IT was already almost midnight when the Negri Sembilan palace sent a text message to Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Haji Ismail Lasim that his entire executive council line-up had been sacked with immediate effect.
The simple WhatsApp message was followed by a hard copy of the revocation of their appointments handed to the state leader.
It must have surely come as a shock to Ismail. He is now tasked by the Ruler to propose a new list of candidates for the state exco to ensure continuous governance.
It would not be easy as the Ruler still has the power to reject names which he feels are not acceptable.
Most media outlets had closed their services when the late-night news came, except for Bernama, The Star and Sin Chew.
The sacking of the entire state exco by a Ruler is unprecedented, but there are moments in constitutional history when a single act carries a meaning far greater than the announcement itself.
The decision by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, to revoke the appointments of the state executive councillors is one such moment.
The 10 Exco members were appointed only last month. Now, barely weeks later, their appointments have been revoked with immediate effect.
The Istana said the Exco members had breached their oath of office through their actions and statements on Sept 15.
The oath, among other things, required them to pledge allegiance to the Ruler and the Royal Institution, protect the State Constitution and acknowledge the authority vested in the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU)
This is therefore not merely about changing a team of state ministers. Ismail and the exco must have missed the legal implications when they endorsed a proclamation to recognise the removal of the Ruler on Sept 17.
They maintained that they were acting on a proclamation by the state’s traditional chieftains rather than driving it unilaterally. They also openly recognised Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar as the new Ruler.
But the Attorney-General’s Chambers then issued a statement clarifying that the MB and the exco do not possess the legal or constitutional authority to vacate the throne or remove a Ruler.
The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) – the state council governing customary justice – has also firmly rejected the Undangs’ proclamation, declaring that Tuanku Muhriz remains the legitimate Ruler and that there is no vacancy.
The dispute goes to the heart of how constitutional monarchy is supposed to function.
Under Article XXXVIII(5) of the Laws of the Constitution of Negri Sembilan 1959, an Exco member other than the Menteri Besar holds office at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The Ruler has therefore exercised a constitutional power by revoking the appointments.
The post of the MB can only be revoked by the state assembly or else he, too, probably faces the wrath of the palace.
The timing of the state exco sacking makes the decision especially significant. The state is already caught in an extraordinary dispute over the position of the Ruler himself.
It also sends a very clear message about the relationship between the Ruler and those appointed to the Executive Council.
An Exco member is not simply a political representative who answers only to his party or coalition. Once appointed, he assumes a constitutional office and takes an oath, which matters.
In a constitutional monarchy, political power is exercised within a framework of law, institutions and conventions. Ministers may have political mandates, but they also have constitutional responsibilities.
This is why the wording of the Istana statement is important. The Ruler did not merely say that he had lost confidence in his Exco.
The appointments were revoked on the stated ground that the councillors had violated their oath of office. That distinction deserves attention.
At the same time, the dismissal does not mean that the government has ceased to exist in Negeri Sembilan.
The Menteri Besar remains in office and has been required to submit names for new Exco appointments for the Ruler’s consideration and consent.
The Istana has also stressed that the administration must continue without disruption and that the interests of the people must remain protected, Bernama reported.
This is an important point because ordinary Malaysians should not become collateral victims of a constitutional dispute.
Schools must open. Hospitals must operate. Local authorities must function. Public servants must continue their work. Development projects and essential services cannot be suspended because politicians and constitutional authorities are in dispute.
The machinery of government must continue even when those at the top are fighting over constitutional interpretation.
Negri Sembilan’s system of constitutional monarchy is not identical to the conventional hereditary monarchy found in other states.
Its institution of the four Undang and the role of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang give the state a distinctive constitutional and customary structure.
The power concerning the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is governed by specific constitutional provisions and customary practices.
That makes it even more important for every institution to remain within its proper constitutional lane.
The current dispute has produced competing claims about who has authority to make decisions concerning the Ruler.
The lesson for Malaysians and politicians is this – a Ruler has constitutional powers. The elected government has executive powers. The state assembly has legislative powers. The courts have judicial powers.
None of these institutions should seek to exercise the powers belonging to another.
That principle is particularly important in a constitutional monarchy because the strength of the institution does not come from political intervention. It comes from adherence to the Constitution.
The dismissal of the Exco is a reminder that appointment to high office comes with an oath, that constitutional powers carry responsibilities, and that political office does not place anyone above the constitutional framework.
