Negeri Sembilan’s Ruler-undang issue that made headlines in the past week is essentially a succession and removal issue of the state Ruler. When Umno took up the issue, it turned political, dragging the MB into an issue that, perhaps, is out of his purview.

According to the state’s adat (customary traditions), the state has four chieftains who are the ruling chiefs of the traditional districts of Sungai Ujong, Jelebu, Johol, and Rembau. They form the powerful Undang Yang Empat (The Four Chieftains) who hold the constitutional power to elect or dismiss the state ruler, known as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

The controversy stems from a move by the traditional leadership of Sungai Ujong to remove its undang, Mubarak Thahak, citing alleged breaches of customary law and alleged violations of Islamic law in May, last year.

However, on April 17 this year, a special sitting of the Negeri Sembilan Council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs was convened, which was also attended by the state Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun.

According to Aminuddin, the council had agreed to advise Sungai Ujong to accept Mubarak’s prior dismissal. This, however, was disputed by the other undangs, who claimed that the three undangs had not agreed to Mubarak’s dismissal, which was required by the state constitution and customary law.

The undangs subsequently made a declaration to dismiss the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and named another candidate to replace him. By law, that declaration needed the MB’s signature, which was not given. The undangs also called for the MB’s removal, following which the state Umno’s 14 elected reps announced that they were withdrawing their support from Aminuddin’s administration for failing to handle the issue according to the constitution and customary law.

While both the Ruler and the undangs may have their reasons for acting the way they did, the question arises as to whether they followed due process in giving the other side their right to explain. This can only be resolved by both sides sorting things out and leaving it to them to do it without interference.

Against this background, did the 14 Umno representatives have a basis when they announced that they were withdrawing support for the MB? According to the law, the council decision is final and based on that, Aminuddin withheld his signature from announcing the dismissal of the Ruler by the undangs.

A more important consideration is whether the head of an elected government should take part in any process to install or dismiss the Ruler of the state? Constitutionally, the rulers of states in Malaysia are above politics and they rule outside the purview of an elected government. That is the separation of powers enshrined in the constitution.

According to the constitution, rulers don’t interfere with any matter of an elected government, as that is the total responsibility of the latter. Likewise, no elected representative or government representative interferes with any matter involving the Ruler. The exceptions are where the ruler and head of government have specific duties clearly defined in the constitution, such as the undangs requiring the MB’s signature.

In such cases, the ruler or the head of government operates according to the prescribed duties spelt out in the constitution. They should not use these exceptions as opportunities to influence government or ruler/royal processes. That precisely is what Aminuddin did. He did not step out of his prescribed role in the Negeri Sembilan Council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs.

If he had signed the undangs’ announcement to dismiss the incumbent Ruler, he would be interfering with the state Ruler’s succession and dismissal processes which are outside of the MB’s purview of administration.

If the separation of powers is respected, should the state Umno have taken offence at the MB for acting constitutionally? There, actually, was no basis for Umno to withdraw support for the government on this issue.

Thank goodness that good sense finally prevailed all around and the 14 Umno councillors in the state legislature retracted their withdrawal of support for the state MB! But, it was needless turmoil that the people could do without.

If the 14 had gone ahead and pulled out of the government, the government would have collapsed and there would have been political instability. To avert that possibility, the MB went to see the Ruler who advised continuing with a minority government. But the constitution provides no provision for a minority government unless it is supported by the majority of the elected representatives, which means it would be an unconstitutional government, and, therefore illegitimate and equally unstable.

All this instability is caused because leaders do not follow the constitution and, instead, seek the ruler’s help, who may not interpret the constitution according to democratic principles since their roles require an authoritarian approach. They mean well and their input is followed out of respect, nevertheless, the issue of government legitimacy and the stability it provides remains unresolved.

It is for the leaders to find the constitutional solution and advise the rulers/royals with the help of their legal advisers. They must under no circumstance support an unconstitutional government — even for the “good of the country” because the good of the country is to follow the constitution, as it protects the rights and interests of the people.

The point is that leaders, and especially elected representatives, need to understand the constitution and the principles on which it is built, such as the separation of powers and sovereignty of government, which applies to the state constitutions as well — and act or not act accordingly.

If they did, we would have less groundless political chaos and a more stable political environment.