One day, as I enter the lecture hall for my elective philosophy subject, I was in for a surprise and probably one of the best lectures I ever had - I learned something new! All out of a simple story. Thanks, Prof John Holbo!

Back in 1596, when mankind was still figuring out a lot of things, some of which have been figured out today, including the solar system and existence, a guy name Johannes Kepler, chanced upon a geometry solution to why the solar system has six planets (yes, they thought there were only six planets, probably influenced by the Creation in six days story) and not any other number.

(Imagine 3-D from now on) Starting with a sphere, we place Saturn on its periphery and squeeze a cube into the sphere and then another smaller sphere into the cube for Jupiter, repeat the procedure with a tetrahedron for Mars, then a dodecahedron for Earth, then an icosahedron for Venus, an octahedron for Mercury and finally - the Sun! And we're done constructing a thought- out solar system.

Of course, you might say ‘What nonsense'. That is thanks to observations done by other scientists. Kepler was a rationalist, but the scientists were empiricist - who discovered what our solar system is and are currently exploring the whole universe, all by observation. Or as our favourite Wikipedia puts it: ‘Empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience'.

But wait, what does this have to do with ‘Who is the rightful Perak MB?'

After reading the analysis of this case by learned former court of appeal judge, NH Chan, I could see to some degree that one party's legitimacy stems out of rationalism, while the other stems out of empiricism. Although, I must qualify that the party which ascribed to rationalism is not entirely dependent on rational thought. But what they did try was to rationalise what is found out of experience, or in this case, the state constitution.

I was once at a loss when the crisis began. I had mixed feelings for I supported elected representatives in jumping ship, but merely so that the opposition could take over. Never did it occur to me that this allowance is a two-way motion - even BN can take over Perak with the method I personally approve.

Therefore, I took personal initiative to follow up this case, including reading the actual written judgement by High Court judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim. This rather than stand by the side of rationalism and theorise my opinion, which is bound to be biased to the opposition in any case.

I once held the opinion that Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin was the rightful MB of Perak only because I supported the opposition, and because the general consensus was that he should be. With such convenience, why should I bother to find out ‘why?' After all, what are the chances of the majority forming a conspiracy? Close to zero?

But I was wrong. I was following the mentality of Polemarchus in ‘Republic I' by Plato which stands by ‘justice is helping friends and harming enemies'. Which could just act blindly, even if the friends were unjust.

Now I know what Nizar actually pursued in the High Court, and why he is still the rightful MB of Perak as per the verdict given by the High Court. The Court of Appeal, from the read out judgement, has probably ‘agreed' with the High Court's ruling, but is not well understood by the general public except that it is understood that the Court of Appeal ‘overturned' the High Court's decision.

The Court of Appeal held the view that:

Dissolution of the state assembly was the royal prerogative;

Dissolution was made under Article 16 and not Article 36 of the state constitution.

The latter point is the only point that was disagreed upon, and is the crucial point to determine the verdict of the case.

From the written judgement of the High Court, I come to an understanding that Nizar was seeking for an interpretation of Aritcle 16 (6), which requires him to resign when he has lost the confidence of the majority in the state assembly, and he is not granted a dissolution of the state assembly.

Of which the case was that he actually requested for a dissolution under Article 36, and had written to the Sultan of Perak. But the media quoted Article 16 instead.

Nonetheless, if a doubt arises and that Article 16 was intended, there was no evidence of a no-confidence in the state assembly, except the opinion of the sultan, which in Article 16(2) allows him to exercise his discretionary powers to determine who is ‘likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly'.

By rational, if BN falls in that category, certainly Pakatan can't command the majority too, right? I believe, this is the case for BN (but, of course, one has forgotten that a deadlock could exist).

On the other hand, Article 16(6) provides that the MB must ‘cease to command the confidence of the majority...' and must resign unless granted a dissolution by the sultan. By rational thought, this is established. But empirically, the constitution is taken as a whole and the learned High Court judge quotes from NS Bindra's ‘Interpretation of Statutes' 9th Edition, to establish the necessity to take the constitution as a whole.

He states that (I quote from the written judgement, pg 58):

- ‘Article 16(5) Perak state constitution states that the executive council shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly (LA).'

‘Article 16(2)(a) the MB is appointed to preside over the Executive Council.'

'Article 16(6) speaks of ‘If the MB ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the LA...'

Therefore, ‘it is the LA that determines whether it has confidence in the MB as the head of the Executive Council...through a vote of no confidence against the MB.'

Both cases were different in that BN thinks that the MB holds office at His Royal Highness' pleasure, and therefore can be dismissed when determined that the MB has ceased to command the confidence of the majority (well, since the sultan can appoint a MB, why can't he dismiss one?) And therefore, since the sultan had not acceded to the MB's request, he should therefore resign or be dismissed.

But that is contrary to what Article 16(7) says - ‘a member of the Executive Council other than the MB shall hold office at His Royal Highness' pleasure...' and therefore:

The sultan's prerogative cannot determine whether the MB has lost confidence of the LA.

The sultan cannot dismiss the MB.

Therefore, I challenge all Malaysians out there, who might have been like me, who theorised and rationalised without any hard facts to now ‘Turn over that rock and see what crawls out.' - Aristotle. In other words, read the constitution and read the written judgements before taking a position.

I am just reiterating what NH Chan (thank you!) wrote in his analysis, in which he expressed his puzzlement as how does the decision of the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's verdict.

I too, after reading his analysis am now like a victim of a stingray, who is paralysed and numbed to the findings of the Court of Appeal. But perhaps, once the written judgement is released, I might be alleviated of my paralysis and numbness.