I refer to the Malaysikini report Perak turmoil due to 'rash' decisions by BN .

Now, the ex-prime minister talks some sense. I just wonder whether he would be pulled up for saying this aloud at the fonference! Is it ‘treason’ to talk about what is sensible and lawful and constitutional? It seems that Umno has a twisted definition for the word ‘treason’ .Why do I say this?

Look at Terengganu. Just after the general election on March 8, 2008, the prime minister picked the incumbent who was holding the post of menteri besar as MB but the sultan rejected the name and instead named his own choice.

What happened then? Who, at that time, said that the sultan's action was ‘unconstitutional’? Go back and check!

You would be shocked to know that certain Umno leaders who knew better said it was ‘unconstitutional’ for the sultan to pick another man as MB. Was it ‘treason’ then?

What was worse was that some Umno members displayed banners and used some ‘unconstitutional ‘ words against the sultan. Why didn't the efficient and professional police and ACA (now MACC) arrest them and bring them to court?

Now, back to Perak. What Dr Mahathir Mohamad said is correct. If BN assumed that it had the majority support, it should ‘wait’ for the state assembly to be held and pass a vote of no-confidence on Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin (the Pakatan Rakyat MB).

Once BN manages to win the vote, then it should put up its own candidate for the post of MB and let the state assemblypersons decide whether he has the support of the majority. If the BN candidate wins the support of the majority, then he could take over the position of MB.

This is the correct procedure in a democracy (unless you want to take the ‘other’ path). So, by calling for this correct procedure, was it a ‘treason’?

Now, owing to the blunder committed by BN in Perak, a lot of lawsuits are now in court, which are quite unnecessary. Moreover, the political circus in Perak has made us clowns and a laughing stock of not only within Malaysia but also outside.

The appeals court had now ruled that the speaker could get his own team of lawyers though this notion was rejected by a judicial commissioner who ruled that he could only be represented by the state legal adviser.

Another observation was that the hearing before the judicial commissioner was in chambers, not in an open court! Why not let the public know about the proceedings? Funny, wasn't it? I am sure Dr Mahathir had seen the comedy.

Hopefully, in the coming weeks, common sense would prevail and the Perak and federal constitutions would be followed strictly.

Yes, we have heard umpteenth times that ‘no one is above the law’ so let us practice it and not say it when it is convenient to us and put it aside when it is not in our favour.

The law is the law; it applies to all, the prince and the pauper; the rich and the poor; the strong and the weak; man and the woman. Let us not twist and turn and do somersaults; and turn turtle. The law is no respecter of persons.

So be it. Amen.