“Disrespectful and uncivilised.” Those were the unusually strong words used by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim when he criticised the actions of the Negeri Sembilan Menteri Besar Datuk Ismail Lasim and members of the state executive council in the continuing royal and constitutional crisis.

In this rather unfortunate dispute, I stand behind the prime minister and the federal government because, in my profound view, we must uphold the Federal Constitution and preserve the rule of law. Anything less simply will not do. In his strong rebuke, Anwar could hardly have been clearer about where he stands.

The prime minister said he strongly objected to the move and questioned the mandate of a Menteri Besar and Exco to question the position of a Ruler. More importantly, he stressed that the institution of the Malay Rulers must be preserved and upheld, and that disputes and differences must be channelled through the proper constitutional and legal avenues.

That should be a message not merely to the Negeri Sembilan government, but to every member of the Malay political and traditional elite who has become involved in this extraordinary dispute.

My message is simple: Do not allow a contest over power, position or political influence to damage the institution of the Rulers or weaken respect for the Federal Constitution.

This crisis has already gone far beyond an ordinary political disagreement.

On April 19, the four Undang moved to depose Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir and subsequently proclaimed Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar as the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar. That proclamation was disputed, and the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang subsequently affirmed that Tuanku Muhriz remained the legitimate Yang di-Pertuan Besar and that there was no vacancy in the office.

Yet the dispute has continued, producing an extraordinary situation in which rival claims to the state’s highest traditional office have persisted for months.

The four Undang – central figures in Negeri Sembilan’s unique adat system – are not ordinary political actors. Their traditional position carries enormous historical and constitutional significance. Precisely because of that, their actions inevitably attract national attention.

And that is why everyone involved must understand the damage that can be done when traditional authority, political power and constitutional government become entangled.

The latest development involving former Negeri Sembilan Menteri Besar Tan Sri Dr Rais Yatim makes the situation even more serious.

Dr Rais was in court on Friday, Sept 25, and pleaded not guilty to a charge under the Sedition Act 1948 over remarks allegedly made on June 5 following the proclamation of Tunku Nadzaruddin.

The prosecution alleges that he called for loyalty to Tunku Nadzaruddin as the purported 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The case will now proceed through the courts.

I will not prejudge that case. The court must decide it.

But there is no denying that Dr Rais was a prominent participant in the events surrounding the rival proclamation. His presence at the June 5 ceremony and his subsequent public statements have placed him firmly within the story of this unprecedented royal dispute.

In July, he was also stripped of two Negeri Sembilan state honours by order of Tuanku Muhriz, with the palace saying the decision was to preserve the dignity and honour of the royal institution.

Then there is Tunku Nadzaruddin, whose proclamation took place at a hotel in Melaka rather than at the traditional royal setting in Negeri Sembilan – another extraordinary feature of this dispute.

And so I ask the Malay elite involved in this crisis: what example are you setting for the rest of Malaysians?

Many Malays and Muslims themselves want no part in a struggle that appears to have placed political and personal interests alongside, and at times seemingly ahead of, the dignity of the Royal Institution.

They too are watching. So are the non-Malays.

If Malaysians are repeatedly told to respect the Malay Rulers, then that principle must apply consistently. Respect cannot become something demanded from ordinary citizens while those holding political or traditional power appear free to challenge, undermine or dispute the position of a Ruler without clear constitutional justification.

The Rukun Negara speaks of “Loyalty to King and Country”. But in a constitutional democracy, loyalty does not mean abandoning the Constitution. Nor does respect mean that every disagreement must be suppressed.

The opposite is true. The Constitution provides the framework within which the institution of the Rulers, elected governments, traditional institutions and ordinary citizens must operate.

That is why Anwar’s reminder is important. Differences can be raised, but they must be channelled through the proper avenues. The royal institution must not become a political football. Neither should the Constitution. And neither should the rakyat.

There is another danger here which the Malay elite should seriously consider. What happens when today’s extraordinary actions become tomorrow’s precedent?

If political leaders, traditional chiefs or other powerful individuals are perceived to possess the ability to remove or replace a Ruler whenever a dispute becomes sufficiently bitter, what message does that send to future generations?

It risks creating the impression that constitutional institutions can be bent according to the balance of power of the day.

That would be deeply damaging — not merely to Negeri Sembilan but to Malaysia as a whole.

And to my fellow Sarawakians and Sabahans who do have Malay Rulers as their Heads of State, please do not point fingers at us when we express disagreement or disappointment over statements or positions from royal circles which we believe do not serve the interests of the Borneo territories.

Respect for the Royal Institution does not mean surrendering our democratic right to speak, question or disagree. We reserve that right as Malaysians.

But the same constitutional principle applies to everyone – whether Malay or non-Malay, Muslim or non-Muslim, politician or ordinary citizen, traditional leader or elected representative.

The lesson from Negeri Sembilan should therefore not be about who wins this royal dispute.

It should be about whether Malaysia’s constitutional order emerges stronger or weaker from it.

To the Malay elite involved, I say this respectfully: do not set an example that future generations will regret.

Power is temporary. Political positions come and go. Even traditional office carries responsibilities. But the Federal Constitution and the institutions built upon it must endure.

(Francis Paul Siah is a veteran Sarawak editor and currently heads the Movement for Change, Sarawak (MoCS). He can be reached at [email protected]