CRICKET WITHOUT WICKETS?

YES. You can't have a cricket match if there are no wickets, just like you cannot start a football match if the four corner flags are not in place, although the match can start without nets for the goal-post (unless the rules have changed). I should know because I was a short-term qualified referee in my teaching days in Singapore. I was suspended because I used my linesman flag and struck a spectator for questioning my decision. Of course I was wrong, thus the suspension and I chose coaching instead!

But in the case of the Perak fracas, rules, law, policies, constitutional rights, choice of color of clothes, right to drink at an outlet, forced entry and exit at the assembly - all these were trampled underfoot.

Several questions roam and floated about in cyberspace - some hypothetical, some mundane. Questions like

WHY (of all person, the former Lord President) the Sultan allowed this to happen and now allow things to cascade into mayhem?

Was he matephorically SQUEEZED and why did he allow Najib to push him to a corner?

Any umpire would clearly rule him out with a duck because it was an LBW (leg before wicket). But of course there were no wickets. Both were removed when the three FROGS croaked their allegiance to BN.

So what was it really, I mean those two questions swirling around?

Malaysiakini reader Kenny Gan has some thoughts worth mulling over, over the weekend. Is he answering the first question?

The importance of the Nizar vs Zambry court case goes far beyond Perak and Umno's bid to hold on to its power grab in the state.

The matter of contention here is whether Nizar was rightfully deprived of his post by the sultan and Zambry legally* appointed.
* (regally?)

No doubt this case will be appealed up to the Federal Court. If the final judgment favours Zambry then Malaysia has crossed a legal and constitutional rubicon which throws into doubt the concept of constitutional monarchy in the country.

It means that the Agong and the sultans are given the power to dismiss the prime minister or chief ministers without going through parliament or assembly proceedings but by merely professing their opinion that the incumbent has lost the confidence of the majority.

As this alleged loss of confidence is not put to the test in the House, there is no way to dispute the opinion of His Majesty.

Hence by implication, the PM and chief ministers hold their office at the pleasure of the royalty or state governors.

Will we then cross the line between constitutional monarchy and absolute monarchy? This court case must be allowed to proceed without interference from the executive.

Trying to influence a favourable decision got Zambry for the sake of holding on to power in Perak is shortsighted as such power accorded to the royalty may be used against Umno in the future.

+++++

Something so interesting from Oscar the Grouch (Dandelions)
HERE