Constitutional monarchy still murky concept

Granted, the controversial Johor Housing and Real Property Board Enactment 2014 had been passed by the state assembly last Monday.

Despite the hullabaloo, the assembly only witnessed eight members from both sides of the divide who took barely two hours to debate the bill, before the speaker called for a vote with a show of hand. The rest, as they say is history.

That the said bill has gathered a potential storm prior to its tabling is perhaps an understatement. Literally everyone worth his salt has been reported to be up against the intended intrusion of the federation’s construct of a constitutional monarchy and “subversion” of parliamentary democracy.

The original Johor Housing and Real Property Board Enactment 2014 would have given the sultan unprecedented executive powers.

The initial proposed bill allowed for the sultan to appoint board members, determine allowances and remuneration, to approve the appointment of the CEO (chief executive officer), scrutinise accounts and dissolve the board.

Constitutional expert Professor Abdul Aziz Bari was quick to point out that the direct administrative role of the monarch is only in matter of religion.

Any other direct role of the sultan, being the bone of contention, would impinge on or perhaps usurp the executive role in matters of the state administration.

Even the Umno mouthpiece insinuated that Johor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohd Khaled Nordin was “weak and subservient” and would not be capable of dissent “if the sultan says something that must be followed”.

Never mind that the sultan and his MB are of the same age and are said to be classmates during their days at the Johor Baru English College.

Never mind that the sultan is said to have always wanted Khaled to replace Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Othman.

For former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir though, his worry hinges on the prospect that it will be the MB who would be advised by the sultan and not the way, as clearly provided for, in the state and Federal Constitution.

Understandably, pertinent clauses were amended to placate the grouses and the mounting concern and protest.

Be that as it may and now that the controversial new housing bill has been passed, how will the Sultan of Johor fit into the state administration? After the deluge of amendments, a crisis of sort has successfully been averted.

So, let’s take a closer look.

Well, despite the amendments, it is most unfortunate that the prevailing perception is still arguably stuck with the position that the sultan remains an immensely powerful figure in the state administration.

That the perception has been gaining momentum must have come from preceding events that are now an open secret. That is extremely unfortunate, but not without its basis.

Dr Mahathir mentioned the fact that much of Johor’s land were sold to foreigners and more seriously, not by the state government.

It doesn’t take a pundit to be telling the Johor folk that he was perhaps alluding to the Sultan of Johor’s RM4.5 billion sale of 47ha of prime land in Johor Baru last December to China developers Guangzhou R&F.

The deal pocketed by the sultan catapults him to be in the league of the billionaires’ club, although the land was alienated to the Sultan of Johor by the state government for a lot less.

The special economic zone of Iskandar has been bustling with big Chinese mainland developers, such as Country Garden, constructing projects on a massive scale which dwarfed other developments.

Other Chinese developers include Agile Property Holdings and Greenland Group have invested a combined US$6 billion (RM20 billion) thus far. A property glut is inevitably anticipated in the horizon, much to the chagrin of other local players.

Corporate business dealings of the sultan, many wouldn’t disagree, are best described as astounding, particularly of late and with prominent corporate figures.

After the RM4.5 billion land sale, the Sultan of Johor secured a 15% stake in MOL Access Portal (MOL) for RM396 million and took a 20% stake in Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd for RM250 million.

A consortium of SIPP (SIPP) Energy Sdn Bhd, YTL Power International Bhd and Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) was conditionally awarded the development of Project 4A, a new 1,000MW to 1,400MW combined cycle plant in Johor.

The project is reported to be worth approximatelyRM6 billion. The Johor ruler has a majority stake in SIPP Energy SB.

Let’s go back to the issue of whether the contentious bill has secured its intended objective of reducing the sultan’s role in the state administration.

Although the original bill was pared down to contain only the provision for the sultan to appoint board members (under the MB’s advice), it is still perceived as incapable of evading potential conflicts of interests as opined by lawyers who only spoke on condition of anonymity.

More specifically, the ruler may appoint four additional board members to the seven-member board of directors of the Housing Board, surely under the advice of the MB, who is also the chairman.

The CEO of the board will come from these four nominees. Concerns are validly registered by the state assembly and disgruntled lawyers over the inability of the MB to overrule them. Hence, indirectly again, it is the ruler who is perceived as taking control of the board through the CEO.

Much as the rakyat wished, genuine reforms are still a far cry. It is understandable that there exists widespread scepticism because the monarchy could still indirectly influence state administration.

But again in all fairness, is it only about the Johor sultan? Are the states of Perak, Terengganu and for that matter Kelantan and the rest, “blameworthy”, too? Will there be skirmishes of this nature again?

But in all fairness, too, what if the ruler truly assumes the role of “check and balance” against possibly incompetent and worse still, allegedly corrupt political leaders, namely the menteri besar and even theoretically, the prime minister?

That will surely make them loved by the rakyat.

So, what truly is the interpretation of a “constitutional monarchy”, when interests collide? – June 14, 2014.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.