Rais Yatim: The Accusations Against Him That Won't Go Away
In 1980, he intervened in Jelebu’s adat affairs as MB and dismissed seven of eight chiefs who stood in his way. In 2026, he's trying to challenge the MB and tarnish the credibility of the YDPT.
Tan Sri Dr Rais Yatim has been one of the most visible voices commenting on the Negeri Sembilan crisis since it erupted in April 2026. A former Menteri Besar of the state from 1978 to 1982, a longtime UMNO politician, and a self-described scholar of adat perpatih, he has given interviews to Malaysiakini, Sinar Harian and The Star, consistently positioning himself as a neutral elder statesman urging reconciliation.
Not everyone is persuaded by that framing.
On 2 May 2026, a lengthy post written by Kamaruzaman Kamdias and forwarded many times via Whatsapp, accused Rais of something more troubling: that he is not a neutral observer of this crisis, but one of its original architects. The post is written in Malay, with several passages in full capitals, in a voice of sustained communal outrage. What follows is a full translation, with commentary below.
The original post was written in Malay with certain passages in full capitals for emphasis. This translation renders those passages in bold.
The post, translated in full
“This is the figure who is highly skilled at moving the goalposts every time his own goal is scored, and whenever the opponent’s goal is attacked.” #raisyatim
This is the figure who amended the Negeri Sembilan State Constitution, which gave rights and space for a Menteri Besar (MB) to be consulted within the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU).
That amendment was made solely to enable him to interfere in matters of adat and inheritance in Luak Jelebu.
The consequences of that amendment to the Negeri Sembilan State Constitution can be seen in the dismissal of 7 out of 8 Dato Lembaga nan Delapan at the Balai Undang Jelebu.
All of this happened because of his subtle manoeuvring to elevate his chosen Undang.
This same figure also overstepped his bounds by presumptuously announcing and confirming the appointment of Maarof as Undang Jelebu.
Many have been lulled, distracted, and captivated by the gentleness of this figure — in the way he moves and speaks — as he advances his hidden agenda over time.
When it comes near his eye, he squints. When it comes towards his stomach, he sucks it in. (An idiom suggesting instinctive, defensive reactions depending on where the “blow” lands.)
This is the figure named Rais bin Yatim, who originates from the suku anak dagang under Tok Ompek, which is not listed among the Dato Lembaga nan Delapan in the Balai Undang.
In both instances of the appointment of Undang Jelebu, he claimed the MB had the right to intervene and finalise matters of adat.
But when the issue of the dismissal of Dato Mubarak Dohak arose, the same figure claimed the MB had acted in violation of the State Constitution (UUTKNS) and interfered in others’ affairs.
Rais even attempted to create the public impression that it was Tuanku Muhriz who dismissed Dato Mubarak Dohak.
“Cane the child to rebuke the son-in-law.” (A proverb meaning to criticise one party indirectly by targeting another.) Accusing the MB of wrongdoing is effectively the same as accusing the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of wrongdoing, given his role as Head of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang.
Attempting to damage the MB’s credibility in this controversy is equivalent to attempting to tarnish the credibility of the Yang Dipertuan Besar.
Is what the MB is doing now not the same as what Rais himself did when he was MB?
In fact, his conduct at that time was even more blatant and brazen.
He is the pioneer and trailblazer who caused the system of adat and inheritance in Negeri Sembilan to be contaminated by the hands of political powerholders.
In short, he is the one who corrupted and reversed the adat system from roots to crown, transforming it into a top-down system in the selection and dismissal of the Dato Undangs and Dato Adats.
Since the constitutional amendments he introduced, a culture of dismissing adat leaders from the top has taken root.
The adat system has been ruined and thrown into disarray as a result of the actions of this suku anak dagang.
The most serious and malicious allegation made by Rais Yatim is when he claimed that the role of the Ibu Soko in adat and inheritance is only minimal.
Rais Yatim is obligated to correct this false statement, which has caused great slander and public misunderstanding about the matrilineal system that is the very foundation of the adat and inheritance order in Negeri Sembilan.
Kamaruzaman Kamdias, 2 May 2026
Kamaruzaman’s core accusation is one of hypocrisy calibrated to the present moment: that Rais, when he was MB, used the same mechanism he now condemns, specifically the MB’s access to DKU proceedings, to intervene in Jelebu’s adat affairs and install his preferred Undang.
The specific constitutional amendment Kamaruzaman references has not yet been independently verified by this publication, and Rais has not, at time of writing, responded to these allegations directly.
What the National Archives Confirm
This clipping (dated 6 Feb 1980) corroborates points 3, 4 and 5 of Kamaruzaman’s post directly. Under Rais as MB, seven of the eight hereditary adat chiefs of Luak Jelebu who opposed his preferred candidate were removed and replaced. The new chiefs were sworn in the same day the appointment was confirmed valid.
What is not in dispute is that Rais Yatim has been consistently critical of the current MB Aminuddin Harun’s handling of the crisis, and that he validated the “Undang Yang Empat”¹ 19 April declaration as legally grounded, telling Malaysiakini that the Undangs had the right to act under Article 10 of the State Constitution.
The accusation Kamaruzaman is making, stripped of its poetic fury, is straightforward: the man citing constitutional principle to challenge the MB and implicitly question the Yang di-Pertuan Besar in 2026 is the same man who intervened in Jelebu’s adat affairs as MB, dismissed seven of eight chiefs who stood in his way, and had his preferred Undang confirmed valid in the 1980s.
Moving goalposts, the author suggests, is not a recent habit.
Footnote:
The allegations made in the translated post are those of Kamaruzaman Kamdias and represent his personal views. This publication has not independently verified the specific constitutional amendment he references. Rais Yatim had not responded to these allegations at time of publication.