The legal arguments so eloquently put forth by Joseph on the unconstitutionality of the recent appointment of the new Chief Justice may be impressive to the layman not conversant with Constitutional Law ([#1]CJ's appointment unconstitutional[/#], Dec 6). It may even be the correct perspective technically speaking.

But what he failed to mention was that Constitutional Law has always included in its embodiment an element of non-technical discretion which will continue to be the source and cause for debate ad infinitum .

It is in fact placed there in a written Constitution for that purpose; to provide room within which the formal power of an apparent supreme arm of government can be officially dissented for public attention, with the hope that public opinion can help shape the eventual outcome. Such is the essence of the "legislative intent" of a written Constitution of a true democracy to offset the lack of the flexibility enjoyed by unwritten constitutions.

It is true that unlike the constitution of some other democracies, our parliament is supreme, and by technical extension the prime minister is the supreme power in our country.

However, via this little proviso for "consultation" the Conference of Rulers have spoken. The people of this country heard them loud and clear. It is also clear that this pre-emptive "scheme" could not have seen the light of day without the collusion of some of those within the corridors of power, and for good reason; to stop the rot.

In the final analysis, is the prime minister really supreme? No, parliament ultimately is. Do not forget that Dr Mahathir Mohamad is prime minister because he is assumed to be enjoying the confidence of a majority of the members of parliament since he heads the Barisan Nasional coalition. It has never really been tested.