If Tuanku Muhriz is no longer your ruler, quit on principle and honour, DAP dares N Sembilan excos

where they got principles mah?

Kajang pigeon04:21 PM, 17 Sep 2026

What is seen now is that the newly appointed , greenhorned, incumbent Minister Big is all at seas, unsure of what he needs to do, First he said he signed under duress and that the proclmation has no effect, next he is in full agreement. Does he realised that he was appointed by the Ruler that he is sacking now? So what is to be made of his own appointment as the Minister Big of N9? Has he been legally appointed for the said Proclamation pre-dates his own appointment as the new Minister Big of N9. The AG has to bring sanity to the madness that is taking place in N9. Is the Minister Big just a puppet and the master is somewhere else?

Lone_star04:00 PM, 17 Sep 2026

The challenge to the Negeri Sembilan executive councillors is properly framed as a question of principle and honour. If they no longer recognise Tuanku Muhriz as their constitutional ruler, they should resign. They cannot enjoy office under the state constitution while treating its head as politically disposable whenever party interests change. Yet this controversy should not be reduced to an Islamic loyalty test. Who rules Negeri Sembilan is not primarily a theological question. It is a constitutional question rooted in Adat Perpatih, the distinctive Minangkabau inheritance of the state. The Yang di-Pertuan Besar is not simply a hereditary sultan in the usual sense. He is elected by the four Undangs of Sungai Ujong, Jelebu, Johol and Rembau in accordance with the state constitution and custom. Authority therefore rises through an indigenous structure of consultation, selection and reciprocal obligation. A clear line must consequently be drawn between adat and agama. We might call it Negeri Sembilan’s “green line”. Islam is the religion of the state and informs its moral life, but religion should not be deployed to override the constitutional machinery of Adat Perpatih or to turn allegiance to a ruler into a partisan contest over who is the better Muslim. Once that boundary is erased, disagreement over constitutional authority can too easily be branded religious disobedience. That would distort both Islam and adat. Negeri Sembilan is especially important because it reminds Malaysians that Westminster was never the only possible source of government on the Peninsula. Before British constitutional forms became dominant, Malay political organisation included both Adat Perpatih and the more hierarchical Adat Temenggong. Perpatih dispersed authority through the suku, lembaga, buapak and Undang; Temenggong concentrated it more strongly around hereditary rulers. Neither can simply replace modern parliamentary democracy, but both remain part of the constitutional soil into which Westminster institutions were transplanted. The resulting order is therefore not purely British, purely religious or purely customary. It is a Malaysian settlement combining elected assemblies, constitutional monarchy, Islam, written law and surviving adat. The present dispute exposes the strain among these elements. It also shows why politicians must not select whichever source of authority happens to serve them today and discard the others tomorrow. DAP is therefore justified in demanding clarity from the executive councillors. Holding office entails fidelity to the whole constitutional order, not merely to a party, coalition or religious slogan. But DAP should defend Tuanku Muhriz through constitutional reasoning, not compete in religious rhetoric. Its strongest case is that Negeri Sembilan’s government derives legitimacy from law, democratic representation and a living customary compact. That restraint matters beyond the state, because Malaysia’s federal compact depends upon respecting distinct histories rather than forcing every institution into one Peninsula-wide political mould or religious formula. The green line should protect both sides: agama must not swallow adat,

Exile03:37 PM, 17 Sep 2026