Tag Archives: Hadi

PN/Bersatu’s head-ache

Uncategorized, , ,

The Opposition Perikatan Nasional (PN) has been without a chairman since coalition party Bersatu chairman Muhyiddin Yassin resigned with effect from Jan 1, 2026.

No reason was given as to why Muhyiddin resigned, but the speculation is that it has to do with a tiff with PN’s anchor party, PAS, over Bersatu’s role in the coup that eventually led to Perlis’ PAS Menteri Besar Shukri Ramli’s resignation.

Eight assemblymen, five from Bersatu and three from PAS, from the 15-member Perlis assembly submitted statutory declarations (SDs) to the Raja of Perlis to indicate a loss of confidence in the MB, resulting in Shukri’s resignation.

As is now common in Malaysian politics where certain actions are not made public, who initiated the move to get the SDs to remove the MB is not publicly known.

Whether PN was aware of this move is another mystery, but PAS fired its three assemblymen whose seats were declared vacant by the state assembly Speaker. Bersatu was asked to do the same to its five assemblymen. Apparently Bersatu didn’t. What is known is that the Raja of Perlis had requested that Bersatu name its candidate for the MB’s post, which the party duly did and its candidate — Abu Bakar Hamzah — was appointed the next MB.

(There is no need for by-elections for the vacated seats if, according to the state constitution, two years or less is left before the state assembly is dissolved for the next elections.)

PAS members did not mince their words in criticising Bersatu for its lack of cooperation, and in that context Muhyiddin resigned.

Why Muhyiddin didn’t speak with his counterpart in PAS and sort out the issue is another mystery. It, however, shows that communication has apparently broken down between the two parties.

Muhyiddin did have a meeting with PAS leaders at his house two weeks ago. Both parties, however, had different interpretations of the meeting based on leaked correspondence. In a letter to PN party heads, Muhyiddin said the meeting decided to abolish the PN chairman’s post and replace it with a presidential council led by Bersatu and an executive council led by PAS.

Hadi responded to the letter in a letter that Muhyiddin’s proposal was neither discussed nor agreed to.

It has been a month since Muhyiddin’s resignation and while these exchanges carried on on who said what, the issue of finding a replacement for PN’s chairman post remains unresolved.

It’s imperative that PN calls for a supreme council meeting soon to decide on Muhyiddin’s resignation. PAS president Hadi Awang has declined the PN’s chairman’s post due to failing health. It only makes sense that the chairman is chosen — and chosen quickly — from the next line of leaders in the hierarchy since the presidents of the two major coalition parties are out of the running.

While they are at it, PN should also create a deputy chairman’s post so that he/she can take over if the chairman is indisposed in any way and removed or steps down. It is not wise for PN to be headless especially if the general election is suddenly called.

Meanwhile, Muhyiddin’s position as Bersatu president is becoming more uncertain. In light of Hadi’s response to Muhyiddin’s letter, Bersatu leaders want Muhyiddin to step down.

The call to Muhyiddin to step down isn’t recent. It began before the party’s annual general meeting in September last year, when Bersatu supreme council member Wan Saiful Wan Jan was said to have collected 120 SDs from Bersatu’s divisions, which featured a proposal not to discuss or nominate a prime minister candidate at the AGM.

In the midst of conflicting reports about the SDs, Wan Saiful clarified — at a press conference days after the AGM — that the collection of the SDs were misinterpreted as an effort to topple the president and that was why the president had said in his policy speech that party members were collecting signatures to unseat him. This had led to one person yelling, “Not true, not true” followed by others who had called on him to step down.

Wan Saiful had explained that there was nothing in the SDs asking Muhyiddin to step down, but that, for some reason, Muhyiddin went along with the false narrative created by some. Wan Saiful and a few others were subsequently sacked or suspended on grounds quoted in the party constitution but never explained.

If despite Wan Saiful’s clarification, he and others were expelled or suspended for the same reason, there is definitely something wrong with the way dissent and differences are managed in Bersatu.

