After the 2008 elections, the state parliament is divided almost 50-50 between the opposition alliance PKR and the government alliance BN. Until now, the state had a PKR government who ruled with a 3-member advantage in the parliament. So far pretty straightforward, but then it becomes complicated…

First: In august 2008 two assemblymen, Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Mohd Osman, were charged with corruption. On january 26th 2009 they disappeared from public view. The national leader of PKR, Anwar Ibrahim, claimed that this was a setup engineered by UMNO to force them to change sides.

Then suddenly, UMNO crown prince and Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak suddenly takes over as coalition leader in Perak, signifying that something important is brewing. He then leaks information that the two “missing” assemblymen will cross over from PKR to BN. This would have left BN only one vote short of seizing majority in the state assembly…

…if it wasn’t for the fact that in the meantime, UMNO assemblyman Nasarudin Hashim had defected to PKR, leaving the government coalition two votes short.

Then, on February 1st,  two letters arrived at the home of the Perak assembly speaker. They proved to be undated resignation letters from the two missing assemblymen. The speaker immediately accepted these two resignations with reference to the Perak constitution asking the Election Commission to prepare for a by-election to replace them. It appeared that PKR had been able to avoid losing power in the state.

But… suddenly one of the missing assemblymen resurfaced, claiming that the resignation letters were something they had been forced to sign when they were elected, as a safeguard against party defections. He wanted to continue to serve with no intention of resigning. The speaker still claimed that the resignation letters were legal.

The election commission, on the other hand, refused to accept the resignations and ruled against holding  a by-election. The state government now countered by announcing the dissolution of the parliament, a power that constitutionally lies with the Sultan.

Representatives from UMNO had also met with the sultan and informed him that the newly defected Nasarudin had now turned his coat yet again to return to UMNO along with another earlier defector. With Jamaludin and Mohd Osman who were now declared BN-friendly independents, this would leave BN with a majority. The Sultan refused dissolution and asked BN to form a new government. This was based on the state constitution that requires the Menteri Besar (Head of state government) to command an active majority in the state assembly.

Interestingly enough, the Sultan himself has written a book on constitutional monarchy in which he allegedly subscribes to the usual European constitutional practice:

Under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of parliament. His role is purely formal.

In this case he clearly didn’t stick to that convention.

So… now we have the Deputy Prime Minister, now head of UMNO Perak, is looking for a new Menteri Besar, while the old one claims to still hold his post according to the constitution. The assembly speaker has accepted the resignation of two assemblymen who claim to still retain their seats…

An interesting case of constitutional law indeed. It doesn’t become simpler to follow with the lack of objective news sources. In Malaysia we have the choice between the politically censored mainstream press or the predominantly PKR-biased blogosphere. It takes quite a bit of reading of both to try and find a sort of middle ground presumably as close to the truth as possible.

Some relevant blogs and news sources:

• The Star Online: “How the Perak government fell.“
• Anwar Ibrahim: “A constitutional crisis caused by the sultan.“
• The Dandelions “Urgent appeal: Perak constitution crisis from misinterpretation of words?“
• Disquiet: “Perak, a constitutional crisis“
• Audie 61: “War of words now“
• Proud 2B Malaysian: “Wake up, Malaysia!“
• Roger Tan/New Straits Times: “Thorny issues that need attention.“

The first thing to know is the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, or National Alliance. This multi-party coalition has ruled since Malaysia’s independence in 1957, enjoying a 2/3 parliament majority until 2008. Malaysian politics is traditionally divided along ethnic lines, and the three original coalition partners are the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), the Malaysian Chinese Asscociation (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC). There are also several smaller parties.

Most important of these parties is UMNO, holding majority within BN, as the most important party representing the largest ethnic group in Malaysia, the Malays. The Prime Minister of Malaysia has always been from UMNO. One of these prime ministers is Tun Mahathir Mohamad, who ruled the party and Malaysia throughout the 80s and 90s.

