“GO away, I don’t want to see you”
The royal rebuke by Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan Tuanku Muhriz to his Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Ismail Lasim on Oct 16 laid bare that the gloves are off between the Palace and the newly minted Menteri Besar.
Ismail responded with a “sembah”, but there is a question he cannot keep dodging.
On August 2, Ismail stood before Tuanku Muhriz at Istana Besar Seri Menanti, took his oath of office and accepted the appointment as Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan.
Less than six weeks later, his name was associated with an instrument proclaiming the removal of the very Ruler who had appointed him.
Then came the explanations. And what a tangled web they have become.
On September 9, Ismail said he had signed the instrument against his will and under duress. He lodged a police report and maintained that the document did not comply with the requirements of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution.
On September 15, however, the state executive council, which he chaired, unanimously endorsed the proclamation.
Two days later, Ismail confirmed that decision and said the state secretary had been directed to proceed with gazetting the change of Ruler.
On September 24, he rejected the suggestion that the state government had decided who should occupy the throne, maintaining that the matter had been overtaken by events.
And now, after Tuanku Muhriz publicly admonished him on October 16, the questions surrounding his shifting positions have become impossible to ignore.
So which is it, Ismail?
Were you forced to sign the proclamation? Did your Exco unanimously endorse it? Was the document invalid, as you initially maintained, or was the proclamation sufficiently valid for your administration to recognise a different Ruler and proceed with gazetting the change?
These are not trivial inconsistencies. They go to the heart of a constitutional crisis that has engulfed Negeri Sembilan.
A Menteri Besar is entitled to explain that circumstances have changed or that he has received fresh legal advice.
But when his positions appear to contradict one another, he owes the public a coherent account of what happened and why.
He cannot simply invoke the Constitution when convenient, cite the authority of the Undang when challenged, and then distance himself from the consequences of decisions taken under his own chairmanship.
Stop compounding the confusion. You cannot have it both ways.
Because if Tuanku Muhriz is no longer the legitimate Yang di-Pertuan Besar, as the position taken by Ismail’s administration would suggest, then what does the Menteri Besar make of his own appointment?
It was Tuanku Muhriz who appointed him. It was before Tuanku Muhriz that he took his oath of office.
Ismail accepted the appointment and assumed the responsibilities of the office. He did not question the Ruler’s authority when it was being exercised in his favour.
Yet the same Ruler’s legitimacy was subsequently challenged in a process in which Ismail became a central figure.
An oath of office cannot be treated as a ceremonial formality, important only until it becomes inconvenient.
It is an undertaking to serve within a constitutional framework. A public office-holder cannot expect to invoke the legitimacy of that framework selectively.
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of this saga is not simply the original proclamation, but the sequence of explanations that followed.
Ismail initially reaffirmed the state government’s support for Tuanku Muhriz. He then said he had signed the removal instrument under duress, declared it invalid and lodged a police report.
Yet his Exco subsequently endorsed the proclamation and recognised Tuanku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar as the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
Ismail confirmed the Exco’s decision.
Then came the assertion that the government had never sought to remove Tuanku Muhriz and had no authority to determine who occupied the throne.
If Ismail was coerced into signing the instrument, who coerced him?
When did the alleged coercion occur? Who was present? Why did he sign? And why did he wait until September 8 to lodge a police report over a document he had signed on August 3?
These questions were raised publicly, including by non-Umno members of the Madani administration.
So far, he has been dodging the question.
The public is entitled to know.
Because if Ismail’s answer is that the government was merely recognising a decision made by the Undang Yang Empat, then he must explain why that position evolved into a formal Exco endorsement and a direction to proceed with gazetting the change.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers has also taken the position that the Menteri Besar and Exco had no unilateral authority to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. That makes the need for a clear explanation even more pressing.
The newly formed Negeri Sembilan administration should have been concentrating on its priorities – governing the state.
The people did not vote for a government to spend its opening months embroiled in a constitutional crisis.
At the get-go, Ismail Lasim’s government has failed.
The people of Negeri Sembilan deserve answers. And they deserve a government that gets on with governing. – October 18, 2026
Terence Fernandez is Group Editor in Chief of Big Boom Media which publishes Scoop