The recent suspension of Perak Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir by the Perak state legislative assembly speaker has further worsened an already intractable constitutional crisis.

The BN has castigated the decision and equated it with ‘treason’. The speaker and Pakatan Rakyat maintain that he acted within his powers as ‘master of the house’.

However, let us first take a small trip down memory lane. There is the general perception that the law is not altogether an important part of the Malaysian psyche. The law - to most Malaysians - is seen as an obstacle to progress and a hindrance to development.

This was the justification used by our very own leaders every time they introduced a constitutional amendment or whenever they bulldozed an unpopular law through Parliament.

In 1988, when the highest court of the land, the supreme court of Malaysia was assaulted, dismembered and dismantled, we did not see an outpouring of public revulsion neither did we have the public rallying behind the judiciary.

It could be due to the fact that many were oblivious to the happenings or that the government-friendly media managed to ensure that their blitzkrieg of the judiciary resonated with most Malaysians. I was too young to remember.

Then in 1993, we had the royal immunity of the Malay Rulers removed on grounds of fairness and equality. After a successful nationwide road show, Dr Mahathir Mohamed, convinced most Malaysians, especially the Malays, that the rulers, like all Malaysians, must be equal before the law.

We did not see road shows by UmnoYouth neither did we have organisations pledging allegiance to the rulers or have them shouting derhaka against Mahathir. In fact when Negeri Sembilan’s Tunku Naquiyuddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja'afar recently proposed the restoration of this immunity last year, it received meagre press coverage and a lukewarm response at best.

However, the situation finally changed when Nizar Jamaluddin uttered the phrase: patik mohon derhaka which in palace language simply means that he respectfully begs to differ with the decision made by the sultan.

Again the rule of law in Malaysia suffered as a result because rally after rally was organised by pro-Umno groups and they were allowed to carry on with complete impunity and the police were only forced to take action after a rowdy demonstration in front of the home of DAP chairperson, Karpal Singh.

When Karpal Singh propagated the idea of taking the Sultan of Perak to court, again, we had police reports lodged and even death threats made. Using the same logic used by Mahathir that no one is above the law, the sultan being a former Lord President would most likely agree with such an approach.

Again we had Karpal being called a ‘traitor’ and some even asked for him to be stripped of his citizenship. I cannot fathom the hypocrisy, and I can only remind them of the words of Voltaire: ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to death for your right to say it’.

A constitutional monarchy is supposed to live by the constitution and in Malaysia there is no exception to this rule. As there is nothing more patriotic then defending the constitution (in America, the presidential oath is premised on protecting, defending and respecting the constitution).

The derhaka razzmatazz perpetrated by those seeking to defend the change of government in Perak has been counter-productive at best because going by the recent Merdeka Research Centre poll, 74% of Perakians want a new election and I am quite certain how they will vote!

To further complicate the Perak imbroglio, the Perak speaker decided to suspend Zambry Kadir and six of his exco for assuming power even though a ‘legitimate’ menteri besar (Nizar Jamaluddin) was still in power.

The speaker, A Sivakumar, said he was acting in line with section 72 of the Standing Orders. However, he cannot simply suspend members of the state assembly without first having put the decision of the privileges committee to a vote before the whole assembly.

This was the case when Fong Po Kuan was suspended in 2001 by Tun Zahir (former speaker of the Dewan Rakyat) for accusing Zahir of being unfair to her. It was done based on recommendations by the parliamentary privileges committee and the decision was reversed as it did not face a vote before the house.

However, Fong was suspended after the house voted overwhelmingly to accept the recommendation of the privileges committee.

The decision of the speaker is arguably ultra vires and contrary to natural justice. Taking the matter to court is not the most palatable option because with the fairness of the judiciary is in doubt; most Perakians may not accept an intervention by the judiciary.

However, what is most upsetting is that Zambry has been advised to disregard the orders of the speaker. Assuming the speaker made an unjust decision; does that make his actions of defying that unjust decision just?

I do not agree but if we were to delve on that, then I will have to import into this letter the various jurisprudential debates on this matter. However, I will argue that defying an unjust decision does not make your actions just, simply because, if everyone were to disregard a decision they feel is unjust then the rule of law as we know may collapse.

I may decide tomorrow that parking compounds are unjust and decide not to settle my fines; what will that mean for the rule of law? The relative nature of human thinking and perceptions requires a universal standard no matter how impossible it may seem. The best option is to change or challenge the decision through legal means.

Furthermore, the BN has long used its dominance in Parliament to stifle debate and scuttle amendments, and today, the phrase ‘you reap so as you sow’ comes to mind. Furthermore, going back to the Fong’s precedent in 2001, Zambry is inviting a further suspension for openly criticising the speaker of the Perak state assembly.

In order to legitimise its power-grab in the eyes of the people, the best option is to proceed via legal means and seek a stay of the speaker’s order to allow or the day-to-day running of government to proceed until the courts decide on the validity of the speaker’s decision to suspend him and his six exco members’.

The major problem with constitutional law and legal precedents in Malaysia is that stare decisis (Latin term for ‘stand by what is decided’), which is a cornerstone of judicial precedent ,has been disregarded for political expediency.

As a result we have a hodgepodge of decisions with their own angles and completely contrary to one another even though the fact pattern may be the same because the politics of the day requires a somewhat different approach.

Take, for example, the Stephen Kalong Ningkan decision in 1966 and the Datuk Amir Kaha decision in 1995, the former deciding that the only way to ascertain the level of confidence enjoyed by the chief minister is via a vote in the state assembly and the latter saying it is only one of the methods.

So which decision do we follow? I can only propose that the federal court clear the repugnance between the two decisions.

BN is today paying a heavy price for disregarding constitutionalism and the rule of law. We have a system that is frayed and disparate with all political stakeholders refusing to follow an accepted procedure (if we can identity what is the accepted procedure).

What we need is: first, we need an inherent respect for the rule of law, second, we need to give the courts complete independence by making the Judicial Appointments Commission more representative; third we need a review of all conflicting decisions regarding constitutional law; and last, we need to divorce the unholy union between the legal process and politicking.

All of this may be overly idealistic, but as the constitutional conundrum only worsens with all parties disregarding the rule of law, as citizens we need to ensure that we do not pay the price for the sins of our elected leaders which is invariably the case.