LIKE its handling of an international anti-discrimination treaty, Putrajaya failed to adequately explain the Rome Statute, resulting in backlash from pro-royalty segments of the public, said MPs and analysts.

Previously, the federal government failed to engage stakeholders and explain the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), leading to protests, and finally, a decision not to ratify the treaty.

While the government went ahead with acceding to the Rome Statute, which governs the International Criminal Court, it still received flak from supporters of royal immunity. The most notable critics have been Johor’s Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar and Crown Prince Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim.

Malay-Muslim pressure groups have also voiced disapproval of the treaty that is mandated to prosecute in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression.

Despite Putrajaya’s explanations to the contrary, critics contend that acceding to the treaty will put the immunity of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and state rulers at risk.

Johor lawmaker Akmal Nasir said the Rome Statute should have been better explained to Malaysians.

“The stakeholders are many, not just politicians, but also community leaders, and the dialogue must cover all levels.

“The leaders, especially, must understand what the treaty stands for before ratifying it to avoid public shock and the matter being politicised,” said the PKR Youth chief.

He said the grassroots must understand Malaysia’s challenges and universal values in order to appreciate the Rome Statute’s purpose.

“These could be matters that are foreign and different to local eyes, and a rational discussion could have helped analyse these matters.”

Akmal referred to Putrajaya’s attempt to ratify ICERD, which led to a huge rally in Kuala Lumpur.

He said the treaty was rejected as it was seen to infringe on Malay rights and the position of Islam, despite there being exemptions allowed according to local laws.

Likewise, those who do not understand the Rome Statute are the ones Putrajaya failed to engage, he said.

“Before such foreign matters are decided, hold discussions with stakeholders first.”

Sultan Ibrahim last week warned Putrajaya that the ratification of the Rome Statute violates the constitution – with similar claims made about ICERD.

However, Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah said the country’s accession to the Rome Statute had been presented to the Agong on March 12, a week after it was signed by Putrajaya, and the treaty explained to him.

Ledang MP Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh said Putrajaya made one improvement by explaining the Rome Statute to lawmakers via a set of frequently asked questions.

This is unlike the government’s handling of ICERD, where no fact sheet or information was distributed, he said.

“For ICERD, there was no explanation at all. But for the Rome Statute, explanation was given and shared among MPs.”

However, he said, more engagement should have been done with the Malay rulers.

Political analyst Dr Mohammad Tawfiq Yaakub, who shared the same view, said Putrajaya appears to have turned its back on the rulers in its dealings involving them.

The senior lecturer with the Universiti Malaya Faculty of Economics’ politics and administration studies department said the Johor ruler raised relevant questions.

“Did, or did not, the federal government consult the Conference of Rulers before acceding to the Rome Statute?

“It is true that the government sought an audience with the Agong (after acceding to the treaty). But, Malaysia has a constitutional monarchy system, and respect should be shown to the rulers.

“It would have been better if the matter had been raised with the rulers first,” he said, stressing that he is not highlighting the treaty’s ratification itself, but the lack of respect shown to the rulers.

Kota Baru MP Takiyuddin Hassan said Putrajaya should have given state governments a chance to discuss the Rome Statute, and include the Malay rulers in the conversation.

“It is true the government has presented it to the Agong, but it should also have been referred to the state governments and sultans individually.” – March 29, 2019.