From their comments, I feel that quite a few of my readers seem believe that a constitutional monarch is just a ceremonial or symbolic role, and thus fail to understand why such things as the royal crisis in Negeri Sembilan is such a big problem, so let me explain to you why.
You see, to understand why the King is so important, you have to ask yourself why is it that you listen to the judgement of an official like a judge or a magistrate?
We don't listen to the judgment of a Judge or a magistrate chiefly because their judgement is good and wise - we know this is not the case, because if the Judge or the magistrate was not the judge or the magistrate, but they were just an ordinary person like our neighbor or uncle, even if they pass the exact same judgment, we might not listen to it.
The main reason why we listen to the judgement of an official like a judge or a magistrate is because we have to, and the reason we have to obey them is because a judge or a magistrate's position is above us in the organizational hierarchy.
For an organisation to function, it has to have a hierarchy, which is structured in such a way that everyone at the bottom will have to listen to those who are above them, regardless of whether they like it or not.
This structure is important because it is this structure that holds the organisation together - if everybody in an organisation starts thinking that they are equal to everybody else and thus don't have to listen to anyone but themselves, the organisation will collapse, because there will be no way to settle any problem that will arise within the organisation, without breaking apart the organisation.
It is to prevent the organisation from collapsing that the organisation must have a structure and a hierarchy, which is capable of compelling those below to follow the command of those above, regardless of whether they personally agree with it or not.
In our organizational hierarchy, the king is the one that sits at the very top.
What this means is that in our organizational structure, the buck stops with the king.
If a state or a country ever has a a problem that those who normally attend to it can't resolve, the problem will be escalated to those above them to be resolved, and so on and so forth will the escalation will go, until it finally reaches the King's attention.
We tend to rarely see the king in action, because there is rarely a problem that we face which can't be taken cared of by anyone else other than a king.
But if a problem does reach the King's attention, but the King also can't resolve the problem, then the country or the state might collapse, because if the problem that we are facing is a problem that even the king cannot resolve, then that problem is likely such a big problem, that it is capable of collapsing a state or the nation.
Other than serve as the place where the buck stops, the king also serves to orientate the hierarchy of the organisation. What this means is that in our country or a state, we determine who is higher up in the hierarchy, by using their proximity to the king as the reference.
For example, the reason why a judge is placed higher than a regular citizen in our country's hierarchy, has mostly to do with their proximity to the king rather than because of any innate qualities of their own - like great knowledge or wisdom.
Without using the king's position at the top of our nation as the reference, there will be no reason for us to see a judge as being above us in the hierarchy of our nation, and thus there will be no reason for any one us us to obey the judgement of the judge.
This level of authority that one possesses due to ones proximity in position to the King's is not limited to a judge - it extends to everyone in the country, from the PM to a minister to even a beat cop. Without the king serving as the reference point, there will be no reason for us to see a PM or a minister or beat cop as being above us in the hierarchy of our country, and therefore there be need for us to be obedient to their commands or listen to their instruction.
If none of us feel compelled to listen to the cops or the MPs or the PM, our entire country - which is the organisation that we all belong to as citizens - will collapse.
This is why the position of the king is so important.
Before our nation was created, we had 9 kings who ruled 9 states separately, because when you have more than one king, you cannot have one nation.
Our nation was only formed when the 9 kings agreed to come with a new structure where the new position of the Agong was created.
It is only after the position of the Agong, who is positioned above the Kings of the state, was created, that the 9 states could coalesce into one nation.
If you look at the problem in Negeri Sembilan today, you can perhaps summarize the problem as being the problem of having no king or two kings.
This royal crisis in Negeri Sembilan arose because those who are empowered to elect the King of Negeri Sembilan, the Chieftains or Undangs of Negeri Sembilan, have rejected their previous choice for the King and made a new selection.
This rejection however, is being opposed by the existing King, who is refusing to be dismissed from office.
The quandary posed by this dispute is that if the chieftains, or Undangs, of Negeri Sembilan, are in the right into deposing the existing King, then the hitherto reigning King of Negeri Sembilan is no longer the rightful king of Negeri Sembilan.
However, if the King they deposed is the one in the right to resist their deposition, then the new king that the Undangs have elected to replace him cannot be installed as the new king.
So Negeri Sembilan now has a problem where instead of having one King, it might have two kings or no king..
If it has no king, then theoretically, Negeri Sembilan cannot exist as a state, because the entire structure and hierarchy that holds together the state of Negeri Sembilan - is going to break down.
If it has two kings however, then theoretically, Negeri Sembilan cannot exist as one state, but must be split into two states instead.
If Negeri Sembilan cannot exist as a state or is split into two states, then the quandary will also extend to the Agong of the nation, which the Negeri Sembilan king, together with his 8 brother kings, had created during the formation of the nation.
The Agong's position, is supported till today by the 9 kings who formed it. These 9 kings sit in the Majlis Raja Raja, which is the body that elects a new Agong every 5 years. If one of the founding members of the Majlis Raja Raja, such as the King of Negeri Sembilan, is not a part of the council, can the Majlis Raja Raja still function?
On the other hand, if Negeri Sembilan splits into having two kings, will the Majlis Raja Raja accept two kings from the state of Negeri Sembilan to sit in the council?
For so long as the problem is contained in Negeri Sembilan, it will only be the Negeri Sembilan institutions, assemblies and officials that will find themselves in a predicament of having no place in the state hierarchy or losing their authority.
If the problem spreads further and pressures the fault lines in other royalties or the institution of Agong, then it will be a bigger national problem, where the institutions, assemblies and officials of the nation itself, might find themselves bereft of organizational position and authority.
Of course you might think that all of this might not come to pass, and one is getting ahead of oneself for imagining the possibility, and you might indeed be right.
I also believe that the crisis in Negeri Sembilan will be resolved before it gets to such an extent.
But as a food for thought, these are some of the convoluted existential problem that the royal crisis in Negeri Sembilan has the potential of causing, and the gravity of the problem that have a potential of causing, is ipso facto, the reason why the role of kings on our country is far more important than most of us likely believe.
NOTE: Now, I am aware that there are some broad generalizations in this article - for example, I am aware that the formation of Malaysia involves more than 9 states - but the purpose of this article is to serve as a food for your thought, not win a court case. If I were to explain everything in detail, this article will be so long and tortuous nobody is going to read it . As it is it is already long enough. That being the case, I have to trust that the readers are intelligent people, who are capable of taking a ln outline of an idea, and use their own reasoning and experience, to fill in the missing pieces, and understand the meaning of the article, without requiring every i to be dotted and t crossed.
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.