Did Muhyiddin commit sedition?
The situation at the end of the GE 15 is one such lose – lose situation. Muhyiddin came out of it with a loss that he does not think he deserves, Anwar came out of it with a victory that he does not think is sufficiently recognised while the Agong has come out of it by making a complicated decision, whose merit can only be determined by the future generations.
Nehru Sathiamoorthy
Some people seem to be suggesting that Muhyiddin has committed sedition, for implying that the Agong, who is the current Sultan of Pahang, was infringing upon the law or involved in something improper, by choosing Anwar instead of him as the 10th Prime Minister of Malaysia, but I certainly don’t think there is sufficient grounds to level such a grievous allegation upon him.
At the end of the day, what Muhyiddin basically said was that although he had submitted the SD’s from 115 MPs who backed him as the prime minister to the Agong, the Agong had still decided to choose Anwar instead of him as the 10th prime minister of the country. What he has said is actually a matter of public and official record, which every political analyst or observers worth their salt would have already known by now. Even a casual observer or an amateur enthusiast can verify this fact by doing a simple google search about the matter.
One can wonder why did Muhyiddin choose to bring out this matter now, almost two years after the incident happen – I certainly do – if Muhyiddin had brought up this matter in 2022 itself, maybe it would have made a difference, but what possible difference could it make to bring up the matter today, after Anwar has reigned for nearly two years?
For all you know, maybe Muhyiddin decided to rekindle the matter during a speech because he was simply carried away by the occasion. I don’t know what goes on in the head of a person who is giving a speech during an election campaign, but I suppose sometimes they get carried away by the moment, and say whatever it is that they judge to be fit to address the mood of their audience at the time.
In any case, talking about things that no longer matters or doesn’t make a difference cannot be considered a crime. If it is, all of us will end up in jail!
As for the suggestion that Muhyiddin was subliminally implying that the Agong had infringed the law or indulged in impropriety through his statement, I don’t think that that is the only explanation for the situation.
Another explanation would be that perhaps Muhyiddin was just ruing the fact. Politicians in many ways , are like prize fighters, whose aim in their career is to retire with more wins than losses. GE 15 was Muhyiddin’s first and only election as the head of a competing side. Considering his age and his current status in PN, it might very well be his last one too. In that election, he came within a hairbreadth of winning, before losing to Anwar. Considering this, is it really surprising to us that Muhyiddin still hasn’t gotten over his loss in 2022?
I recently saw a video of George Foreman ruing his famous defeat to Muhammad Ali in the “Rumble in the Jungle” match of 1974, by claiming that he only lost the match because drugs that disoriented him were mixed in his water. If George Foreman is still griping about a defeat he suffered 50 years ago, surely we can understand why Muhyiddin’s defeat, which occurred just barely two years ago, and is likely the only time he will ever compete as a contender to the top post in the nation, is still something that is haunting Muhyiddin until today.
If Muhyiddin ever writes an autobiography, I am quite sure that his version of what happened in 2022 will be featured prominently in it.
In law, the presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of justice.
What this means is that if there are two possibilities that can equally explain why someone did something, then the explanation that exonerates them is the one that should be taken.
This presumption of innocence is not only a foundation of the law, but it is a practice that every person of worth and integrity will advocate as the proper way for a person of worth and integrity to behave.
Considering that, when Muhyiddin’s speech can be interpreted as a man ruing his loss or an insinuation of a citizen against his king, I think the right view to take, is see it as the former, for it is the view that satisfies the presumption of innocence.
Yes, the Agong chose Anwar over Muhyiddin. It was a close contest, where both Anwar and Muhyiddin had secured the right to become the next pm, but only one of them can become the next pm, and it was the Agong’s task to determine who it was.
No matter what the Agong did, His Majesty was bound to disappoint someone. The Agong was in other words, in a classic “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” situation.
In such a situation, it is up to the Agong to use his discretion and prerogative to determine who is the candidate that was in the best position to form a stable government, and the Agong chose Anwar.
Why did the Agong choose Anwar and not Muhyiddin?
Well, I can think of a few reasons. Maybe it was because the PH coalition that Anwar was leading, had won 81 seats as compared to the 74 seats that Muhyiddin’s coalition had won.
Maybe because his majesty had doubts about the validity of some of the support of the MPs that Muhyiddin had acquired.
Maybe His Majesty was still sore with Muhyiddin for attempting to obtain emergency powers for trumped up reasons barely a year before in 2021.
Whatever it is, it doesn’t matter why the 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 can’t question their decision later on. You just have to trust them and accept their decision, whatever it may be.
We cannot expect Muhyiddin to be happy with the Agong’s decision, because the Agong’s decision has obviously cost Muhyiddin heavily. Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised that whenever Anwar makes a mistake, Muhyiddin will be right there to remind us all that if the Agong had chosen him instead of Anwar, he would have done a better job than Anwar. Just because Muhyiddin might do this, we should not assume that there is something criminal with his actions.
In life, it is not always that we will be able to come up with a win-win situation. Sometimes, we will also have to deal with a lose-lose situation, where everybody involved in the situation will regret having to deal with the situation.
The situation at the end of the GE 15 is one such lose – lose situation. Muhyiddin came out of it with a loss that he does not think he deserves, Anwar came out of it with a victory that he does not think is sufficiently recognised while the Agong has come out of it by making a complicated decision, whose merit can only be determined by the future generations.
As a result, Muhyiddin will forever be haunted by the disappointment of his loss, Anwar will likely have to contend with an unstable reign for a long time and the Agong will probably be stricken with doubts about his choice.
Sometimes, there is nothing you can do to make a situation better. At such a time, the only thing that you can do is not make it worse, and leave it to time to put some distance between you and the situation.
Charging Muhyiddin with sedition will not only make things worse, it will also make it harder for us to put some distance between us and what happened in the aftermath of GE 15.
