Who Will Stand Up for Malaysia Against Corruption If Tuanku Muhriz is Removed?
We also ask who, or which party, is riding this situation for their own agenda and interests?
One of the main objectives of this publication is to make important Malay commentary accessible to English readers following the Negeri Sembilan royal, constitutional and political crisis. Much of the analysis and commentary of what is happening is being written in Bahasa Melayu, which is hard for non Malay speakers to follow.
The following is a verbatim translation of a beautifully written passage from a column by Faisal Tehrani, a research fellow at the Institut Alam dan Tamadun Melayu at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and an associate researcher at the Weatherhead Center, Harvard University.
The column was originally published in Malaysiakini and republished with the author’s permission by Solidaritas. We translate this passage in full because it speaks directly to the question at the centre of this crisis.
The Original Passage
Sikap Antirasuah Tuanku Muhriz
Dan kalau bertembung dengan anak kita sendiri melakukan kesalahan, undang-undang itu tetap didaulatkan. Bidalan ini bermaksud rule of law. Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan hari ini, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir adalah seorang yang nampaknya membuktikan dirinya sebagai sanggup mati anak tidak mati adat. Baginda dikenali antirasuah dan korupsi. Sikap tegas dan keras baginda dalam tidak memberi ampun kepada mana-mana penjenayah rasuah dan koruptor memang diketahui umum. Siapa yang untung jika baginda tiada? Adakah rule of law ditegakkan jika baginda tiada? Atau adakah nanti rule of law diterbalikkan? Tidakkah pembanterasan rasuah itu satu yang dituntut syarak, dan baginda Tuanku Muhriz cemerlang dan penuh wibawa dalam melakukannya. Jika menteri besar Negeri Sembilan yang tandatangannya berharga itu dilengser, siapakah yang akan naik kelak dengan kiraan matematik kerusi di negeri tersebut.
Siapa atau parti mana yang menunggang keadaan ini untuk agenda dan kepentingan sendiri?
Masyarakat Negeri Sembilan jangan lupa, insiden 1951 inisiatif UMNO itu berjaya digagalkan bukan sangat kerana keinsafan dan keluhuran pembesar adat ketika itu. Selepas peristiwa 1951 itu, malah Undang Rembau melawan UMNO. Gugatan terhadap adat ini digagalkan kerana rakyat Rembau keluar beramai-ramai menyatakan sikap tidak mahu ada pihak memperkudakan adat, dan menyatakan penolakan terhadap usaha orang politik mengotorkan adat, dan memanipulasi Undang, dan Lembaga.
The English Translation
Tuanku Muhriz's Anti-Corruption Stance
And if we encounter even our own child committing a wrong, the law must still be upheld. This proverb means rule of law. The Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan today, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, is someone who appears to have proven himself as one who would let a child die before letting adat die. He is known for his stance against corruption and graft. His firm and unyielding refusal to grant clemency to any corrupt criminal or wrongdoer is a matter of public knowledge. Who stands to gain if he is gone? Will the rule of law be upheld in his absence? Or will the rule of law be inverted? Is not the eradication of corruption something demanded by the faith itself, and is Tuanku Muhriz not excellent and commanding in carrying it out? If the Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan, whose signature carries such weight, were to be removed, who would rise in his place given the arithmetic of seats in the state assembly?
Who, or which party, is riding this situation for their own agenda and interests?
The people of Negeri Sembilan should not forget: the 1951 UMNO initiative was defeated not so much because of the conscience and nobility of the adat chiefs at the time. After the 1951 episode, the Undang of Rembau himself turned against UMNO. That challenge to adat was defeated because the people of Rembau came out in large numbers to declare that they would not allow anyone to use adat as a vehicle for their own ends, and to reject the efforts of politicians to corrupt adat, to manipulate the Undang, and to manipulate the Lembaga.
The full column, which covers the 1951 UMNO challenge to adat in Rembau in considerable historical depth, is available at Solidaritas and is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the deeper currents running beneath the current crisis.
Who, or which party, is riding this situation for their own agenda and interests?
Faisal Tehrani’s question is an important one to ask.
Tuanku Muhriz’s anti-corruption stance is not background detail. It is central to understanding the crisis. In January 2026, just three months before the declaration was issued, he delivered a public speech describing corruption as the foremost enemy of justice and trust, and expressed direct disappointment at those who continue to support individuals convicted of serious corruption charges. He called on them to reflect on their values. The speech was remarkable for its directness. Malaysian rulers do not routinely speak this way.
The question of who benefits from his removal is therefore not abstract. A ruler who publicly names the protection of corrupt individuals as a moral failure, and who holds the constitutional authority that Tuanku Muhriz holds, is not a neutral figure in a landscape where corruption prosecutions and political power intersect.
Faisal Tehrani does not name names. He does not need to. The arithmetic of the state assembly, the identity of the parties pressing hardest for change, and the documented record of the individuals at the centre of this crisis are matters of public record. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
The proverb Faisal Tehrani invokes in his column, biar mati anak jangan mati adat, is often translated as “better that a child die than that adat die.” Its real meaning is simpler: the rule of law must be upheld regardless of who stands before it. A ruler who lives that principle is a specific kind of obstacle to a specific kind of interest.
Who gains if he is gone?
Who Will Stand Up for Malaysia Against Corruption?
The 14 January speech was unusual by any measure of Malaysian royal address. Tuanku Muhriz described corruption as the foremost enemy of justice, trust and the nation’s future. He said he was shocked that some still rallied behind individuals found guilty of serious corruption offences, as if such acts were acceptable or forgivable, and urged them to reflect on their faith, principles and values, stressing that tolerance for corruption was unacceptable in a nation governed by the rule of law.
Three months later, an attempt was made to remove him.
The other question we should be asking is who else will be willing to say the same things, from the same position, with the same clarity.
