Don’t interfere in Negeri Sembilan affairs, PM and AG told

The crisis in the constitution of Negeri Sembilan may not arise if Umno respects the sovereignty of law and constitution, says a report. Removing the king, Negeri Sembilan Yang Dipertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, appears to be the result of Umno's political favoritism following his victory in the state elections. Winning an election does not grant a political party the right to manipulate constitutional institutions for party interests.

The customary law governing the appointment of the Yang Dipertuan Besar seems to have been manipulated to serve the political interests of Umno's leadership. Whether Umno's national leadership has given the green light to remove the rightful and constitutional Yang Dipertuan Besar remains unclear. However, it is reasonable to question whether a successful attempt to remove him would be met with resistance from Umno's national leadership.

It is likely they would invoke the outcome of this action. The steps to remove the Yang Dipertuan Besar at this time seem unsound and, as later confirmed by the State Attorney General's Office (AGC), contravene the constitutional requirements that govern this matter. Therefore, Umno finds itself trapped in the legal and constitutional turmoil it created itself.

The AGC's finding that the attempt to remove the Yang Dipertuan Besar is unlawful and unconstitutional provides the rightful Yang Dipertuan Besar with a constitutional basis to respond. The king later declared that the constitutional basis for appointing members of the State Assembly had been violated and annulled their appointments.

The minister did not resign, but the political faction under his administration has been restricted. This is an exceptional constitutional situation. The minister remains in office, but the members of the State Assembly, who usually assist him in governing the state, have been removed. The result is a political and administrative weak government.

Umno should not try to manipulate the traditional government appointment system in Negeri Sembilan to gain political advantage. The unique customary system governing the selection of the Yang Dipertuan Besar should not be a tool for political maneuvering. By attempting to replace the current Yang Dipertuan Besar with a government deemed more politically palatable or accommodating, Umno has created a much larger problem than it can handle.

Ironically, the attempt to weaken the Yang Dipertuan Besar may have strengthened his constitutional position. Now standing as a constitutional authority opposing what appears to be an attempt to remove him through a controversial method based on constitutional grounds, the king appears to be firmly in control of the constitutional machinery.

It is suggested that the current government has long been unhappy with Umno's conduct of politics in the state. From a trusted source, it is also known that the current Yang Dipertuan Besar is deeply resentful of corruption and firmly committed to respecting law and constitution. Thus, was the attempt to change the government truly about constitutional principles, or about political convenience?

If it is about politics, then Umno has seriously miscalculated. The consequences of the method claimed to remove the Yang Dipertuan Besar have resulted in a constitutional machinery with greater authority. Its lessons should be clear. A political party may win an election, gain a majority, and form a government, but they do not possess the constitution.

Winning an election or political power does not give them a license to alter constitutional conventions to serve their party interests. Thus, the Negeri Sembilan crisis is more than a dispute between the palace and the State Assembly. It is a test of whether political power will continue to be subordinate to constitutional authority.

Umno created this crisis. It must now bear responsibility for finding a way out. If anyone needs to step back from this constitutional dispute, it must be Umno.