Translation:

PRESS STATEMENT

VACANCY OF THE HEREDITARY TITLE OF TUNKU PANGLIMA BESAR, ONE OF THE FOUR PRINCES, NEGERI SEMBILAN

It is hereby announced that the ceremony described as the “Proclamation Ceremony” of the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, held at a hotel in Alor Gajah, Melaka on 5 June 2026, is invalid and not recognised under the Constitution, the law, and the customs of Negeri Sembilan.

Accordingly, the title of Yang di-Pertuan Besar that Y.A.M. Tunku Dato’ Seri Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar has attempted to assume is of no effect.

However, by attempting to accept that invalid title, Y.A.M. Tunku Dato’ Seri Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar has thereby relinquished the Hereditary Title of Tunku Panglima Besar of Negeri Sembilan that he previously held.

Consequently, there is no longer any holder of the Hereditary Title of Tunku Panglima Besar.

DATO’ AZIZI BIN MOHAMAD ALI Pengelola Bijaya Diraja (Royal Household Administrator / Master of the Royal Household) 9 June 2026

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Source:

• Istiadat pemasyhuran Yang di-Pertuan Besar ke-12 di Melaka tak sah, tidak diiktiraf (Harian Metro), 9 June 2026

• Pengelola Bijaya Diraja Istana Negeri Sembilan: ‘Istiadat Pemasyhuran’ Tunku Nadzaruddin tidak sah, kedudukan Tunku Panglima Besar kini kosong, (Twentytwo13), 9 June 2026

• Tunku Nadzaruddin’s ascension invalid, Tunku Panglima Besar title forfeited (New Straits Times), 9 June 2026

• Istiadat Pemasyhuran Yang di-Pertuan Besar ke-12 di Melaka tak sah, tidak diiktiraf - Pengelola Bijaya Diraja (Buletin TV3), 9 June 2026

• Pemasyhuran Tunku Nadzaruddin sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar tidak sah (Free Malaysia Today), 9 June 2026

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

The Yang di-Pertuan Besar, Tuanku Muhriz, consented to dissolve the State Legislative Assembly. The Seremban High Court granted an injunction preserving the status quo of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU). Rais Yatim and the chieftains attempted to run a DKU session, police cordoned the hall at Tampin, and a proclamation of a rival Yang di-Pertuan Besar was read at a hotel in Melaka, outside the state of Negeri Sembilan.

3 June 2026, Wed: State Secretary affirms the DKU is headed by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and no other party can suspend the DKU secretary.

The Negeri Sembilan State Secretary’s Office today said no party other than Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir has the power to suspend, terminate, replace or appoint the Dewan Keadilan Undang (DKU) secretary (Malay Mail, 3 June 2026).

4 June 2026, Thu: Menteri Besar announces the assembly will be dissolved.

After an audience with Tuanku Muhriz at Istana Besar Seri Menanti, Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun announced at a late-night press conference that His Highness had consented to dissolve the 36-seat State Legislative Assembly with effect from 5 June. The MB said notice would go to the Election Commission to fix nomination and polling dates, and that Pakatan Harapan would contest all 36 seats with the seat allocation among its component parties to follow (Malay Mail, 4 June 2026, The Borneo Post, 5 June 2026).

5 June 2026, Fri: The dispute reaches the courts, the police and an election timetable on a single day.

In the morning, the Seremban High Court granted an ad interim injunction following an application by DKU Secretary Raja Norazli Raja Nordin and the DKU, who were named as the first and second defendants. Justice Roz Mawar Rozain restrained the six plaintiffs, the removed Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong Mubarak Dohak, the Undangs of Jelebu, Johol and Rembau, the Tunku Besar Tampin and the Dato’ Shahbandar, from convening or holding any DKU meeting, including the special sitting set for that day, and from suspending, removing or interfering with the Secretary, pending further proceedings (The Sun, 5 June 2026, Free Malaysia Today, 5 June 2026).

Police then cordoned the Balai Rasmi Tunku Besar Tampin and briefly blocked several Undang and adat figures from entering (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026).

In the afternoon, the group reconvened at a five-star hotel in Alor Gajah, Melaka, where the Undang of Jelebu Maarof Mat Rashad read a proclamation on behalf of the chieftains declaring Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The Undang of Jelebu, Tunku Besar Tampin and former Menteri Besar Rais Yatim were present, while the remaining chieftains participated by video link. Rais then announced the proclamation to the press (The Star, 5 June 2026).

That evening, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim reaffirmed that Putrajaya continues to recognise Tuanku Muhriz as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026).

5 June 2026, Fri: DKU Secretary signals contempt proceedings.

Raja Norazli said he had reserved the right to begin committal proceedings for contempt of court against the six plaintiffs, on the basis of media reports that some of them, in particular the second plaintiff, the Undang of Jelebu, had taken part in the proclamation after the injunction was granted. He said this would be in addition to contempt proceedings already filed over conduct from the 13 May hearing onwards, and the matter was fixed for hearing on 7 July (Free Malaysia Today, 5 June 2026, The Edge Malaysia, 5 June 2026).

Commentary worth reading

Dr Ikmal Hisham Md Tah, on the injunction and Article 71 (Business Today, 7 June). The law lecturer argues that the injunction granted by the Seremban High Court came at 11.06am, “after the crucial Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) meeting had already concluded” which according to him, took place at 9.52am, so the order could not undo a decision already taken (Business Today, 5 June 2026).

Those two timings appear in his account alone, as no newsroom covering the day has reported a clock time for either the sitting or the order. That morning also saw police cordon the Balai Rasmi Tunku Besar Tampin and turn several chieftains away at the gate, which opened only after the Tunku Besar intervened, so whether a meeting convened and concluded before 9.52am is an open question rather than a settled fact.

Timing aside, the deeper problem is that neither gathering was a lawful one. The morning sitting was called by the chieftains themselves after the Secretary had declined to convene it, which this publication has argued they had no authority to do. Under Articles 19, a valid sitting of the DKU needs to be presided over by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and His Highness was absent. Hence, the morning meeting was not a valid DKU sitting.

(Read: Can Negeri Sembilan’s Ruling Chiefs Suspend the DKU Secretary and Convene Their Own Sitting?)

The afternoon proclamation at a hotel in Alor Gajah carries no constitutional effect either, because a Yang di-Pertuan Besar can be elected only when the throne is vacant, and on 5 June the throne was occupied by Tuanku Muhriz. Whichever hour the injunction took effect, it had no lawful decision to undo.

Dr Ikmal also argues that Article 71 of the Federal Constitution obliges the federal government to respect the chieftains’ decision, which this publication disagrees with.

(Read: What the Federal Constitution Says About Negeri Sembilan: Articles 71, 160, 181)

Terence Fernandez, “The case of two Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the precedent Malaysia cannot afford” (Scoop, 6 June). Scoop’s editor in chief calls the proclamation of Tunku Nadzaruddin a “farcical" installation and argues that a Ruler should not be removed merely because he has become an obstacle to the ambitions of others. His larger warning is institutional: the monarchy holds because it rests on legitimacy, tradition, and continuity, so a precedent set against a Yang di-Pertuan Besar today could be turned against another Sultan tomorrow, and would be hard to contain once established (Scoop, 6 June 2026).

What we are watching for next week

On the election timetable. The dissolution notice has gone to the Election Commission, which will fix nomination, early voting and polling dates. Pakatan Harapan has said it will contest all 36 seats and will announce its seat allocation, so the shape of the contest should become clearer within the week (Malay Mail, 4 June 2026).

On the invalid YDPB proclamation. Whether the camp behind the 5 June ceremony takes any further steps in reliance on the proclamation, given the standing High Court order, is the key thing to watch.

7 July 2026, Tue: Contempt hearing. The committal proceedings flagged by Raja Norazli are fixed for hearing. This is about whether the chieftains defied the court's order, which is a separate question from whether the court can hear the wider dispute at all, the issue fixed for 28 July.

28 July 2026, Tue: Seremban High Court jurisdiction hearing. Justice Roz Mawar Rozain is to decide whether Article 16(3), under which DKU advice on the election, succession, removal or vacation of an Undang is final and cannot be questioned in any court, strips the court of jurisdiction to hear Mubarak’s originating summons.

Summary

In a single week, Rais Yatim and chieftains pressed their claim through a proclamation of a rival Yang di-Pertuan Besar, while the state government answered through dissolution, the courts and continued federal recognition of Tuanku Muhriz as the lawful Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

New posts written by this publication last week

• Does Article 79 Let the Ruling Chiefs Convene a DKU Sitting on 5 June? - A constitutional scholar says yes. We disagree. The signatories may gather on 5 June. Whether that gathering constitutes a lawful sitting of the Dewan is another matter entirely.

• Tuanku Muhriz is still the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan — Much of the press described 5 June as a DKU sitting that installed a new Yang di-Pertuan Besar. On this publication’s reading of the Constitution, Tuanku Muhriz remains the lawful holder of the office.

About Weekly Round-Ups

Weekly Round-Ups are published every Monday morning. Each round-up covers what happened the previous week, what we are watching for in the week ahead, and links to posts published that week.

How to manage your subscription

When you subscribe to this Substack, you are subscribed to both formats by default: regular posts and Weekly Round-Ups.

To receive only the Weekly Round-Ups:

• From any email: scroll to the bottom and click Unsubscribe or Manage subscription. You will see the option to opt out of regular posts while keeping the Weekly Round-Up.

• From the website: go to Account Settings on Substack, find Anak Nogori under your subscriptions, and toggle off Posts while leaving Weekly Round-Ups on.

To unsubscribe entirely, click Unsubscribe at the bottom of any email, or use Substack’s account settings.

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Sources:

• State secretary: DKU secretary appointed by Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negri Sembilan (The Star, 3 June 2026)

• Countdown to election: Negeri Sembilan MB announces formal dissolution of state assembly (Malay Mail, 4 June 2026)

• Blocked in Tampin, proclaimed in Melaka: Rais Yatim says Negeri Sembilan has a new Ruler (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026)

• Ikmal Hisham Md Tah on the injunction and Article 71 (Business Today, 5 June 2026)

• Negeri Sembilan dispute may lead to contempt of court action (Free Malaysia Today, 5 June 2026)

• Negeri Sembilan State Assembly dissolved to pave way for state election (The Borneo Post, 5 June 2026)

• Negri royal row: DKU secretary to initiate committal proceedings for contempt of court against ruling chiefs (The Star, 5 June 2026)

• Negeri Sembilan dispute may lead to contempt of court action (The Edge Malaysia, 5 June 2026)

• Ruling chiefs proclaim Nadzaruddin new Negri ruler, says Rais (The Star, 5 June 2026)

• Seremban High Court grants injunctions in Negeri Sembilan DKU dispute (The Sun, 5 June 2026)

• Tuanku Muhriz is still Negeri Sembilan Ruler, Anwar says despite Melaka hotel proclamation (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026)

• Tuanku Muhriz remains recognised Negeri Sembilan Yang di-Pertuan Besar, says PM (Free Malaysia Today, 5 June 2026)

• The case of two Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the precedent Malaysia cannot afford (Scoop, 6 June 2026)

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

• The Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) or the state assembly was dissolved on the Menteri Besar (MB)’s advice and with the consent of Tuanku Muhriz, clearing the way for a snap election (The Edge, 4 June 2026).

• The “Ruling Chiefs”¹ called a special Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) sitting at Tampin for 5 June in order to suspend the DKU secretary and install Tunku Nadzaruddin as the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026).

• The Seremban High Court granted an interim injunction to preserve the status quo and stop the planned DKU sitting, barring any move to remove its secretary (The Star, 5 June 2026).

• On 5 June morning, police briefly locked the gate at the official residence of the Tunku Besar Tampin, the venue for the attempted DKU sitting, before the Tunku Besar Tampin opened it himself (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026). Interestingly, the removed Undang Mubarak was absent, the very chieftain who insists he still holds the Sungei Ujong title. Also absent were the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, Tuanku Muhriz (the DKU chairman) and Tunku Besar Seri Menanti Tunku Ali Redhauddin.

• Hours later, in what the Malay Mail reported as “apparent defiance of an interim injunction from the High Court”, Rais Yatim, the former Menteri Besar (MB), declared that Tunku Nadzaruddin had been proclaimed the twelfth Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan (Malay Mail, 6 June 2026).

• Tunku Nadzaruddin was reportedly kept by police from leaving his hotel in Melaka, so the “installation ceremony” was held in a bizarre location, outside the state of Negeri Sembilan, at a hotel in Melaka in what was described as “a farcical “installation” of Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar” (The Scoop, 7 June 2026). (New Straits Times, 5 June 2026).

• By Rais’ account, the proclamation was announced by the Undang of Jelebu, Maarof Mat Rashad, on behalf of the “Undang Yang Empat”¹, with Maarof and the Tunku Besar Tampin physically present and three other adat leaders (Undang of Johol, Undang of Rembau and the Dato’ Shahbandar of Sungei Ujong) via Zoom (Sinar Harian, 5 June 2026).

• The state government rejected the move and maintained that Tuanku Muhriz remains the lawful Yang di-Pertuan Besar. (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026).

• The Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, reaffirmed that the federation recognises Tuanku Muhriz as His Highness (Free Malaysia Today, 5 June 2026).

Rais claimed that the Undangs are the co-rulers and members of the Negeri Sembilan royal family.

In his statement to the police, Rais said,

“…anda menghalang orang daripada memasuki premis sebuah institusi yang diberi kuasa di bawah Perkara 18 Perlembagaan Negeri Sembilan. Mereka ini ialah Undang Luak Johol dan Jelebu, yang merupakan pembesar negeri. Mereka adalah pemerintah bersama (negeri ini). Ini tidak pernah berlaku sebelum ini, dan tanpa sebarang notis. Apa yang anda lakukan lebih teruk daripada komunis. Apakah kesalahan yang kami lakukan di sini? Ini adalah kerabat diraja Negeri Sembilan.”

Translation:

“…you are blocking people from entering the premises of an institution empowered under Article 18 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution. These are the Undang of Luak Johol and Jelebu, who are chiefs of the state. They are co-rulers (of this state). This has never happened before, and without any notice. What you are doing is worse than the communists. What wrong have we committed here? These are members of the Negeri Sembilan royal family” (Malaysiakini, 5 June 2026).

Rais was not merely protesting exclusion from a meeting. He was advancing a theory in which the Undangs are co-rulers of Negeri Sembilan and outrageously claiming that they are members of the royal family.

How did the mainstream media frame the proclamation?

The coverage was divided. One set of reports presented Tunku Nadzaruddin as the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar, either as an established fact or by attributing it to its proponents. That framing treats the central constitutional question as already settled when it is not. Tuanku Muhriz has not been removed and Tunku Nadzaruddin has not validly been installed.

Media articles presenting Tunku Nadzaruddin as Yang di-Pertuan Besar:

• New Negeri Sembilan Yang di-Pertuan Besar installed amid questions over DUN dissolution (The Rakyat Post, 5 June 2026)

• Tunku Nadzaruddin named Yang di-Pertuan Besar amid Negri crisis (The Star, 6 June 2026)

• Tunku Nadzaruddin dimasyhurkan sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan (Berita Harian, 5 June 2026)

• Undang Yang Empat masyhurkan Tunku Nadzaruddin sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan ke-12 (Sinar Harian, 5 June 2026)

• Ruling chiefs proclaim Nadzaruddin new Negri ruler, says Rais (The Star, 5 June 2026)

• Court Order Does Not Invalidate Tunku Nadzaruddin’s Proclamation, Says Constitutional Expert (Business Today, 7 June 2026)

A second set of more careful reports held that Tuanku Muhriz still remains the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, resting on the recognition of the state and the federation.

Media articles presenting Tuanku Muhriz as still the Yang di-Pertuan Besar:

• Tuanku Muhriz is still Negeri Sembilan Ruler, Anwar says despite Melaka hotel proclamation (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026)

• Putrajaya stands firmly behind Tuanku Muhriz, says Anwar (The Star, 5 June 2026)

• Tuanku Muhriz remains recognised Negeri Sembilan Yang di-Pertuan Besar, says PM (Free Malaysia Today, 5 June 2026)

• Kerajaan Persekutuan kekal iktiraf Tuanku Muhriz sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan (Berita Harian, 5 June 2026)

• Putrajaya kekal iktiraf Tuanku Muhriz... Upacara tabal Yang di-Pertuan Besar di hotel bawa implikasi besar (mStar, 5 June 2026)

The problem with this

The press carries a particular responsibility here, because most people learn what happened from a headline rather than from the Constitution, and on 5 June much of that reporting fell short of it.

Mainstream headlines shape public understanding of a crisis, and several of them did so incorrectly by repeating the organisers’ vocabulary and implying constitutional legitimacy where none was established.

Proper reporting should have marked the proclamation as contested and the gathering as a meeting of members. Some outlets managed to report on that carefully, others did not.

