Demi Malaysia, let’s uphold constitutional monarchy and strengthen multi-party democracy

Projek Sama

On 9 May, we celebrated the 8th anniversary of the 2018 transition from an electoral one-party to a revived multiparty democracy.

The transition is not, and must not be seen as, the downfall of Umno-Barisan Nasional. The transition is the call for all parties to reinvent themselves to be competent in mature multiparty competition.

It is for the old ruling parties to learn how to compete without abuse of power and excessive incumbency advantages, and for the old opposition parties to learn how to govern measuredly and balance the interests of all communities and sectors.

In the past eight years, we have had five prime ministers. Instead of only two national blocs, we now have three national coalitions, two regional coalitions and numerous smaller parties in Parliament.

All major parties have been friends and foes

Going back to 2008, all major parties have all had each other as partners in government and also rivals in elections. This takes away any moral high ground by any party about other parties having unholy or unworthy partners.

The coming general election is expected to see different combinations of multi-cornered fights in different constituencies, possibly involving some new parties.

Election outcomes would decide which parties will emerge as federal and state government partners from multiple multilateral negotiations.

Parties should avoid making absolute pledges against power-sharing with certain other parties, as reneging on such words post-election inevitably invites the wrath of the electorate.

Moving away from the black-and-white politics of a two-coalition system is cognitively stressful for many voters, but it brings two major benefits.

First, it provides voters with more choices, and to serve the more fragmented landscape, calls for necessary systemic adjustments such as the introduction of closed-list proportional representations (CLPR) seats in addition to the existing first-past-the-post (FPTP) seats. That Johor has become the fourth state with appointed state assembly members is a sign that state-wide non-constituency-based representation is gaining acceptance. It would take only a tweak in electoral system to turn these patronage-laden “government’s bonus seats” into legitimate CLPR seats, which may come with gender and other demographic quotas to improve the representativeness of legislatures.

Second, it erodes the moral self-righteousness of political parties which they use as grounds for demonising their rivals. This can have positive implications on our ethnic relations, as political enmity often carries ethnic undertones. Grandstanding by political parties and politicians is now increasingly greeted with scepticism and distrust.

Culture wars fail to divide

Overall, we must cherish the fact that the eight years of democratisation in Malaysia has been free from bloodshed.

Despite relentless attempts by certain politicians, agitative groups and key opinion influencers to spark and stir up battles in culture wars, ordinary people in Malaysia live peacefully and recognise that we are made differently to know each other.

The heartwarming story about a compassionate ethnic Malay mechanic, Abang Minyak Hitam Jalanan (Abang Usop) and an ethnic Chinese single father, Dicky Yau, whose motorcycle broke down at midnight, went viral.

It touched millions of people in Malaysia and reminded us that we are brothers and sisters sharing the land with a common destiny despite all the staged conflicts. It reminds us that random acts of kindness may have greater power than we ever recognised. What more if compassion can be systematically organised.

Keep the monarchs above politics

As democratisation deepens, all political parties, politicians, social groups and members of the public must keep monarchs above politics.

Political division is the fundamental condition for multiparty competition, but this exactly underlines the need for a source of political unity – our constitutional monarchs.

True royalists understand the division of labour between the constitutional monarch and elected politicians, well-articulated by the English constitutional thinker, Walter Bagehot. Bagehot divides the government into two elements, the efficient and the dignified.

The cabinet is the “efficient” element that runs the country and cannot avoid making difficult and controversial decisions. If their decisions are not accepted by voters, they can be voted out.

The constitutional monarch is the “dignified” element that stays out of all and sundry policy issues and only privately advises the government.

This division is illustrated in royal speeches in Parliament. Written by the elected government and not the monarch, if a royal speech is rejected by Parliament, it would be an indicator of no-confidence against the government, not against the crown. In 1924, when UK Labour and Liberal parliamentarians passed an amendment to the address in reply, the Conservative Party minority government resigned.

By staying above any political controversies, constitutional monarchs can unite the nation even when politics become toxic. This provides invaluable political stability.

The best way to protect the sanctity of our constitutional monarchies is not to silence trolls and slanderers online, but by all political actors protecting the monarchical institutions by not dragging them into political controversies.

While the rulers love the people deeply, elected politicians must always offer policy solutions so that if the solutions fail, the blame would be placed solely on elected politicians, whom voters can replace in the next election.

In this light, we are deeply worried that the Constitution (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 2026 on the role separation of the attorney general and public prosecutor may unwittingly undermine our constitutional monarchy by stipulating in Article 145a(1) that “The Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA), shall in his discretion, on the recommendation of the Judicial and Legislative Service Commission and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers, appoint a person qualified … to be the Public Prosecutor of the Federation”.

This is an unprecedented departure from the Constitution’s basic structure which gives the king personal discretion primarily in choosing the prime minister, assenting to the prime minister’s request for early dissolution of Parliament and requisitioning a Conference of Rulers meeting related to royal privileges [Article 40(2)].

Until now, prime ministers, as the ones who effectively appoint the attorney general, have been taking all the backlash surrounding prosecutorial decisions and conduct.

While we want the public prosecutor to be free from the executive’s control, this political burden must not be transferred to the king.

The task of scrutinising the candidate(s) for the commission overseeing the prosecution should be left to Parliament or a parliamentary committee, whom the people can hold accountable and vote out if necessary.

In our eagerness to pursue the attorney general–public prosecutor separation and other reforms, we must not weaken constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.

Make Parliament and state legislatures trustworthy

Some have cast doubt on Parliament’s integrity and competence. Such scepticism and distrust are perfectly understandable.

While elected politicians may be flawed, Parliament and all state legislatures have a greater strength than all unelected institutions: they can be sacked by the voters when election comes.

This means elected politicians may let us down, but we can hold them accountable. Dismissing parliamentary democracy and advocating for the transfer of authority to any unelected institution is outright dangerous.

Can we trust any unelected institutions, based on claims of pedigree, devoutness, patriotism, professionalism or morality, to be able to make the best decisions for us, and not for themselves, their families or institutions, or their financial backers who may even be some foreign powers?

We must reject the anti-parliamentary democracy narrative because ultimately it is anti-people. Authoritarianism hurts not just democracy, but also sovereignty in this era of heightened geopolitical contestation.

Our task as we enter the ninth year of democratisation is to neither blindly trust Parliament and state legislatures nor to sweepingly dismiss them, but to make the legislative branch of our democracy trustworthy.

This requires investment of public interest and resources in Parliament and state legislatures. The “Dilarang Ponteng Parlimen” (Forbidden to Skip Parliament) campaign, initiated by activist Roshinee Mookaiah in April 2026 is a heartening sign that Malaysian democracy is vibrant because ordinary people care.

At both Parliament and all the state legislatures, we must have longer sitting days, more committees to scrutinise policies and laws, recognition of and support for a shadow cabinet, and equitable constituency development funds for all lawmakers regardless of party affiliation.

Regardless of which parties are in power, we must continue to demand parliamentary reforms at both the federal and state levels. – Projek Sama

Support Aliran's work with an online donation. Scan this QR code using your mobile phone e-wallet or banking app: