the last Great Depression and as great a promise for political exploitation!!

There may be a lot of unemployed people around, many Mat Rempits, many angry people looking for a target to vent their frustrations. They are fertile ground and offer unique opportinties to politicians on both sides of the political divide to exploit for the ends of power. They are fodder for harnessing – and recruitment to one’s political cause.

Anwar representing the Opposition will push for the message that relief from economic woes will come from evicting the ruling coalition from power. Otherwise common common rakyat will suffer more from economic mismangement and wastage as vested interest continues with their toll taking and rent collection from the peoples toils and taxes not given back to ameliorate their suffering.

People in power bent on preserving vested interest will try of course to manage the economy to mitigate the economic tsunamy but it is not easy in part because of the system of wastage and corruption entrenched and in part they can’t control global conditions that control this country than the other way around.

Ruling coalition have always maintained power from money politics and horse trading but now it becomes increasingly difficult as harsh economic conditions undercut and diminish the source of money. Too aggressive and blatant a preservation of sources of money or creation of new sources will only be exploited by the Opposition telling the rakyat that their sufferings are aggravated by bthe “stealing” that goes on the other way.

So some will be looking at alternative strategies to preserve power, wondering whether stepping up traditional communal divisions will also help – with the right amount of hate speech sufficient to unite but not too excessive to cause disturbance/violence.

Both sides will try to play blame game capitalising on the frustrations and insecurities generated by the coming economic storm : the question is who will exploit these “new” and “changed” conditions better to their partisan benefit. Of course both sides will claim that they are fighting for the Cause of the People and Country. Of course the coalition in power has proven that it often is not. The other side has not the chance to prove anything yet either way but is at an advantage when it makes promises and blames thje ruling coalition for mismanaging the economy as conditions deteriorate.

The fate of nation will then hinge on how the incumbent ruling coalition responds and defends against the challenges posed by opposition on a winning streak – whether by constructive or destructive methods, given these new and changed conditions brought by the severe economic downturn that both sides seek to exploit for their political ends.

Under Constitutional Monarchy, no one is above constitution and law including rulers.

The rulers’ traditional immunity from all civil and criminal suits was partially stripped in an amendment to the Federal Constitution in March 1993 (pushed by TDM’s administration) which allowed, with AG’s consent, civil and criminal suits against the King or any ruler in respect of their PERSONAL ACTS.

Hence if a ruler commits a criminal wrong/offence like using a golf club and bludgeoning a person to death, he will be tried by the Special Constitutional Court. Likewise if he does a civil wrong : in October 08, 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.

HRH Sultan of Perak’s act in interpreting the Perak State Constitution as allowing an appointment of a BN’s MB and transferring power of Perak state assembly is not a personal act that he has allegedly done wrong. That it is not a personal act but an official act carried out in interpreting the Perak state Constitution is admited by Karpal Singh : therefore I would surmise that it is not a fit and proper subject for the Special Constitutional Court, delaing with a sovereign’s personal act, to adjudicate or deal with.

However the fact that it is an official act and therefore not a proper matter for the Special Constitutional Court to deal does not preclude it from being reviewed as to legality and validity by the ordinary courts. Taking a suit whether against MB BN Zamri does not preclude the additional measure of including the ruler as a defendant if as a matter of legal strategy, the aggrieved party thinks that such addition of the ruler as defendant would tie up the loose ends of legal aspects to win the case according to law. This is the way Karpal would think right as a lawyer concerned with legal considerations but which Anwar/PR coalition partners may think is not the right or politically favourable course by virtue of political calculations that certain segment of the populace may be angered by what they wrongly misconstrue as disrespect of the monarchy ibnstitution and the particular ruler.

If this matter goes to ordinary courts (with or without the ruler being included as defendant), those who have a vested interest in preserving BN’s power in Perak State govt would argue that Perak’s Sultan’s official act of interpreting Perak constitution the way he did was valid and canot be impugned being exercised in “good faith”. The opposite side would say that is an interpretation wrong in law because aggreived party Nizar has an untrammelled right to call for dissolution of state assemby to pave the way for state wide elections which the Ruler could not withold consent.

Whatever the merits of the Perak Sultan’s oficial decision, the above shows that there is nothing wrong or unpatriotic or treasonable in taking legal recourse whether in respect of ruler’s personal acts (civil or criminal wrong) in Special Constitutional Court or in official act for judicial review in ordinary courts, and for anyone to say otherwise, he is wrong and to stir the crowd on calls of treason qualifies as a “hate” speech.

Contents of my preceding posting is based on premise that in a Constitutional Monarchy Parliamentary System of Government – in sharp constrast to an absulte Monarchy of yesteryears/feudal times, it is the sovereignty of the people that takes precedence and since it is people’s representatives that make the laws in parliament based on the Constitution, NO person, whether rulers or even the more powerful prime minister (who is defacto ruler whom other rulers have to take his advice) is above the law and constitution! This also means ordinary subjects/people who are fully entitled to seek recourse to the law as final arbiter of all disputes and their rights, without let or hindrance, and free from all unwarranted accusations and intimidation of treason etc….

That this is the position is established by none other than HRH Sultan Raja Azlan Shah when he as acting CJ (Malaya) (as he then was), in the case of Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd. said in a clear voice the following (I quote):

“Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise there is dictatorship. In particular, it is a stringent requirement that discretion should be exercised for a proper purpose, and that it should not be exercised unreasonably. In other words, every discretion cannot be free from legal restraint; where it is wrongly exercised, it becomes the duty of the courts to intervene. The courts are the only defence of the liberty of the subject against departmental aggression. In these days when government departments and public authorities have such great powers and influence, this is a most important safeguard for the ordinary citizen: so that the courts can see that these great powers and influence are exercised in accordance with law. I would once again emphasize what has often been said before, that ‘public bodies must be compelled to observe the law and it is essential that bureaucracy should be kept in its place’, (per Danckwerts LJ in Bradbury v London Borough of Enfield (1967) 3 All ER 434 at p 442).” (unquote)

What is said by HRH the Sultan as then acting CJ in respect of official acts of government departments and public authorities would apply with equal force to official acts of the ruler [except in cases where it concerns Royal Prerogative that is the Ruler’s sole discretion].

However whether that decision made by Sovereign is within “Royal Prerogative” is again not a matter for the ruler to decide as he then would be judging his own cause.

It is still left to ordinary courts to decide whether it is matter of “Royal Prerogative” that courts canot go behind to review as to its validity or something the courts could.

I hope the above clarifies the uncertainties and confusion over the issues raised here and preceding threads.