Why the “installation” of Tunku Nadzarrudin is not valid

Based on Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, the legal foundations for that conclusion are absent. One of the principal signatories, Mubarak Dohak, continues to act as Undang of Sungei Ujong despite having ceased to hold that office on 17 April 2026 when the Luak removed him and the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang acknowledged the removal under Article 16. The alleged deposition of Tuanku Muhriz on 19 April was also not valid and both the Negeri Sembilan Government and the Federal Government continued to recognise Tuanku Muhriz as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

In these circumstances, reporting that a proclamation occurred is one thing. Reporting that Negeri Sembilan has a new Yang di-Pertuan Besar is another. The first is a statement describes what happened. The second is a statement about the constitutional result of that event.

On 5 June, that proclamation was disputed, unrecognised by the governments concerned. Presenting it as an accomplished constitutional fact therefore risks misleading readers about the actual state of affairs.

Social media has been critical of the move

Social media reaction has been critical of Rais and the Undangs and run heavily toward Tuanku Muhriz, and the sample below illustrates that sentiment.

What this means

The Ruling Chiefs and Rais advanced a claim purporting to install a new Yang di-Pertuan Besar at an unlawful DKU sitting, while Rais also sought to characterise the Undangs as members of the Negeri Sembilan royal family.

Yet, Tuanku Muhriz remains the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan. The constitutional and customary foundations of his position remained intact on 5 June, notwithstanding the events in Melaka.

Proclamations may make headlines, but the throne does not move merely because someone declares that it had.

Read next: Press Statement: Vacancy of the Hereditary Title of Tunku Panglima Besar

¹ This publication uses the term Undang Yang Empat as shorthand for the signatories. Strictly, the Undang Yang Empat are the four Undangs of Sungei Ujong, Jelebu, Johol, and Rembau; the Tunku Besar Tampin and the Dato’ Shahbandar, who also signed, sit on the DKU under Article 17 and are Ruling Chiefs but but are not Undang. Mubarak Dohak ceased to hold the Sungei Ujong chieftainship on 17 April 2026, his removal occurring under the custom of the Luak and acknowledged by the DKU under Article 16, an acknowledgement Article 16(3) places beyond challenge in any court.”

² This publication has not independently verified the claims in these social media posts attached.

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Sources:

• The Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (Negeri Sembilan State Government, 1959)

• Negeri Sembilan state assembly to be dissolved on Friday, says MB amid talk of bid to oust ruler (The Edge, 4 June 2026)

• Blocked in Tampin, proclaimed in Melaka: Rais Yatim says Negeri Sembilan has a new Ruler (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026)

• Federal Government Continues To Recognise Tuanku Muhriz As Negeri Sembilan Ruler, Says Anwar (Business Today, 5 June 2026)

• High Court grants temporary injunction amid Negri custom crisis (The Star, 5 June 2026)

• Kerajaan kekal iktiraf Tuanku Muhriz (Free Malaysia Today, 5 June 2026)

• Kerajaan kekal iktiraf Tuanku Muhriz sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan - PM (TV Sarawak, 5 June 2026)

• Kerajaan Persekutuan kekal iktiraf kedudukan Tuanku Muhriz – PM Anwar (The Merdeka Times, 5 June 2026)

• Kerajaan Persekutuan kekal iktiraf Tuanku Muhriz sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan (Berita Harian, 5 June 2026)

• Kerajaan Persekutuan kekal iktiraf Tuanku Muhriz sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan (Harian Metro, 5 June 2026)

• Krisis N. Sembilan: Mahkamah halang Sidang Khas DKU, kekal status quo (Utusan Malaysia, 5 June 2026)

• Krisis takhta N. Sembilan memuncak, Tunku Nadzaruddin dimasyhur Yang di-Pertuan Besar ke-12 (Malaysia Gazette, 5 June 2026)

• Mahkamah Seremban benar permohonan injunksi ad interim, halang Sidang Khas DKU (Bernama, 5 June 2026)

• Negeri Sembilan royal crisis deepens as Tunku Nadzaruddin proclaimed in a hotel despite court order (Scoop, 5 June 2026)

• Negeri Sembilan royal succession row deepens as council sitting begins with police standoff (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026)

• New Negeri Sembilan Yang di-Pertuan Besar installed amid questions over DUN dissolution (The Rakyat Post, 5 June 2026)

• Pembubaran DUN Negeri Sembilan dipertikai selepas Tunku Nadzaruddin dimasyhur Yang di-Pertuan baharu (The Rakyat Post, 5 June 2026)

• Putrajaya kekal iktiraf Tuanku Muhriz... Upacara tabal Yang di-Pertuan Besar di hotel bawa implikasi besar (mStar, 5 June 2026)

• Putrajaya stands firmly behind Tuanku Muhriz, says Anwar (The Star, 5 June 2026)

• Ruling chiefs proclaim Nadzaruddin new Negri ruler, says Rais (The Star, 5 June 2026)

• Tuanku Muhriz is still Negeri Sembilan Ruler, Anwar says despite Melaka hotel proclamation (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026)

• Tuanku Muhriz remains recognised Negeri Sembilan Yang di-Pertuan Besar, says PM (Free Malaysia Today, 5 June 2026)

• Tunku Nadzaruddin dimasyhur sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar (Malaysiakini, 5 June 2026)

• Tunku Nadzaruddin dimasyhur sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan (mStar, 5 June 2026)

• Tunku Nadzaruddin dimasyhurkan sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan (Berita Harian, 5 June 2026)

• Tunku Nadzaruddin Proclaimed Negeri Sembilan Ruler As Court Order Adds Twist To Royal Dispute (Business Today, 5 June 2026)

• Undang Luak masyhurkan Tunku Nadzaruddin Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan Ke-12 (Harian Metro, 5 June 2026)

• Undang Yang Empat masyhur Tunku Nadzaruddin Yang di-Pertuan Besar NS ke-12 (Kosmo, 5 June 2026)

• Undang Yang Empat masyhurkan Tunku Nadzaruddin sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan ke-12 (Sinar Harian, 5 June 2026)

• High Court injunction halts DKU special meeting (The Star, 6 June 2026)

• Tunku Nadzaruddin named Yang di-Pertuan Besar amid Negri crisis (The Star, 6 June 2026)

• Court Order Does Not Invalidate Tunku Nadzaruddin’s Proclamation, Says Constitutional Expert (Business Today, 7 June 2026)

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

Wan Ahmad Fauzi argues that the Undang Yang Empat¹ and the Tunku Besar Tampin hold a prerogative to convene the DKU, because the Constitution places no restriction on how a sitting may be called, comparing it to the Conference of Rulers.

What is the prerogative argument for the 5 June sitting?

Wan Ahmad Fauzi’s case rests on three arguments.

First, he observes that the Constitution does not expressly state who may convene a DKU sitting.

Second, he draws an analogy to the Conference of Rulers, a body whose meetings may be summoned by a number of the Malay Rulers, to suggest that a member-initiated call is not unusual.

Third, he locates the members’ authority in Article 79, the provision that reserves the prerogatives of His Highness and the Ruling Chiefs, while accepting that the Yang di-Pertuan Besar would ordinarily preside and that the members may choose a substitute in his absence.

The first point is sound, and worth conceding plainly. From there, his arguments meet several problems.

1. The Constitution does not expressly confer the power to convene a meeting

The Negeri Sembilan Constitution does not specify who may convene a DKU sitting.

But a textual gap is not the same as a textual grant of power. The Constitution provides no express textual basis for the Ruling Chiefs to claim the power for themselves.

2. Article 79 is a weak foundation for implying it

Article 79 reads that, “except as expressed herein”, meaning except where this Constitution specifically says otherwise, the Constitution shall not affect the prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of His Highness and the Ruling Chiefs.

Put simply, it means that the Ruler and the Ruling Chiefs keep their traditional powers unless the Constitution specifically changes them. Lawyers call this a “savings clause”. It works as a safety net for powers the Constitution has not otherwise addressed. Two simple rules govern how it operates:

• If the Constitution is silent on something, the old customary powers still apply.

• If the Constitution has written a specific rule, that written rule wins, and Article 79 does not reach it.

The trouble for the prerogative argument is that Chapter 6 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 writes down almost everything about the DKU (a full reproduction of Chapter 6 can be found here):

• Under Article 16(1), the Ruling Chiefs may refer a matter to the Dewan for its advice. This provision gives them no power to convene a sitting at which that question would be heard.

• Article 17 fixes the membership.

• Article 18 fixes the minimum meeting frequency.

• Article 19 seats the President.

• Article 20 sets the quorum.

• Article 21 allows the Dewan to settle its own procedure and appoint committees.

• Article 25 reserves the appointment of the Secretary to His Highness.

Chapter 6 sets out much of how the Dewan works. It fixes who sits on it, who presides over it, how many members must be present, how it regulates its own procedure, and how its administration is organised. As such, the scope for Article 79 to operate is relatively limited.

The one thing Chapter 6 does not expressly say is who gets to convene a meeting. If Article 79 has any role here, it is on that narrow point.

Even then, the argument does not go very far. Article 79 preserves the prerogatives of “His Highness and the Ruling Chiefs”. It does not say that the Ruling Chiefs may exercise those powers by themselves against His Highness.

More importantly, calling a meeting is not the same as creating a valid sitting of the Dewan. Chapter 6 still requires a President in the chair and a quorum in attendance. Article 79 cannot override these constitutional requirements.

For a fuller analysis of Chapter 6 and the clauses governing the DKU, read Can Negeri Sembilan’s Ruling Chiefs Suspend the DKU Secretary and Convene Their Own Sitting? and What Is the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU)?

3. Conference of Rulers analogy does not fit

This analogy highlights more differences than similarities.

The Conference of Rulers is composed of sovereigns of equal rank, each the head of his own state, meeting as peers, which is why a convening call can sensibly originate among them.

The DKU is a single state council in which the Yang di-Pertuan Besar presides and the Ruling Chiefs sit as members beneath that chair, an arrangement Article 19 states in plain terms.

The practice of the Conference of Rulers therefore does not transfer neatly to the DKU.

4. Mubarak, as a signatory, does not hold office

The next problem is who is doing the convening. One of the six signatories, Mubarak, no longer holds the office he claims to act under. He ceased to hold office as Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong on 17 April 2026, his removal carried out under the custom of the Luak and acknowledged by the DKU under Article 16. Under Article 16(3), that advice is final and cannot be challenged in any court. A person who no longer holds an office cannot exercise the authority of that office, and a call to convene that counts him among its signatories is weaker for it.

The 29 May joint media statement also styles its signatories “pemerintah bersama (Co Ruler)” of Negeri Sembilan (Malaysiakini, 29 May 2026).

This publication has set out why the Undangs are not co-rulers of equal standing with the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

The Constitution refers to the Ruling Chiefs as “Rulers” in Article 28(2) for the purposes of Article 40(2), which sets out seven discretionary functions where the Undangs’ concurrence is required. Outside those seven functions the label carries no power, and those powers do not include convening a DKU sitting as a “co-ruler”.

5. A lawful DKU sitting still requires a lawful chair

The fifth problem is the chair. Even if the six signatories could call a sitting, Article 19 fixes who chairs it. His Highness presides at all meetings, and the members may pick a substitute only “in His absence”. The whole question is what “absence” means.

Absence means the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is unavailable that day, for example, due to travel or illness, so a stand-in holds his seat for that one sitting and hands it back; not because he was deliberately excluded from the meeting.

Deposed means something else entirely, that the seat is no longer his at all.

The 5 June sitting is built on the second claim, not the first. The 29 May joint media statement says Tuanku Muhriz’s authority has been stripped, and the signatories have named Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar (Malaysiakini, 29 May 2026).

If Tunku Nadzaruddin is the new Ruler, he could technically take the chair, even though their 29 May statement neither named him nor called him to preside over the 5 June meeting.

The difficulty is that the same “if” decides everything. Tunku Nadzaruddin can chair only if he is genuinely the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and he holds that office only if the April declaration that removed Tuanku Muhriz and installed him was valid.

Earlier pieces in this publication, along with former Malaysian Bar president Christopher Leong, constitutional lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus, ex-AGC Deputy Public Prosecutor Liyana Marzuki and DAP Secretary-General Anthony Loke, have argued that the 19 April declaration deposing Tuanku Muhriz as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is invalid because the constitutional requirements for removal were not met.

The logic in the argument is circular. The sitting is lawful only if its chair is lawful. The chair is lawful only if Tunku Nadzaruddin is truly the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and he holds that office only if the April declaration was valid. The validity of that declaration is the very issue in dispute. A sitting cannot derive its authority from assuming the conclusion on which its own authority depends.

Can the DKU sit on matters now before the High Court?

There is a further obstacle that has nothing to do with prerogative. The DKU Secretary has stated that a special sitting cannot be convened while the subject matter is before the courts, since the questions the sitting would take up overlap with live litigation (The Star, 28 May 2026).

Mubarak and five other office-holders have an originating summons pending in the Seremban High Court, with the jurisdictional objection set for hearing on 28 July. A sitting that presses ahead with substantially the same questions as are before the court raises a sub judice concern and risks giving the impression that the matter is being determined outside the judicial process.

What this means

A power to call a meeting is not the same as a power to constitute a lawful sitting of the DKU. Even if Article 79 permits the members to initiate a meeting, the Constitution still governs how the Dewan sits, who presides over it, and whether those purporting to exercise its powers lawfully hold the offices from which those powers arise.

Two of these difficulties are particularly significant. Mubarak no longer holds the office he claims to act under. And the sitting's authority depends entirely on accepting the 19 April declaration as valid, which has been strongly disputed.

As the perbilangan adat has it,

Berjenjang naik, bertangga turun. Authority climbs and descends by its proper rungs.

The signatories may gather on 5 June. Whether that gathering constitutes a lawful sitting of the Dewan is another matter entirely.

Read Next: Can Negeri Sembilan’s Ruling Chiefs Suspend the DKU Secretary and Convene Their Own Sitting?

Footnote:

¹ This publication uses the term “Undang Yang Empat” to refer to the four chieftains who signed the 19 April declaration. Mubarak Dohak ceased to hold office as Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong on 17 April 2026, his removal having occurred under the custom of the Luak and acknowledged by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) under Article 16 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959. Under Article 16(3), DKU advice on such questions is final and cannot be challenged in any court.

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Sources:

• The Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (Negeri Sembilan State Government), 1959

• Undangs take Negeri Sembilan crisis to court (Free Malaysia Today), 5 May 2026

• Enam pembesar adat NS arah DKU buat sidang khas bincang kemelut (Malaysiakini), 23 May 2026

• Negri royal crisis: DKU cannot convene special meeting as matter before courts, says secretary (The Star), 28 May 2026

• ‘Kami amat murka’ - Undang Luak berempat gantung tugas setiausaha DKU (Malaysiakini), 29 May 2026

• Krisis Negeri Sembilan: Enam pembesar adat murka, gantung tugas Setiausaha DKU (Sinar Harian), 29 May 2026

• Negri royal crisis: DKU secretary suspended indefinitely, says Undang of Jelebu (The Star), 29 May 2026

• Pembesar Adat Negeri Sembilan bermesyuarat di Balai Rasmi Tunku Besar Tampin (Utusan Malaysia), 29 May 2026

• Undang Yang Empat, Tunku Besar Tampin ada prerogatif panggil mesyuarat DKU Negeri Sembilan (Utusan Malaysia), 31 May 2026

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

Last week turned on a single confrontation: the Secretary of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) declined to convene the special sitting sought for 29 May, and the six signatories responded by gathering in Tampin and declaring the Secretary suspended.

28 May 2026, Thu: The DKU Secretary declines to convene the 29 May sitting.

In a letter dated 26 May addressed to the six signatories, Raja Norazli Raja Nordin said a special sitting could not be held while the dispute is before the courts, that any sitting called unilaterally by the chiefs and the Tunku Besar Tampin would be invalid, and that he and the DKU reserved the right to take legal action over steps that might prejudice the proceedings (The Star, 28 May 2026).

29 May 2026, Fri: Six signatories meet in Tampin, announce a suspension of the DKU Secretary, and move to set a new date for a DKU meeting.

Mubarak and the three serving Undangs, together with the Tunku Besar Tampin and the Dato’ Shahbandar of Sungei Ujong, met at the Balai Rasmi Tunku Besar Tampin and announced that they were suspending Raja Norazli indefinitely as DKU Secretary, that a committee would take over his duties, and that any correspondence he signed in the council’s name after 17 April carried no mandate. In the same statement they described themselves as “pemerintah bersama (Co-Ruler) Negeri Sembilan”, asserted powers equal to those of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and blamed the Menteri Besar, the State Secretary and the state legal adviser for failing to stay neutral. Read their Joint Media Statement in Behasa Melayu and translated in English here.

Speaking for the group, the Undang of Jelebu, Maarof Mat Rashad, said six of the eight DKU members had agreed, and the six fixed 5 June as the new date for a special sitting at Tampin, inviting the Chief Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Police to attend as observers (Malaysiakini, 29 May 2026, The Star, 29 May 2026).

This publication has set out, provision by provision, why the announced suspension carries no constitutional effect.

Read More: The DKU Secretary Has Not Been Suspended. So Why Is the Press Reporting That He Has?

Read More: Can Negeri Sembilan’s Ruling Chiefs Suspend the DKU Secretary and Convene Their Own Sitting?

Commentary worth reading

16 May 2026, Sat: Dr Ikmal Hisham Md Tah, a constitutional law lecturer at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), writing with Mohd Khairil Hisham Mohd Ashaari, sets out the “Alam Beraja, Luak Berundang” reading of Article 181 of the Federal Constitution, treating the Ruling Chiefs as protected alongside the Malay Rulers (Free Malaysia Today, 16 May 2026).

The difference between this publication’s reading and Dr Ikmal’s centres on whether to prioritise a strict constitutional-textualist reading of the written 1959 Constitution or a historical-customary interpretation grounded in Adat Perpatih and the treaties that preceded it. The two perspectives present a genuine difference of interpretation between the written law and the traditional prerogative.

28 May 2026, Thu: The Star’s report carrying Raja Norazli’s letter is the clearest account this week of why the Secretary treats a unilaterally convened sitting as invalid while the suit is live, and why he frames the matter as one for the courts first (The Star, 28 May 2026).

What we are watching for next week

5 June 2026, Fri: The attempted rescheduled special sitting at Tampin. The six have set 5 June for the sitting the Secretary declined to convene. The questions are whether it proceeds, who attends, and on what footing, given that the Yang di-Pertuan Besar ordinarily convenes and presides over the DKU under Articles 19 and 24, and that the Secretary has called any unilaterally convened sitting invalid.

Ongoing: Any legal action over the unilateral steps. The DKU and the Secretary reserved the right to act over moves they say would prejudice the court proceedings, so whether either side files anything in the days ahead is open.

28 July 2026: Seremban High Court hears the jurisdiction objection. Justice Roz Mawar Rozain will decide whether Article 16(3) strips the court of jurisdiction over Mubarak’s originating summons for the 17 April minutes. The merits are reached only if the court first finds it has jurisdiction.

Summary

The crisis has moved beyond whether the Yang di-Pertuan has been deposed, or whether Mubarak has been removed as an Undang, with multiple contenders assuming appointment of his position. This week it became a dispute about who can lawfully hold the DKU council and remove the DKU secretary.

New posts written by this publication last week

• The DKU Secretary Has Not Been Suspended. So Why Is the Press Reporting That He Has? — Article 25 reserves the appointment and removal of the DKU Secretary to the Yang di-Pertuan Besar alone, so a suspension announced by six signatories carries no constitutional effect.

• Can Negeri Sembilan’s Ruling Chiefs Suspend the DKU Secretary and Convene Their Own Sitting? — A provision-by-provision reading of the 29 May statement against the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, examining each claim it makes against Articles 19, 20, 21, 24 and 25.

• Joint Media Statement: 29 May 2026 — An English translation of the joint statement issued by the six signatories on 29 May, reproduced with the publication’s standard caveats.

• Hari Raya Aidiladha and the Meaning of Duty — A Hari Raya Haji reflection on korban, and on how Adat Perpatih holds rakyat, chiefs and rulers alike to a standard of sacrifice and duty.

About Weekly Round-Ups

Weekly Round-Ups are published every Monday morning. Each round-up covers what happened the previous week, what we are watching for in the week ahead, and links to posts published that week.

How to manage your subscription

When you subscribe to this Substack, you are subscribed to both formats by default: regular posts and Weekly Round-Ups.

To receive only the Weekly Round-Ups:

• From any email: scroll to the bottom and click Unsubscribe or Manage subscription. You will see the option to opt out of regular posts while keeping the Weekly Round-Up.

• From the website: go to Account Settings on Substack, find Anak Nogori under your subscriptions, and toggle off Posts while leaving Weekly Round-Ups on.

To unsubscribe entirely, click Unsubscribe at the bottom of any email, or use Substack’s account settings.

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Sources:

• Kedaulatan Negeri Sembilan: Antara Perlembagaan, realiti adat (Free Malaysia Today, 16 May 2026)

• Negri royal crisis: DKU cannot convene special meeting as matter before courts, says secretary (The Star, 28 May 2026)

• DKU secretary suspended for failing to convene special meeting (New Straits Times, 29 May 2026)

• ‘Kami amat murka’ - Undang Luak berempat gantung tugas setiausaha DKU (Malaysiakini, 29 May 2026)

• Krisis Negeri Sembilan: Enam pembesar adat murka, gantung tugas Setiausaha DKU (Sinar Harian, 29 May 2026)

• N Sembilan chieftains suspend council secretary, urge MB to take neutral stance (Malaysiakini, 29 May 2026)

• Negri royal crisis: DKU secretary suspended indefinitely, says Undang of Jelebu (The Star, 29 May 2026)

• Pembesar Adat Negeri Sembilan bermesyuarat di Balai Rasmi Tunku Besar Tampin (Utusan Malaysia, 29 May 2026)

  ---

  Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

  

On 29 May 2026, the removed Undang Mubarak along with five adat office-holders, the Undangs of Jelebu, Johol, and Rembau, the Tunku Besar Tampin and the Dato’ Shahbandar, issued a joint media statement that set out to do three things: suspend the Secretary of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU), Raja Norazli Raja Nordin, appoint a committee to take over his powers, and fix 5 June as the date for a special sitting at the Tunku Besar Tampin’s official hall (The Star, 29 May 2026).

In their own statement, they describe themselves as “pemerintah bersama (Co Ruler) Negeri Sembilan merangkap ahli majoriti Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan” (co-rulers of Negeri Sembilan and as the majority of the DKU) (Malaysiakini, 29 May 2026).

The 29 May declaration fails because it attempts to exercise the powers of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) outside of a lawfully convened session, while usurping executive authorities reserved exclusively for the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The analysis below examines the announcement against the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, provision by provision, arguing why each of its claims are difficult to sustain constitutionally.

Can the Ruling Chiefs¹ suspend or dismiss the DKU Secretary?

No. The appointment and tenure of the Secretary are reserved exclusively to the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Article 25 vests in His Highness alone the power to appoint the Secretary, who “shall hold office during His pleasure.” The power to suspend or remove is the obverse of the power to appoint, and it resides in the same hand. A suspension declared by members is therefore ultra vires, an act beyond their authority.

This constitutional defect is fatally compounded by the inclusion of Mubarak. Having been lawfully removed from office, he is no longer a member of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang. His signature on the joint statement does not merely fail to enlarge the group’s authority; it actively taints the document by attempting to exercise state power through a non-member.

Can a committee be appointed to suspend the DKU Secretary and his powers?

No. The power to set up committees under Article 21 cannot be used to fill or remove the office of Secretary, which the Constitution reserves to the His Highness under Article 25. The Secretary holds office “during His pleasure,” so the power to suspend or remove him rests in the same hand that appoints him. A body cannot delegate a power it was never given, so a committee created under Article 21 cannot reach an office the Constitution confines to the His Highness. The defect is compounded by the fact that the committee was purportedly created through a signed statement rather than by the Dewan sitting in session.

Can the Ruling Chiefs convene a DKU meeting without the Yang di-Pertuan Besar?

No. Article 19 provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Besar presides at every sitting, and it permits the members to elect a substitute to preside only “in His absence”. That phrase covers a genuine inability to preside, rather than an absence created by excluding the President from the sitting altogether by treating the Chair as no longer his.

The 29 May statement makes no provision for His Highness to preside, because it proceeds on the footing that his position has already been displaced, describing the signatories as "pemerintah bersama (Co Ruler) Negeri Sembilan" and asserting that Tuanku Muhriz's "status and position as Power-Holder (Punca Kuasa)" has been "stripped" (Malaysiakini, 29 May 2026).

That premise has no constitutional event behind it, because Article 10, the only route by which the Undangs may act against a sitting Yang di-Pertuan Besar, was not fulfilled. With those steps absent, Article 11 leaves Tuanku Muhriz as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and Article 19 still seats him as the one who presides. A sitting convened on the footing that the Chair stands vacant or jointly held therefore falls outside the situation Article 19 was drafted to address.

Can the Ruling Chiefs convene the special sitting on 5 June themselves?

The Constitution does not name who summons a sitting of the Dewan. However, no provision empowers the members to summon the Dewan. Article 18 fixes only that it shall meet at least three times a year, and it allocates no convening power to anyone, still less to a group of members.

The most a Ruling Chief may do under Article 16(1) is refer a matter to the Dewan for its advice. It carries no power to fix a date or summon the sitting at which the question would be heard.

Was an alternate presiding officer lawfully appointed for the 5 June sitting?

No presiding officer was named. The election of a substitute under Article 19 is an act performed by the members at a convened DKU sitting; it cannot be settled beforehand by circular. The 29 May statement fixed a venue and focused on the Secretary, but left the chair unnamed.

Can a majority of the Ruling Chiefs exercise the DKU’s powers by signing a joint statement?

No. A majority of members has no capacity to exercise the Dewan’s powers by instrument, because those powers vest in the Dewan as a constituted body rather than in its members acting on their own. Article 17 is a composition provision: it enumerates who the members are and confers no executive faculty on members acting outside a sitting. The deliberative and advisory functions of the DKU are exercisable only once it is lawfully convened under Article 19 and quorate under Article 20. The statement conflates composition with authority. Membership of the Dewan does not, by itself, confer authority to exercise the Dewan's powers outside a lawfully constituted sitting.

Can the sitting be quorate without the Yang di-Pertuan Besar or a lawfully elected presiding member?

No. Article 20 assumes the existence of a His Highness or substitute presiding officer. If no person is lawfully in the chair, the quorum provision cannot operate as intended.

Can the Ruling Chiefs invite non-members to DKU meetings?

Article 24 permits the Dewan to invite non-members to its meetings where their presence is considered desirable. That power belongs to the Dewan itself and is exercisable only when it is lawfully in session. The signatories to the 29 May declaration cannot exercise the Article 24 power of invitation, because the Dewan was not in session when the invitations were issued.

What this means

On this publication’s reading, the 29 May announcement is inconsistent with multiple provisions of the Constitution.

The DKU possesses authority only when it sits as a constituted body, convened in accordance with constitutional procedure, presided over by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and quorate. Its powers belong to the Dewan acting in session, not to its members acting by declaration.

Measured against that standard, the statement purports to meet without His Highness contrary to Article 19; to proceed without a quorum that Article 20 cannot supply absent a lawful presiding figure; to suspend a Secretary whom Article 25 places in His Highness’ hands alone; to vest his powers in a committee that Article 21 cannot create for that purpose; to convene a sitting that no provision empowers the members to summon; and to invite observers under a power that Article 24 confers upon the Dewan rather than upon its members.

Mubarak and five adat office-holders set out to suspend a Secretary, install a committee, and summon a sitting with a statement issued on 29 May. On this reading of the Constitution, none of those acts fall within their powers.

Read Next: Tuanku Muhriz is still the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan

Footnote:

^{1 “}Ruling Chiefs” is the term Article 14 uses for the holders of the four Luak chieftainships, Sungei Ujong, Jelebu, Johol and Rembau. The heading uses it for convenience to describe the signatories, yet one of them signs as Undang of Sungei Ujong while no longer holding that office. Mubarak ceased to hold the Sungei Ujong chieftainship on 17 April 2026, his removal having occurred under the custom of the Luak and acknowledged by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) under Article 16.

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Sources:

• The Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (Negeri Sembilan State Government), 1959

• Krisis Negeri Sembilan: Undang, pembesar negeri failkan saman pemula terhadap kerajaan negeri (Sinar Harian), 5 May 2026

• Undangs take Negeri Sembilan crisis to court (Free Malaysia Today), 5 May 2026

• Enam pembesar adat NS arah DKU buat sidang khas bincang kemelut (Malaysiakini), 23 May 2026

• Negri royal crisis: DKU cannot convene special meeting as matter before courts, says secretary (The Star), 28 May 2026

• ‘Kami amat murka’ - Undang Luak berempat gantung tugas setiausaha DKU (Malaysiakini), 29 May 2026

• Krisis Negeri Sembilan: Enam pembesar adat murka, gantung tugas Setiausaha DKU (Sinar Harian), 29 May 2026

• Negri royal crisis: DKU secretary suspended indefinitely, says Undang of Jelebu (The Star), 29 May 2026

• Pembesar Adat Negeri Sembilan bermesyuarat di Balai Rasmi Tunku Besar Tampin (Utusan Malaysia), 29 May 2026

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

Mainstream media have reported, almost without exception, that statement.

“Negri royal crisis: DKU secretary suspended indefinitely, says Undang of Jelebu” - (The Star, 29 May 2026)

‘Kami amat murka’ - Undang Luak berempat gantung tugas setiausaha DKU - (Malaysiakini, 29 May 2026)

[VIDEO] Krisis Negeri Sembilan: Enam pembesar adat murka, gantung tugas Setiausaha DKU - (Sinar Harian, 29 May 2026)

DKU secretary suspended for failing to convene special meeting - (NST, 29 May 2026)

The framing has appeared in in headlines and in social media posts, and it has settled quickly into the default shorthand for what happened on 29 May.

There is one constitutional problem with this framing: the people who announced the suspension hold no power to impose it.

What the Constitution reserves to the Yang di-Pertuan Besar

Article 25 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 provides that the Secretary is appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and holds office “during His pleasure.” The power to suspend or remove him is the obverse of the power to appoint, and it rests in the same hand. On this publication’s reading, an announcement by members who do not hold that power does not by itself vacate the office, and Raja Norazli continues to hold it unless the Yang di-Pertuan Besar decides otherwise.

Why the distinction matters

A declared suspension and an effective one are different things. What the headline framing leaves in the background is that the announcement may carry no constitutional effect, because the office was never theirs to touch. A reader who sees “DKU Secretary suspended” is invited to conclude that the post has changed hands, when the better reading is that an attempt was made and the holder remains in place.

The body that issued the announcement is itself contested. The six describe themselves as the majority of the DKU, yet one of them, the removed Undang of Sungei Ujong, Mubarak Dohak, holds no DKU seat, his removal having taken effect on 17 April 2026 under the custom of the Luak and acknowledged by the DKU under Article 16. Whether this group could suspend a Secretary, appoint a committee, or convene a sitting at all is examined in full, provision by provision, in the companion piece below.

Read Next: Can Negeri Sembilan’s Ruling Chiefs Suspend the DKU Secretary and Convene Their Own Sitting?

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Sources:

• The Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (Negeri Sembilan State Government), 1959

• Negri royal crisis: DKU cannot convene special meeting as matter before courts, says secretary (The Star), 28 May 2026

• ‘Kami amat murka’ - Undang Luak berempat gantung tugas setiausaha DKU (Malaysiakini), 29 May 2026

• Krisis Negeri Sembilan: Enam pembesar adat murka, gantung tugas Setiausaha DKU (Sinar Harian), 29 May 2026

• Negri royal crisis: DKU secretary suspended indefinitely, says Undang of Jelebu (The Star), 29 May 2026

• DKU secretary suspended for failing to convene special meeting (NST), 29 May 2026)

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

AL-WATHIQU BILLAH, His Royal Highness Dato’ Klana Petra Dato’ Haji Mubarak Bin Thahak, Undang Luak Sungai Ujong; His Royal Highness Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhiruzaman Dato’ Maaroof Bin Haji Mat Rashad, Undang Luak Jelebu; His Royal Highness Dato’ Muhammed Bin Haji Abdullah, Undang Luak Johol; His Royal Highness Dato’ Sedia Raja Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim Bin Haji Yasin, Undang Luak Rembau; His Royal Highness Dato’ Lela Perkasa Sitiawan Dato’ Johan Pahlawan, Tunku Besar Tampin (Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Syed Razman Bin Syed Idrus Al-Qadri); and His Highness Dato’ Seri Utama Haji Badaruddin Bin Haji Abdul Khalid, Dato’ Shahbandar Sungai Ujong:

WHEREAS We are deeply angered and disappointed by the failure of Raja Norazli Bin Raja Nordin to comply with the order and decree of Us as the Joint Ruler (Co-Ruler) of the Government of Negeri Sembilan, in his capacity as Majority Member (Ahli Majoriti) of the Council of Justice and Laws of the State (Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan – DKU), to convene the call for a Special Council Meeting of the DKU on this day, 29 May 2026.

WHEREAS the conduct of Raja Norazli Bin Raja Nordin is reckless, contrary to customary rules, and highly inappropriate. He is in truth no longer fit to serve as Secretary of the Council of Justice and Laws of Negeri Sembilan. We affirm that the DKU is the absolute customary right of its members as set out in Article 17 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, in accordance with established practice, and is not the property of any individual — let alone Tunku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir, whose status and position as Power-Holder (Punca Kuasa) has been stripped by way of a binding and lawful unanimous decision of the rightful customary holders. Any decision taken by the Secretary of the DKU on behalf of the DKU must carry the consent of the majority of members, and not merely on the instruction of one or two individuals, or be influenced by directions from any party not a member (tiada locus standi) of the DKU or of the administration of the Negeri Sembilan Government.

