Khalid’s INFAMOUS legacy

The political saga of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) has been dragging on for far too long. Granted, it was triggered by power struggle within the party, but what started as an internal affair has now snowballed into a constitutional crisis involving the sultan of Selangor.

Malaysia practices a parliamentary system both at the state and the federal levels. It means that the prime minister, chief ministers and menteri besar must command the support and confidence of the Dewan Rakyat or the state assembly in order to remain in the job, and the role of the rulers is largely ceremonial as is the case with other constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom, Japan, New Zealand and Australia.

Count not Thailand, where parliamentary democracy with a figurehead has again slipped into a coma.

This is not to say the sultan or the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has no power whatsoever in terms of forming a government. Far from it. The ruler is duty-bound to ensure a government can function effectively and efficiently, with the head of government being supported by the Dewan Rakyat or the state assembly. When this is not the case, the ruler ought to instruct the speaker to convene a special sitting on a vote of confidence, or the lack thereof.

As in other constitutional monarchies, the ruler in exercising his powers ought to be sensitive to the feelings of the members of the legislative assembly. Hence, when 30 of the legislators came out in support of Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, it became clear that Khalid Ibrahim had lost the confidence of the Selangor assembly.

While it was Khalid’s prerogative to sack the six state executive councillors as rightly pointed out by Professor Abdul Aziz Bari, at issue is whether Khalid was still a legitimate menteri besar at the time when the dismissals were announced.

I do not dismiss there may have been certain grievances on the part of Khalid in how the PKR leadership has treated him. However, what is now at stake is our constitutional monarchy that has been severely tested since 2008. Had Khalid chosen to step down in dignity and to prepare for a political comeback at the grassroots level, he could have safeguarded the royalty as well as the spirit of democracy.

Dragging the monarch into the show

Monarchy is clearly part of Malaysia’s state institutions but it is also one that must take into consideration common sense and public opinion. We don’t just exhaust all our resources for an election and, after casting their vote, people are made to realise painfully that the man who has lost support remains in power by dragging the monarch into the show.

It is utterly ludicrous for some to liken Khalid’s situation now to that of Anwar Ibrahim back in 1998. In fact, the contrary is true. Khalid is behaving exactly like Mahathir Mohamad by abusing his executive powers just to stay afloat. Worse, he has defied the tradition by refusing to bow out gracefully despite losing more than half of the state assembly’s support, counting on time and the sultan to extend his shelf life.

Margaret Thatcher

When Margaret Thatcher  came to terms with the agony of her no longer enjoying the confidence of her own party in November 1990, she went to see the queen not to seek support, but to resign her post as Britain’s prime minister. In Australia, both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard did the same in a most honourable fashion so that the sanctity of constitutional monarchy as well as parliamentary democracy could be preserved.

Then again, Malaysia is so different that, in the name of religion, race and royalty, a power-crazy politician can disregard the well-established institutions and principles in pursuit of personal gains.

Khalid has never impressed me, but I used to prefer him to the corrupt-to-the-core Umno warlords like Khir Toyo. If anything, I had become more and more sceptical of his democratic credentials after his failure to rein in the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department over the seizure of the Bibles and his extraordinarily pro-Umno stance on the Kidex project.

With the benefit of hindsight, one can safely say Khalid had acted in cahoots with Umno over these two controversies.

Whatever ‘achievements’ Khalid may have made over the past six years, he has destroyed them all with his intransigence and recalcitrance (a word made famous by, alas, Mahathir!) from now on, he will be best remembered as yet another infamous menteri besar who has contributed substantively to the demise of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy in Selangor, a legacy that is far more damaging than those by any of his predecessors.  -M'kini