TMJ posts federal constitution provisions online after PM’s blog post

Updated 7 years ago · Published on 24 Apr 2019 9:59PM · 9 Comments

Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim shares on his social media accounts two articles relating to state constitutions. – AFP pic, April 24, 2019.

JOHOR crown prince Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim tonight posted on his social media accounts two articles from the federal constitution relating to state constitutions and the rights of Malay rulers.

The articles were Article 71 on federal guarantee of state constitutions, and Article 181 on saving for rulers’ sovereignty.

Article 71 guarantees the right of a state ruler to succeed and hold, enjoy and exercise the constitutional rights and privileges due to him in accordance with the state constitution.

Article 181 states that subject to the provisions of the constitution, the sovereignty, prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the rulers and the ruling chiefs of Negri Sembilan within their respective territories shall remain unchanged. 

Tunku Ismail, an active social media user, said nothing when he posted the articles on his Twitter or Facebook pages.

But it is understood that his post tonight is in response to what Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had said about the federal constitution superseding the state constitutions in his blog post.

In the blog post, Dr Mahathir mentioned that when the federal constitution had been written, Malaya was to be a democracy, where the people chose the government.

“The rulers would be constitutional heads without executive power. Their position would be guaranteed by the constitution which would be the supreme law of the country,” he said.

He added that the state constitutions of Johor and Terengganu, which were promulgated earlier, were nullified by the new federal constitution which was accepted by all the states of Malaysia.

He also pointed out that the constitution stated that the party winning the election would name the prime minister (or the chief minister – menteri besar) and the constitutional head would endorse.

The prime minister’s blog post was seen as a reminder to the Johor palace of the rule of law.

Dr Mahathir and the Johor palace are known to have a thorny relationship. Both sides had traded barbs over various issues, like the recent appointment of the Johor menteri besar, as well as in the reshuffling to the state exco.

Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar and Tunku Ismail had both said that the state constitution gives the Johor monarch the power to decide on the menteri besar and the choice of exco members. – April 24, 2019.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • Tun is right. Read the whole of Art 71.

    Posted 7 years ago by Ratnavathy Navaratnam · Reply

  • Young man, go back to school plsss

    Posted 7 years ago by Dayang Fazrina Abang Yasir · Reply

  • In this state of affairs wisdom and tolerance should prevail and not arrogance to challenge. In this juncture of 21st century , in the world the monarchy are out of fashion and constitutional monarch are something that is a compromise to retain the cultural aspect and long held practises for a public ceremonial benefits. Since indepence, rakyat have definitely declare their support for the formation and elected Democratic Government. It is nothing to dispute anymore. The more the insistence of making a statement of the rights in the constitution, please remember that if---- no country , no rakyat , no democratic Governement and no royalty. Stay sensible.!!!

    Posted 7 years ago by Lee Lee · Reply

  • It is not just Art 71.
    Read Art. 4 (Federal Constitution supreme law of the land)
    While 71(1) "...guarantee the right of a Ruler of a State to succeed and to hold, enjoy and exercise the constitutional rights and privileges of Ruler of that State in accordance with the Constitution of that State."
    71(2) says that in case State habitually disregard any provision of the Constitution or of the Constitution of that State, parliament may make provision for securing compliance with those provisions. And the rest of 71 talks about State power and federal powers (8th Schedule).
    Interestingly Art 66(4A) states that while Bills passed by parliament should be "formally assented" by the Agong, if Agong did not assent within a period, it shall be deemed as assented to.
    While Art 181 says that the rulers may not be litigated or persecuted against, Art 182 says that cases may be brought against the YDP Agong and/or Rulers by special courts for "offences committed" and civil cases.
    While the 8th Schedule sets out statutory boundaries between States and Federal (land, building control, local agenda etc) it does not mean the Ruler of the State have absolute powers over the list in 8th Schedule. We have State assembly with power to administer and legislate laws similar to Art 66 of the federal constitution.

    Posted 7 years ago by H.P. Looi · Reply

  • So probably TMJ is STILL being advised by the same 4 plofessorx2 kangkung?

    Posted 7 years ago by H.P. Looi · Reply

  • It shows just how well the young man understands the constitution. Posting something without saying anything shows how low could that be for the future sultan. I think its high time to show Malaysian just how vast the johore palace business empire has amassed over the years. The more this little prince try to made his statement the more reclusive Malaysian would be towards the palace so don't blame TDM for this. You may be the resident of the palace but do remember your linage wasn't from the palace bloodline heritage. Temenggong i.e. a cabinet minister i.e. ordinary folks and like us your blood is also red in colour. If you dare, take it to the court if you are so confident of your understanding of the constitution don't just hide behind the high walls of the palace.

    Posted 7 years ago by Teruna Kelana · Reply

  • Feudalism is outdated. People rule, not any one powerful person.

    Posted 7 years ago by Tanahair Ku · Reply

  • Matters regarding the constitution should be referred to a special constitution court such is practised in certain European countries. This avoids politicians being involved in establishing constitutional matters.

    Posted 7 years ago by Malaysia New hope · Reply

  • He is merely looking for troubles

    Posted 7 years ago by Abdul Rashid Shaary · Reply