There is no power of individual veto within the DKU. Therefore all correspondence issued in the name of the DKU bearing the signature of Raja Norazli Bin Raja Nordin after the date of 17 April 2026 is without the mandate of the consensus of DKU members, amounts to misuse of the institution and position, is not binding, is defective both in customary and statutory terms, and constitutes an attempt to mislead the Malay community and the Government of the Federation. Article 17 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 states as follows:

Members of the Council

17. This Council shall comprise His Royal Highness, the Undang Yang Empat, and the Tunku Besar Tampin, Tengku Besar Seri Menanti, Dato’ Shahbandar Sungai Ujong, and whoever else is a Malay dignitary appointed from time to time for any period determined by His Royal Highness in the Undang Yang Empat.

WHEREAS We also express our profound disappointment at the failure of the Honourable Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan, the Honourable State Secretary of Negeri Sembilan, and the Honourable State Legal Adviser of Negeri Sembilan to act in a neutral manner during this crisis, which has now been prolonged and worsened. What is our standing in the view of the Honourable Menteri Besar, the Honourable State Secretary and the Honourable State Legal Adviser? We assert that the powers conferred by the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution upon the Yang Di-Pertuan Besar are likewise conferred jointly upon Us as the Government. There can be no division. It is time the Honourable Menteri Besar, the Honourable State Secretary and the Honourable State Legal Adviser truly understood the express provisions of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 concerning Our powers and position. Accordingly, We find it necessary, for the administration of the Government of Negeri Sembilan, to take a stand of principle and not act “lebih sudu dari kuah” (”more spoon than gravy”) nor “ibarat kerbau dicucuk hidung” (”like a buffalo led by the nose”), and to take steps that are reasonable and necessary to give voice to the call for Us to exercise Our customary powers and duties as set out in resolving this turmoil and confusion. Nor should they act in the manner of “lempar batu sembunyi tangan” (”throwing a stone and hiding the hand”).

WHEREAS in light of these increasingly pressing latest circumstances concerning the issues arising from the turmoil in customary administration and governance of Negeri Sembilan, consistent with customary practice and Article 16(1) and (3) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 — which confer absolute power upon the DKU to deliberate any matter relating to customary affairs and duties in Negeri Sembilan — We, as members of the DKU and the majority thereof in accordance with practice and as provided under Article 17 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, hereby unanimously summon and set a new date for the Special Meeting of the DKU on Friday, 5 June 2026, at 9:00 a.m. at Balai Rasmi YTM Tunku Besar Tampin, Negeri Sembilan, to deliberate the said matter. The convening of this Special Meeting of the DKU is imperative for the sake of customary administration in particular, and the wellbeing of Negeri Sembilan in general. “Biar mati anak jangan mati adat” (”Let the child die, but never let custom die”).

WHEREAS on the strength of the power conferred upon Us as the majority of DKU members, and with reference to Article 24 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, We have unanimously resolved to invite the Chief Secretary to the Government (Ketua Setiausaha Negara), the Attorney General (Peguam Negara), and the Inspector-General of Police (Ketua Polis Negara) as invitees and independent observers. This invitation is appropriate and reasonable in light of the unprofessional conduct and continuing dereliction of duty by the Secretary of the DKU and the administration of the State Government of Negeri Sembilan in carrying out their duties, and further to the failure to give effect to the decree of Us alongside YTM Undang Yang Empat as members of the DKU and concurrently the Joint Ruler (Co-Ruler) of the State Government of Negeri Sembilan, in exercising the powers and duties conferred upon Us. Article 24 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 provides as follows:

Attendance of persons other than members

24. The Council may permit any person to be present at its sittings if it is deemed reasonable for that person to be present.

WHEREAS, in light of the continuing neglect and failure of Raja Norazli Bin Raja Nordin to carry out his duties and responsibilities, We hereby unanimously invoke the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 to suspend the duties of Raja Norazli Bin Raja Nordin and thereafter appoint a Special Committee to exercise the powers of the Secretary of the DKU, to manage matters including, but not limited to, the convening of meetings and the carrying out of the duties of the Secretary of the DKU at the said Special Meeting of the DKU on 5 June 2026. Article 21 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 provides as follows:

Regulations and appointment of committees

21. Subject to the conditions of this Constitution, the Council may make its own regulations and appoint committees to carry out its duties.

We humbly pray that this process proceeds smoothly and orderly under the grace and mercy of Allah SWT. Unto Allah SWT alone do We submit.

Thus decreed.

Issued on this 29th day of May 2026, corresponding to 12 Zulhijjah 1447H.

Read Next: The DKU Secretary Has Not Been Suspended. So Why Is the Press Reporting That He Has?

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Source:

• Joint Media Statement of the Undangs, Tunku Besar Tampin and Dato’ Shahbandar (Facebook, Nordanial Hamzah), 29 May 2026

Joint Media Statement 29 May 2026

911KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

Aidiladha is the festival of korban. At mosques across the state, animals are sacrificed and the meat shared out, much of it given to the poor. It is a fitting week to think about duty.

In Negeri Sembilan, duty does not stop at the palace. It is a principle that runs through the whole society, from the rakyat up to the ruler. One that Adat Perpatih holds everyone to.

The festival is a fitting moment to ask: what does duty demand, and of whom?

Who carries this duty?

Adat Perpatih spreads duty across a wide structure of customary office, one that reaches into every village in the state. Below the Yang di-Pertuan Besar sits the Undangs and a body of office-holders who carry the day-to-day weight of the custom.

In the four Luak headed by an Undang, a Buapak is chosen by unanimous vote of his anak buah, holds office for life, and can be removed by the same people who raised him if he fails them. The Lembaga who head the suku are chosen from below in the same way.

In daily life, this means a large body of men and women who carry real responsibility for marriage, inheritance, land, and the settling of disputes. A Buapak is on call for his perut for the rest of his life. The work is often rural and largely invisible to the state, and much of it rests on women, because the suku passes through the female line and the senior matrilineal figures, the Ibu Soko, hold authority the Undang cannot simply override.

The Undang sit within this same structure, though on different terms. They are not appointed by the ruler but raised by the Lembaga beneath them, and each carries the Adat life of an entire Luak, its disputes, its inheritances, and its ceremonies, alongside formal duties of state. That responsibility is genuine, lifelong and salaried, which distinguishes it from the office of the Buapak below. The distinction matters in any discussion of sacrifice, because the duty of an Undang is real and compensated, while the duty of the Buapak beneath him is just as real, yet carries no formal government salary.

What does Adat expect of a Ruler?

Adat Perpatih treats the office of a Ruler as an obligation, before a privilege. One of the oldest sayings about the Yang di-Pertuan Besar makes the point plainly:

Raja itu keadilan. (The Ruler is justice.)

The ruler’s role is to deliver keadilan, justice, on behalf of the people. In the customary view, authority is entrusted rather than owned, and office exists to carry obligation rather than to accumulate entitlement.

This standard applies not only to rulers but to all who hold office under Adat. The Undang are held to it as well: office carries obligations, and those who fail them must be answerable for it.

Important decisions are expected to be made in the open. The custom has a phrase for this:

Adat lalu di tengah terang (Adat passes in the light of day), and another for its opposite, hukuman di balik batang (judgement passed behind the tree-trunk), which it treats as a failure.

So Adat asks two things of any serious matter, weighing whether an office-holder has fallen short, and weighing just as firmly whether the process used to reach a decision was proper, meaning whether the grounds were stated, the affected party heard, and the right bodies consulted.

How has royal duty expressed itself in Negeri Sembilan?

In Negeri Sembilan, the royal family have concentrated their public work on a few fields: education, health, and charity.

Tuanku Muhriz has been Chancellor of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia since 2009. The UKM teaching hospital that carries his name, Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz in Cheras, treats hundreds of thousands of patients each year, and the annual Tuanku Muhriz Chancellor Lecture has run for six years and counting.

Tuanku Aishah Rohani has been Chancellor of Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia since 2011, only the second person to hold the role, and her own university records that she visits welfare homes and hospitals rather than confining the office to ceremony. She is Royal Patron of the Negeri Sembilan Girl Guides Association, which marked its centenary in 2024, and her work has consistently centred on children, education, and care. The Sekolah Menengah Sains Tuanku Aishah Rohani in Seremban is an all-girls residential science school named in her honour, one of the country’s MARA-administered fully residential science schools, focused on STEM education for high-performing female students.

Tunku Ali Redhauddin, the elder son, co-founded Teach For Malaysia in 2010 and has chaired it since, and the organisation has placed several hundred fellows as full-time teachers in close to 900 government schools, reaching well over 330,000 schoolchildren. He is Pro-Chancellor of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and chairs the board of trustees of Yayasan Munarah, the family foundation. As President of WWF-Malaysia for eight years, he oversaw conservation work that removed dozens of active wire snares from the Belum-Temengor forest. As chairman of Cancer Research Malaysia, he has supported the development of ARiCa, a genetic risk tool calibrated for Asian women that has helped guide more than 1,700 breast cancer patients through diagnosis and treatment.

Tunku Zain Al-’Abidin, the younger son, is Pro-Chancellor of both Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia and UCSI University and a Royal Fellow of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. He co-founded the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), a think tank, in 2006, and through it has built institutions that serve children the system leaves out. In 2012, IDEAS opened the IDEAS Autism Centre in Rawang, Selangor, providing early intervention, therapy, and education to young children with autism from low-income families, and in February 2022 Tuanku Muhriz inaugurated a second centre in Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, alongside Tunku Ali, Tunku Zain, and Tunku Imran.

In September 2014, IDEAS opened IDEAS Academy, a school in Pudu, Kuala Lumpur, that began with 24 students. Its pupils are refugee, stateless, and undocumented children, the children Malaysian law does not allow into government schools. Since rebranded as IDEAS International, the school serves over 295 students across campuses in Kuala Lumpur and Penang, and it runs the country’s first Cambridge examination centre for refugee children, endorsed by the UNHCR.

Much of the family’s charitable work runs through Yayasan Munarah, the foundation established in January 2010, soon after Tuanku Muhriz came to the throne, and named after his late parents, Tuanku Munawir and Tunku Ampuan Durah. The foundation works across five pillars: education, poverty alleviation, healthcare and special needs, culture and the arts, and conservation. Tunku Ali chairs its board of trustees and Tunku Zain is a trustee. Its school-aid programme provides uniforms, shoes, and supplies to children from low-income Negeri Sembilan families at the start of the school year, with 276 pupils helped in January 2026 alone, and its scholarship support has carried students from low-income families through to university.

The royal family’s public work is quiet and consistent, attending state-level open houses across the religious calendar, community events, charity runs, and conducting grassroots fundraising for families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners. Most of these positions are unpaid or carry minimal compensation.

The two princes also hold careers in business and finance. The public roles described here sit alongside that paid work, making the time devoted to them a genuine sacrifice of time, energy, and opportunity. Korban means something precisely because the sacrifice is voluntary.

What this means

A discerning reader would note that a royal title carries real advantages, since many institutions seek a royal name for their boards. Invitations are abundant, and even an unpaid chancellorship is, in part, an honour conferred.

While the advantage of a royal position may offer the opportunity, it does not necessarily result in the commitment and sacrifice that duty asks for. A title may open the door to a board seat, yet it does not compel one to spend years building a refugee school, chairing a cancer research body, or dedicating decades to public education.

The royal family’s record invites the same question of every office Adat recognises. If the standard applies from the rakyat up to the ruler, then it applies no less to the Undang who hold the four Luak. Two of the chiefs came to office from careers in teaching and public administration. Adat's question reaches further than any salaried role: to what a person gives beyond what they are paid for, and at what cost to themselves. That is not a question this article sets out to answer. It is simply a question every citizen in Negeri Sembilan is entitled to ask, of every office-holder and of themselves alike.

Aidiladha does not celebrate power. It honours what a person is willing to give up for others. What Adat asks is whether privilege has been matched by a sacrifice worthy of it. In Negeri Sembilan, it applies that question across the board, to the ordinary people, the Buapak, the Undang and the Rulers alike.

That is why Adat insists:

Adat lalu di tengah terang. (Adat passes in the light of day.)

Read Next: The Royal Family of Negeri Sembilan: Service over Spectacle

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Sources:

• Adat Perpatih, (Negeri Sembilan Government Official Portal)

• Yayasan Munarah, (Yayasan Munarah)

• Sambutan Hari Raya Aidiladha, ibadah korban kembali meriah, (Selangorkini), 10 July 2022

• D.Y.M.M. Tuanku Muhriz inaugurated the IDEAS Autism Centre in Nilai, (CSR Malaysia), 16 February 2022

• IDEAS Academy and the Cambridge refugee exam centre, (Bernama), 23 July 2023

• Warm and Down-to-Earth Royal Family, (The Star), 14 January 2025

• A second home of hope: Ronald McDonald House, (Sinar Daily), 3 November 2025

• 276 pelajar terima bantuan persekolahan daripada Yayasan Munarah, (Negeri Kita), 15 January 2026

• IDEAS Academy / IDEAS International, (Young Refugee Cause)

• Teach For Malaysia FAQ, (Teach For Malaysia)

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

The main developments last week fell into three areas: political, with renewed talk of a state election; legal, with senior figures arguing over the authority of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU); and procedural, with six adat office-holders calling for a special DKU sitting on 29 May.

17 May 2026, Sun: PH signals Negeri Sembilan is ready for a state election.

At the Pakatan Harapan Convention, Anthony Loke said Negeri Sembilan could follow Johor into a snap poll, while Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun told the same gathering that UMNO had “lost direction” (The Edge Malaysia, 17 May 2026, The Vibes, 17 May 2026).

20 May 2026, Wed: Aminuddin keeps the door open on a state election.

After chairing the state executive council meeting, the Menteri Besar said an election this year remained open, and confirmed he is personally carrying three vacant exco portfolios left empty since BN’s councillors withdrew (The Star, 20 May 2026).

22 May 2026, Fri: UMNO’s deputy president calls for the assembly to be convened.

UMNO deputy president Mohamad Hasan said Aminuddin should seek the consent of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and convene the Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) to confirm whether he still holds the majority, and that if the majority is gone, the proper step is to seek the Ruler’s consent to dissolve the assembly and return the mandate to voters (The Star, 22 May 2026, Sinar Harian, 22 May 2026).

23 May 2026, Sat: Six adat office-holders call for a special DKU sitting on 29 May.

Six signatories sent a letter to DKU secretary Raja Norazli Raja Nordin requesting a special sitting on 29 May at Balai Rasmi Tunku Besar Tampin to discuss the adat governance crisis, and invited the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary to attend as observers. The signatories, Mubarak, the three Undangs, the Tunku Besar Tampin and the Dato' Shahbandar of Sungei Ujong, state that they form a majority of DKU members and cite Article 17 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 as the basis for the request, a characterisation the state government disputes (Malaysiakini, 23 May 2026).

Commentary worth reading

This week, two senior legal voices moved the conversation onto the terrain of formal legal authority: does a civil court have jurisdiction to look behind a DKU decision at all?

Christopher Leong, “What games afoot regarding Negeri Sembilan?“ (Malay Mail, 18 May). A former president of the Malaysian Bar walks through the chronology and the constitutional questions:

• The removal of the previous Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong Mubarak Dohak is treated as constitutionally valid. Leong notes the 17 April DKU advice accepting his removal, then cites Article 16, under which DKU advice is final and cannot be questioned in any court.

• Mubarak’s own installation as Undang was contested twice before. Leong cites the 2005 case of Syed Abu Bakar Syed Hassan v Zainal Ariffin Bin Ibrahim and the 2012 case of YTM Datuk Othman Ismail v Dato’ Mubarak Dohak, in both of which the courts deferred to the DKU’s exclusive jurisdiction under Article 71 of the Federal Constitution, and Mubarak kept his position.

• The 19 April abdication call is examined against Article 10, which requires one of four specified grounds, a “full and complete enquiry”, and a Proclamation signed by the Undangs and the Menteri Besar. Leong observes that none of these elements is evident, and concludes that any purported call for the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to abdicate would be invalid.

• On the suit for the DKU minutes, Leong points to settled court authority from a different context. He notes that the courts have held, in company law, that a director's right to access a company's confidential documents ends when the directorship ends, and raises it as a point of interest for whether the same logic reaches a plaintiff who disputes his own removal.

• The litigation is framed as a jurisdictional question first. Leong notes the Article 16(3) objection raised on 13 May and the court’s refusal of an interim stay, and points to the 2005 and 2012 precedents in which the courts declined jurisdiction.

