.png)
AT some point, Datuk Ismail Lasim will have to explain which of his many positions on Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir he actually stands by.
The Negeri Sembilan Menteri Besar has once again reaffirmed his allegiance to the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, this time withdrawing the contents of his Sept 17 letter to the Conference of Rulers, in which the state government had backed the proclamation seeking Tuanku Muhriz’s removal.
It is another reversal in a royal dispute that has exposed a troubling lack of consistency in the state government’s handling of the matter.
And this is no ordinary political disagreement in which a politician changes his mind over a policy or an alliance.
The position of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is governed by the Negeri Sembilan Constitution and the state’s centuries-old customary traditions.
Every decision involving the institution carries constitutional consequences. It is not something a government can approach with one position today and another a few weeks later.
Yet that is precisely what has happened.
When Ismail took office in August, he pledged his allegiance to Tuanku Muhriz. On Aug 3, however, he signed the disputed proclamation concerning the ruler’s removal.
Days later, on Sept 9, Ismail said he had signed the document against his will and under duress, lodged a police report and declared his unwavering loyalty to Tuanku Muhriz.
Then came another turn.
On Sept 15, the state executive council discussed the matter and, two days later, Ismail publicly confirmed its decision to endorse the proclamation.
He also said the state secretary had been directed to proceed with the gazetting process.
Now, in a letter dated Nov 10, Ismail and all 10 former executive council members have withdrawn the contents of that Sept 17 correspondence.
The explanation given is that the decision takes into account the Conference of Rulers’ statement on Oct 14 and the Seremban High Court order dated June 5, which maintained the status quo concerning Tuanku Muhriz’s position.
If the latest decision is intended to restore constitutional order, it is certainly a development that should be welcomed. But it does not make the events of the past three months any less deserving of scrutiny.
What changed between September and November? Why did Ismail publicly confirm the exco’s decision after previously saying the proclamation was invalid and that he had signed it under duress? And why did the government allow the matter to reach this stage before withdrawing its position?
These are not questions that can be answered simply by issuing another letter reaffirming allegiance.
Ismail cannot expect the public to accept each new declaration without accounting for the one that came before it.
There is also the matter of the 10 former executive councillors who signed the latest letter alongside him.
Their involvement in the earlier decision and subsequent withdrawal makes this more than a personal change of position by the Menteri Besar.
The state administration must account for its collective actions.
The consequences have extended beyond the palace.
The state legislative assembly sitting, initially scheduled for October, was postponed and is now set for Nov 26.
The prolonged dispute has also left the state administration dealing with uncertainty over its relationship with the royal institution.
Ismail is now expected to seek an audience with Tuanku Muhriz to reaffirm his allegiance and obtain the ruler’s consent for the assembly sitting.
There is an obvious irony here.
The same Menteri Besar whose administration previously endorsed a proclamation seeking to remove Tuanku Muhriz is now expected to seek the ruler’s consent to carry on with the business of government.
That contradiction deserves an explanation.
Nobody is suggesting that a public office-holder should never reconsider a decision, particularly when constitutional and legal questions are involved.
But when the decisions concern the legitimacy of the state’s ruler, the public is entitled to expect greater care, consistency and accountability.
A change of position may be understandable. A succession of conflicting declarations, however, cannot simply be dismissed as a matter of political adjustment.
The monarchy cannot be toyed around with and must not become collateral in a political and administrative process marked by shifting positions.
Ismail has now withdrawn his Sept 17 letter. That is a significant step, but it is not the end of the questions surrounding his role in this crisis.
Before asking the people of Negeri Sembilan to move on, he owes them a clear account of how the state government arrived at this point.
After all, how many times must a Menteri Besar reaffirm his allegiance to the same ruler before the people can be confident that his position will not change again? – November 14, 2026
