I refer to the letter Zambry: Emergency sitting a threat to national security .

I have watched, read, and written, with interest and often times with disgust, about the happenings in Perak over the last few weeks. Hopefully, you and I will not need to for much longer.

I suppose I felt compelled to write this letter regarding the Perak situation because Zambry's calling the planned emergency sitting a 'threat to national security' is very telling of BN's perspective on national security and democracy. Here's the way that I look at it:

1. BN's 'taking over' the Perak government, while technically not against the law or constitution (as there are no clear provisions or prohibitions regarding the 'unique circumstances' which allowed their 'take over') was a step backwards for democracy.

The logic for this is simple: forming a government through defections (especially defections that consist of dubious and suspicious motives/circumstances) is against the very core foundation of democracy, which consists of a ruling government that best supports the people.

Assuming the defectors' will continue to receive the support from the people that chose them in the first place is illogical. Democracy isn't just 'majority wins'.

2. Two opposing forces existed in the drama of the Perak state assembly emergency sitting this morning - Pakatan Rakyat and BN. Each had their own objectives and motives for their stance and participation in this drama.

3. What is equally clear is that Pakatan aims to ultimately pave the way for fresh elections. They cannot possibly 'take back' the government the way that BN did - the people and the sultan would not agree (nor do the current circumstances allow it).

I don't see a way for them to form a government, other than through a dissolution of the assembly and fresh elections.

4. If BN is allowed to continue ruling Perak, then an undemocratic process, government and act is allowed to persist. If fresh elections are allowed, democracy is given another chance, because people can once again decide whom they want in their government.

With this, an undemocratic government, chosen or determined by a single man (say, a sultan),or by a conspiracy, or by money, or by defections, therefore comes to an end. No matter how you look at it, fresh elections would mean that the people win.

I state the above observations to contrast it with Zambry's sentiment that the emergency sitting was a 'threat to national security'. He is confused. Zambry is confusing the term 'national security' with 'personal political security'.

When he talks of 'national security', he is really actually referring to 'the security of BN's continued undemocratic ruling of Perak'. That has to be what he means. Why? Because that is what is at stake. Not the 'integrity of the national territory and its institutions' (which is what national security really means).

It further seems that BN's perspective on the matter is clear - 'My security is national security'. What Zambry is implying is that if BN is allowed to continue their undemocratic reign in Perak, national security can be maintained. How idiotic can one get?

Does he really think that the undemocratic way of seizing power in Perak contributed to or maintained national security? How can the people feel safe, knowing that democratic principles are not the driving force of our ruling party (even though they claim that they are), or that political conspiracy, money politics and corruption dictate the politics of the day?

How can engaging in an undemocratic act in a democratic system be a nationally 'secure' event?

To claim that the emergency sitting this morning was incompatible with national security is insane. More than that, it's inane. Democracy is about national security too.

When people are ruled by a government that accurately represents their desires, political stability is born. When a country is politically stable, internal threats to national security reduce. This is beyond just a political science fact. This is common sense.

I commented earlier on the sad state of our political leaders. This strongly applies to such leaders who believe with the 'my security is national security' notion. In my mind, these individuals are clearly not fit for the role of leadership.

Undemocratic and unstable political systems, and their leaders, sprout such nonsense. Quite a few political leaders in Malaysia who do this seem to come from BN. Coincidence? I think not.

Either way, my point is that democracy is not the enemy. For too long, BN have championed for causes that detract from democracy all while claiming to be a democratic government.

The 'Perak happenings' will be just one chapter in the big book of 'How BN messed-up democracy in Malaysia', which will be due out sometime in the future after we can finally start electing mindful, intelligent, honest and ethical individuals as our political leaders.

And no matter what happens in the next few days (that is, whether the emergency sitting is 'recognised'), this shall not change. If it is recognised, I see a chance for democracy in Perak really soon. I can only hope that this does indeed happen. Good luck to us all.