Hafiz Hassan, “Lawyers may misuse legal history, but not Salleh Abas“ (Malay Mail, 18 May). A defence of the reasoning in Dato Menteri Othman bin Baginda v Dato Ombi Syed Alwi bin Syed Idrus [1981], in which Federal Court judge Salleh Abas set out how the DKU functions within the Negeri Sembilan constitutional order:

• Before the 1959 Constitution, Negeri Sembilan had no written constitution. Hassan reconstructs the historical position: the state’s constitutional law sat in treaties between the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, the Ruling Chiefs and the British, with customary law running alongside.

• The DKU’s role is to advise on questions relating to Malay custom. Salleh Abas read the council as the body that “rationalises” the ancient constitution and custom and makes it function under a modern democratic constitution, avoiding disputes that arise from divergent interpretations.

• DKU advice is the application of customary law to facts, not a mere opinion. On this reading the advice is binding without the Constitution needing to say so, in the same way a Federal Court advisory opinion binds without express words.

• The custom carries a federal guarantee. Hassan notes that Article 71 of the Federal Constitution protects the ancient custom, and that Article 71(2) extends the principle of strict neutrality on succession disputes to the appointment of an Undang.

• The 1981 precedent still binds. Hassan’s closing point is that lawyers often misuse legal history, but Salleh Abas used it correctly to conclude that “the DKU is the authority to decide on a dispute over the appointment of an Undang”, a decision that has stood for more than forty years and binds until the highest court reviews it.

What we are watching

29 May 2026: The special sitting sought by the six signatories. Whether DKU secretary Raja Norazli convenes the sitting requested in the 23 May letter remains to be seen.

28 July 2026: Seremban High Court hears the jurisdictional objection. Justice Roz Mawar Rozain will decide whether Article 16(3) strips the court of jurisdiction to hear Mubarak’s originating summons. The merits of the application for the DKU minutes will only be reached if the court first finds it has jurisdiction.

TBC: Next Dewan Undangan Negeri sitting and any move on a confidence vote. The assembly term runs to 24 October. UMNO’s 14 assemblymen withdrew support on 27 April, then signalled they would continue to back the government. With both Loke and Mohamad Hasan now openly raising convening or dissolution, the question is whether the next sitting becomes a test of the government’s majority.

Summary

This week closed with two institutional confrontations marked on the calendar: the proposed 29 May sitting and the 28 July jurisdiction hearing. The political dispute moved closer to a confidence test, while the constitutional dispute narrowed onto a more fundamental question: who has authority to decide who lawfully constitutes the DKU itself?

New posts written by this publication last week

• Revisiting the Discovery Channel Documentaries on Tuanku Muhriz’s Installation — Two 2010 documentaries introduced Tuanku Muhriz and Negeri Sembilan’s unique succession system and democratic monarchy to the world. Watch them when you have an hour.

• Who Is the Undang of Rembau and Was His Appointment Legitimate? — The selection of the 22nd Undang Luak Rembau was contested by his own Buapak in July 2024 and again in May 2026. The dispute has never been resolved.

• [UPDATED] The Constitutional Authority of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) — A primer on the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang, Negeri Sembilan’s council of justice and Malay custom, established under Chapter 6 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution.

About Weekly Round-Ups

Weekly Round-Ups are published every Monday morning. Each round-up covers what happened the previous week, what we are watching for in the week ahead, and links to posts published that week.

How to manage your subscription

When you subscribe to this Substack, you are subscribed to both formats by default: regular posts and Weekly Round-Ups.

To receive only the Weekly Round-Ups:

• From any email: scroll to the bottom and click Unsubscribe or Manage subscription. You will see the option to opt out of regular posts while keeping the Weekly Round-Up.

• From the website: go to Account Settings on Substack, find Anak Nogori under your subscriptions, and toggle off Posts while leaving Weekly Round-Ups on.

To unsubscribe entirely, click Unsubscribe at the bottom of any email, or use Substack’s account settings.

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Sources:

• Negeri Sembilan DKU to contest court’s jurisdiction in undangs’ suit (Free Malaysia Today, 13 May 2026)

• Saman pemula Mubarak: 2 defendan diarah kemuka afidavit bantah bidang kuasa mahkamah (Free Malaysia Today, 13 May 2026)

• Setiausaha, DKU pertikai kuasa mahkamah dalam kes saman pemula Mubarak (Sinar Harian, 13 May 2026)

• Political standoff deepens as DAP signals Negeri Sembilan ready for immediate state polls (The Vibes, 17 May 2026)

• Lawyers may misuse legal history, but not Salleh Abas — Hafiz Hassan (Malay Mail, 18 May 2026)

• What games afoot regarding Negeri Sembilan? — Christopher Leong (Malay Mail, 18 May 2026)

• Possibility of N. Sembilan polls this year remains open, says Aminuddin (The Star, 20 May 2026)

• Convene Negri assembly now to test MB mandate, Tok Mat tells Aminuddin (The Star, 22 May 2026)

• Krisis politik Negeri Sembilan: Bubar DUN jalan terbaik — Tok Mat (Sinar Harian, 22 May 2026)

• Enam pembesar adat NS arah DKU buat sidang khas bincang kemelut (Malaysiakini, 23 May 2026)

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

Who Is the Undang of Rembau

Abdul Rahim Yasin, then 68, was proclaimed as the 22nd Undang on 22 August 2024 (Sinar Harian, 22 August 2024).

How is an Undang of Rembau chosen

Under Adat Perpatih, the Undang Luak Rembau is drawn from the Suku Biduanda Waris Nan Dua Carak, alternating between Biduanda Sedia Raja and Biduanda Lela Maharaja. Eight kampung carry the inherited right to provide the Undang: Tanjong, Pulau, Chengkau, Tengah, Tebat, Bukit, Gadong, and Kota.

The selection passes through a Kerapatan Buapak Delapan Kampung (Adat Perpatih council). The Buapak vote; the kampung that wins majority support becomes the Kampung Benih (that is the kampung from which the next Undang will be drawn).

On 24 June 2024, the Buapak voted: Kampung Tanjong received four votes, Kampung Pulau three votes, and Kampung Chengkau one vote. A second kerapatan reaffirmed the same outcome (Malaysiakini, 30 July 2024).

What happened on 4 July 2024

At a Kerapatan Lembaga at Balai Undang Rembau on 4 July 2024, Datuk Perba Abdul Razak Mohd Yassin, chair of the Jawatankuasa Pemilihan Pesaka Undang Luak Rembau ke-22, set aside the two earlier outcomes and proclaimed Kampung Pulau as the Kampung Benih instead.

On 30 July 2024, the Buapak Kampung Tanjong, Datuk Kaya Maharaja Hassan Ab Hamid, held a press conference at Kelab Golf Perkhidmatan Awam in Kuala Lumpur on behalf of the Gabungan Pemegang Pusaka Adat Perpatih Luak Rembau to object.

He claimed that Datuk Perba had unilaterally set aside the majority decision of two kerapatan, that the new procedural document had been prepared without consulting the Buapak and Ibu Soko Biduanda Waris Nan Dua Carak, and that it did not carry the official seal of the late 21st Undang, with signatures said to be inconsistent. The arrangement of the kampung in the annexes contained errors. The document had not received DKU approval. A formal memorandum was submitted to the DKU and to the Menteri Besar’s office (Sinar Harian, 30 July 2024).

By the account given at the 30 July 2024 press conference, the muafakat in two consecutive kerapatan was for Kampung Tanjong, not Kampung Pulau.

What followed at the Pemasyhuran (proclamation)

On 22 August 2024, Abdul Rahim Yasin was proclaimed the 22nd Undang Luak Rembau at Balai Undang Luak Rembau in a ceremony chaired by Datuk Perba, with the Keris Pesaka handed over by him (Utusan, 22 August 2024).

The Kerjan (customary celebration following a Pemasyhuran) followed at his Taman Rembau Utama residence on 14 September 2024. Speaking to Utusan that day, Datuk Perba described the sequence yet to come: bringing the matter to the DKU for acknowledgement, gazettal by the state, and then the Menyalang (formal Adat ceremony) at Seri Menanti where the Yang di-Pertuan Besar would grant his perkenan (royal consent) (Utusan, 14 September 2024).

That sequence has not been completed. The Menyalang at Seri Menanti did not take place, and without it the Watikah (royal consent) from the Yang di-Pertuan Besar did not follow. Malaysiakini reported recently that Abdul Rahim's appointment as Undang Rembau is alleged not to have been gazetted despite his proclamation nearly two years ago, a claim the publication said it could not independently confirm (Malaysiakini, April 2026).

What happened in court

The Buapak Kampung Tanjong filed a writ of summons at the Seremban High Court against Datuk Perba, seeking a declaration that the 4 July 2024 proclamation of Kampung Pulau as Kampung Benih was unlawful and that the procedural document was of doubtful validity.

On 20 September 2024, Judicial Commissioner Wan Fadhilah Nor Wan Idris struck out the writ, finding that the court had no jurisdiction over Adat and customary ceremonies in Negeri Sembilan. The defendant’s counsel said the matter should be returned to the DKU (Sinar Harian, 20 September 2024).

What did the Ibu Soko Tua of Rembau say on 8 May 2026

On 8 May 2026, the Ibu Soko Tua of Luak Rembau gave a public statement on behalf of the Anak Waris of Perut Biduanda Sedia Raja from Kampung Pulau, Kampung Tengah, Kampung Tanjong, and Kampung Bukit. She said the selection of Abdul Rahim lacked full muafakat from the principal Anak Waris, that the Adat procedures and the Kerapatan Council process were not properly observed, and that Ibu-Ibu Soko and Buapak-Buapak had been dismissed without going through proper Adat procedure (Negeri Kita, 8 May 2026).

The statement was the most senior public Adat-side intervention to date, and it came from the Ibu Soko Tua of the very Luak whose Adat had been contested for nearly two years.

What additional material has surfaced on social media?

This publication has previously observed information disseminating on social media before reaching mainstream media outlets. The Rembau case is no exception.

What follows is drawn from the TikTok account @waghihghombau.expose (“Waghih Ghombau Official”). The allegations are those of the account alone and have not been independently verified by this publication. The broader categories of objection (absence of muafakat, improper Kerapatan process, dismissal of legitimate Buapak and Ibu Soko) are consistent with the 2024 mainstream reporting.

The account has catalogued the following further objections:

• His wife is said not to be from a Rembau suku, presented as a stated Adat requirement.

• The proclamation said to have been made outside the prescribed heritage site and without the Keris Pesaka being carried as required.

• Use of the title YTM Dato Sedia Raja in advance of the Tuanku’s confirmation.

• Reliance on the support of Buapak and Ibu Soko said to have been newly installed after the dismissal of the originals.

• An eight-month Panel Penyiasatan is said to have been disrupted on 5 March 2026 when three Undang walked out of the session (Waghih Ghombau Official, TikTok, posts dated 24 April to 11 May 2026).

Why does this matter

The 2016 removal of the 14th Undang Luak Johol, Datuk Mohd Jan Abdul Ghani, is the closest constitutional precedent. He was removed by the Adat chiefs of Luak Johol after several rounds of kerapatan that produced a unanimous decision. Thirteen alleged offences were read out at Balai Undang Luak Johol in his presence. The DKU, chaired by Tuanku Muhriz, then acknowledged the removal and granted its restu. The Menteri Besar at the time, Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan, announced it publicly.

The Johol case illustrates the architecture clearly: the substantive Adat act sits with the institutions of the Luak, the DKU acknowledges, the state gazettes, and the Watikah by which the Yang di-Pertuan Besar formally records the act follows.

The Rembau case sits inside that same architecture and has not yet completed its constitutional circuit. Kampung Tanjong won the majority vote in both kerapatan, but Datuk Perba unilaterally proclaimed Kampung Pulau in its place. Since then, no DKU acknowledgement has issued, the Menyalang at Seri Menanti has not taken place, and the Watikah has not been signed.

What this means for the 19 April declaration

Constitutional experts have agreed that the declaration did not satisfy the conditions of Article 10 (full inquiry, specific grounds, Menteri Besar's signature).

Since Mubarak had been removed, if Abdul Rahim’s status as Undang Rembau remains unresolved, it raises a further question about Article 29.

Article 29 — Exercise of Powers and Duties by Undangs
The powers conferred and duties imposed upon the Undangs under the provisions of this Part shall be deemed to have been duly exercised or performed if such powers were exercised or such duties were performed by at least three Undangs or by as many of them as may be living at the time of the exercise of such powers or the performance of such duties. - Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959

The question that follows is whether the required threshold of at least three validly exercising Undangs was met when the 19 April declaration was made.

Read Next: The Undang Yang Empat Have a Legitimacy Problem

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Sources:

• Selesaikan kemelut pemilihan Undang Luak Rembau (Sinar Harian), 30 July 2024

• MB, DKU digesa selesaikan kemelut pemilihan Undang Luak Rembau (Malaysiakini), 30 July 2024

• Abdul Rahim Yasin dimasyhurkan sebagai Undang Luak Rembau Ke-22 (Utusan), 22 August 2024

• Kerjan Undang Luak Rembau Ke-22 berlangsung penuh istiadat (Utusan), 14 September 2024

• Mahkamah batal writ saman terhadap Datuk Perba (Sinar Harian), 20 September 2024

• When Have Undangs Been Removed Before? (Anak Nogori), 2 May 2026

• Waghih Ghombau Official, TikTok posts dated 24 April to 11 May 2026

• Ibu Soko Tua dakwa ada kecacatan Adat dalam pemilihan Undang Rembau (Negeri Kita), 8 May 2026

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

The documentary was a joint production involving the Negeri Sembilan Royal Household, the State of Negeri Sembilan, Tourism Malaysia and Discovery Channel and designed to generate greater interest in the uniqueness of the Negeri Sembilan culture, heritage and royal traditions.

Watch them to learn more about Adat Perpatih, Negeri Sembilan’s elective constitutional monarchy, and the state’s distinct succession process.

Part I: The Federation, the Adat, the Preparation

Part one opens in Sri Menanti and introduces the grand preparations for the installation of Negeri Sembilan’s 11th ruler, Tuanku Muhriz, marking the state’s most significant royal event in over 40 years.

The documentary highlights the importance of rituals in shaping collective identity, such as the drawing out of palace regalia, the spiritual Bersiram cleansing ritual, the unique elective monarchy based on consensus (muafakat), and the matrilineal Adat Perpatih customs that define the state's unique royal democracy, where the monarch is elected by the Undang through a system of consensus rather than straightforward linear succession.

This episode shows how Negeri Sembilan has preserved its heritage across centuries, through royal regalia, architectural motifs, ceremonial customs and oral tradition. These carry the richness of the state’s culture into the present.

It portrays the monarchy as a unique bridge between modernity and tradition, illustrating how ancient customs are maintained alongside the contemporary world.

This commitment to heritage is reflected in one of the Adat’s most famous sayings, quoted in the documentary, which places the survival of tradition above all else: biar mati anak, jangan mati adat (let the children die, but do not let tradition die).

Part II: The Election, the Installation, the Rakyat

Part two is, in many ways, the more human half.

It tells the story of how, when Tuanku Munawir passed away in 1967, the Undangs bypassed his nineteen-year-old son, Tuanku Muhriz, and instead elected his brother, Tuanku Ja’afar as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

When Tuanku Ja’afar passed away in 2008, he was survived by six children, including three sons eligible to succeed him as ruler. After more than forty years, the Undang once again convened to elect a new ruler and they elected his nephew, Tuanku Muhriz instead. This is the essence of Negeri Sembilan’s royal democracy: the throne is not automatically inherited, but conferred through consensus.

In this the unique elective monarchy, the traditional Chieftains (the Undang) choose the next Ruler. This is governed by a hierarchical system of consensus:

• Agreement among the Buapak (lineage leaders) chooses the Lembaga (clan leader),

• Consensus among the Lembaga chooses the Undang,

• Consensus among the Undang chooses the Raja (king).

What part two captures is the reciprocal relationship between the Undang and the Yamtuan. The ruler is elected by the Undang, while the Undang themselves derive legitimacy through layered consensus beneath them. Authority therefore flows upward through every tier of the Adat structure.

“Every level is elected by the people below them, not appointed by the people above” — Tuanku Muhriz

Alongside this institutional portrait, the documentary turns to a more personal one. Tuanku Muhriz’s long-time tailor, who has served him since he was a student in the 1960s, provides personal insights into the ruler’s character. He recalls making the ruler's first suit for his studies overseas and describes him as a man of “simple attitude” with “no snobbishness”, even as he ascends to the throne of Negeri Sembilan.

“When my father was not ruler, he lived in a very normal environment and that really gives one a good sense of reality.” — Tuanku Muhriz’s eldest son, Tunku Ali Redhauddin

In his maiden speech, Tuanku Muhriz spoke about the monarchy’s role in unifying the people while preserving historical memory and custom. The documentary closes on that note: he is a constitutional monarch, a custodian of Malay custom and head of the Muslim faith in the state, but also ruler of all citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion, a check on the state administration, with the right to be informed and to advise.