In the late 90s, his deputy was Anwar Ibrahim. Unlike the conservative ultranationalist Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar was a young liberal, popular with the public arguing for reform. Among the reforms he wanted was the abolishment of the Bumiputra policy, a policy instated in the 70s bestowing economic and social benefits to Malay nationals which has allowed for the creation of a Malay economic elite in the country. In 1998 Anwar, by then a major threat to Tun Mahathir’s power, was accused of sodomy (a serious offense in the Muslim Malaysia) and corruption and imprisoned. This sparked riots by the so-called ‘Reformasi’ movement. The riots died out, but left a large group of middle class Malaysian discontents.

In 2003 Mahathir Mohamad, then age 78, stepped down from power handing the reins over to Abdullah Badawi, nicknamed Pak Lah (short for Uncle Abdullah). Abdullah has ruled UMNO and as PM since, but has proved a much less competent and popular leader tham Mahathir ever was.

2008 has so far been an important turning point in Malaysian history. First the BN suffered a great defeat in the parliament election, for the first time losing its 2/3 majority in the parliament. The big winner was the new opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat. Later, two minor parties of the BN from the provinces of Sabah and Sarawak on Borneo broke away from the coalition.

Furthermore, Anwar Ibrahim’s ban from participating in Malaysian politics was lifted. His wife withdrew from parliament, creating the need for a by-election through which Anwar Ibrahim regained a seat in the parliament and took the position of opposition leader.

The troubles of the year have given fuel to a strong internal opposition within the UMNO party, and open criticism from its Supreme Council which has called for Abdullah’s resignation. He has promised to hand over power by the year 2010, presumably to his deputy PM Najib Tun Razak, but this has not been enough to quiet dissent. Calls have been made for his resignation already at the next general assembly of UMNO. As of the time I’m writing this, there is yet much speculation about what Abdullah’s next move will be. Rumours range from immediate resignation, through handing over power to any number of possible successors to just clinging to power for as long as he can.

In the meantime, Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Rakyat have been busy. They claim to have a list of as much as 40 MPs ready to defect from BN. In addition there are rumours of the possibility of the BN party Gerakan being ready to defect, and that Pakatan Rakyat will move for a vote of no confidence against the cabinet and form a new government, alternatively taking the matter to the Malaysian king. However, the fact that no move or publication has yet been made may indicate that the PR position might not be as strong as they claim.

One last important event. Important tools of Malaysian autocracy have been a strict media censorship and a law called the Internal Security Act (ISA), which have been the target of much criticism by human rights and freedom of speech groups. Both tools have been widely abused by prime ministers. The latter gives the PM the right to imprison anyone for extended periods of time based on any accusation of threat to national security. Lately, these two were used first to block the independent news source Malaysia Today to Malaysian users, and then to imprison its editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin, who has among other things accused Deputy PM Najib’s wife of connections to the murder of a Mongolian journalist. Several other activists were also arrested under the same act. The power of Malaysian bloggers, which are very numerous, is a big threat to the effectiveness of the media censorship and thus to the autocratic methods of the Malaysian leadership. So far, Abdullah appears unable to do much to limit this power.

Well, that’s my summary of 10 years of Malaysian politics in 10 minutes. Hope it might help clear some of the confusion. Keep in mind that this is just my limited analysis from an overseas vantage point, and that things are changing at a breakneck pace.

Further reading:

• Nachspiel at Polemarchus’: “Anwar Ibrahim returns to the Malaysian Parliament“
• Nachspiel at Polemarchus’: “Sex, lies and capital controls – How Mahathir painted himself into a corner.“
• Tun Mahathir Mohamad’s blog chedet.com
• www.anwaribrahim.com
• Proud 2B Malaysian: “What ifs in october” on what might happen this month.
• Malaysia Today: “Malaysian power struggle continues unabated“
• BBC News: “Malaysian writer in sedition trial“
• The Kuala Lumpur Traveller: “RPK: Deputy PM Najib’s wife Rosmah was at Altantuya’s murder scene.“