THE PROCLAMATION, THE PRESSURE AND THE QUESTION NOBODY SEEMS ABLE TO ANSWER

 

Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz has now asked it.

If the Menteri Besar was forced to sign the proclamation, who forced him?

It is not an especially complicated question.

But sometimes the simplest questions are the ones that cause the greatest discomfort.

On September 9, Menteri Besar Datuk Ismail Lasim said that he had signed the Instrument of Proclamation concerning the position of Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir involuntarily and under duress. He said he had also lodged a police report so that the authorities could investigate. At that point, the matter was no longer merely an argument about constitutional interpretation. There was an allegation of coercion, and therefore an allegation requiring investigation.

Then came the curious part.

The political furniture began moving.

On September 15, Ismail maintained that the Menteri Besar had no unilateral authority to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and that the proclamation itself did not automatically create constitutional authority.

Yet the State Executive Council, chaired by the same Menteri Besar, subsequently decided unanimously that the proclamation was valid and in effect.

By September 17, Ismail had confirmed that decision and instructed that the gazettement process proceed. Tengku Zafrul highlighted precisely this sequence in his criticism on September 24.

And there, rather awkwardly, lies the problem.

Not necessarily proof of wrongdoing.

Not proof that somebody secretly manipulated somebody else.

Not proof that one political camp is entirely right and another entirely wrong but a “change of position”.

And when a government changes its position on something as consequential as the constitutional position of a ruler, the public is entitled to ask what happened in between.

That is not mischief.

That is analysis.

THE MISSING PIECE

Tengku Zafrul's question is therefore worth examining on its own merits.

He asked whether Ismail was genuinely forced to sign the proclamation.

If he was, who exerted that pressure?

And, perhaps even more importantly, what happened between September 9 and September 15 to produce such a dramatic change in position?

Those are reasonable questions because the timeline is not a matter of folklore.

It is part of the public record.

The irony is that Ismail's later seven-page statement apparently attempted to explain the government's position without answering the precise question about the alleged coercion. The Vibes reported that Zafrul said the statement did not clarify the change in the Menteri Besar's position. Ismail, when questioned on September 24, declined to elaborate on the police report and said the matter had been “overtaken by events”.

That phrase is rather fascinating.

“Overtaken by events.”

Events, in politics, are terribly useful creatures.

They arrive, make a great deal of noise, rearrange the furniture and then conveniently prevent anyone from asking who moved the sofa.

But constitutional questions do not normally disappear simply because events have become inconvenient.

If anything, the more dramatic the events become, the greater the need for a clear chronology.

 

THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT TENGKU ZAFRUL

It would be easy to turn this into a personality contest:

Zafrul versus Ismail.

Palace versus government.

Federal authorities versus the state administration.

 

One political camp against another… That would be the easy version.

It would also be the less interesting one and more important issue is institutional.

The Attorney-General's Chambers has said that the April 19 proclamation concerning the position of Tuanku Muhriz was invalid because it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Article 10 of the Laws of the Constitution of Negri Sembilan 1959.

The AGC further stated that the Menteri Besar and the State Executive Council did not possess unilateral power to depose or vacate the office of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. It also pointed to Article 16 and the jurisdiction of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang over matters concerning Malay custom, including matters relating to the Undang.

That matters.

Because it means the argument cannot simply be reduced to: someone signed a document, therefore the document settles the matter.

Constitutions, rather inconveniently, tend to be rather more demanding than that.

A signature may be important.

A proclamation may be important.

A political decision may be important.

But the question remains:

Where does the legal authority actually come from?

AND THEN THERE IS ADAT PERPATIH

I wrote previously about Adat Perpatih — whether it is being preserved or politicised.

I think that question deserves to be brought back into the conversation now.

Because Adat Perpatih should not become a convenient cloak which everyone reaches for when constitutional arguments become uncomfortable.

It is not a decorative piece of Negeri Sembilan heritage.

It is not something to be displayed during a cultural ceremony and then put back into the cupboard when politics begins.

It is part of the institutional and social identity of the state.

And that makes the present dispute all the more serious.

If custom has constitutional relevance, then custom must be treated with discipline.

If the Undang have constitutional responsibilities, those responsibilities must be respected.

If the State Constitution prescribes a procedure, that procedure must be followed.

