British History is repeating itself in the Silver State of Perak. Below is a paragraph I read about the reign of James the First who ruled way back in the early 1600s. It’s amazing how many parallels one could draw between dear ol’ King Jimmy and our menteri besar Zambry Abdul Kadir.

James I - England 1603-1625

‘James' twenty-nine years of Scottish kingship did little to prepare him for the English monarchy: England and Scotland, rivals for superiority on the island since the first emigration of the Anglo-Saxon races, virtually hated each other. This inherent mistrust, combined with Catholic -Protestant and Episcopal-Puritan tensions, severely limited James' prospects of a truly successful reign.

‘His personality also caused problems: he was witty and well-read, fiercely believed in the divine right of kingship and his own importance, but found great difficulty in gaining acceptance from an English society that found his rough-hewn manners and natural paranoia quite unbecoming. James saw little use for Parliament.

‘His extravagant spending habits and nonchalant ignoring of the nobility's grievances kept king and Parliament constantly at odds. He came to the throne at the zenith of monarchical power, but never truly grasped the depth and scope of that power.

‘James was not wholly unsuccessful as king, but his Scottish background failed to translate well into a changing English society. He is described, albeit humorously, in 1066 and All That , as such:

‘James I slobbered at the mouth and had favourites; he was thus a bad king’; Sir Anthony Weldon made a more sombre observation: ‘He was very crafty and cunning in petty things, as the circumventing of any great man, the change of a favourite inasmuch as a very wise man was wont to say, he believed him the very wisest fool in Christendom.’

Zambry Abdul Kadir - Perak, Malaysia, 2009

Zambry's ‘not so durable’ in BN’s leadership did little to prepare him for the Perak premiership: the people of Perak and Barisan Nasional supporters, rivals for superiority in the state since the March 8 political tsunami, virtually hated each other.

This inherent mistrust, combined with the peoples’ desperation for a people-centric, transparent leadership that the previous BN governments had starved them of, severely limited Zambry's prospects of a truly successful reign.

His personality also caused problems: he was witty and well-read, fiercely believed in the divine right of chief minister-ship and his own importance, but found great difficulty in gaining acceptance from an Perakian society that found his rough-hewn manners and natural paranoia quite unbecoming.

Zambry saw little use for Parliament. His extravagant spending habits (Yuk Choy orchestra’s allocation) and nonchalant ignoring of the people’s grievances (the people’s rallies and opinion polls demanding a re-election) kept the menteri besar and state legislature constantly at odds.

He came to power through the unconstitutional assistance of the monarchical power, but never truly grasped the depth and scope of that power.

Zambry was not wholly unsuccessful as menteri besar (I mean, you know, he got sworn in… that’s an achievement, albeit illegally and unconstitutionally), but his Umno background failed to translate well into a changing Perakian society.

It would seem that the likely post-reign summary of James I and Zambry is going to be pretty similar and no less. Till this day, James I is widely considered as the worst monarch of Britain ever.

Oh, I forgot to add…James I died of a very serious attack of dysentery.