-LOKMAN ADAM
There is a thin constitutional line that must be walked carefully when discussing a royal pardon. One can disagree with the outcome of a pardon without turning that disagreement into an attack on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or questioning the legitimacy of the constitutional institution itself.
Article 42 of the Federal Constitution expressly gives the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites in matters within His Majesty’s constitutional jurisdiction. This is not a political favour invented by any government. It is a power embedded directly in our supreme law.
That means politicians, commentators and members of the public are perfectly entitled to debate whether a particular pardon was appropriate or consistent with their understanding of justice. But there is a world of difference between disagreeing with a decision and challenging the constitutional authority of the institution empowered to make it.
The Pardons Board is also part of this constitutional architecture. For Federal Territories cases, the Board includes the Attorney General, the relevant federal minister and members appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, with the King presiding over its meeting. The Board must also consider any written opinion from the Attorney General before tendering its advice.
So let us be clear. The Prime Minister or Attorney General does not simply walk into the room and order the King to grant a pardon. Their constitutional roles form part of the process, while the Yang di-Pertuan Agong exercises the power vested in Him by Article 42. Reducing this complicated constitutional mechanism to a political command and control arrangement is simply misleading.
At the same time, nobody should pretend that constitutional powers exist in a vacuum. That is precisely why constitutional discussion must be based on the actual text of the Constitution, not political slogans.
This is where the thin line becomes important. Saying, “I disagree with the pardon” is legitimate political and public debate. Saying, “the Agong had no constitutional authority to pardon” is an entirely different claim, one that requires serious constitutional and legal justification rather than anger, speculation or partisan convenience.
We should also reject the dangerous habit of dragging the monarchy into every political fight. Malaysia's constitutional institutions are bigger than any individual politician, party or election cycle. Once every unpopular constitutional decision becomes an excuse to undermine the institution itself, we are no longer debating one pardon. We are weakening confidence in the constitutional order.
The straight answer is simple. Question policies, debate decisions and scrutinize constitutional processes by all means. But know where the line is. Disagreement with a pardon is part of democratic discourse. But casually challenging the constitutional authority of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is something far more serious. In Malaysia, constitutional maturity means knowing the difference.
#foryou #LokmanNoorAdamOfficial #UMNOMalaysia #BarisanNasional #SoladiritiNajibRazak #ZahidHamidi #MalaysiaMadani #AnwarIbrahim
#SekretariatMediaPerpaduan
Lokman Noor Adam Official (lokmanadam@icloud.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