Since then, there have been intermittent calls by divisions for Muhyiddin to step down but the latter has ignored them.

Against this background, the question is: Why is Muhyiddin hanging on to the president’s post when he has so poorly managed dissent in his party? Is it because he is misperceiving threats that are not there due to the influence of close key supporters?

At the same time, Muhyiddin faces corruption charges in court, which disqualify him from holding public office. He, however, may think that until found guilty, he could still be a PM-designate, and if he becomes a PM and is found guilty, he could get a royal pardon and continue on as PM. That is placing a great deal of stress on a still-new party. How are party members to sell their president to voters who previously faithfully voted for Umno but who have now switched to Bersatu, thinking the latter is a cleaner alternative?

If Muhyiddin wants to retain his position as party president, the best solution is to hold elections and open the contests for the top two positions. But that is not possible now, since he has declared no contest for the top two positions.

If he is unable to see things as they really are and face the realities surrounding his court case, and the latter is affecting his judgement to the point of risking his relationship with the head of the anchor party in PN, it may be a good idea for him to take time out and let his successor take over so that he can clear his head.

If his prospects then turn for the better, Muhyiddin can always come back, stand for election and get a fresh mandate to lead again.

Pro-Malay rhetoric, pls tamp it down

Uncategorized, , ,

In the Dewan Rakyat this week, PAS president Hadi Awang issued a veiled threat that the current government should not point fingers at the Opposition should it collapse. Perhaps it was unintentional and said in the heat of the moment, but the possibility of a change of government merits attention.

In a raving rant against the federal government, Hadi (PN-Marang) said that should the government fall it would be because of its own inadequacy and weaknesses due to “the roof leaking, the doors are left ajar, and the walls are crumbling”.

What that meant nobody knows as he gave no indication of how a collapse would happen although, a few hours later, at a dialogue session organised by a book publisher, Hadi predicted that the Anwar Ibrahim-led government’s collapse was imminent.

By now, most discerning Malaysians dismiss Hadi’s statements as reflective of anachronistic Islam which most people can’t relate to except for his ardent followers who gave his party 42 seats in the Dewan Rakyat and which is a very good reason why a possible change of government should be taken seriously.

A new government can only be formed if GPS and GRS with 23 and 6 parliamentary seats respectively leave the unity government and join the opposition Perikatan Nasional (PN), which has 72 seats, which only gives it a total of 101 seats, and is insufficient to form a majority government. With PAS the dominant partner in PN, it is unlikely that the multi-religious GPS and GRS would join PN.

If there’s any truth in Hadi’s prediction, it can only imply that other MPs from other parties in the government will defect.

Such a possibility may be hatching behind the scenes and while it is not apparent, Hadi’s prediction signals discontent among the Malay-majority Opposition MPs and that should be taken note of.

The current so-called “unity” government has a comfortable two-thirds majority with 146 seats. But, a major flaw in this government is that it excludes the majority representation of the major race in the country, the Malays. For the first time in Malaysia’s short history, the Malays have lost their majority control of the government and are now in opposition.

While the majority of the Cabinet is made up of Malay ministers, statistics are lacking to prove that they represent the majority of Malays in the country. The only figure that seems undisputed is that 54% of the Malay vote went to PN in the last general election (GE15) and that is represented in the Opposition.

Malay discontent is understandable. And it may express itself by posturing and manoeuvring to reinstate the Malay majority in government and that is their right to do so. If the people want a change of government so that they are better represented in government that is their democratic right and should not be denied — as long as a change is effected constitutionally and not illegitimately like what Bersatu did with PAS’ and Umno’s help in 2020 and Umno did to collapse the PN government in 2021.

Any change of government by the will of the majority must be respected as long as it is done constitutionally. There’s no point in invoking the words of the constitutional monarch; in a parliamentary democracy, the will of the people supersedes. When a majority is formed, the constitutional monarch simply installs the representative government of the people and affirms their will.

