Former Negeri Sembilan menteri besar Rais Yatim is one of the few public figures whose views carry weight whenever questions arise about Negeri Sembilan’s deeply unique royal traditions.
That is why many Malaysians were waiting to hear his opinion on the current constitutional crisis involving Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir and the Undang Yang Empat.
And Rais has now spoken.
His position is clear: the Undang Yang Empat — the chiefs of Sungai Ujong, Jelebu, Johol and Rembau — possess the constitutional authority under Article 10 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution of 1959 to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar from the throne.
According to Rais, the process is legally valid so long as two conditions are met.
First, there must be a complete report.
Second, the alleged misconduct of the ruler must be clearly listed.
Only then, he argues, can the relevant documents be sealed and formalised, with the Menteri Besar acting as witness.
In his words, “The Yang di-Pertuan Besar cannot exist without the Undang Yang Empat. If they no longer support the ruler because of misconduct or actions that damage the dignity of the institution, the ruler can be removed.”
That may sound constitutionally neat.
But it raises far more questions than it answers.
And those questions go far beyond Negeri Sembilan.
They go to the heart of how authority works in Malaysia.
Because if we accept the principle that those who elect you also inherently possess the power to remove you, then we must ask:
Does that principle apply universally?
Or is Negeri Sembilan a constitutional exception?
After all, the ruler of Negeri Sembilan is not the only officeholder in Malaysia who arrives at power through some form of selection.
Members of Parliament are elected.
State assemblypersons are elected.
Prime ministers are chosen through parliamentary processes.
Judges are appointed through constitutional mechanisms.
Military chiefs are selected through state processes.
Even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong himself is elected by the Conference of Rulers.
So if the logic is that the body that appoints someone automatically possesses the right to dismiss them, then should Parliament be able to remove judges at will?
Should voters be able to directly dismiss MPs outside elections?
Should the Conference of Rulers be able to remove the Agong mid-term?
Should political parties be able to arbitrarily remove prime ministers simply because they were instrumental in elevating them?
Malaysia’s constitutional system clearly does not function this way.
In most modern constitutional systems, appointment and removal are governed by separate legal principles.
The body that appoints someone does not automatically possess unlimited authority to remove them whenever political dissatisfaction emerges.
There are procedures.
There are checks.
There are safeguards.
There are constitutional thresholds.
And that is what makes the Negeri Sembilan case so intellectually troubling.
If this principle applies only to Negeri Sembilan, then we must acknowledge that this is a special constitutional exception.
But how many “special exceptions” can a nation sustain before the idea of a common constitutional order begins to collapse?
Malaysia already struggles with this question.
Islam occupies a constitutionally special position.
Malays possess constitutionally special rights.
Bumiputera policies are justified through special protections.
Sabah and Sarawak frequently invoke special historical arrangements to explain why federal rules cannot be uniformly applied to them.
And now Negeri Sembilan may be asserting another exceptional constitutional doctrine entirely.
At what point does the exception become the norm?
At what point does the general principle become meaningless?
A nation cannot endlessly survive on constitutional exceptionalism.
Sooner or later, citizens begin asking whether there is any coherent legal philosophy holding the federation together at all.
And then there is the far more explosive question.
What happens if the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan is simultaneously serving as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong?
This is not a theoretical fantasy.
It is entirely possible under Malaysia’s rotating monarchy system.
If Negeri Sembilan’s ruler ascends to the federal throne and the Undang Yang Empat later decide to remove him from his state throne, what happens next?
Would four traditional chiefs from one state effectively trigger the removal of Malaysia’s head of state?
Would the entire federation be forced into constitutional chaos because of an internal dispute within a single state monarchy?
Does it make sense that four unelected traditional leaders from one of thirteen states could indirectly destabilise the national monarchy?
That question alone should alarm constitutional scholars.
The office of the Agong is not merely symbolic.
The King appoints prime ministers.
The King grants royal assent.
The King plays a stabilising constitutional role during political crises.
Malaysia has seen firsthand how crucial the monarchy became during the hung parliament crises of recent years.
To allow a state-level mechanism to potentially destabilise that institution would be extraordinary.
This is why the current crisis cannot simply be dismissed as a matter of “custom.”
Custom matters.
Tradition matters.
Negeri Sembilan’s Adat Perpatih heritage is historically fascinating and deserves respect.
But constitutional systems cannot survive solely on inherited ambiguity.
When multiple centres of authority begin interpreting their powers differently — the Undangs, the Menteri Besar, the palace, and legal scholars — instability follows.
Even Rais himself admitted this may eventually end up in court.
That alone tells us something important.
When tradition can no longer produce clarity, modern constitutional institutions inevitably step in.
And perhaps that is the real lesson here.
Malaysia cannot continue relying on vague understandings of power inherited from older political systems while simultaneously claiming to be a modern constitutional democracy.
Power must be clearly defined.
Removal mechanisms must be clearly defined.
And constitutional exceptions must have limits.
Otherwise, every institution in this country will eventually claim it is governed by its own special rules.
And once everyone becomes special—
no one is governed by the same nation anymore.
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.