Whilst everyone is parroting the legal question as to whether a ruler can expel the Excos or not and/or what the wordings "serve under the pleasure" mean, it got me thinking, why did the AG say the sacking was legit?
When I re-read the official statement issued by Seri Menanti, it was explicitly anchored on the principle of the absolute sanctity of the Oath of Allegiance. When you look at the wordings properly, it is obvious that they know exactly what they are doing, unlike the rebels' side who are blindly relying on a strict, literal reading of the text.
To become an Exco, one absolutely needs to swear a sacred oath of allegiance and loyalty to the Ruler, do they not? The foundational question before us is then: when that oath of allegiance is fundamentally broken via an active cabinet mutiny, does the Ruler still need the advice of the MB to revoke his pleasure? I mean, when the Excos joined the coup, does a ruler need to wait for the "advice" from the MB to do anything?
I like to believe the sacking didn't come from whims or fancies but was anchored on a profound structural forfeiture which the letter officially stated.
Maybe it's just me.
Wallahualam.