COMMENT | The Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s refusal to accede to the prime minister’s request to declare an emergency has triggered keen excitement in his role in the constitution.

Some argue that the king has no role and must abide by what the government of the day wants.

Others say that the king is empowered to overrule any decision proposed by the cabinet. It’s a matter of his personal discretion.

Yet others assert that while the king must (generally) act on the cabinet’s advice, nonetheless he has residual powers; and can act as he deems fit in the best interest of the country. A check and balance role.

How may these seemingly irreconcilable contentions be resolved?

Perhaps we must go back to fundamentals. The constitution is founded on the rule of law. Which envisages separation of powers. Encapsulated in three organs: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

These represent the governing architecture of the country. Our highest judiciary has entrenched this as an inviolate basic structure of the constitution. The grant and exercise of other powers are subsidiary to this governing structure. To help reinforce it. No more nor less.

The king rules and the government governs. After all, the government has the wherewithal – access to information and the machinery of state - which the king ...