In the first instance, we are trying to create a causal relationship between Barisan Nasional, leading to the BN representative being sworn-in as the menteri besar of Perak by the ruler of the state, without sacking or getting the resignation of the former menteri besar representing the coalition of Pakatan Rakyat.

Since both the BN and the PR are mere variables, we are not able to create validity. Howsoever, the action of the independent variable of the ruler of the state has changed the results of the other two variables (BN and PR). Now there appears to be a relationship.

However it cannot be construed to be causal, which means one variable is the cause of the other but a spurious relationship, which means the relationship of BN and PR as variables is the result of the independent variable namely the ruler of the state. The objectivity within the parameter must needs to be mentioned too.

If there is validity by the decision made by the ruler, within the parameter of the constitution of Perak, the objectivity must indeed be the government of Perak.

Thus the position of menteri besar in this situation becomes an intervening variable. But the problem is that we do have two menteri besar now and more so he is able to call for the state executive council meeting as much as the BN sworn-in menteri besar.

PR can make claim to the Orang Maha Besar’s as a reprieve for the dubious nature of the position of menteri besar, without even getting to meet the Sultan of Perak, as they have the pertinent right of the rakyat.

And the rakyat, are not only Malays, but everyone, even someone without citizenship of Malaysia but is accepted to be a resident of the state of Perak.

PR may meet the Orang Maha Besar as representatives of normative organisations. Alexis De Tocqueville in 1835 considered them to be voluntary organisations, whose members seek a worthwhile goal without expectation for material reward. Political parties, trade unions and human rights organisations included.

The ruler of the state has followed the democratic process of asking the three now ‘independent’ candidates of their allegiance based on his legitimate authority, power that is recognised as right and again with positional power, that stems from his position as the Sultan of Perak.

He has thus made an objective decision, based on his status role. However, his decision to swear in the BN representative as menteri besar is tardy in sociology as there is an ambiguous role for the PR menteri besar.

Since the position of the ruler is feudal in nature, he cannot announce before the rakyat a new menteri besar without sacking the present menteri besar for wrongdoing or for bad health. The present menteri besar cannot leave office without getting the sack or otherwise tendering in his resignation, both of which have not taken place.

PR has made two requests as expressive leaders, those concerned with the well-being of the group itself.

Anwar Ibrahim, as opposition leader of Parliament and as transformational leader (instilling in members of their group a sense of mission or higher purpose and thereby changing the nature of the group) of Pakatan Rakyat has sought an audience with the Sultan of Perak before the decision to swear in the menteri besar from BN; this was not granted; and

The speaker of the state legislative assembly of Perak, V Sivakumar has requested permission to call for a sitting of the assembly via a faxed letter and this too has been denied.

Hence, the status role of the Sultan of Perak needs to be reviewed with the Orang Maha Besar as instrumental leaders, who are concerned with accomplishing the tasks at hand. The Orang Maha Besar have had wide powers even before the administration of Sir Hugh Low.

They have the powers now and they must provide the leaders of the rakyat the opportunity to explain their grouses with the nature of the two menteri besar following the decision of the Sultan of Perak.

We are now looking at the validity of the variable of BN, from without having any power whatsoever now contenss that it has the positional power to rule the state as the representative of the ruler of the state.

It needs to be considered very seriously that the swearing-in of Zambry Abdul Kadir has set a negative variable into the objectivity, as he has not been made representative of the people of Perak but as representative of the ruler based on the support of three independent candidates. Yet do remember that the menteri besar of Perak as representative of its people is still Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin.

There is a very serious role conflict here. Role conflict exists when two or more roles contain conflicting behavioural expectations. There is also a role strain on the part of the ruler of the state. Role strain occurs when a single role contains conflicting behavioural expectations.

The ascribed status, those that are believed to be given for life at the moment of birth, of the Sultan of Perak if it be referred to the Orang Maha Besar may be become juxtaposed even if they agree to give an audience to Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

On the question of role strain, the ruler should have sacked the current menteri besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin and Speaker V Sivakumar before appointing Zambry Abd Kadir.

From the sociological perspective, the hypothesis lacks validity and objectivity and from the viewpoint of arguments, it protracts questions of slant and excuses to make a case for an ‘accepted’ theory. The hypothesis has to be reviewed.