JOHOR Menteri Besar Datuk Onn Hafiz Ghazi today moved to quell intensifying speculation of an early state election, firmly declaring that the Johor State Legislative Assembly would not be dissolved and urging elected representatives to remain focused on governance rather than political manoeuvring.
Speaking during his winding-up speech at the Johor State Assembly sitting in Bangunan Sultan Ismail, Onn Hafiz said rumours surrounding a possible snap election had fuelled unnecessary political tension among lawmakers.
“I would like to announce that the Johor State Legislative Assembly will not be dissolved today, so everyone can relax. I advise Honourable Members not to worry about the state election,” he said.
“Continue serving the people and Bangsa Johor (People of Johor). Let us put aside election matters for now as there are still many programmes and initiatives that need to be implemented.”
The Menteri Besar acknowledged that speculation over a possible dissolution had grown in recent weeks amid heightened political rhetoric and preparations by several parties believed to be positioning themselves for a state poll.
“I noticed some differences during this assembly debate session, perhaps because the political temperature is rising. Some said this might be the last state assembly sitting before the state election, while others were apologising and shaking hands,” he said.
The remarks came as the Johor State Assembly passed amendments to the Johor State Constitution 1985 under Part Two, Clause 15, enabling the appointment of up to five unelected assemblymen.
The motion received the support of 40 out of Johor’s 56 assemblymen.
Tabling the amendment earlier during the sitting, Onn Hafiz said the move was intended to strengthen the state government’s institutional capacity amid Johor’s accelerating economic development and inflow of new investments.
“Appointed assemblymen are proposed to be capped at no more than five persons, bringing the total number of assemblymen to 61. These appointed representatives will not go through the electoral process and are intended to complement the existing composition,” he said.
“It is also an improvement aimed at broadening participation in the State Legislative Assembly, particularly involving individuals with expertise and experience to strengthen the quality of debates and the policymaking process.”
Supporters of the amendment argued that appointed representatives could provide specialist knowledge often absent from elected bodies.
Anuar Abd Manap (BN-Pemanis), who supported the proposal, stressed that appointments must be made strictly on merit and not used merely to expand political influence.
“We do not only need representatives, but appointed representatives who are truly capable and able to assist the government,” he said.
“The appointment of these assemblymen must be based on merit. This is not about increasing seats, but about adding value to the administration of the state government.”
“We cannot guarantee that elected representatives possess backgrounds in areas such as urban planning or economics. This is where appointed assemblymen can bring in individuals capable of helping the government make more data-driven and impactful decisions,” he added.
However, opposition lawmakers criticised both the timing and the manner in which the amendment was introduced.
Andrew Chen Kah Eng (PH-Stulang) argued that electoral boundary redelineation would be a more meaningful way to improve representation in the state assembly.
“The number of voters in each constituency must be balanced. Can the addition of appointed assemblymen achieve this objective?” he asked.
“If we want to increase the number of assemblymen, through redelineation we could add 10 assembly seats across Johor.”
He added that if the policy were to proceed, appointments should be reserved for professionals with recognised expertise capable of contributing informed perspectives during debates.
Andrew also criticised the process behind the amendment, saying greater consultation should have taken place with opposition representatives before the motion was tabled.
“We, on the opposition bench, take the position of not agreeing with this motion, which was brought forward in a rushed manner,” he said. - May 7, 2026