And if there is disagreement about the meaning of those provisions, the answer cannot simply be whichever interpretation happens to be politically convenient that afternoon. That would be a rather dangerous way to run a constitutional monarchy.

THE AGC HAS ALREADY DRAWN AN IMPORTANT LINE

The AGC's statement is particularly significant because it does not merely comment on the personalities involved.

It addresses authority.

It says the proclamation was invalid.

It says the MB and Exco had no unilateral power to remove the ruler.

It says the validity and effect of the proclamation must be determined through lawful constitutional and legal processes.

It also noted that the matter was already before the High Court in Seremban and that an interlocutory injunction remained in force.

In other words, there is already a legal mechanism for sorting out the legal questions.

That should be reassuring.

Because the answer to a constitutional dispute should ultimately be found in the Constitution, the courts and the institutions entrusted with constitutional functions — not in the loudest press conference.

But that still leaves another question.

What happened to the allegation of duress?

THE POLICE REPORT CANNOT BECOME A FOOTNOTE

This is where I think Zafrul's question has substance, regardless of one's political loyalties.

If a Menteri Besar says he was compelled to sign something, that allegation should be treated seriously.

Indeed, that was precisely the position taken by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said on September 15. She said an allegation of duress or undue influence should be left to the police to investigate rather than being decided through political commentary.

That is sensible. Let the investigation establish the facts but an investigation does not make the underlying question disappear. Quite the opposite.

It makes the question more important:

Who applied the pressure?  What was said?  Where did it happen?  Who was present? 

What was the document?  What advice had been given?  Was the alleged pressure political?

Was it customary?  Was it administrative?  Was it something else entirely?

These are matters for investigators and, where necessary, the courts but they are also matters of legitimate public interest because if the allegation is true, the public should eventually know and if the allegation is not substantiated, that should also eventually be known.

Either way, the truth is preferable to an increasingly elaborate cloud of political fog.\

THE STRANGEST PART OF THE STORY

Perhaps the strangest aspect of the whole affair is not that people disagree.

People disagree EQUALS TO That is politics.

It is not even that constitutional provisions are being interpreted differently.

Constitutions are interpreted precisely because words matter.

The strangest part is the sequence: A document is signed.

The signer later says it was signed under duress: A police report is lodged.

The state government says the proclamation is constitutionally defective then the same state government later endorses the proclamation.

The federal legal authorities subsequently say the proclamation is invalid and throughout this, the public is expected to keep up.

One might almost forgive ordinary Malaysians for wondering whether they have accidentally wandered into a constitutional version of musical chairs.

Except that there is nothing amusing about the chair at stake.

It is the constitutional order itself.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NOW?

The answer should not be another political shouting match --- It should be documentation: chronology, evidence, legal reasoning and institutional restraint.

IF Ismail says he was forced to sign, let the police investigation establish what happened.

If there was pressure, identify it through due process.

If there was a change in legal advice, establish when and why.

If new facts emerged between September 9 and September 15, explain what they were.

If meetings took place which materially changed the government's position, the relevant authorities should establish that fact.

And if the courts are already seized of the matter, allow the courts to determine the questions within their jurisdiction.

There is nothing especially glamorous about this.

It will not produce the sort of headline that causes WhatsApp groups to explode before breakfast but constitutional government is not supposed to be glamorous.

It is supposed to be predictable that is rather the point.

THE QUESTION REMAINS

One does not have to agree with every political position he has ever taken to recognise that the question he has raised is part of the factual puzzle now confronting Negeri Sembilan.

If Ismail Lasim was forced to sign the proclamation, who forced him?

And if his position subsequently changed, “what changed”?

Those are not questions which should be answered by party loyalty NOR should they be answered by palace loyalty NOR by social-media fury.

They should be answered by evidence.

Because there is a lesson here which goes beyond this particular dispute.

A constitution is not strengthened by the confidence of the people who happen to hold power.

It is strengthened when those people are willing to submit themselves to the rules when the rules become inconvenient.

And Adat Perpatih, if it is to remain a living institution rather than a political ornament, deserves the same treatment.

Respect it… Understand it… Apply it carefully but do not turn it into a magic word which makes difficult questions disappear. The public is not asking for a fairy tale.

We are asking for the missing chapter and this time, perhaps, somebody should actually write it down.