In my previous letter, Perak happenings may be legal, but are they right? , I commented on how BN's 'coup' in Perak detracted from the principles of democracy that our country claims to rely on.

I also briefly shared my opinion that the Perak ruler's actions (not choosing dissolution, but rather appointing another MB) were not democratically supportive, as the party-hoppers would likely no longer enjoy the support of the people due to the manner in which their 'defections' occurred.

Recent demonstrations, articles, comments, letters and other published opinions seem to share similar sentiments.

The reaction to these sentiments has been interesting. One theme of these 'reactions' has to do with an assumed notion that it is wrong to question the sultan or his actions. Another has to do with the sultan and our rulers having great wisdom and of being very knowledgeable (therefore, presumably not capable of making errors).

Now, even the Sultan of Selangor has joined the mix, specifically emphasising certain 'themes' or reasons pertaining to the wrongness of disagreeing with the Perak ruler's actions through a special press statement. As I am one of these dissenters, the contents of the Selangor ruler's words jump out at me personally:

'Don't be rude', 'the Sultan of Perak is a former Lord President' (presumably making him very knowledgeable), the royal family have 'distinguished education credentials' (again, presumably making him knowledgeable), and that dissenters are being ignorant of the law and dissenters are arrogantly ignoring the rights and powers of the Perak ruler.

I disagree with and find faults in all these lines of reasoning. For one, I have never believed, not even for a second, that knowing a lot makes one immune to making mistakes. Being knowledgeable and experienced certainly helps. But, just because one is knowledgeable and experienced doesn't take the possibility of mistakes away.

I daresay that a wiser person will acknowledge this, along with the fact that the principles of democracy have clearly been violated in Perak. Democracy is built on the notion that everyone's voice is to be supported as best as can be. The formation of a new government through dissenters who have switched allegiance is anything but democratically sound.

It is democratically dubious, for the reasons highlighted in my previous letter (among others). Me calling this, along with the Perak ruler's consent to forming a new government, a step backwards for democracy is more than opinion. It is a political science fact.

Dissenters such as myself have further been accused of being ignorant of the law and of being arrogant. To the first, I reiterate the point of my previous letter. What transpired in Perak may not technically be against the law or the constitution. But they are ethically dubious and democratically un-sound.

On being 'arrogant', I direct anyone to a dictionary who can read a definition of the term - ‘An attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions’ and ‘exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner’. Sometimes it's used as a synonym for 'pride'. Well, I'll let the readers decide on that.

Look at my, and other dissenters', accusations of the Perak ruler. Then look at the accusations of those who support the actions of the Perak ruler (including those of the Selangor ruler above). Who seems more arrogant?

Either way, it's a moot point. Being arrogant doesn't neccessarily mean that I am wrong. But hurling an accusation of being 'arrogant' towards someone (me) who disagrees with another (the Perak ruler) is neither solution-focused nor helpful in the long run. It is besides the point.

The point of the people's disagreement with the Perak ruler stems from his actions, which are seen as democratically un-sound. Arrogance, eduction, knowledge and experience are 'red herrings' here - they detract from what the real issue is.

The real issue is democracy. That is all. His actions are either supportive of democracy or of non-democracy. I hate black-and-white thinking, but sometimes that's all there is to it. So which was it?

Am I being rude? I don't think so. When did being a sultan or a ruler mean that one cannot make mistakes?

When did it mean that I cannot evaluate a ruler's actions as mistakes? When did it become wrong for me to question a ruler's wisdom?

Silly questions, I know. Our rulers have traditionally always been looked up to. Their role in the constitution is clear - their role is to safeguard the constitution. It's not often that people criticise a ruler's actions, much less get support.

So, dissenters like myself find ourselves in what may seem like a pickle. Keeping quiet means we may be allowing an injustice or a wrong to go on. Speaking up may mean that I am vilifed, attacked, destroyed. But it is no pickle. Highlighting wrongs and speaking the truth is always the right choices. I am thoroughly convinced of that.

And it is always wrong (or a lesser right) to keep quiet on mistakes because of fear. Kudos to Karpal Singh for being aware of this and having the guts to stand up where others wouldn't dare (and for the right reasons).

Though admittedly, there is a time and a place for everything - freedom of speech doesn't mean that one can simply say what they want whenever they want. Yet, delayed action can be like delayed justice - it is an injustice in itself. The time for action is now. As is the time for truth.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not espousing a society that spouts mean things to each other just for the sake of freedom of speech. The right to disagree and to voice that disagreement is fundamental to, and must be consistent with, the principles of democracy.

For one, that right to disagree goes both ways - I do not fault the Selangor ruler for voicing his disagreement. I find fault with his arguments, not his right to argue. The same applies to my criticism of the Perak ruler - I criticise his action, not his right to act. There is a clear difference between the two. We would all be better served if we were aware of it.

And that's the bottom line of the whole thing, isn't it? While dissenters criticise the actions of the Perak ruler, those dissenters are criticised for their right to criticise. It is a weak argument. If this were a debate, those sticking to that argument will always lose.

Why not try arguing that the Perak ruler's actions were democratically sound or democratically supportive? Because that is an argument that cannot be won. That's the bottom line.