In the current situation, a change of government is unlikely unless government MPs leave their parties triggering by-elections under the Anti-hopping Law and the seats are won by the opposition parties. It may take some time for enough MPs to switch sides and by then it may be time for the next general election.

Meanwhile, though, Malay-based parties can be expected to ride on the narrative that the majority race, the Malays, have lost control of the country and swing to an acutely pro-Malay position as former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has taken when he explained why he decided to join Putra.

Tun, of course, is appealing to Malay sentiments to justify his role in Putra. With all due respect, Tun needs to understand that that same strategy cost his former party, Pejuang, a disastrous outing in two elections, the Johor state elections and GE15.

If Tun plans to win seats for Putra, he will be entering a crowded field in the rural Malay voter base where the voters have clearly shown their preference for PN in GE15. Putra may win a few seats. But, if it differentiates from its competitors by seeking Malay rights while respecting the rights of minorities, it may appeal to those segments of rural Malay voters who are not ultra pro-Malay.

That message may also resonate well with the urban Malay voters who have peacefully co-existed with other races for decades.

Asserting Malay rights is a legitimate concern but turning it into a race issue may backfire on Tun’s efforts. He may need to modulate the pro-Malay rhetoric with a more accommodating stance on minority rights. Malay voters now may be more open to such a message rather than the traditionally alienating pro-Malay rhetoric. One will never know for sure until it is tested.

Malay parties, desiring to take control of the government, need to be careful not to go overboard with the pro-Malay rhetoric. They need non-Malay parties to form a majority government. A Malay-based-others-inclusive strategy is the best bet for a stable political future.

The significance of Hadi’s ‘dialogue’

Uncategorized, ,

PAS president Hadi Awang’s recent “dialogue” with representatives of Afghanistan’s Taliban government raises a very important question: Was it sanctioned by Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob?

If it was, then it raises even more pertinent questions. Has the prime minister recognized the Taliban government? If so, why was there no announcement that Malaysia recognizes the Taliban government?

According to Hadi’s political secretary Syahir Sulaiman, the “dialogue” was arranged by the Foreign Ministry of Qatar upon a request from Hadi’s office and held in Doha during Hadi’s visit to that state last week.

Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah had earlier said that Malaysia was not in a hurry to recognize Afghanistan’s Taliban government and was still awaiting the UN’s decision on the matter.

So, with what authority did Hadi in his official capacity as the Special Envoy to the Middle East, which is a position with ministerial status, conduct the “dialogue”? Because he held the session in his official capacity as a minister in the Malaysian cabinet, it appears as if the Malaysian government recognizes the Taliban government, which is known for torture, discrimination against women and minorities, and a harsh form of Islamic discipline.

Is the Sabri government contradicting itself? One minister says something and another does another? Sabri needs to clarify Malaysia’s stand on recognizing the unelected Taliban government.

In defending Hadi’s action, Syahir had argued that a “dialogue” does not imply recognition since “the whole world, including the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), US and China have been engaging with the Taliban government through multiple channels of dialogue”.

Syahir, however, has failed to mention that the above were directly-involved negotiators in seeking a settlement in the Afghan crisis whereas Malaysia isn’t. Putrajaya was never such a player and certainly does not have the stature of the US or China to dialogue with the Taliban to bring about a resolution.

Hadi’s “dialogue” is clearly a serious breach of protocol and one that Sabri must address. Unless there’s a political motive. With the Johor state elections coming up, Sabri may want to win more votes from the conservative Malay electorate who may be pleased by the government’s efforts at unifying the ummah.

Hadi himself has gone on the offensive and labeled the anti-Taliban sentiments as Islamophobia. If this is politics in view of the Johor elections, it is dangerous politics, using religion to get votes at the expense of good governance.

Not surprisingly, the opposition parties have remained silent on this issue. Again, perhaps, for political advantage. They don’t want to be seen as being anti-Islam and drive the conservative Malay vote away from them.

Hasn’t anyone thought of treating the voters as equals and simply explaining correctly to the voters that this is not an anti-religion issue but one of respecting the stand the country takes in international relations and that that is good governance?