I refer to the letter No more backbencher's role for Rulers which had me rather worried.

The writer might not have realised the constitutional implications of his words such as: 'The rulers ... are now really living to the true manifestation of being the rulers ...' and 'Although they have played the backbencher's role in the past, they are now coming forward and we should hand them our support for them to play a more pertinent role in moulding the future of the nation ...'

While I understand the writer's euphoria over the action of the Conference of Malay Rulers' in rejecting the PM's candidate for a senior judicial position, I note that the writer's infatuation with the royal dissent comes on top of several other high praises for the Perak Regent and Sultan of Selangor, when the two, especially the former, raised their voices on issues close to the dissatisfied public's heart.

It would seem that the rulers are making a comeback after years of public scorn at their irrelevance, perhaps caused mainly by one particular individual, who had believed he could still rule as per medieval times, as an absolute monarch.

I most certainly appreciate the Perak Regent's reminder of our constitutional pillars, though in reality he didn't say anything more that what the opposition hadn't pointed out before. But yes, his official stature gave his words more force (and attracted more attention) than a Lim Kit Siang or a Nik Aziz could manage.

But we need to remember Malaysia is a democracy built around a constitutional monarchy, meaning that the voice of the people, and not those of the rulers, prevails.

Sure, our royalty as in the model of the Perak Regent, the Council of Malay Rulers questioning the PM on his choice of a candidate for the bench, and the pronouncement of the Sultan of Selangor to keep politics out of our Merdeka celebrations have been most welcome.

But we must never talk as if or even suggest that they are 'backbenchers' moving forward (presumably) to the 'front bench'. That's dangerous talk, to suggest the rulers may play a direct political role (or even as political advisors) while still retaining their royal prerogatives.

It's certainly a sign of our frustration with the current government that some of us believe the royalty could and would be our saviour. We, the politically frustrated public, are in reality grasping at straws in much the same way as many of us had embraced a former Umno reject as a political saviour even when there was no evidence of his reformist qualities during his various ministerial roles.

No matter how good any individual royalty is, no matter how bad any politician is, let us not unwittingly change our system of constitutional monarchy to one of absolute monarchy, or to one where royalty has a greater degree of direct political participation. That will be a regrettable step backwards.

Just remember, for every current praiseworthy royal individual, we have experienced a difficult one before. Therefore we should be concerned for a Malaysia governed by a consistent system rather than one by individuals.

Let us vote for good politicians and rid ourselves of bad ones, but we must never invite royalty to assume a political role, unless they wish to participate as an ordinary member of the public under the electoral process. Let us not throw the (constitutional monarchy) baby out with the (corrupt or wayward politicians) bath water.