Not Acting on Advice

 

The news from across the Causeway is that the Yang Di Pertuan Agong (King) of Malaysia, High Royal Highness,“Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah,” has just declared that there is no need for an “Emergency” to be declared in Malaysia, despite the advice of the government of Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin. A full report can be read at:

https://www.thevibes.com/articles/opinion/3940/a-king-for-our-time-has-spoken-terence-fernandez

What makes this news interesting is that puts into question of the role of the Head of State. Malaysia, like Singapore has a system of government based on the Westminster model, where all governing actions are done in the name of the Head of State, which is always “on the advice of,” the Head of Government. If you look at countries that follow the Westminster System, you will notice that the roles of Head of State and Head of Government are inevitably separate and that the Head of State, whether it’s a constitutional monarch or a president, fulfils the role of a symbol, namely something that’s good to look at but has no actual function. This division was best summed up by constitutional scholar, Walter Bagshot, who talked about the “dignified” and “efficient” parts of government.

The rationale behind this division is simple. It’s the Head of Government who has the democratic legitimacy to get things done and while the Head of State is essentially there to look good on certain occasions (in Singapore we think of our President’s wave on National Day), nobody expects them to do much. In the case of the Queen of England (whom all Heads of State in the Westminster are modeled upon), the Head of State has three rights when it comes to getting things done – namely the right to be consulted, give advice and to warn. In layman terms, it’s a case of being asked for your thoughts on a matter and being able to voice your opinion in private but nothing else.

This is not to say that unelected Heads of State can’t get their own way when dealing with an elected head of government. However, they can only really succeed if they understand their role and work within the limits of that role. This is usually done most effectively by traditional monarchs who build up “moral authority.” The late King Bhumipol was a genius at this. He made sure that he was always seen getting involved in non-political ways of helping the people and his only interventions in government were to “protect” democracy as he did in 1992, when he was seen to dress down a military appointed Prime Minster for ordering the shooting of protestors in the streets of Bangkok and he famously dressed down Thailand’s judges in 2006 by telling them “How can you let an election take place with only one political party – that is not democratic,” which was an interesting contrast to Singapore’s elected politicians who had somehow worked out that Singapore was too small to have more than one political party. The late King was revered without the need for Thailand’s Lese Majeste Laws.  

His son by contrast, is rather happy to be seen to grab an increasing amount of political power and as Covid-19 hit, he was happily staying far away in Germany, locked up with his concubines. It goes without saying that the current king has a very different image from his father and he should perhaps look at what happened to the Nepalese Monarch, King Gyanendra, who seized absolute power in an effort to crush a Maoist rebellion, failed and then found his institution abolished.

Hence, there is a paradox for constitutional monarchs in that they become powerful when they recognize they are not supposed to have any form of political power and for all their regal status, they are servants of the public will. They do especially well when they show that they care, as the Queen of England did during the Grenfell Tower incident, when she showed up to comfort the victims, which was in stark contrast to the Prime Minister who stayed away.

Malaysian monarchs seem to have understood that role. In the space of my lifetime, Malaysia’s royals have gone from being seen as irresponsible party goers to people that fight for the people. When the Crown Prince of Johor got into a public disagreement with one of the federal ministers, I remember a Malaysian telling me, “At least someone is speaking for us.”

The success of Malaysia’s monarchs in transforming their image and being able to become more powerful, is seen by the Agong’s move not to declare a state emergency despite the elected Prime Minister. The unelected Agong is presented as a defender of democratic rights and avoids getting involved in the mess that is Malaysia’s political scene.

If all that is true for constitutional monarchs, what can be said of non-executive presidents, particularly those with a supposed democratic mandate. Prior to 1991, Singapore’s president had a role similar to the British monarch. The President was supposed to merely wave on National Day. However, the Presidency was transformed in 1991, when this single office was turned into an elected one.

In theory, Singapore’s President is the only person elected by every Singaporean and has no party affiliations. While the President’s powers are still limited, this gives the president a certain legitimacy that a government would have to think twice when confronting.

Unfortunately, the record of Singapore’s “elected” (in inverted comas because only two have actually faced an election) has been unfortunately less stellar than Malaysia’s unelected monarchs when it comes to disputes with the government. Our first elected President, Mr. Ong Teng Cheong voiced his disagreements with the government after he left office and for that he was punished in death when the government denied him a State Funeral (an international given for anyone who has been a head of state). The only other president who had to fight an election, was Dr. Tony Tan, who upon winning, vanished and as is often said when compared to his predecessor “At least we knew we had a president when SR was around.”

So, how is it such that our elected Heads of State have had such a poor record of being seen to do something different, when the unelected ones in the region have actually taken on elected politicians for their people and gotten away with it?

The standard Singapore answer would be the fact that our governments have been much better and more honest than those in the region, hence there’s never been a need for the Head of State to confront the government.

That may be true an extent. However, Singapore’s government is not perfect. The late President Ong went on record to state that he asked what was in the reserves and was told that it would take the machinery of government 54 man-years to provide an answer. It seems that the machinery is right because since President Ong left office in 1999, we still have no figure as to what is in our reserves. However, both President’s Nathan and Yacob have allowed the government of the day to draw down on the reserves. The question remains, what exactly did President’s Nathan and Yacob allow the government to draw down?

Unelected Head’s of State in the region are showing that they are willing to offer and alternative point of view in the name of benefiting the people. Surely, our Heads of State with a democratic mandate should be able to do something similar. Otherwise, the question remains – why do we have a Head of State to begin with.