Supporting Umno for all the wrong reasons

 Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

 

Supporting Umno for all the wrong reasons

https://www.tiktok.com/@jeff.li168/video/7690977440922946836 (Billions Behind The Palace Walls)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmIy2KoECP8 ('I don't want to see you!' - Tuanku Muhriz tells MB; DAP rep questions sitting delay)

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 18, 2026: Umno had been the backbone of federal governments for more than six decades since Merdeka (Independence) 1957.

What has it achieved for national unity and harmony for multi-racial Malaysians and Malaysia? Absolutely nothing.

All the party of pencuri-pencuri (thieves) has achieved is the systemic plundering of the country’s wealth and racial bigotry policies and politics.

Malaysians, thus, should not forget why they dumped the Umno-led Barisan Nasional (BN) in the last general election (GE15), leaving it with only 26 MPs in the 222-seat Parliament.

Yet, with just 26 seats, Umno continues to wreak political havoc because the Anwar Ibrahim-led Pakatan Harapan (PH) does not hold the majority political hand.

So, come GE16, Malaysians must try to wipe out BN-Umno from Parliament and give the Rafizi-led Bersama, PH, Sabah and Sarawak a strong hand to implement real reforms without hindrance from the racial and bigoted Umno.

View the above video link and lawyer activist Siti Kasim’s post on the Negri Sembilan Saga and form your own judgment why Umno is never untuk rakyat dan negara (for people and country):

NEGERI SEMBILAN SAGA

The incident on 16 October 2026 has made Ismail Lasim's position as Negeri Sembilan Menteri Besar considerably more difficult, both politically and institutionally.

Tuanku Muhriz publicly rebuked Ismail and reportedly told him not to seek an audience until he withdrew his earlier statements, ending with the words “Go away.” That is an extraordinary public confrontation between a constitutional ruler and his Menteri Besar.

There are three important considerations.

1. Loss of trust. A Menteri Besar must be able to maintain a functional constitutional relationship with the ruler. The public confrontation raises serious questions about how that relationship can operate.

2. Conflicting explanations. Ismail previously claimed that he signed the proclamation concerning Tuanku Muhriz under duress. Yet the State Executive Council subsequently supported recognising the rival claimant. Ismail has not adequately explained this apparent contradiction publicly.

3. Constitutional accountability. The Attorney General's Chambers reportedly concluded that the proclamation seeking to remove Tuanku Muhriz was invalid. However, the legal dispute and the separate question of Ismail's tenure must be distinguished from the personal breakdown between the ruler and Menteri Besar.

Resignation is therefore a serious option, but it is not an automatic legal consequence of a royal rebuke. Ismail's constitutional position, the confidence of the State Legislative Assembly, and the applicable provisions of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution must also be considered.

Senior lawyer Rosli Dahlan has publicly called for Ismail to resign, while Ismail himself said on 8 October that he would not do so.

The strongest question to put to Ismail is this:

If you maintain that you were forced to sign a proclamation against the ruler, why did your administration subsequently support its effect? And if the relationship between the palace and your government has broken down so publicly, how do you intend to govern effectively?

Ultimately, this is about more than royal displeasure. It is about constitutional consistency, public accountability and the stability of the state government. Those are the standards against which any decision to remain in office or resign should be examined.

SITI KASIM