Is Muhyiddin sedition? – Malaysia Today

The 15th General Election ended in such a lose-lose situation. Muhyiddin lost, which he felt he should not have lost; Anwar won, which he felt he did not get enough recognition; and the King made a complex decision, the merits of which only future generations will judge.

Nehru Satyamurthy

Some seemed to be suggesting that Muhyiddin had committed sedition by suggesting that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who is now the Sultan of Pahang, was breaking the law or engaging in impropriety by choosing Anwar over him as the 10th prime minister.^day Prime Minister of Malaysia, but I certainly don’t think there are sufficient grounds to bring such a serious charge against him.

Boiled down to its essence, Muhyiddin is basically saying that despite having submitted to the Agong statutory declarations from 115 MPs who support him as the prime minister, the Agong still decided to choose Anwar over him as the country’s 10th prime minister. What he is saying is actually a matter of public and official record, which every political analyst or observer should already know by now. Even an average observer or amateur can verify this fact by doing a simple Google search on the matter.

One may wonder why Muhyiddin chose to raise this matter nearly two years after the incident – I certainly wonder – if Muhyiddin had raised this matter in 2022, perhaps it would have been different, but what difference would it make to raise this matter today, after nearly two years of Anwar in power?

For all you know, Muhyiddin may have just decided to bring this up in his speech because he was impulsive. I don’t know what’s going on in the minds of people who give speeches during election campaigns, but I guess sometimes they get carried away by the mood of the moment and say what they think suits the mood of the audience at that time.

Anyway, talking about things that no longer matter or make a difference cannot be considered a crime. If it was, we would all be in jail!

As for some people saying that Muhyiddin’s remarks were an implication that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had broken the law or acted inappropriately, I do not think this is the only explanation for this situation.

Another explanation is that perhaps Muhyiddin is simply regretting the fact. Politicians are in many ways like professional boxers, their goal is to retire with more wins than losses during their careers. The 15th General Election was the first and only election that Muhyiddin contested as the leader of a rival party. Given his age and his current position in the Perikatan Nasional coalition, it was likely to be his last election as well. In that election, he narrowly won but ultimately lost to Anwar. With this in mind, is it really surprising that Muhyiddin has still not gotten over his defeat in 2022?

I recently watched a video of George Foreman’s famous defeat to Muhammad Ali in the 1974 “Rumble in the Jungle”, where he claimed that he lost the fight because his drinking water was laced with drugs that made him delirious. If George Foreman is still complaining about a defeat 50 years ago, then we can certainly understand why Muhyiddin’s defeat still haunts him today. That defeat happened just two years ago and was likely his only fight as a contender for the nation’s highest office.

If Muhyiddin writes an autobiography, I am sure his account of what happened in 2022 will feature prominently in the book.

In law, the presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of justice.

This means that if there are two possibilities that equally explain why someone did something, the explanation that absolves them of responsibility should be adopted.

This presumption of innocence is not only the basis of the law, but also a practice that every worthy and upright person would advocate and the way every worthy and upright person should behave.

Considering that while Muhyiddin’s speech could be interpreted as a person grieving his own loss or as a citizen making an insinuation against the King, I think the correct view is to view it as the former as this view satisfies the principle of presumption of innocence.

Yes, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong chose Anwar over Muhyiddin. It was a close race, both Anwar and Muhyiddin have secured the right to be the next PM, but only one of them can be the next PM and it is up to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to decide who will be the next PM.

Whatever the Yang di-Pertuan Agong does, His Majesty is bound to disappoint someone. In other words, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is in a classic “do it or you’ll suffer” situation.

In this situation, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had to use his judgement and prerogative to determine who was the best candidate to form a stable government, and he chose Anwar.

Why did the King choose Anwar over Muhyiddin?

Well, I can think of a few reasons. Maybe it’s because Anwar’s Pakatan Harapan won 81 seats while Muhyiddin’s coalition won 74 seats.

Perhaps it is because His Majesty has doubts about the validity of the support that Muhyiddin has received from some MPs.

Perhaps His Majesty is still bitter about Muhyiddin for attempting to obtain emergency powers on trumped-up grounds just a year ago in 2021.

Anyway, it does not matter why the Yang di-Pertuan Agong chose Anwar over Muhyiddin because that is what prerogative and discretion means. When someone is given the discretion and prerogative to decide something, you cannot question their decision later. You just have to trust them and accept their decision, whatever it is.

We cannot expect Muhyiddin to be happy with the King’s decision because it has clearly cost him dearly. It is no surprise, therefore, that whenever Anwar makes a mistake, Muhyiddin is quick to remind us that he would have done a better job than Anwar had the King chosen him instead. We cannot assume that Muhyiddin’s actions are criminal just because he might have done so.

In life, we don’t always get to reach a win-win situation. Sometimes, we also have to deal with a lose-lose situation, where everyone involved regrets having to deal with the situation.

The 15th General Election ended in such a lose-lose situation. Muhyiddin lost, which he felt he should not have lost; Anwar won, which he felt he did not get enough recognition; and the King made a complex decision, the merits of which only future generations will judge.

As a result, Muhyiddin will forever be haunted by the disappointment of defeat, Anwar will likely face a long period of unstable rule, and the King may begin to doubt his choice.

Sometimes, there is nothing you can do to make a situation better. At times like these, the only thing you can do is not make the situation worse and let time put some distance between you and the situation.

Charging Muhyiddin with sedition will not only make matters worse, but will also make it more difficult for us to distance ourselves from what happened after GE15.