Perak Sultan Should not have been Partisan

Perak Sultan Raja Azlan Shah was correct when he said that rulers were above politics and therefore could not answer or debate allegations against them.

But then why did the Perak Ruler without hesitation installed Zambry and his B.N cohorts to replace the Pakatan Rakyat govt. knowing fully well that two former PKR assembly men were charged for corruption and could have acted under duress.?The dubious takeover by B.N was therefore hanging on a slim majority and could have adversely affected the balance of power should the two assemblymen were convicted of the corruption charge. Under such a climate of political uncertainty would it not be logical for the ruler to entertain the incumbent M.B's request for dissolution of the State assembly?

Then why did the ruler showed favouritism by declining the former M.B's request and instead proceeded to install B.N's Zambry as the legitimate Govt of Perak.?

Rulers need not be vocal to display their partisanship in politics. Their mere actions which is contrary to public expectations is enough to render their oft quoted statement that they are above politics meaningless.

The ruler's statement that individuals and groups were "disregarding the law for the sake of attaining power " should be directed at the B.N govt and not at the Pakatan Rakyat Govt.The Bukit Gantang Parliamentary bye-election should have been an eye opener to the ruler that the people wanted the disolution of the State assembly and to elect a govt of their choice. But instead the ruler chose to turn a blind eye and further add legitimacy to Zambry's Govt by bestowing Royal awards to him and his three other exco members when they have not even earned or deserve the awards.

Rulers who by their action are partisan are bound to attract ridicule and a wise ruler should know by now that history has shown that it is not the govt that will help to preserve the royal institution but rather the will and mandate of the ordinary people.