Negeri Sembilan: The constitution must prevail — Syed Hamid Albar

The unfolding events in Negeri Sembilan raise fundamental questions about constitutional authority, the rule of law, and the preservation of Malaysia's institutions.

The controversy centers on a purported proclamation affecting the position of Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and highlights the collision between political action, customary authority, and constitutional power.

Resolving these disputes should be guided by the Negeri Sembilan Constitution's words, structure, and purpose, ensuring that constitutional boundaries are respected to prevent the politicization of institutions.

Ultimately, this situation underscores the importance of determining and exercising power according to constitutional law to uphold the integrity of Malaysia's constitutional order.

SEPTEMBER 17 — The events unfolding in Negeri Sembilan should concern every Malaysian who believes in constitutional government, the rule of law and the preservation of our institutions.

I say this not from the standpoint of personalities, political parties or competing factions. Nor do I wish to prejudge matters that may ultimately require judicial determination. My concern is more fundamental.

What happens when political action, customary authority and constitutional power collide? Where are the boundaries of authority? And, most importantly, when there is disagreement about those boundaries, who determines what the Constitution permits?

These questions go far beyond Negeri Sembilan.

At the heart of the present controversy is a purported proclamation concerning the position of Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir as Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan. Menteri Besar Datuk Ismail Lasim has publicly stated that he signed an instrument against his will and under duress. He lodged a police report and the state government’s stated position is that the document did not comply with the processes and procedures required by Article 10 of the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

These matters are now the subject of investigation and dispute and should therefore be treated with appropriate legal caution.

The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang, following a special sitting on September 13, has taken the position that the attempt to remove Tuanku Muhriz contravened both adat and the State Constitution.

Among other things, it maintains that the investigation contemplated by Article 10(1) had not been undertaken and that Tuanku Muhriz remains the lawful Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Those assertions, too, form part of the developing constitutional dispute.

The controversy should therefore not be reduced to the question of who supports whom.

The fundamental question is one of constitutional authority.

Power must have a constitutional source

The starting point of any constitutional analysis must be simple: who has the power to do what has purportedly been done?

In a constitutional system, possession of office does not confer unlimited authority. Every constitutional institution derives its authority from law, convention, adat where constitutionally recognised, or the Constitution itself.

A Menteri Besar has powers and responsibilities. The Undang have their constitutionally recognised functions. The Yang di-Pertuan Besar occupies a distinctive constitutional position. The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang similarly possesses functions within the unique constitutional structure of Negeri Sembilan.

But none exists in a constitutional vacuum.

The present Menteri Besar himself has now articulated an important principle: a proclamation does not by itself create constitutional authority. His position is that his involvement in a process mentioned in Article 10 cannot be interpreted as giving the Menteri Besar unilateral authority to determine whether the Yang di-Pertuan Besar remains in office.

That proposition deserves attention quite apart from the personalities involved.

A document cannot manufacture a constitutional power that does not otherwise exist.

Nor can constitutional requirements be treated as mere technicalities to be satisfied after a political objective has already been determined.

Procedure is part of constitutional legitimacy.

Where the Constitution prescribes conditions before a power can be exercised, compliance with those conditions is not optional. If investigation, consultation, proclamation, quorum or some other constitutional prerequisite is required, the relevant question is whether that requirement has actually been fulfilled.

That is why the present controversy must ultimately be examined against the actual words, structure and purpose of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution — not against political preference.

Negeri Sembilan is constitutionally distinctive

There is another reason for caution.

Negeri Sembilan cannot simply be treated as though its constitutional structure were identical to that of every other Malaysian state.

Its institutions developed through a distinctive relationship between monarchy, the Undang, the luak and Adat Perpatih. Those historical institutions have subsequently acquired constitutional expression.

The Constitution must therefore be understood together with that constitutional history.

But recognition of adat does not mean that constitutionalism disappears.

On the contrary, where customary institutions have been incorporated into a written constitutional framework, it becomes particularly important to distinguish between customary legitimacy and constitutional authority.

Both deserve respect.

Neither should casually be invoked to extinguish the other.

This is why disputes involving the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undang require extraordinary care. They concern institutions far older than contemporary party politics. They should not become instruments of temporary political advantage.

The National Archives records the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan as a constitutional instrument dating from 1959. The question today is how the powers contained within that constitutional settlement are lawfully exercised.

Legality is not the only question

There is also a moral dimension.

Constitutional government cannot survive through legal provisions alone.

It requires what might be described as constitutional morality: restraint in the exercise of power; fidelity to institutions; respect for lawful processes; good faith; and an acceptance that possessing influence is not the same as possessing constitutional authority.

There will always be opportunities for political actors to exploit ambiguity.

The true test of constitutional government comes when an actor chooses not to do something merely because it appears politically possible, but asks instead whether it is constitutionally proper.

