The political tension in Kedah has intensified as the state's Parti Keadilan Rakyat wing launched a sharp rebuke against Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor for his recent comments attacking Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim over the management of gambling premises licences. Tunku Nashrul Abaidah, communications director of the State Leadership Council, issued a strongly worded statement defending the Prime Minister and challenging what he characterised as unfounded accusations and deflection by the Menteri Besar.
At the heart of the dispute lies a legal matter that saw the Kedah state administration suffer a court defeat. Sanusi's government had taken administrative action regarding gambling premise licences, but the courts subsequently determined that these measures exceeded the state's legal authority. When the state sought to appeal the decision, the Federal Court rejected the application for leave to appeal. Tunku Nashrul emphasised that this judicial outcome was independent of any federal involvement, underlining that the Prime Minister bore no responsibility for how the courts ruled on the matter.
The PKR official invoked Malaysia's constitutional framework of separation of powers, a foundational principle enshrined in the Federal Constitution that maintains distinct roles for the legislature, executive, and judiciary. According to this model, the courts function autonomously from political pressure or executive direction. In this case, the gambling licence dispute was initiated by Sanusi's administration, challenged by an operator seeking to contest the state's actions, and then resolved through the judicial process. The courts' conclusion that the state exceeded its jurisdiction was therefore a legal determination, not a political one orchestrated from Putrajaya.
Tunku Nashrul's counterattack extended to accusations of hypocrisy directed at Sanusi and the PAS party. He pointed to PAS's record during its participation in the previous Perikatan Nasional government, noting that the coalition administration in which PAS held positions of influence had significantly expanded the frequency of special draws for gambling activities. The number increased from eight to twenty-two times annually during that period. This historical contrast serves as a notable backdrop to Sanusi's current posture on gambling regulation in Kedah.
In a further irony highlighted by the PKR leadership, Anwar Ibrahim—the very Prime Minister being criticised by Sanusi—had reversed that expansion upon returning to office. As both Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Anwar reduced the annual frequency of special draws back to eight times per year, demonstrating a more restrictive approach to gambling activities than what PAS had previously overseen. This point is significant for Malaysian observers seeking to evaluate whose administration has genuinely prioritised limiting gambling in practice rather than rhetoric.
The PKR statement characterised Sanusi's public remarks as not merely disagreement but as deliberately offensive and insulting toward the Prime Minister. This escalation in language reflects deeper political divisions between coalition partners in Kedah's government. The Menteri Besar allegedly employed harsh language during a programme held at Dewan Seri Mentaloon to explain obstacles to implementing a gambling ban in the state. Rather than accepting judicial findings or acknowledging administrative missteps, Tunku Nashrul argued, Sanusi chose to shift blame and drag unrelated parties into the discussion.
From a broader Malaysian political perspective, this conflict illustrates ongoing friction within state administrations where governing partners maintain different agendas and political identities. Kedah's coalition structure has experienced several strains, and this gambling licences episode represents another flashpoint. The disagreement also highlights the distinction between what elected officials claim as their policy priorities and what judicial review reveals about their actual administrative conduct and the limits of their authority.
The gambling issue itself carries particular weight in Malaysian politics given competing perspectives on Islamic finance and governance. PAS, as an Islamist party, typically positions itself as strict on religious compliance, yet its record during Perikatan Nasional showed pragmatism regarding gambling revenue. This contradiction becomes difficult to defend when a partner government—PKR, representing a more secular coalition—can point to concrete actions reducing gambling activities. The narrative now revolves around who genuinely advances Islamic values in governance versus who merely uses such positions for political advantage.
Tunku Nashrul's call for Sanusi to explain his administration's legal defeat based on facts and to cease using the Prime Minister as a convenient target suggests that PKR views this public criticism as a distraction technique. By attacking Anwar, the argument goes, Sanusi avoids confronting uncomfortable questions about why his government's gambling licence policies were ruled beyond its jurisdiction. The separation of powers principle that governs Malaysian governance means that blame for an unfavourable court judgment cannot fairly rest with the federal executive, particularly when that executive played no role in the state's initial decision-making.
Looking forward, this dispute has implications for Kedah's governing coalition stability. Personal relations between state and federal leadership, particularly when the Prime Minister is involved, can affect the functioning of state governments that depend on federal support for development projects and resource allocation. The public nature of Sanusi's criticism and the sharp PKR response suggest that working relationships may be strained, potentially complicating the administration's effectiveness in other policy areas.
The gambling premises licence controversy also serves as a reminder that judicial decisions often overturn executive actions based on constitutional and legal grounds, regardless of political affiliation. Both BN and opposition-aligned governments have experienced such reversals. The issue for Sanusi, then, becomes less about blaming the federal government and more about demonstrating that his administration will respect judicial boundaries and operate within constitutional limits—a message that would resonate more credibly than seeking external scapegoats for a court loss.
