Malaccan: Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was the PM for 22 years, has clearly stated he only sent in one name for MBs during his tenure and this must   surely have a bearing on the current debate.

This must be repudiated and disproved if the argument of precedence and convention is to be even considered. Any hint of taint is definitely unfortunate and should have been avoided.However, the bigger issue now would be the propriety and constitutionality of making HRH (his royal highness) chooses from a smorgasbord of candidates.

As pointed out by PKR leader Rafizi Ramli, allowing HRH to choose among several candidates would make HRH vulnerable to campaigning and other inappropriate suggestions. This also flies in the face of other conventions and would need to be fully ventilated in the public sphere for all to understand and accept as the requirements of the constitution.

Obviously there are differing views already expressed by legal experts and others on this matter. It cannot be forced unto any quarter without adequate discourse. Decorum must be maintained.

The statements from the palace have recently been oddly frequent and somewhat direct, even combative. They may be unprecedented and unconventional, and all the more troubling for it.

Understandingly, the palace may feel the need to address some issues publicly. However, with respect, the palace should avoid entanglements in public arguments and on contentious issues. Such engagements will not benefit nor dignify the palace and may affect its ability to give weighty but subtle state advice in keeping with the constitution.

Society’s high respect for the palace and HRH’s own state government will see to the proper defense of the palace. Meanwhile, the federal government which is not shy to use colonial powers in its own defense, can also speak up for the palace.

We can see how the judiciary conducts itself with such dignity, especially during its heydays, to maintain that aura of high authority and respectability. The palace is obviously by far, a more higher station than the judiciary.

Raja Chulan: The palace’s press statement states that previously more than one name was presented and this was discussed between the PM and the sultan at the ‘Majlis Menghadap Sultan’.

So if that is the case, how can Pakatan present the name(s) if the palace refuses to grant the ‘Majlis Menghadap Sultan’ to PKR president Wan Azizah Wan Ismail or de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim?

It is a known fact to all that PAS/DAP/PKR have a clear understanding amongst them that the MB candidate should come from PKR. Also, Pakatan Rakyat had earlier requested (in writing) to ‘Menghadap Sultan’ some weeks ago. Why is the palace dragging its feet?

The palace should also stop issuing press statements belittling elected representatives of the people using a private secretary. Just invite Anwar or Kak Wan or both for a ‘Majlis Menghadap Sultan’ and sort this out amicably.

Lim Chong Leong: “If he does not have the facts, then Anwar is advised not to make statements that are misleading and can taint the ruler’s image,” the sultan’s private secretary Mohamad Munir Bani said in a statement today.

Then please do tell, what are the facts? Name all the times that more than one name has been sent to the palace.

Mushiro: Munir claimed that when BN was in power, the PM would present suitable names to the sultan for the MB’s post. If the PM as head of BN was granted audience with the sultan, why wasn’t Anwar as head of Pakatan, granted audience with the sultan?

Anwar was denied the opportunity to present suitable names and explain to the sultan. This is an unfair treatment to Anwar. Munir is clearly portraying the sultan to be in favour of Umno and not a fair sultan.

Hank Marvin: The palace ticked Anwar off but quiet on Mahathir when the two actually said the same thing. I guess the people out there can tell what is going on here. But it’s good for Anwar to say sorry.

Sirach: If Anwar is wrong, then so is Mahathir. For Mahathir, no friend of Anwar, to say anything that even remotely supports Anwar’s view, there must surely be some truth in what Anwar said. There lies the conundrum.

And if Anwar was indeed wrong and has to seek forgiveness for insolence, shouldn’t Mahathir also be held to account for his statement? Taking the rakyat for fools is not a smart political strategy.

Quigonbond: The palace is confusing its role. It cannot solve all the problems for Pakatan.

It appears that the palace has misapplied its misconceived discretion that it will only appoint someone with “good relations” with the palace. This begs the question whether we are really have a constitutional monarchy.

Pakatan will need to sort itself out, but meanwhile, it is clear that Wan Azizah is the only assemblyperson who has majority to back her up. It is the palace that is protracting what is a simple question of mathematics.

The easier path would have been for the palace to advise outgoing Selangor MB Khalid Ibrahim to hold an emergency state assembly session. Go through the motion of no confidence for Khalid and motion of confidence for Wan Azizah, and that’s the end of the matter.

Should we wonder whether there is one rule for Pakatan and another for BN?

Bay Ta I am confused, Pakatan has 30 names supporting them which is a majority since 30 is greater than half of 56 and the current MB has none supporting him except Umno 12 representatives. And he is still there signing away billions of people money.

Gerard Lourdesamy: The words used by the palace are “tidak tepat which means “inaccurate” and “mengelirukan” which means “confusing” despite DSAI (Anwar) being the DPM from 1993 to 1998 and privy to decisions of then PM and Umno supreme council on candidates for the MB’s post.

The statement also fails to address the parliamentary opposition leader by the honorific “Yang Berhormat”. What is so difficult in granting an audience to YB Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and DAP’s YAB Tuan Lim Guan Eng to clarify their party’s respective position on the MB position and to present the 30 Aduns who are supporting the PKR president as was done in Perak in 2009 by the then DPM Najib Razak?

Since PAS can be granted private audience by the sultan why not the other two party leaders in the Pakatan?

Alternatively, the incumbent Khalid can be requested by the ruler to advise a dissolution of the State Assembly and allow the people to decide the next government. The prevarication by the palace is damaging to the ruler.

FairMind: Why take a swipe at Anwar and not at Mahathir? Mahathir has practically thumbed his nose at the sultan by claiming that he always had submitted one name during his time.

Mahathir’s span was 22 years, from 1981 to 2003, making him Malaysia’s longest-serving prime minister. Pakatan’s span till now was only seven years.

This lopsided response and lack of courage to reprimand the actual person who curtailed the sultan’s powers, in itself has tainted and done the most damage to the sultan’s image, not Anwar or the opposition coalition.

---

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakinisubscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakinisubscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.