That distinction is crucial.

An action may appear politically expedient. It may even command substantial support. But neither expediency nor numbers can substitute for constitutional authority where the Constitution has allocated a particular power to a particular institution and prescribed the manner in which that power is to be exercised.

The rule of law becomes meaningful precisely when it restrains those who possess power.

Institutions must not be politicised

We should therefore resist turning the Negeri Sembilan controversy into another episode of partisan confrontation.

The monarchy should not become an instrument of party politics.

Adat should not become an instrument of party politics.

Equally, elected political institutions should not be deprived of their legitimate constitutional functions through the invocation of tradition.

Each institution must remain within its lawful sphere.

Malaysia’s constitutional system depends upon a delicate equilibrium between institutions. That equilibrium survives not because disputes never occur, but because when they do occur, there are constitutional mechanisms for resolving them.

The answer to constitutional disagreement cannot be the creation of a fait accompli.

Nor should the answer be determined by who commands the greater political influence.

It must be determined by law.

Let the Constitution decide

There is therefore wisdom in the proposition that, where a genuine legal dispute exists, the courts may ultimately have to determine the constitutional questions.

This should not be regarded as an attack upon adat or the monarchy.

Judicial determination of a constitutional dispute is itself part of constitutional government.

The courts are not being asked to decide which personality they prefer. Their task, where properly seized of a matter within their jurisdiction, is to determine what the law means and whether the exercise of public or constitutional authority conforms to it.

That distinction is fundamental.

The developing proceedings before the Seremban High Court make restraint even more necessary. On September 17, it was reported that lawyers acting for the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang had written to the Menteri Besar and other state officials making serious allegations concerning recent events. Those remain allegations within an active dispute and should not be treated as judicial findings.

The court of public opinion should not replace the court of law.

A larger Malaysian question

What troubles me most is therefore not merely the immediate controversy.

It is the precedent that may be created.

Malaysia is a federation of constitutional monarchies. Our constitutional arrangements differ among the states, but they share an essential principle: public and constitutional power is not unlimited power.

If constitutional processes can be bypassed whenever they become inconvenient, we weaken the very institutions we claim to defend.

If political necessity is allowed to determine constitutional meaning, constitutional government gradually becomes government according to expediency.

And once that principle is accepted for a cause we favour today, we will have difficulty objecting when somebody invokes the same principle tomorrow for a cause we oppose.

That is why constitutional boundaries matter.

They protect institutions.

They protect governments.

They protect rulers.

And ultimately they protect citizens from arbitrary power.

The Constitution must prevail

Negeri Sembilan therefore presents Malaysia with something larger than a dispute between personalities or competing claims to authority.

It presents us with a test of constitutionalism.

The question is not who is politically stronger, who speaks more loudly or who can establish a fait accompli .

The proper questions are: Who possesses the constitutional authority? From where is that authority derived? What conditions govern its exercise? Were those conditions satisfied? And who has lawful authority to resolve the dispute?

These questions should be answered calmly, transparently and according to law.

Adat must be respected.

The institution of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar must be respected.

The constitutional position of the Undang must be respected.

The Menteri Besar and elected government must be permitted to discharge their lawful constitutional responsibilities.

And the judiciary must be allowed to perform its constitutional function where questions properly requiring judicial determination arise.

Respect for one institution does not require the destruction or humiliation of another.

Constitutional government requires precisely the opposite: that each institution recognises the legitimate boundaries of the others.

Ultimately, this should not be about who wins.

It should be about whether the constitutional order survives with its integrity intact.

For once constitutional boundaries are crossed in the name of convenience, those boundaries become easier to cross again.

Malaysia has spent generations building institutions intended to ensure that authority is exercised according to law rather than according to the wishes of individuals.

We should not surrender that principle when it becomes difficult.

Power must have a lawful source. Power must be exercised through lawful procedures. And where power is disputed, the dispute must be resolved according to law.

That is the essence of constitutional government.

And in Negeri Sembilan, as everywhere else in Malaysia, the Constitution must prevail.

*Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar is a former minister of law and former minister of foreign affairs.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail .

Parallels in the establishment of Malaysia in 1963 and unification of Germany in 1990 — Hafiz Hassan

The Pinglu Canal is a pivotal moment in Asean–China relations — Phar Kim Beng

Everyone loses from the haze, so why does no one move first? — Low Kah Choon

Quit if you no longer recognise Tuanku Muhriz as ruler, Loke tells Negeri Sembilan exco members

Negeri Sembilan MB instructs state secretary to gazette Tuanku Muhriz’s removal despite DKU objection

Kedah fertiliser company managing director released on MACC bail

森美兰州正在发生的事件引发了关于宪法权威、法治以及马来西亚制度维护的根本性问题。

这场争议的焦点在于一份据称影响端姑慕赫里兹作为最高统治者地位的公告，凸显了政治行动、习惯权威和宪法权力之间的冲突。

解决这些争端应遵循森美兰州宪法的文字、结构和宗旨，确保尊重宪法界限，防止机构政治化。

归根结底，这种情况凸显了根据宪法确定和行使权力以维护马来西亚宪政秩序完整性的重要性。

9月17日——森美兰州正在发生的事件应该引起每一位相信宪政、法治和维护国家制度的马来西亚人的关注。

我这么说并非出于对个人、政党或派系的偏见，也无意对最终可能需要司法裁决的事情妄下断论。我的关注点更为根本。

当政治行动、习惯法权威和宪法权力发生冲突时会发生什么？权力的边界在哪里？最重要的是，当对这些边界存在分歧时，谁来决定宪法允许什么？

这些问题远远超出了森美兰州的范围。

此次争议的核心在于一份据称涉及端姑慕赫里兹·端姑慕纳维尔（Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir）森美兰州最高元首地位的公告。州务大臣拿督伊斯迈·拉西姆（Datuk Ismail Lasim）公开表示，他是在胁迫下违背意愿签署了这份文件。他已向警方报案，而州政府的官方立场是，该文件不符合1959年森美兰州宪法第十条规定的程序和流程。

这些事项目前正处于调查和争议之中，因此应谨慎对待，并遵循适当的法律程序。

9月13日，公正与法律委员会召开特别会议，决定罢免端姑慕赫里兹的企图既违反了传统习俗，也违反了州宪法。

除其他事项外，该组织还坚持认为，宪法第10(1)条规定的调查并未进行，并且端姑慕赫里兹仍然是合法的最高元首。这些主张也构成了正在发展的宪法争议的一部分。

因此，这场争议不应简化为谁支持谁的问题。

根本问题在于宪法权威问题。

权力必须有宪法来源。

任何宪法分析的出发点都必须很简单：谁有权做据称已经做的事情？

在宪政体制下，担任公职并不赋予无限权力。所有宪政机构的权力都来源于法律、惯例、宪法认可的习俗或宪法本身。

州务大臣拥有权力和责任。云党有宪法承认的职能。国家元首（Yang di-Pertuan Besar）占有独特的宪法地位。 Dewan Keadilan dan Undang 在森美兰独特的宪法结构中同样具有职能。

但任何事物都不可能脱离宪法真空而存在。

现任州务大臣本人已阐明一项重要原则：公告本身并不创设宪法权力。他的立场是，他参与第十条所述程序，不能被解释为赋予州务大臣单方面决定最高元首是否继续留任的权力。

抛开涉及的人物不谈，这个提议本身就值得关注。

文件不能凭空捏造出原本不存在的宪法权力。

宪法要求也不能被视为在政治目标确定之后才需要满足的单纯技术性问题。

程序是宪法合法性的一部分。

宪法规定行使某项权力须满足特定条件，则遵守这些条件并非可选项。如果需要进行调查、磋商、发布公告、达到法定人数或其他宪法规定的先决条件，则相关问题在于该等条件是否已得到实际满足。