But the most moving footage may be from Kuala Pilah, the town nearest Seri Menanti where Tuanku Muhriz grew up. Thousands of citizens gathered to welcome the new ruler, remembering him as the “young prince who grew up among them”. Every slice of society was represented, people of every race, young and old, a real-life demonstration of the bond between the monarchy and the rakyat.

A note for readers

This two-part documentary shows how the Adat and the Constitution work side-by-side to give shape to Negeri Sembilan’s unique democratic monarchy. They are a record of how Negeri Sembilan presented its tradition and institutions to the world.

Now, they also represent what is now being threatened. Watch them when you have an hour. They are worth it.

Read Next: The Royal Family of Negeri Sembilan: Service over Spectacle

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Sources:

• Preview of “Revealed: Malaysia’s Royal Rites”, (Tourism Malaysia), 24 May 2010

• Malaysia’s royal traditions on Discovery Channel, (The Philippine Star), 27 May 2010

• Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia: home to unique Royal traditions, (Economy Traveller), 10 February 2025

• Revealed: Malaysia’s Royal Rites — Negeri Sembilan (Part I), (Discovery Channel via YouTube), 30 May 2010

• Revealed: Malaysia’s Royal Rites — Negeri Sembilan (Part II), (Discovery Channel via YouTube), 30 May 2010

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

What happened last week

11 May 2026, Mon: Three concurrent claimants to Undang Luak Sungei Ujong emerge.

The Star reported that five days after the Majlis Dato Lembaga Adat Sungei Ujong appointed Muhammad Faris Johari, 29, on 5 May, a rival faction proclaimed Abd Rahman Limat, 70, as a third claimant on 10 May at Telapak Tua Kampung Chedang. The previous Undang Mubarak Dohak continues to dispute his own removal. Three figures now publicly assert the same title: Mubarak (officially removed on 17 April 2026), Muhammad Faris Johari, and Abd Rahman Limat (The Star, 11 May 2026, The Rakyat Post, 11 May 2026).

13 May 2026, Wed: Seremban High Court hearing on DKU minutes deferred to 28 July.

Justice Roz Mawar Rozain heard the originating summons filed by Mubarak and five co-plaintiffs seeking an order to compel the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) to release the minutes of its 17 April 2026 special sitting and declined the plaintiffs’ application for an interim stay of enforcement of decisions made at the 17 April DKU sitting, citing insufficient supporting material. Counsel for the DKU and its secretary Raja Norazli Raja Nordin, Steven Thiru, raised a preliminary objection on jurisdictional grounds, citing Article 16(3) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, under which DKU advice on the election, succession, removal, or vacation of any Undang Yang Empat is final and cannot be questioned in any court on any grounds. The court ordered the defendants to file an affidavit supporting their jurisdictional objection within seven days. The substantive hearing on jurisdiction is now fixed for 28 July 2026 (Free Malaysia Today, 13 May 2026).

Commentary worth reading

Anonymous essays were circulating on WhatsApp under the pen name Anak Negeri (no relation to this publication, similarity of name purely coincidental). These essays subsequently appeared in FMT’s Pandangan section:

• “Tanah ini milik Ibu, bukan dia“ (This Land Belongs to the Mother, Not Him): Power in Adat Perpatih flows from the Ibu Soko, not from the man holding the title. If the Ibu Soko withdraws recognition, the chieftain’s mandate is effectively dissolved. A leader without his Luak behind him is, the writer argues, a man in costume.

• “Pertandingan hakisan intelek“ (A Competition of Intellectual Erosion): The current crisis stems from a removed chieftain’s refusal to accept the end of his tenure, and from other chieftains who chose opportunism over duty. The writer argues that this is a failure of judgement that has brought shame on the institution, and that those involved are no longer fit to lead their Luak.

• “Cermin oh cermin: Refleksi adat dan integriti Luak“ (Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Reflections on Custom and Clans’ Integrity): Whatever happens within the Luak should stay within the Luak. Historically, an ousted chieftain did not drag the state into instability or challenge the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The writer calls on all four chieftains, including the ungazetted one, to resign as the most honourable path, framing continued tenure as continued humiliation for Negeri Sembilan. (Read the English version here)

• “Ilusi pemerintahan bersama dalam kalangan pemegang amanah“ (The Illusion of Co-Rule Among Trustees): The notion that chieftains are co-rulers alongside the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is, the writer argues, both legally and historically wrong. Chieftains are trustees of their luak, not sovereigns. When the trust is broken, they are unfit to lead, and any attempt to claim equal standing with a Malay Ruler protected by the Federal Constitution is, by the writer’s account, derhaka. (Read the English version here)

Separately,

• FMT published an article by Ikmal Hisham Md Tah and Mohd Khairil Hisham Mohd Ashaari, Kedaulatan Negeri Sembilan: Antara Perlembagaan, realiti adat (The Sovereignty of Negeri Sembilan: Between the Constitution and the Reality of Adat, FMT, 16 May), defending the “co-rulers” framing through the Federal Constitution and the 1895, 1898, and 1934 treaties.

• Faisal Tehrani, an academic at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's Institut Alam dan Tamadun Melayu published Menyanggah si 'pakar adat' dalam sebuah podkas (Refuting the ‘Adat expert’ in a podcast, FMT, 14 May), rebutting the co-rulers framing made by an unnamed “adat expert” on a podcast that has drawn over 100,000 viewers. Citing two academic works on Luak Jelebu and Luak Rembau, Faisal concludes that the Undang does not possess authority or standing like that of a king or sultan and that promoting the idea of co-rulership is not only wrong, but a great disaster if left uncorrected.

• Legal commentator Hafiz Hassan (DKU is the appropriate body to decide on the appointment of an Undang, Malay Mail, 11 May) examined the 1981 Federal Court decision in Dato Menteri Othman v Dato Ombi Syed Alwi and the 1998 Melaka High Court decision in Dato’ Laxamana Dato’ Mokhtar v Lembaga Adat Istiadat Luak Sg Ujong, concluding that the civil courts have repeatedly held they are not the appropriate forum to revisit DKU acknowledgements on Undang appointments.

• Regional think tank Fulcrum (ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute) published The Negeri Sembilan Saga Exposes Political Fault Lines (13 May), framing the crisis as a test of Malaysia’s post-2022 federal coalition arrangement.

What we are watching

20 May 2026: Defendants’ affidavit on jurisdictional objection.

The DKU and its secretary have seven days from 13 May to file the affidavit supporting their Article 16(3) objection. That places the soft deadline around 20 May.

28 July 2026: Seremban High Court hears jurisdictional objection.

Justice Roz Mawar Rozain has fixed 28 July 2026 as the date for the substantive hearing on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear Mubarak’s originating summons at all, given Article 16(3) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959. This is the threshold question. The merits of the application for the DKU minutes will only be heard if the court first finds it has jurisdiction.

TBC: Next DKU sitting, date not yet announced.

Article 18 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 requires the DKU to meet at least three times a year. Under Article 22(2), at every meeting the minutes of the previous sitting must be confirmed with or without amendment before any other business. The next DKU sitting will therefore have to confirm the minutes of the 17 April special sitting, the very minutes Mubarak is suing to obtain. The next sitting also gives the DKU the opportunity to acknowledge the new Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, where three claimants now stand: Mubarak, Muhammad Faris Johari and Abd Rahman Limat.

New posts written by this publication last week

• The Harder Question — The principles of Adat are real. The lived reality is messier. When several Ibu Sokos sanction multiple different Undang, who decides which counts?

• What Happened at the Seremban High Court Sitting on 13 May — Mubarak and three Undang asked for an interim stay of the 17 April DKU acknowledgement of his removal. The court declined.

• What the Federal Constitution Says About Negeri Sembilan: Articles 71, 160, 181 — A reference piece walking through the three Federal Constitution provisions most often cited in the Negeri Sembilan crisis, in their full text and their context.

• The Co-Ruler Debate Reignited — Three FMT pieces this week revisit the co-rulership debate. None of the arguments change the fact that the 19 April declaration is procedurally invalid.

• Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Reflections on Custom and Clans’ Integrity - By Anak Negeri — The English version of a pseudonymous essay circulating on WhatsApp calls upon honour, dignity, intellectual rigour, respect, and integrity, the very qualities Adat embodies.

• An Illusion of Co-Rulers, of the Untrusted Trustee - By Anak Negeri — A second English translation of a pseudonymous essay addressing the “co-rulers” framing being pushed across UMNO-aligned social media.

Some posts above are reference materials, for readers who want to go deeper, and were published to the site without an email push. The full archive is always available on the Start Here page.

Updated articles

• The Luak of Sungei Ujong Has Named a New Undang. Here’s What We Know So Far. (originally published 5 May, updated this week) — Muhammad Faris bin Johari was announced as the 11th Undang Luak Sungei Ujong. Updated to reflect the third claimant Abd Rahman Limat and the ongoing DKU acknowledgement question.

• How Social Media Has Influenced the Negeri Sembilan Crisis (updated this week) — The crisis broke on social media before the mainstream press caught up. Updated to reflect the role of “dark traffic” WhatsApp circulation and the emergence of pseudonymous commentary tracks.

About Weekly Round-Ups

Weekly Round-Ups are published every Monday morning. Each round-up covers what happened the previous week, what we are watching for in the week ahead, and links to posts published that week.

How to manage your subscription

When you subscribe to this Substack, you are subscribed to both formats by default: regular posts and Weekly Round-Ups.

To receive only the Weekly Round-Ups:

• From any email: scroll to the bottom and click Unsubscribe or Manage subscription. You will see the option to opt out of regular posts while keeping the Weekly Round-Up.

• From the website: go to Account Settings on Substack, find Anak Nogori under your subscriptions, and toggle off Posts while leaving Weekly Round-Ups on.

To unsubscribe entirely, click Unsubscribe at the bottom of any email, or use Substack’s account settings.

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Sources:

• Tanah ini milik Ibu, bukan dia (Free Malaysia Today, 3 May 2026)

• Pertandingan hakisan intelek (Free Malaysia Today, 4 May 2026)

• Dual Undang claim sparks confusion in Sungei Ujong (The Star, 11 May 2026)

• DKU is the appropriate body to decide on the appointment of an Undang — Hafiz Hassan (Malay Mail, 11 May 2026)

• No End Yet To Negeri Sembilan’s Drama, Another New Sungei Ujong Chief Appointed (The Rakyat Post, 11 May 2026)

• Cermin oh cermin: Refleksi adat dan integriti Luak (Free Malaysia Today, 13 May 2026)

• Negeri Sembilan DKU to contest court’s jurisdiction in undangs’ suit (Free Malaysia Today, 13 May 2026)

• Saman pemula Mubarak: 2 defendan diarah kemuka afidavit bantah bidang kuasa mahkamah (Free Malaysia Today, 13 May 2026)

• The Negeri Sembilan Saga Exposes Political Fault Lines (FULCRUM, 13 May 2026)

• Ilusi pemerintahan bersama dalam kalangan pemegang amanah (Free Malaysia Today, 15 May 2026)

• Kedaulatan Negeri Sembilan: Antara Perlembagaan, realiti adat (Free Malaysia Today, 16 May 2026)

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

Across the three pieces, the debate touched on lineage, constitutional text, and treaty history. Read together, they raise three distinct questions. This piece separates them and takes each on its own terms.

The Historical Question: What did Adat actually establish about the Undangs’ rank?

The first question is the oldest. Within Adat Perpatih, where do the Undang Yang Empat sit in relation to the Yang di-Pertuan Besar?

Faisal Tehrani, 14 May column in FMT

Faisal Tehrani, a Research Fellow at the Institut Alam dan Tamadun Melayu (ATMA), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, addressed this directly. His 14 May column, “Menyanggah si ‘pakar adat’ dalam sebuah podkas” (Refuting the ‘Adat expert’ in a podcast), opened with a podcast interview in which a veteran politician was repeatedly introduced as an “Adat expert” by the hosts. The series has reportedly drawn over 100,000 views (Free Malaysia Today, 14 May 2026).

He argues that the “Adat expert” was pushing a careless narrative: that the Undang of Sungei Ujong, Johol, Jelebu, and Rembau are “somehow equal to, or a kind of co-ruler with, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.”

Faisal refuted this using a book whose foreword the same “Adat expert” had written. The book is Perlembagaan Purbakala Luak Jelebu (2026), authored by Mohd Arof Ishak. The passage Faisal quotes is worth reading in full:

“In terms of position, the Undang is clearly the principal chief (pembesar utama) in Luak Jelebu, although only ‘raised one branch higher’ (ditinggikan seranting, an adat expression indicating elevation above others, but not absolute supremacy). It is also evident that the Undang is not a king and is not a sultan either. In the adat context of Luak Jelebu, as also in the context of Adat Perpatih, ‘raja’ carries the meaning of a leader with absolute power (autocratic), without comparison in status, namely with no restraints upon his authority.

‘Sultan’ likewise carries a similar meaning. The adat perbilangan (customary sayings) clearly expresses this understanding and distinction: a king bertitah (decrees), whereas the Undang bersabda (gives counsel and consent, only with whatever has been mutually agreed together with the Balai Nan Panjang/Lembaga Nan Lapan). In Luak Jelebu, the Undang does not possess authority or standing like that of a king or sultan.”

As Faisal observes, with palpable irony: “Sukar untuk dihujahkan yang ‘pakar adat’ ini tidak membaca hasil kajian pengarang iaitu Mohd Arof Ishak.” It is difficult to argue that this ‘Adat expert’ has not read the research findings of the author whose book he himself prefaced.

Faisal cross-references Prof Norhalim Ibrahim of UPM, who studied the Undang of Rembau in Negeri Yang Sembilan: Daerah Kecil Pesaka Adat Warisan Kerajaan Berdaulat (1995):

“The Penghulu of Rembau and other Penghulus are no longer on par with Sultans of other Malay states. They are ‘represented’ by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and therefore it is the Yang di-Pertuan Besar who is on par with other Malay Sultans. Indirectly, this means the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan is higher in rank than the Penghulu/Undang.”

Faisal characterises the co-rulership narrative as “bukan sahaja salah, malahan satu bencana besar jika dibiar tanpa dibetulkan dan ditegur.” Not only wrong, but a great disaster if left uncorrected.

Essays by Anak Negeri

A second contribution to the historical question came the following day. A series of four essays under the pen name “Anak Negeri” (separate from this publication) has been circulating on WhatsApp in both English and Bahasa Melayu over the past two weeks. The fourth essay, “Ilusi pemerintahan bersama dalam kalangan pemegang amanah” (The Illusion of Co-Rule Among Trustees), was reprinted in FMT on 15 May (Free Malaysia Today, 15 May 2026).

The essay structures its argument around three claims. The first is constitutional: sovereignty in the Malay constitutional tradition rests with the nine Malay Rulers, and the office of Yang di-Pertuan Agong is reserved exclusively for them. The second is functional: chieftains are kingmakers and trustees of their Luak, with prestige and privilege flowing from the state, while their position is one of trust rather than sovereignty. The third is structural: the chieftains are the pillars of the Luak, while the Ruler is the roof over the entire negeri, and a pillar that pushes past the roof brings the whole house down.

The essay then narrows to the present moment, arguing that a chieftain who has lost the confidence of his own Luak cannot then invoke “co-ruler” status to bring down a Malay Ruler protected by the Constitution.

The Adat scholarship cited here draws the distinction sharply: Raja bertitah, Undang bersabda. The Ruler commands; the Undang speaks. The verbs are different because the offices are different.

The Constitutional Question: What do Articles 71, 160, and 181 in the Federal Constitution say?

The second question is the one Dr Ikmal Hisham Md Tah, a constitutional law lecturer at UiTM, and Mohd Khairil Hisham Mohd Ashaari, curator at Galeri Tuanku Ja’afar Negeri Sembilan, took up in their 16 May reply to the Anak Negeri essay. They argue that the Undang Yang Empat are co-rulers, protected by Article 181 of the Federal Constitution and grounded in the confederation agreements of 1895, 1898, and 1934 (Free Malaysia Today, 16 May 2026).

The reply opens by refuting the Anak Negeri essay's characterisation of the Undangs as "rakyat biasa" (ordinary citizens). This appears to misread the term. There is no doubt that the Undangs hold an elevated rank within Adat Perpatih and the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959. Read in context, the Anak Negeri essay uses the phrase to mean the Undangs are not of royal lineage, which is a separate question from their constitutional standing.

The authors argue that Article 181(1) of the Federal Constitution preserves the sovereignty, prerogatives, powers, and jurisdiction of both the Malay Rulers and the Ruling Chiefs of Negeri Sembilan, placing the Ruling Chiefs on par with the Malay Rulers in terms of constitutional protection.

Each cited provision deserves a careful reading.

