The dispute over Bersatu's quorum

Bersatu's internal crisis is no longer staying inside Bersatu.

Firstly, a quorum is the minimum number of members required for a formal meeting to be considered valid and able to make decisions. Political parties, organisations and associations typically set quorum rules in their constitutions to ensure decisions have sufficient representation.

In Bersatu’s case, the dispute centres on its Supreme Council, or Majlis Pimpinan Tertinggi (MPT), the party’s top decision-making body.

The council originally had 49 members. But only 23 members are now said to remain after a series of departures and disciplinary actions.

The four MPs, who are aligned with former deputy president Hamzah Zainudin, have asked RoS to determine whether the council can still function.

Bersatu's leadership, however, disagrees with their interpretation.

It says the quorum should instead be based on the number of members currently holding office. With 23 members remaining, that would mean 12 members are enough.

So the dispute is not simply whether Bersatu has enough members.

It is which number should be used to calculate the quorum. The original 49 or the 23 currently in office?

RoS has yet to conclusively settle the question.

When Bersatu's crisis becomes PN's problem
If RoS ultimately determines that Bersatu's Supreme Council lacks the required quorum, decisions made by it could potentially be challenged.

That matters not only to Bersatu's leadership, but also to its MPs and, by extension, to the party's role within PN.

This is where PAS has stepped into the dispute.

PN secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan has said the coalition will no longer invite Bersatu to its meetings because the party allegedly has only 23 Supreme Council members, below the 25-member quorum that PAS believes is required. He also said he had issued a show-cause letter to Bersatu seeking an explanation.

And this is precisely what Bersatu is challenging.

Bersatu information chief Tun Faisal Ismail Aziz accused PAS of effectively trying to do RoS' job, pointing out that the regulator had not declared Bersatu illegitimate or dissolved.

Former aide to Muhyiddin Yassin, Marzuki Mohamad, similarly argued that Takiyuddin had no authority to issue a show-cause letter over the matter and should instead seek clarification from RoS.

If the quorum question is ultimately a matter for RoS to determine, can PN act as though the answer has already been settled?

Why the timing matters
The quorum dispute surfaced in July, just as PN was working out its strategy for the Negeri Sembilan state election. The four Bersatu MPs took the matter to RoS on July 13. Three days later, the PN Supreme Council met to discuss seat allocations.

So what began as an internal Bersatu dispute quickly became a PN problem.

That is why Tun Faisal has questioned what Bersatu's quorum has to do with PN's seat negotiations.

His argument is simple. If RoS has yet to decide whether Bersatu's Supreme Council has a valid quorum, why should that affect Bersatu's place at the PN table?

It is a fair question. But PN has a fair question of its own.

If Bersatu's own MPs are challenging the validity of the party's decision-making body, can PN simply carry on as though nothing is wrong?

That is where the issue becomes more complicated.

A test of PN's credibility
If PAS is protecting PN, it should have a clear basis for excluding Bersatu while RoS is still considering the matter.

Otherwise, the move risks looking less like caution and more like a shift in the balance of power within PN.

For a coalition positioning itself as a government-in-waiting, that raises another question. Can PN resolve its internal disputes without one partner sidelining another?

The original dispute may be technical, 23 or 25 members?

But the political question is much bigger. Is Bersatu still an equal partner in PN?