I refer to the Malaysiakini report Sultan has no power to ask Nizar to quit by NH Chan.

Chan had set out the relevant facts and events but I find his conclusions inconsistent with the facts.

His conclusion that it was a fatal error that the ruler met Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak in the absence of Perak Menteri Besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin is based on the concept of fairness in dispensing justice whilst in the present case, it is the sultan exercising his discretion as provided by the Perak constitution

Not HRH Sultan Azlan Shah acting as a judge in a trial. This is not an issue of fairness or justice and therefore all the discussions and quotes from famous learned judges on the subject of perceived justice are irrelevant and not applicable in the present case.

He is disrespectful in taking a swipe at the sultan by summarily finding him guilty of being a `bad judge', ‘acted unconstitutionally’ and ‘defied the provision of Article XVI of Perak Constitution’.

Where are all the elements of fairness and justice that he tried to champion in his article when he found the sultan guilty without the sultan being accorded all the rights of an accused?

Chan is a respected, retired member of the Malaysian judiciary and had served under the sultan therefore he knows or ought to know that his words and views will be referred to and quoted in the present state of things.

He must know that in writing this article as an ordinary citizen, he does not enjoy the immunity that judges do in dispensing justice from the bench. It will be interesting to know whether his legal arguments are sub judice .

I disagree with Chan’s contention that the sultan exercised a ‘pretended power’ by ordering Nizar to resign and declaring the posts of menteri besar and executive councilors vacant. By invoking the provisions of Article XVI of the Perak constitution Nizar gave up total control of the ball.

Upon the sultan’s refusal to dissolve the state assembly, Article XVI of the Perak constitution clearly provides that Nizar ‘shall tender the resignation of the executive council’ (which includes the menteri besar).

Therefore immediately, the executive council had lost the legitimacy to exercise any executive authority under the Perak constitution.

The government machinery and the people of Perak had the right and should have been notified immediately that the executive council with Nizar as menteri besar had ceased to have any executive authority. The sultan was, therefore, correct in discharging his duties by making the orders and declarations.

We Malaysians should be proud that we have a sultan with the stature of HRH Sultan Azlan Shah and he should be admired and praised for his integrity and the courage shown knowing his decision will not be popular to all. ‘Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.’ - Shakespeare, Henry IV.