On Article 71. The 16 May reply reads Article 71 as a federal recognition of the Undangs as Rulers alongside the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. A closer reading shows two distinct sub-articles. Article 71(1) protects the right of a Ruler to succeed and hold office. Article 71(2) extends a parallel federal protection to the constitutional position of the Ruling Chiefs. The two sub-articles tell the reader that the offices are distinct, each federally guaranteed by reference to the state constitution that defines it.

On Article 160(2). The reply reads Article 160(2) as conferring co-equal status by grouping the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undangs under the term “Ruler”. Article 160(2) is a definitional clause. Its function is to assign meanings to words used elsewhere in the document. The substantive position, powers, and offices of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undangs remain defined by the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, where Article 7(1) places the Yang di-Pertuan Besar above all other persons in the State, and Articles 28 and 40(2) define a narrow set of seven discretionary functions in which Undang concurrence is required.

On Article 181(1). The reply reads Article 181(1) as preserving shared sovereignty between the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undangs. The structure of the provision matters here. The word “sovereignty” is used for the Rulers and omitted for the Ruling Chiefs. Article 181(1) preserves sovereignty for the Rulers and preserves jurisdiction and prerogatives for the Ruling Chiefs within their respective territories. On our reading, the Constitution uses different language because it recognises different constitutional positions. The Rulers retain state-wide sovereignty and the Undangs retain prerogatives within their Luak: Sungei Ujong, Jelebu, Johol, or Rembau.

A fuller walkthrough of these three Federal Constitution articles sits in a separate reference piece: What the Federal Constitution Says About Negeri Sembilan: Articles 71, 160, 181.

On the 1895, 1898, and 1934 confederation agreements. The 1895 Treaty of Federation, the 1898 supplementary agreement, and the 1934 reorganisation each defined the relationship between the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the chiefs of the constituent Luak. These instruments establish that the chiefs participate in the election of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and hold defined authority within their Luak, while stopping short of establishing parity of rank or shared state-wide sovereignty.

The constitutional question admits more than one reading. Reasonable lawyers can read these provisions differently. We believe the text supports a hierarchy in which the Yang di-Pertuan Besar holds state-wide sovereignty and the Undangs hold defined prerogatives within their Luak. Two textual asymmetries support this reading: the word "sovereignty" appears for the Rulers and is omitted for the Ruling Chiefs, and the words "within their respective territories" appear for the Ruling Chiefs and are omitted for the Rulers.

The Procedural Question: Was 19 April compliant with Article 10?

Tucked within the FMT piece is a concession that warrants close reading. The authors write: “keengganan menteri besar menandatangani proklamasi tersebut telah menjadi polemik perlembagaan sehingga hari ini.” The Menteri Besar’s refusal to sign the 19 April proclamation has become a constitutional polemic to this day.

Article 10 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 sets out the only mechanism by which the Undang Yang Empat may call upon the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to withdraw or abdicate. Senior constitutional lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar identified the requirements as follows (Free Malaysia Today, 23 April 2026):

• A Yang di-Pertuan Besar can only be suspended or removed where said ruler can objectively be said to have acted in a manner that can reasonably be understood as amounting to a “great and serious defect”,

• A full and complete enquiry into the impugned conduct,

• The Ruler’s right to be heard on specific allegations,

• An objective determination that a qualifying ground under Article 10(1) is made out,

• A proclamation signed by the Undang Yang Empat and the Menteri Besar.

Having acknowledged the procedural defect, the authors pivot to the co-rulership argument, but the co-rulership argument cannot cure the 19 April procedural defect. Whether the Undangs are co-rulers, ruling chiefs, or principal chiefs raised one branch higher does not alter any of this.

There is a further point that the historical and constitutional questions cannot dispute. On 17 April 2026, the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) acknowledged the removal of the Undang of Sungei Ujong, Mubarak Dohak, his removal having occurred under the custom of the Luak. Under Article 16(3) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, DKU advice on such questions is final and cannot be challenged in any court. Two days later, Mubarak signed the 19 April declaration as Undang Luak Sungei Ujong. The declaration is therefore signed by a person who is no longer an Undang.

What the Three Questions Tell Us When Read Together

The historical question is largely answered by Adat’s own texts. The Undang is pembesar utama, ditinggikan seranting, raised one branch higher within the Luak. The Yang di-Pertuan Besar holds the office that is on par with the Malay Sultans, and the Undangs are represented by him in that capacity. The Adat scholarship cited by Faisal Tehrani, and the structural argument set out in the Anak Negeri essay, both point the same way: pillars hold up the Luak, the roof shelters the negeri, and the two offices serve different functions.

The constitutional question arguably admits more than one reading. The Federal Constitution can be interpreted differently by reasonable lawyers, and the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 confers a narrow concurrence power on the Undangs for seven discretionary functions under Article 40(2). Calling that concurrence “co-rulership” is a semantic debate; however calling it parity of rank or shared sovereignty is a stretch the text does not support.

The procedural question stands apart from the other two. Article 10 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 requires a full and complete enquiry, the Menteri Besar's signature, and the agreement of all four Undangs. The 19 April declaration met none of those requirements. The procedure was flawed regardless of how one reads the Federal Constitution, debates Adat Perpatih, or interprets treaty history.

Summary

The co-rulership argument is intellectually interesting and semantically debatable, within constraints. The procedural defects of the 19 April declaration are not contestable. They render it invalid regardless of how the co-rulership question is resolved.

Read next: What the Federal Constitution Says About Negeri Sembilan: Articles 71, 160, 181

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Sources:

• Negeri Yang Sembilan: Daerah Kecil Pesaka Adat Warisan Kerajaan Berdaulat, Prof Norhalim Ibrahim (UPM), 1995

• The Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, (Negeri Sembilan State Government)

• Perlembagaan Purbakala Luak Jelebu, Mohd Arof Ishak, 2026

• Why Negeri Sembilan is not in a constitutional crisis, (Free Malaysia Today), 23 April 2026

• Negeri Sembilan govt can continue running, but hurdles ahead if Undangs don’t co-operate, ex-judge says, (Malay Mail), 6 May 2026

• Menyanggah si ‘pakar adat’ dalam sebuah podkas, Faisal Tehrani, (Free Malaysia Today), 14 May 2026

• Ilusi pemerintahan bersama dalam kalangan pemegang amanah, Anak Negeri, (Free Malaysia Today), 15 May 2026

• Kedaulatan Negeri Sembilan: Antara Perlembagaan, realiti adat, Dr Ikmal Hisham Md Tah and Mohd Khairil Hisham Mohd Ashaari, (Free Malaysia Today), 16 May 2026

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

The author is not connected to this publication; the similarity in pen names is coincidental. The arguments and allegations in the piece are the author's alone.

An Illusion of Co-Rulers of the Untrusted Trustee

By Anak Negeri

Recent discourse has seen the emergence of a dangerous and conceptually flawed narrative: the idea that the Chieftains stand on an equal footing with a Malay Ruler. This is not merely a misunderstanding of custom (un-Adat); it is a profound legal and historical fallacy.

To suggest that a Chieftain is a “Co-Ruler” in the sovereign sense is to invite a constitutional crisis that affects not just the state of Negeri Sembilan, but the sanctity of the Conference of Malay Rulers (Majlis Raja-Raja Melayu).

The Sovereign vs. The Commoner

We must return to first principles. In the Malay Sultanate and the Malaysian Constitution, sovereignty is vested in the Malay Rulers. The Undangs, while holding positions of immense prestige and receiving significant perks from the State Government, are—by lineage and definition—commoners (rakyat).

In what functional reality can a commoner be equated to a Sovereign? Under both the Federal and State Constitutions, a Malay Ruler is the sovereign Head of State for that particular state. Crucially, there is only one Head of State, not multiple.

If one accepts the “Co-Ruler” myth, one inadvertently suggests that a Chieftain could potentially ascend to the throne of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. This is legally impossible. The Federal Constitution is explicit: the office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is reserved exclusively for the Nine Malay Rulers. To equate the two is to sow seeds of confusion that threaten the very hierarchy of the nation’s monarchical system.

The Chieftain as a “Board of Trustees”

What, then, is the actual role of a Chieftain? He is the head of a clan (Luak). In the democratic spirit of Adat Perpatih, he acts as a Trustee for his clan. He is the vessel through which the voice of the clan is heard, most notably during the selection of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

Crucially, an Undang’s authority is not inherent; it is delegated. He holds no personal, absolute power. His authority is entirely derivative; it exists solely on the basis of the trust (amanah) reposed in him by his clan. He is a custodian of tradition, not a source of independent sovereignty. The moment that trust is betrayed or eroded by his own kin, the Chieftain becomes, effectively, a “dead battery”—a figurehead stripped of his functional power.

A Relationship of Sovereignty, Not Peerage

It must be stated with absolute clarity: these are not peer-to-peer relations. The structure of our state is built upon the relationship between a Malay Ruler and his subjects. There is no “shared” rank in this regard. If any Chieftain suffers from the delusion that the Malay Ruler is his peer, then his clan would be well-advised to convene an emergency meeting to stop this nonsense. To preserve the dignity of the clan, they should move to withdraw their trust with immediate effect, as such a fundamental misunderstanding of one’s station renders a leader unfit for the Adat.

The Basis of Power: Trust vs. Constitution

As such, there is a fundamental difference in the source of authority between the two institutions.

The Chieftain operates on the basis of Clan Trust. If the mother of the clan (Ibu Soko) and his own clan (Waris) withdraw their support, the Chieftain’s mandate vanishes.

This is, of course, in vast contrast to the Malay Ruler. While a constitutional monarch’s powers are limited by law, his position is entrenched and protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions. His sovereignty is an inherent part of the nation’s legal framework, not subject to the shifting winds of clan disputes.

The Paradox of the “Derhaka” Trustee

It is a staggering contradiction to witness a Chieftain—who has already lost the confidence of his own clan—attempting to invoke “Co-Ruler” status to justify an attempt to depose a Malay Ruler.

Such an illegal attempt to sack a Malay Ruler protected by the Constitution is not an exercise of customary right; it is a reach for power that a Chieftain simply does not possess. How can one brag about “shared power” when they have failed in their primary duty as a Trustee? When a Trustee acts against the very stability of the State, he does not elevate himself to the level of a Ruler; he merely proves he is no longer fit to lead his clan.

It is time to dispel the illusion. The Chieftains are the pillars of the clan but a Malay Ruler is the roof of the Alam (the state). A pillar that attempts to rise above the roof only brings the entire house down. Negeri Sembilan must move forward by respecting the clear boundaries set by law and custom: the Chieftains must return to being faithful Trustees of their clans, and the sovereignty of the Yamtuan—the state’s singular Head of State—must remain unchallenged.

The “Co-Ruler” myth is a moribund idea. It is time we buried it before it causes further shame to our Negeri Sembilan.

#SelamatkanRumahKita

#Un-Adat

Read Next: The Co-Ruler Debate, Reignited

This publication has not independently verified the identity of the author or the factual claims in the essay. All opinions are the writer’s own.

All articles by Anak Negeri have been reprinted in Bahasa Melayu in Free Malaysia Today.

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Sources:

• Ilusi pemerintahan bersama dalam kalangan pemegang amanah by Anak Negeri (Free Malaysia Today, 15 May 2026)

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

Readers who want commentary on how these provisions interact with the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 should refer to this publication's earlier piece, Undangs Are Not Co-Rulers With Equal Status and Power.

Article 71: The Federation guarantees the right to hold office

What Article 71 says

Article 71 states at federal level that the Yang di-Pertuan Besar has a right to hold office, as per the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.

Article 71(2) extends the same guarantee to the Ruling Chiefs, meaning the Undangs, “with the necessary modifications”. It means Article 71(1) applies to the Undangs as well, so Article 71(2) guarantees the Undang’s right to succeed to the office of Undang, to hold it, and to exercise the rights and privileges of that office, all in accordance with the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.

The key point here is that the two sub-articles tell the reader that the offices are distinct, each federally guaranteed by reference to the Negeri Sembilan Constitution that defines it.

Article 160(2): The interpretation clause

What Article 160(2) says

Article 160 is the Federal Constitution’s interpretation clause. Its job is to assign meanings to words used elsewhere in the document. The opening words of Article 160(2) make this clear: “In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them.” A definition tells the reader what a word means when it appears in a substantive Article. The substantive Articles are where the law sits.

The Negeri Sembilan definition reads carefully. The Ruler “means the Yang di-Pertuan Besar acting on behalf of himself and the Ruling Chiefs”. The actor is the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The Ruling Chiefs appear as the persons on whose behalf he acts. The definition ends by sending the reader back to “the Constitution of that State”, which is the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.

The key point here is that Article 160(2) is a definitional clause. The constitutional position, powers, and offices of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undangs are defined by the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.

Article 181(1): The saving of sovereignty

What Article 181(1) says

Article 181(1) is a saving provision. It preserves what existed before the Federal Constitution took effect, so that the federal arrangement does not silently strip away the rights and offices held at Merdeka. The provision covers two categories: the Rulers, whose sovereignty, prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction in the state are preserved, and the Ruling Chiefs of Negeri Sembilan, whose prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction within their respective territories are preserved.

The structure of the provision matters. The word “sovereignty” is used for the Rulers and omitted for the Ruling Chiefs. The distinction is deliberate. Article 181(1) preserves sovereignty for the Rulers, while preserving jurisdiction and prerogatives for the Ruling Chiefs within their respective territories. The Constitution uses different language because it recognises different constitutional positions.

The words “within their respective territories” are used for the Ruling Chiefs and omitted for the Rulers. The Rulers retain state-wide sovereignty. The Undangs retain prerogatives within their luak: Sungai Ujong, Jelebu, Johol, or Rembau.

The provision also opens with “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution”, meaning where another provision of the Federal Constitution operates, Article 181(1) gives way to it.

How the three provisions fit together

Reading the three Federal Constitution provisions together produces a coherent picture.

Article 71 federally guarantees the right to hold office, with two sub-articles covering the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undangs separately.

Article 160(2) is a definitional clause that groups the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs under a single term for interpretation purposes, with the conferral of power sitting in the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.

Article 181(1) preserves what existed before Merdeka, with state-wide sovereignty for the Rulers and luak-bounded prerogatives for the Ruling Chiefs.

The Federal Constitution merely protects the offices of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undangs. The actual conferral of power, who holds office, how they are appointed, how they are removed, and what decisions they can make, sits in the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.

For that analysis, see this publication’s earlier piece, Undangs Are Not Co-Rulers With Equal Status and Power: What the Negeri Sembilan Constitution Actually Says.

But the Undangs elect the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Does that not imply equal sovereignty?

This question is frequently raised and deserves direct attention.

The Undangs' role as electors of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is a constitutional function under Article 11 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, exercised from a defined pool of eligible candidates set by Article 7(3). Constitutional systems often distinguish between participating in the appointment of a superior office and holding equal status with that office. Election and equal status are separate matters.

The bottom line

Anyone arguing the Negeri Sembilan crisis from the Federal Constitution alone is reading half the document. The more important half lives in the Negeri Sembilan Constitution, where the procedures, the powers, and the answers actually sit.

Read next: What Happened at the Seremban High Court Sitting on 13 May

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Sources:

• The Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan, 1959 (Negeri Sembilan State Government Official Portal)

• Federal Constitution (Reprint 2020) (Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia)

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

On 17 April 2026, the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) sat and acknowledged the removal of Mubarak Dohak as Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong.

On 5 May, Mubarak, the three sitting Undang, the Tunku Besar Tampin and the Syahbandar of Sungei Ujong filed an originating summons at the Seremban High Court for an interim stay (a temporary halt) of that DKU decision (Free Malaysia Today, 5 May 2026).

What is Article 16

Article 16 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 governs the constitutional role of the DKU in matters concerning the Undang.

Sub-article (3) is the provision at the heart of this case. It states that the acknowledgement of the DKU on the election, succession, removal or vacation of any Undang is final and cannot be challenged in any court on any ground.

What happened yesterday

Yesterday’s session was a return date on the originating summons (a procedural first appearance, not a full trial). The case came before Justice Roz Mawar Rozain.

The Plaintiffs

• Mubarak Dohak (the previous Undang of Sungei Ujong)

• Maarof Mat Rashad (Undang of Jelebu)

• Muhammad Abdullah (Undang of Johol)

• Abdul Rahim Yasin (Undang of Rembau)

• Tunku Syed Razman Syed Idrus Al Qadri (Tunku Besar Tampin)

• Baharudin Abdul Khalid (Syahbandar of Sungei Ujong)

The Defendants

• The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang

• Raja Norazli Raja Nordin (DKU Secretary)

• The Negeri Sembilan state government

The Plaintiffs asked the court to do two things: order the DKU to release the minutes of the 17 April sitting, and grant an interim stay of the 17 April DKU decision to remove Mubarak. A court-ordered pause would mean that the removal was suspended and everything flowing from it (staff reassignment, eviction from the official residence, announcement of new Undang) while the case proceeds.

