'Which constitution are you referring to?' Takiyuddin questions AG advice on N Sembilan exco removals

Hariz MohdPublished: Oct 19, 2026 2:15 PM

PARLIAMENT | A Perikatan Nasional lawmaker today raised the Negeri Sembilan royal dispute in the Dewan Rakyat, accusing Putrajaya of undermining the Federal Constitution’s guarantee of state constitutional autonomy.

Speaking during the debate on the Supply (Budget) Bill 2027, Takiyuddin Hassan (PN-Kota Bharu) argued that the removal of 10 Negeri Sembilan excos by ruler Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, without the advice of Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim, was unconstitutional.

He questioned why...

He questioned why the Attorney-General’s Chambers had deemed the action constitutional, despite Clause 4 of the Negeri Sembilan constitution stipulating that members of the state exco, other than the menteri besar, hold office at the ruler’s pleasure, subject to removal by the ruler on the menteri besar’s advice.

"This (removal) was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the attorney-general, who advises the government, has stated that the action taken is constitutional, when in fact it is inconsistent with the Constitution.

"I would like to ask the attorney-general: which constitution is he referring to when he says that what has been done is lawful?

"This is a constitutional matter that this House has the right to debate, because any constitution and amendments to it are dealt with here,” said the PAS secretary-general.

Takiyuddin (above) also referred to Article 71(1) of the Federal Constitution, which stipulates that disputes over a state’s succession to the throne must be resolved by the authorities and in accordance with the procedures prescribed under the state constitution.

He questioned whether the federal government could guarantee that state constitutions would be respected and implemented without federal interference.

federal constitution perlembagaan persekutuan generic 261117

"I would like to ask, as an MP representing a state within the Federation, whether the current federal government truly guarantees the freedom of state constitutions to be applied at the state level, and whether it can assure us that the federal government will not interfere in matters governed by the provisions of state constitutions,” he said.

AirAsia bailout?

In the same speech, Takiyuddin urged the Finance and Transport Ministries to clarify AirAsia’s financial position and reports that the airline was allegedly seeking government assistance.

He called on the relevant ministers to confirm whether Putrajaya was in talks with AirAsia over a possible bailout and whether the government had appointed a consultancy firm to act as an intermediary in the negotiations.

"If so, what guarantees, undertakings, indemnities or financial commitments has the government made in this regard?

"What is the maximum financial exposure for taxpayers, and what collateral or conditions are in place to safeguard the government’s interests?" he asked.

Takiyuddin also urged the transport minister to clarify reports that AirAsia still owed Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) some RM500 million.

Police receive nine reports on suspicious packages at Tampin, Nilai schools

After royal rebuke, N Sembilan MB highlights sermon on humility, restraining ego

'I don't want to see you!': Tuanku Muhriz dresses down N Sembilan MB over throne dispute

Duress, delay, then endorsement: N Sembilan MB must answer for role in royal crisis - Bar

N Sembilan rebel chieftains interpret Malay rulers' call as triumph over Tuanku Muhriz

Malay rulers call for dignified resolution to Negeri Sembilan throne dispute

Now PAS has become a good pal of Umno, because of its recent tightness(rapat-ness). Why should the AG interpret the Negeri Sembilan Constutution in favour of the Ruler. The matter that needs explanation or verification, did the current MB attempt to remove the Ruler.What is the justification in doing so. Is the MB vested with such an authority.Who are the people advising the MB. Is there something much more that the rakyat is clueless about. Can the very same Exco that pledged loyalty and protection of the State Ruler and Constitution also call for his Highness's dismissal. Where is the Exco's loyalty in the first place. We have indeed read about Rulers being ousted in our old history but can it also happen in modern times. Have we ever progressed at all?

Mazhilamani04:37 PM, 19 Oct 2026

Funny hilRioys ha ha The guy who misled parliament by saying ydp already consented for emergency to be lifted is scholong another on the law Ha ha ha ha

Logic Ah04:34 PM, 19 Oct 2026

There are conventions which are stronger than laws.Laws cannot cover everything. If you take an oath of allegiance in front of and to a ruler, and then you sign a document to remove the ruler, doesn’t it annihilate your oath. Secondly, even the MB ought to be removed, but because of state needs he is there. That’s practical. But he still cannot face the ruler.

save our currency04:11 PM, 19 Oct 2026

Comments0

By posting a comment, you agree to our Commenting Terms and Conditions as stipulated in full here.

Do's and don'ts when posting comments in Malaysiakini

TERMS & CONDITIONS

Foul language, profanity, vulgarity, slanderous, personal attack, threatening, sexually-orientated comments or the use of any method of communication that may violate any law or create needless unpleasantness will not be tolerated. Antisocial behaviour such as "spamming" and "trolling" will be suspended. Violators run the risk of also being blocked permanently.

REPORT VIOLATORS

Please use the report feature that is available below each comment to flag offending comments for our moderators to take action. Do not take matters in your own hands to avoid unpleasant and unnecessary exchanges that may result in your own suspension or ban.

