Kedah Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) has launched a scathing attack on Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor, accusing him of making insulting remarks against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in connection with the contentious issue of gambling premises licences in the northern state. The condemnation was issued by PKR's State Leadership Council Communications director Tunku Nashrul Abaidah, who characterised the Menteri Besar's conduct as both disrespectful and a deliberate attempt to deflect accountability from his own administration's legal failures.
At the heart of the dispute lies a regulatory action taken by Sanusi's administration that was subsequently dismantled by Malaysia's court system. Tunku Nashrul emphasised that the Kedah state government suffered a decisive legal defeat when the judiciary determined that the administrative measures overstepped the constitutional boundaries of state authority. Furthermore, when the administration sought leave to appeal this decision to the Federal Court, that application was equally rejected, leaving no path forward for the state's legal challenge.
The PKR official underscored a fundamental principle of Malaysian governance that appears to have been overlooked in the Menteri Besar's approach. Malaysia operates under the doctrine of separation of powers, whereby the legislature, executive, and judiciary function as distinct and independent branches of government. This separation exists precisely to prevent any single branch from accumulating excessive power and to ensure that judicial decisions remain insulated from political pressure or influence. In this instance, the court's ruling against Sanusi's administration was not a determination made by the Prime Minister or any executive authority, but rather an independent judicial pronouncement based on legal merits.
Tunku Nashrul contended that the sequence of events reveals a clear pattern of responsibility-shifting. Sanusi's administration conceived and implemented the administrative action that was subsequently challenged by the gambling operator. The courts, operating independently and without any involvement from the federal government or the Prime Minister, examined the matter and ruled against the state's position. Rather than accepting this outcome as the inevitable consequence of a legal process that found his administration's actions to exceed its jurisdictional scope, Sanusi has allegedly chosen to direct blame toward Anwar Ibrahim.
The PKR communication director also highlighted what he characterised as glaring inconsistency in Sanusi's stance on gambling regulation. When Sanusi's own party, PAS, formed part of the Perikatan Nasional government at the federal level, that coalition administration substantially liberalised gambling regulations by increasing special draws from eight to 22 occurrences annually. This expansion represented a significant amplification of gambling activities under Perikatan Nasional's watch. By stark contrast, Anwar Ibrahim—the very Prime Minister whom Sanusi is now criticising—took the opposing approach by reducing special draws back down to eight times per year upon assuming office, thereby tightening the regulatory framework around gambling.
This apparent contradiction lays bare what Tunku Nashrul termed "political hypocrisy" and "double standards." Sanusi's current posture as a champion of gambling restrictions sits uncomfortably with the historical record of his own party's tenure in federal government, during which gambling activities were permitted to expand substantially. The willingness to tolerate increased gambling when in federal power, combined with the current criticism of the Prime Minister on gambling matters, suggests that principle rather than political expediency may not be guiding Sanusi's position.
According to reports, Sanusi allegedly employed offensive language while addressing a public programme titled "Penjelasan Isu Halangan Pengharaman Judi Di Kedah" (Explanation on Issues Concerning Obstacles to Gambling Prohibition in Kedah) held at Dewan Seri Mentaloon in Alor Setar last Tuesday evening. The event was ostensibly organised to elucidate matters related to why gambling has not been fully prohibited in the state, though it appears to have become a platform for critical remarks directed at federal leadership.
Tunku Nashrul characterised Sanusi's conduct as an attempt to divert attention from his administration's substantive failures by manufacturing a political grievance against the federal government. Rather than engaging with the factual basis for the court's decision—namely, that his state government's actions exceeded lawful authority—Sanusi has instead resorted to personalising the issue and attacking the Prime Minister. This manoeuvre, according to PKR, represents an effort to obscure accountability by shifting the narrative away from the question of whether the Kedah administration acted within its legal powers.
The stance taken by Kedah PKR carries significance for the broader political landscape in a state where power has been relatively evenly distributed among competing coalitions. Anwar Ibrahim's federal government, constituted primarily by PKR and other Pakatan Harapan component parties along with coalition partners, operates in an environment where state governments led by opposing alliances, such as PAS-led administrations in several northern states including Kedah, maintain substantial autonomy. Disputes over regulatory authority between state and federal governments are not uncommon in Malaysia's federal structure, but the manner in which such disputes are publicly articulated carries political weight.
For Malaysian readers and observers of regional politics, this episode illustrates the continued tensions within Malaysia's coalition politics and the various ways that legal and constitutional questions become entwined with partisan positioning. The gambling licence matter itself touches on longstanding debates about the extent to which states should retain autonomy over licensing and regulatory matters within their jurisdictions, as opposed to federal oversight. However, the dispute has been further complicated by political competition between federal and state administrations representing different coalitions, making it difficult to disentangle principled constitutional arguments from political point-scoring.
Moving forward, the incident raises questions about how effectively Malaysia's institutional mechanisms can adjudicate disputes between the federal and state tiers of government when those disputes occur within a context of political competition. The court's decision, having been rendered, represents the legally binding resolution of the substantive question regarding jurisdictional authority. Whether Sanusi's administration will accept this outcome and redirect its energies toward other governance challenges, or whether continued political contestation over the matter will persist, remains to be seen. For the Prime Minister's office, the episode underscores the political costs of judicial victories when opponents choose to reframe legal setbacks as evidence of federal overreach or malice.
Ultimately, Tunku Nashrul's statement represents PKR's effort to reframe the narrative around the gambling licence dispute away from Sanusi's framing and toward what the party views as the actual facts: a state administration that exceeded its legal authority, lost in court as a result, and is now attempting to shift blame to federal leadership rather than accepting responsibility. Whether this counter-narrative gains traction with Kedah's electorate and beyond will depend on the extent to which voters distinguish between legitimate constitutional disputes and what they perceive as partisan opportunism dressed in the language of principle.