Three things happened yesterday, and all three favoured the Defendants.

First, the interim stay was refused. The judge declined to pause the 17 April DKU decision, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence supporting the application, with liberty to refile. The practical effect is clean: the 17 April decision continues to operate with full legal force and nothing about Mubarak’s removal is suspended.

Second, the Defendants signalled they will challenge the court’s authority to hear the case at all. Senior counsel Steven Thiru, appearing for the DKU and its Secretary, invoked Article 16(3) and submitted that the court has no jurisdiction over DKU acknowledgements on the removal of any Undang — effectively, an ouster clause (Free Malaysia Today, 13 May 2026).

The judge directed the Defendants to file that objection formally (with supporting affidavits) within seven days, with a hearing scheduled for 28 July 2026.

Third, the state government took a separate procedural objection. The state government argued that only DKU members are entitled to copies of DKU minutes, and that the preparation and release of those minutes is not within the state government’s jurisdiction in any event. That is a different argument from the constitutional ouster, and it means the Plaintiffs now have to win on two fronts to keep the case alive.

Who is Steven Thiru, and why does it matter

Steven Thiru is one of Malaysia’s most senior constitutional litigators. A former President of the Malaysian Bar (2015 to 2017), he has argued some of the most significant constitutional cases of the last decade, including landmark matters at the Federal Court on judicial independence and fundamental liberties.

His instruction by the DKU signals two things. The Defendants are taking the 28 July hearing seriously enough to instruct counsel of his calibre. And they are positioning the case to be decided on the strongest possible reading of Article 16(3), with the aim of establishing a precedent that DKU decisions are not reviewable by the courts at all.

What 28 July actually decides

The 28 July hearing will not decide if the 17 April DKU acknowledgement was valid, that is whether Mubarak was constitutionally removed.

It will decide one prior question: does the court have the power to hear this case at all?

What this means

A judge who thought the Plaintiffs had a strong case on Article 16(3) would likely have left some room for at least a narrow stay. Refusing all interim relief, and putting the question of whether it can hear the case at all first in line, signals a court taking the ouster clause seriously.

And the longer the case proceeds without a stay, the more time the state government has to complete the removal of Mubarak from his official residence and complete the transition of staff and assets, and the more time the Adat structure of Luak Sungei Ujong has to resolve its internal succession dispute and consolidate the recognition of the new Undang.

Every week that passes without a stay strengthens the practical and constitutional argument that Mubarak’s removal has already taken effect and should not be judicially unwound.

At the 13 May Seremban Court sitting, on every contested point, the hearing went overwhelmingly in favour of the Defendants.

Read next: The DKU Secretary Has Not Been Suspended. So Why Is the Press Reporting That He Has?

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Sources:

• Undangs take Negeri Sembilan crisis to court (Free Malaysia Today), 5 May 2026

• N Sembilan nobles take royal dispute to court, seek access to meeting minutes (Malaysiakini), 5 May 2026

• Negeri Sembilan DKU to contest court’s jurisdiction in undangs’ suit (Free Malaysia Today), 13 May 2026

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

It is being circulated through what is increasingly being described as “dark traffic”, the closed messaging channels, WhatsApp forwards, and private group chats that have become a defining feature of how information moves during the current crisis (Read also: How Social Media Has Influenced the Negeri Sembilan Crisis).

The piece is reproduced below in English. The English translation is the original author’s own and not a translation produced by this publication.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Reflections on Custom and Clans’ Integrity

By Anak Negeri

While the “musical chairs” involving the chieftaincies in Negeri Sembilan may seem startling to the uninitiated, history reminds us that such transitions are nothing new. From Johol to Sungei Ujong itself, our annals are replete with instances of contested successions and the reshuffling of leadership.

Yet, a troubling distinction emerges when comparing the present to the past. Historically, despite internal clan (luak) friction, there was no intellectual erosion. Whatever occurred within the clan, remained within the clan. There was a sacred boundary, a recognition that a clan’s internal disputes were its own to settle, conducted with a level of intellectual rigour and customary decorum that preserved the dignity of the clan.

Critically, we have seen precedents where a sitting Chieftain was removed by his own people. In those instances, however, the deposed leaders did not commit the ultimate overreach: they did not attempt to depose a sitting Malay Ruler, an act that is not only customarily gravity-defying (un-Adat) but legally fraught. Nor did they plunge the entire State into disarray simply out of a reluctance to accept the fact that they were ousted by their own kin. In those days, intellectual integrity meant that other Chieftains refrained from interfering in the affairs of a clan not their own. They understood the fundamental wisdom of “minding one’s own house.”

Today, we face a different reality. The attempt to depose a Malay Ruler protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions, without any legal justification, moves beyond a mere customary dispute (un-Adat) into the realm of disloyalty (derhaka).

To drag such matters into the civil courts against the State Government is a high-stakes gamble that risks the very autonomy of our Adat.

To make matters worse, we have seen a political entity attempting to meddle in these clan-related matters. By trying to transform a specific customary dispute into a national political crisis, they are only hastening the erosion of our traditions for partisan gain.

It is therefore time to move forward and leave this embarrassing chapter behind us. This is not a contest to see which clan can provide the most entertainment to the nation; it is a matter of the abiding dignity of Negeri Sembilan.

To the clan of Sungei Ujong, you must turn the page. Resolve your internal selection with haste and finality. However, ensure that your problems remain restricted to your own borders. The internal mechanics of your clan should not be allowed to destabilise the entirety of Negeri Sembilan. Be mindful that attempting to depose a Malay Ruler or forcing a change of Menteri Besar will not resolve your internal disputes. Such actions will only escalate a private clan matter into an act of derhaka and state instability, solving nothing while risking everything.

To the other Chieftains (including the ungazetted claimant), if you cannot restrain yourselves from interfering in the affairs of other clans, and considering you have already participated in the derhaka attempt to unseat a Malay Ruler protected by the Federal and State Constitutions, the most patriotic and honourable path forward, to avoid further shameless mockery of our state, is resignation. Only by doing so can you show true respect to the rakyat, by finally departing from your five-figure remuneration and the myriad perks of office, including government-sponsored residences, flagged vehicles, outriders, and free petrol.

To all other clans, before becoming critical of Sungei Ujong, look into the mirror. While their process has been loud and dramatic, they at least possess the courage to take action against an incumbent who has failed the test of integrity. One must wonder: do the rest of you possess that same fortitude, and a shred of loyalty to a Malay Ruler, who is the grandson of the first Yang di-Pertuan Agong?

#SelamatkanRumahKita #Un-Adat

What this says

Anak Negeri’s essay stands in stark contrast to cybertrooper rants on Facebook for what it leaves unsaid. No one is named, and yet anyone following the crisis will recognise every figure being addressed.

The essay reframes the dispute from a clash between the Undang Yang Empat¹ and the Yang di-Pertuan Besar into something more fundamental: a matter that should have been resolved at the bottom, not escalated to the top.

It holds a mirror up to the other clans, and to Negeri Sembilan itself, asking what complicity and self-interest have allowed this crisis to grow. It calls upon honour, dignity, intellectual rigour, respect, and integrity — the very qualities Adat embodies.

Stepping back, the essay's circulation tells another story. The conversation surrounding the crisis has split into two channels. The public one runs through mainstream media and Facebook, where facts and noise blur, and where politicians and their cybertroopers shout loudest to influence the narrative. The more interesting conversation is now being held in the private channels they cannot control.

The rakyat are starting to speak up.

Read Next: An Illusion of Co-Rulers of the Untrusted Trustee - By Anak Negeri

This publication has not independently verified the identity of the author or the factual claims in the essay. All opinions are the writer's own.

All articles by Anak Negeri have been reprinted in Bahasa Melayu in Free Malaysia Today.

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

But the system is being stress-tested in another way too. When three rival claimants each point to a different Ibu Soko, the obvious question follows: which Ibu Soko’s sanction prevails? Adat Perpatih answers this through lineage seniority within the perut, and through the customary processes of the Lembaga and Anak Waris of the relevant Luak.

In principle, the genealogical record settles it; there is no court of appeal, no external arbiter, no statutory enforcement. In practice, when different perut back different claimants, the dispute can only be resolved from within.

Adat Perpatih is often described in romantic terms: matriarchal wisdom, consensus, the slow accretion of customary memory.

While the principles are real, the lived reality is messier.

A system that distributes legitimacy across multiple lineages, multiple perut, multiple Ibu Soko, and multiple Lembaga produces, by design, multiple potential answers to the same question. Most of the time, custom and consensus resolve those quietly, behind closed doors. Under the pressure of the current crisis, they are being resolved in public.

A verse captures this very paradox:

Dalam kalut ada peraturan
Peraturan mencipta kekalutan
Di mana pula kau berdiri
Di sini

In chaos, there are rules
Rules create chaos
Where do you stand
Right here

Even in disorder, there is still an underlying structure. What looks chaotic from the outside may still operate according to its own hidden rules or customs.

The paradox is sharper still when the Adat system meets the modern state. Negeri Sembilan operates under two parallel sets of rules: the codified Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 and the centuries-old Adat Perpatih.

Each is internally coherent, with its own institutions, processes and custodians of legitimacy: the simultaneous operation of two complete systems of authority. When both are invoked at once? Chaos.

So. Where do you stand?

Read Next: The Luak of Sungei Ujong Has Named a New Undang. Here’s What We Know So Far.

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Related Posts:

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

What happened last week

5 May 2026, Tues: New Undang of Sungei Ujong publicly named: Muhammed Faris Bin Johari

The Majlis Dato Lembaga Adat Sungei Ujong (the Adat council formerly chaired by ex-Undang Mubarak) announced Muhammad Faris bin Johari as his replacement, the 11th Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, an unusually young 28-year-old accountant. Mubarak and his three fellow Undangs continue to insist Mubarak remains the Undang.

However, hours after the appointment, six documents were circulated, declaring installation of Muhammad Faris invalid, on the grounds that the people who carried it out had themselves been dismissed from their Adat positions, and that the Majlis itself was never properly established. The Adat installation ceremony has been questioned, and that question now sits inside the Majlis itself.

Once that is resolved, the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) will need to acknowledge the appointment, and the state government will need to formally recognise it, before the 11th Undang Luak Sungei Ujong is officially installed.

5 May 2026, Tues: Undangs file court action over DKU minutes.

The three sitting Undang and Mubarak filed an originating summons at the Seremban High Court, seeking an order to compel the DKU to release the minutes of its 17 April sitting. (Free Malaysia Today, 5 May 2026).

The constitutional problem: Article 16 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 states that DKU acknowledgements on the election or removal of any Undang are final and cannot be questioned in any court on any grounds.

6 May 2026, Wed: Political crisis declared “resolved”

After the BN-PH leadership meeting on 5 May, Fahmi Fadzil announced the political crisis had been “settled.” Aminuddin Harun continues as Menteri Besar (MB). Underneath the headline: PH and UMNO have reportedly agreed to defer the next state assembly sitting for six months, and Negeri Sembilan UMNO maintains its loss of confidence in Aminuddin even as it abides by central leadership ( Free Malaysia Today, 6 May 2026, Free Malaysia Today, 7 May 2026).

6 May 2026, Wed: Aminuddin signals readiness for snap state election.

The Menteri Besar told supporters to prepare for a snap state election, citing continued dissatisfaction in certain quarters, and admitted PH was caught off guard by BN’s withdrawal of support (Free Malaysia Today, 6 May 2026).

8 May 2026, Fri: Adat dispute opens over Rembau Undang appointment.

The Ibu Soko Tua of Luak Rembau said that there were concerns raised about the appointment of the Undang of Luak Rembau, which she claimed was procedurally invalid: lacking full muafakat (consensus), improper Kerapatan Council process, and the dismissal of Adat office-holders without proper procedure (Negeri Kita, 8 May 2026).

If sustained, two of the four Undang who signed the 19 April declaration no longer hold uncontested Adat authority.

10 May 2026, Sun: A third claimant appears for Undang Sungei Ujong.

A rival faction proclaimed Abd Rahman Limat, 70, a former clerk, as the 11th Undang Luak Sungei Ujong at Telapak Tua, Kampung Chedang. The proclamation came from a different group of Adat figures than those who installed Muhammad Faris on 22 April (Sinar Harian, 10 May 2026).

Three figures now claim the title: Mubarak Dohak (officially removed), Muhammad Faris Johari, and Abd Rahman Limat. The crisis appears to have shifted from a dispute between the YDPB and the Undang Yang Empat¹ to a dispute inside the Luaks themselves, with no muafakat among the Adat figures of Sungei Ujong and Rembau over who their rightful Undang is.

What we are watching for next week

13 May 2026, Wed: Seremban High Court hears originating summons.

The application by the three Undang and Mubarak is scheduled to be heard. This is not a full hearing, but just a date for the Judge to look at the originating summons Two questions will define the outcome: whether the court will entertain the application at all given Article 16, and if it does, on what basis.

TBC: Next DKU sitting, date not yet announced.

Former MB Rais Yatim has urged current MB Aminuddin to reconvene the DKU. Watch for whether the DKU formally acknowledges Muhammad Faris bin Johari’s Undang appointment, whether it considers the Rembau dispute, and whether it sits before or after the 13 May hearing.

TBC: DUN sitting deferred, must reconvene by October.

The DUN sitting scheduled for 23-25 April was suspended after the four Undang and Tunku Besar Tampin boycotted the opening. Under state law, the assembly must reconvene within six months. The reported PH-UMNO agreement to defer pushes that meeting close to the deadline. Either the standoff continues inside the unity government, or pressure builds for a snap state election.

TBC: Whether the previous Undang vacates official residence.

Mubarak was directed to vacate the official residence and the Balai Undang Luak Sungei Ujong on 30 April. He has not done so. With two alternate Undangs now publicly named, who occupies the residence is no longer abstract.

TBC: Whether the Conference of Rulers breaks its silence.

The Conference of Rulers, the assembly of Malaysia's nine Malay Rulers plus the four Yang di-Pertua Negeri, has not publicly intervened. Other Malay rulers are watching closely. The longer the crisis stays unresolved, the harder it becomes for the Conference to remain silent.

Summary

The political crisis is, for now, suspended, and the constitutional crisis moved to the courts. The Adat crisis appears to have moved down to the Luak level itself, with the Luaks no longer in muafakat (consensus) over who their own Undang should be.

Footnote:

¹This publication uses the term "Undang Yang Empat" to refer to the four chieftains who signed the 19 April declaration. Mubarak Dohak ceased to hold office as Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong on 17 April 2026, his removal having occurred under the custom of the luak. The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) acknowledged that removal as a question of Malay custom under Article 16 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, two days before the declaration was signed. Under Article 16(3), DKU advice on such questions is final and cannot be challenged in any court.

If you are new to this Substack, and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

New Posts Written Last Week:

Sources:

• Emergency powers may be way to break Negeri Sembilan impasse, says expert (Free Malaysia Today, 27 April 2026)

• Negeri Sembilan royal crisis closely watched by rulers in other states (Twentytwo13, 5 May 2026)

• Sungei Ujong Has Announced a New Undang. Here’s What We Know So Far (Anak Nogori, 5 May 2026)

• Muhammad Faris dilantik sebagai Undang Luak Sungei Ujong ke-11 (Siakap Keli, 5 May 2026)

• PH-BN top leaders to discuss Negeri Sembilan crisis this evening (Free Malaysia Today, 5 May 2026)

• Simplified: Why Tuanku Muhriz is legally still the Negeri Sembilan ruler, and why Undangs’ attempt to ‘sack’ him is invalid, experts say (Malay Mail, 5 May 2026)

• Sungai Ujong elects new chieftain, old one refuses to budge (Malaysiakini, 5 May 2026)

• Undangs take Negeri Sembilan crisis to court (Free Malaysia Today, 5 May 2026)

• Negeri Sembilan crisis a lesson on poise and unity, says MB (Free Malaysia Today, 6 May 2026)

• Negeri Sembilan crisis resolved after BN-PH leadership meeting (Free Malaysia Today, 6 May 2026)

• Umno-PH Close Ranks In Negeri Sembilan (The Rakyat Post, 6 May 2026)

• Ceramah needed to clear air over Negeri Sembilan crisis, says Mat Sabu (Free Malaysia Today, 7 May 2026)

• Negeri Sembilan political crisis deferred for now (Free Malaysia Today, 7 May 2026)

• Umno-PH Tensions Expose Fragile Unity Government, Despite Mutual Dependence (The Rakyat Post, 7 May 2026)

• Ibu Soko Tua dakwa ada kecacatan Adat dalam pemilihan Undang Rembau (Negeri Kita, 8 May 2026)

• Krisis Adat Negeri Sembilan: Bekas kerani pula diisytihar sebagai Undang Luak Sungei Ujong ke-11 (Sinar Harian, 10 May 2026)

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.