NOTICE

Our commenting system is still under development. We have taken note of feedback provided.

Subscriber-only space:

Mazhilamani04:37 PM, 19 Oct 2026

Funny hilRioys ha ha The guy who misled parliament by saying ydp already consented for emergency to be lifted is scholong another on the law Ha ha ha ha

Logic Ah04:34 PM, 19 Oct 2026

save our currency04:11 PM, 19 Oct 2026

Takiyuddin is entitled to question the AG’s advice, but his interpretation does not settle the constitutional dispute either. The former excos have taken the matter to court. Let the legal arguments be tested there. Disagreeing with the AG does not, by itself, establish federal interference. On AirAsia, asking about taxpayers’ exposure is reasonable. The government should clarify whether any discussions are taking place and what safeguards would apply. But questions about a possible bailout are not proof that one has been agreed. Scrutinise the government, certainly. But distinguish between what is alleged, what is being considered and what has actually been decided. The public deserves that clarity on both issues.

Kopi Kurang Manis04:06 PM, 19 Oct 2026

PAS is very quick to pounce on any reason to support Umno in trying to replace the Negeri Sembilan YAM TUAN. They are not raising the issue, whether all the 4 Undangs who hold their position are legally appointed or not. Secondly if they disagree, the EXCO can go to court and verify whether the YAM TUAN acted according to the law to replace them. Thirdly did not the EXCO took an oath of loyalty to the YAM TUAN. If the oath was false, then their position is also not legal. So stop speaking out and defending Umno. Please PAS have a back bone of your own.

BOBBYO03:36 PM, 19 Oct 2026

On Sept 15, 2026, the 10 Negeri Sembilan exco members endorsed a proclamation by certain dismissed Undang(s) that purported to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, and replace him with Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar. Whatever one’s political loyalties, this endorsement is very hard to reconcile with the constitutional framework. Neither the Negeri Sembilan Constitution nor the Federal Constitution gives the exco collective authority to “endorse” the removal of the reigning Yang di-Pertuan Besar through a mere proclamation. Their duty is to uphold the existing constitutional order and the sovereignty of the Ruler, not to confer legitimacy on a process whose legality is at best highly doubtful and, on the face of it, ultra vires their powers. In that light, the issue is not whether the attorney-general is inventing some new constitutional rule, but that the exco itself appears to have stepped outside the limits of the law. Having publicly supported an attempt to depose the Ruler without clear constitutional basis, it is difficult to argue that the same exco can now insist on the full protection of conventions and “advice” when their own conduct has already breached those very principles.

EmEmKay03:20 PM, 19 Oct 2026

Dear Takyi, Bapa and his geng are confused too. Not only constitution, they don’t understand laws either.

GreenWalrus146903:16 PM, 19 Oct 2026

As always the opposition will put a different interpretation to the constitution according to their desires. Similar case to the one in Kelantan and which Tun Maimum taught them how to read the constitution a, b , cs. Eventually they had to amend their constitution.

Blue Skies03:10 PM, 19 Oct 2026

Alamak Taki, No need to argue so much. Please start from your own four States, amend the State Constitution respectively. Cepat Cepat. State Ruler has no executive role to play in the Appointment of MB and Exco. MB is elected by the Duns, Exco are appointed or removed, if, and only, at the Pleasure of the MB. Period.

A Little Bit Crazy03:06 PM, 19 Oct 2026

Takiyuddin misreads his own exhibit. Article 38(5) says an exco member holds office "at the Ruler's pleasure unless revoked on the advice of MB." Takiyuddin reads "unless" as "only if". That's illiterate. "Unless" creates a second, mandatory route: if MB advises, Ruler must revoke. It does NOT extinguish the first route — pleasure. If it did, an exco could commit treason against the Ruler who appointed him and stay in office until his co-conspirator MB advises otherwise. As ex-judge Hishamudin Yunus said, that would be "absurd" and lead to anarchy. Pleasure is not decorative. It is housed in Article 38(5) and preserved by Article 79, which says the Constitution shall not affect the prerogatives of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The 10 excos swore loyalty under Article 39, then affirmed a purported deposition of Tuanku Muhriz. Breach of oath is the classic ground for withdrawal of pleasure. AG Dusuki is right — they serve at pleasure, period. Takiyuddin's Article 71(1) is self-defeating. It guarantees the Ruler's right to hold and exercise rights in accordance with the state constitution, and says any succession dispute shall be decided solely by authorities provided by that constitution. That authority in Negeri Sembilan is the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang and the four Undangs under Articles 10 and 32 — not the exco. The Dewan already declared the deposition void. So which constitution is AG referring to? The Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 read whole, not one clause ripped out. Federal "non-interference" under Article 71 does not mean Putrajaya watches an executive coup against its own Ruler.

Determined Sarawakian02:42 PM, 19 Oct 2026