Kedah's Parti Keadilan Rakyat branch has launched a strong rebuke against Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor, accusing him of making insulting statements towards Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in connection with the controversial gambling premises licensing matter in the state. The state PKR leadership council's communications director, Tunku Nashrul Abaidah, issued the condemnation on Tuesday following remarks that Sanusi allegedly made during a public programme the previous evening.
According to Tunku Nashrul's statement, the core issue underpinning the dispute concerns administrative actions initiated by Sanusi's government that were subsequently invalidated by Malaysia's court system. The legal setback for the state administration occurred when judges determined that the executive's handling of gambling licence matters had strayed beyond the constitutional boundaries of state jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Menteri Besar's administration subsequently failed in its attempt to secure leave to appeal the decision at the Federal Court level, effectively closing the legal avenue for challenging the ruling.
The PKR official emphasised Malaysia's foundational principle of separation of powers, which divides governmental authority among the legislature, executive branch, and judiciary. He argued that Sanusi's criticism of the Prime Minister fundamentally misunderstands this constitutional structure. In Tunku Nashrul's view, the Prime Minister bore no responsibility for the court's independent judgment, as judicial decisions rest exclusively within the purview of the legal system rather than the executive. This distinction becomes particularly salient given that the operator challenging the state's action initiated the legal proceedings, and judges rendered their verdict based solely on constitutional and legal merits.
Instead of accepting responsibility for his administration's legal defeat, Tunku Nashrul suggested that Sanusi has chosen to deflect blame by targeting the Prime Minister. The PKR leader characterised this approach as emblematic of what he termed political hypocrisy and double standards. He called on the Menteri Besar to provide factual explanations for his government's loss in court rather than attempting to shift focus by attacking federal leadership.
In a strategic counterattack, Tunku Nashrul highlighted apparent inconsistencies in how different administrations have treated gambling expansion. When PAS participated in the Perikatan Nasional federal government, that coalition oversaw a significant expansion of special lottery draws, increasing the annual frequency from eight occasions to twenty-two times. This expansion represented a liberalisation of gambling activities during a period when PAS held ministerial positions at the national level.
Conversely, Tunku Nashrul pointed out that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, whom Sanusi publicly criticised, had reversed this expansion upon assuming office. The current federal administration reduced special draws back to the original eight-times-yearly frequency, representing a contraction rather than expansion of gambling opportunities. This reversal reflects the Pakatan Harapan coalition's approach to gambling regulation, contrasting sharply with the liberalisation pursued under the Perikatan Nasional government in which PAS participated.
The PKR statement characterised Sanusi's approach as an attempt to obscure his own administrative shortcomings by dragging unrelated parties into the dispute. By attacking the Prime Minister and introducing extraneous elements into the public debate, Tunku Nashrul suggested the Menteri Besar was employing a diversionary tactic rather than addressing the substantive reasons his administration's gambling licence policies fell afoul of constitutional limits.
The underlying gambling licence controversy has proven contentious in Kedah, with the state government seeking to impose restrictions that the courts ultimately determined exceeded its legal authority. The fact that an operator successfully challenged the state's administrative action in court underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining constitutional boundaries, particularly regarding the division of powers between federal and state governments. For Malaysian federal systems, such court rulings serve as crucial mechanisms for preventing any level of government from overreaching its designated powers.
Sanusi's public remarks occurred during a forum specifically convened to address obstacles to gambling prohibition in Kedah, held last Tuesday evening at Dewan Seri Mentaloon in Alor Setar. According to PKR sources, the Menteri Besar employed offensive language during this presentation, which was intended to explain the state government's difficulties in achieving a comprehensive gambling ban. The choice to use inflammatory rhetoric at an official government function has drawn particular criticism from the opposition PKR, which views such language as unbefitting a senior state official.
The episode reflects ongoing tensions between the Kedah state government and the federal administration over gambling regulation and broader governance questions. The gambling licensing issue touches on fundamental constitutional matters regarding how powers are distributed between Putrajaya and state capitals, making it relevant far beyond Kedah's borders. For other Malaysian states grappling with similar regulatory challenges, the court's decision affirms that state governments must operate within established constitutional parameters, regardless of their policy preferences.
From a broader political perspective, the dispute demonstrates how administrative defeats can trigger rhetorical escalation rather than policy recalibration. Tunku Nashrul's intervention suggests PKR intends to maintain pressure on the Menteri Besar regarding accountability and factual accuracy in public discourse surrounding the gambling licence matter. The party appears determined to prevent what it views as deliberate mischaracterisation of judicial independence and the Prime Minister's role in the controversy from becoming the dominant narrative in public understanding of the issue.