因此，目前的争议最终必须根据森美兰州宪法的实际措辞、结构和目的来审视，而不是根据政治偏好来审视。

森美兰州在宪法上具有独特性

还有另一个需要谨慎的原因。

不能简单地将森美兰州视为与其他马来西亚州具有相同的宪法结构。

其制度发展源于君主制、Undang（传统习俗）、luak（传统习俗）和Adat Perpatih（传统习俗）之间独特的相互关系。这些历史制度随后被纳入宪法体系。

因此，必须将宪法与宪政史结合起来理解。

但承认传统习俗并不意味着宪政主义就会消失。

相反，当习惯制度被纳入成文宪法框架时，区分习惯合法性和宪法权威就显得尤为重要。

两人都值得尊重。

两者都不应随意用来否定另一方。

因此，涉及最高元首和地方自治机构的争端需要格外谨慎。这些机构的历史远比当代政党政治悠久，不应沦为谋取短期政治利益的工具。

国家档案馆记录了森美兰州宪法，这是一份可追溯至1959年的宪法性文件。如今的问题是，如何合法地行使该宪法规定中包含的权力。

合法性并非唯一的问题

这其中也包含道德层面。

仅靠法律条文无法维持宪政政府的存续。

它要求具备某种宪法道德：在行使权力时保持克制；忠于制度；尊重合法程序；秉持诚信；并接受拥有影响力并不等同于拥有宪法权威这一事实。

政治人物总会有机会利用模糊性。

宪政政府的真正考验在于，当一个行为者不仅仅因为某件事在政治上可行就去做，而是会质疑这件事是否符合宪法。

这种区别至关重要。

一项行动或许在政治上看似权宜之计，甚至可能获得相当数量的支持。但是，当宪法已将特定权力赋予特定机构并规定了行使该权力的方式时，权宜之计和人数都不能取代宪法权威。

法治只有在制约掌权者时才具有意义。

机构不应被政治化。

因此，我们应该避免将森美兰州争议演变成又一场党派对抗。

君主制不应沦为党派政治的工具。

习俗不应沦为党派政治的工具。

同样，不应以援引传统为由剥夺民选政治机构的合法宪法职能。

每个机构都必须在其法律权限范围内行事。

马来西亚的宪政体制依赖于各机构之间微妙的平衡。这种平衡之所以能够维持，并非因为争端永远不会发生，而是因为当争端发生时，宪法中存在相应的解决机制。

解决宪法分歧的办法绝不能是制造既成事实。

答案也不应由谁拥有更大的政治影响力来决定。

这必须由法律来决定。

让宪法来决定

因此，有理由认为，如果存在真正的法律纠纷，法院最终可能不得不裁决宪法问题。

这不应被视为对传统习俗或君主制的攻击。

对宪法争议的司法裁决本身就是宪政政府的一部分。

法院并非被要求决定他们更倾向于哪位人物。他们的任务，是在合法受理属于其管辖范围的案件时，确定法律的含义，以及公共权力或宪法权力的行使是否符合法律规定。

这种区别至关重要。

芙蓉高等法院正在审理的案件更凸显了保持克制的重要性。9月17日有报道称，代表国家公正与法律委员会的律师已致函州务大臣和其他州政府官员，就近期发生的事件提出了严重的指控。这些指控仍处于争议之中，不应被视为司法裁决。

舆论法庭不应取代法律法庭。

一个更大的马来西亚问题

因此，最令我困扰的不仅仅是眼前的争议。

这是可能开创的先例。

马来西亚是一个由君主立宪制国家组成的联邦。各州的宪政安排有所不同，但它们都秉持一个基本原则：公共权力和宪法权力并非无限权力。

如果宪法程序在不方便的时候就可以被绕过，那么我们就削弱了我们声称要捍卫的制度。

如果允许政治需要决定宪法含义，宪政政府就会逐渐变成权宜政府。

一旦我们今天接受了这一原则来支持某个事业，那么明天当有人援引同样的原则来支持我们反对的事业时，我们就很难提出反对意见。

这就是宪法界限如此重要的原因。

它们保护机构。

它们保护政府。

他们保护统治者。

最终，它们保护公民免受专断权力的侵害。

宪法必须得到维护。

因此，森美兰州向马来西亚展现的不仅仅是个人之间的争端或权力争夺，而是更为宏大的问题。

它向我们展示了宪政主义的考验。

问题不在于谁的政治实力更强，谁的声音更大，或者谁能造成既成事实。

正确的问题是：谁拥有宪法赋予的权力？该权力来源于何处？行使该权力需要满足哪些条件？这些条件是否得到满足？以及谁拥有解决争端的合法权力？

这些问题应该冷静、透明、依法地回答。

必须尊重传统习俗。

国家元首的制度必须得到尊重。

必须尊重人民党的宪法地位。

必须允许州务大臣和民选政府履行其合法的宪法职责。

当出现需要司法裁决的问题时，必须允许司法机关履行其宪法职能。

尊重一个机构并不意味着要摧毁或羞辱另一个机构。

宪政政府恰恰要求相反的做法：每个机构都必须承认其他机构的合法界限。

归根结底，这不应该关乎谁赢。

问题的关键在于宪政秩序能否保持其完整性并存续下去。

一旦为了方便而越过宪法界限，这些界限就更容易再次被越过。

马来西亚花费数代人时间建立各种制度，旨在确保权力依法行使，而不是根据个人意愿行使。

即使遇到困难，我们也不应该放弃这一原则。

权力必须有合法来源。权力必须通过合法程序行使。当权力发生争议时，必须依法解决。

这就是宪政政府的精髓。

在森美兰州，和马来西亚其他地方一样，宪法必须优先。

*丹斯里赛义德·哈米德·阿尔巴尔曾任律政部长和外交部长。

**本文仅代表作者或刊物个人观点，并不一定代表《马来邮报》的立场。

1963年马来西亚建国与1990年德国统一的相似之处——哈菲兹·哈桑

平鲁运河是东盟与中国关系的一个关键时刻——法金本

雾霾让每个人都蒙受损失，为什么没有人率先行动？——刘嘉春

陆兆福告诉森美兰行政议员，如果不再承认端姑慕力兹为统治者，就辞职

尽管昆山杜克大学反对，森美兰州议员仍指示国务秘书将端姑穆里兹免职的决定刊登在公报上

吉打州化肥公司总经理获反贪污委员会保释