The curious case of Negeri Sembilan: Statements aplenty but no one knows who did what

It is a confusing time to be in Negeri Sembilan. From the sacking of an Undang to calls to depose the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and moves against the Menteri Besar, a lack of explanation has turned events into a political spectacle, writes Haresh Deol.

KUALA LUMPUR: Let’s try to make sense of what is happening in Negeri Sembilan – based on what has been officially announced or revealed.

Last May, the Undang of Sungai Ujong, Datuk Mubarak Dohak, was sacked. He allegedly committed 33 offences. What were they? Speculation is rife, but no one knows for a fact.

The same ‘sacked’ Undang and three others later called for the deposition of Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir. The reason? Again, speculation – but no clear answers.

This morning, all 14 Umno assemblymen in the state decided to withdraw support for Negeri Sembilan Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun. They cited the “crisis” involving the Undang Yang Empat and the state constitution. But how is Aminuddin linked to this crisis? Negeri Sembilan Umno chairman Datuk Seri Jalaluddin Alias did not take questions, leaving many queries unanswered. Once again, speculation swirls.

The lack of clarity and transparency involving these key figures has fuelled conversations online and offline, driven by speculation and competing narratives.

Is it true that Mubarak had not been attending Friday prayers at a mosque, and that this was among the 33 alleged offences? Is it because Aminuddin is aligned with PKR’s Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli, who is at odds with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim?

Yet in all these cases, due process appears to be in question. Mubarak’s alleged offences have not been made public. No one has confirmed whether a “full and complete enquiry”, as required under Article 10(1) of the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, was conducted before the four chieftains moved to depose Tuanku Muhriz.

As opinions form amid uncertainty, one must ask: has the confusion and perceived ‘chaos’ in Negeri Sembilan been politically engineered? And if so, could such actions be deemed seditious?

Under Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act 1948, a “seditious tendency” includes bringing into hatred or contempt, or exciting disaffection against any Ruler. Would allegations or insinuations aimed at deposing the Yang di-Pertuan Besar fall within this scope?

Meanwhile, Section 121B of the Penal Code states that anyone who intends the deposition of a Ruler, or seeks to overawe the government by criminal force or its threat, may face life imprisonment and a fine.

Another question arises – who is driving this newfound boldness? For the chieftains to move against the Ruler is a significant act with far-reaching consequences. For Umno, given its role in the unity government, to withdraw support raises a critical question: who approved the move?

Umno holds 14 seats in the state. Perikatan Nasional’s five representatives have quickly backed the party. With 19 seats, a BN/Umno–PN alignment could pave the way for an Umno-led state government. It also hints at a possible political realignment ahead of GE16.

In an interview with Twentytwo13 yesterday, former Court of Appeal judge and Dewan Rakyat speaker Tan Sri Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof was asked whether politics was at play in Negeri Sembilan. He said he had not heard such claims at the time, but added: “I won’t be surprised.”

“Therein lies the danger … This shouldn’t be allowed. Always rocking the boat. Pull down one person, push up another. It becomes unending. We must be careful not to disturb the balance because there could be unintended consequences,” Ariff said.

“Your focus may be short term, but often there are consequences we cannot foresee,” he added.

The conflict between the Undang and the Yang di-Pertuan Besar may soon fade as attention shifts to a possible change in government in Negeri Sembilan.

Yet if left unchecked, the unfolding drama risks setting a troubling precedent – that governments and Rulers can be challenged or removed without due process, proper justification, or accountability to the most important stakeholders of all: the people.