From FB:
Monday, May 18, 2026
Three community kitchen workers among five killed by Israel in Gaza
Three community kitchen workers among five killed by Israel in Gaza
Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed at least 871 Palestinians since the so-called ceasefire began last year.
BN Going Solo & Rafizi’s New Party – A Slap In The Face Of PKR & DAP
BN Going Solo & Rafizi’s New Party – A Slap In The Face Of PKR & DAP
May 17th, 2026 by financetwitter
UMNO Johor has declared war on allies PKR, DAP and Amanah, the three component parties of Pakatan Harapan. The United Malays National Organization (UMNO), which is the backbone of Barisan Nasional, has announced that it will contest all 56 seats in the next Johor election – effectively leaving no space for cooperation or negotiation with Premier Anwar Ibrahim’s coalition.
The decision to contest all 56 seats in next Johor state election is a “clear offer to the people that we are ready to continue to form a stable, strong government and fully serve to the development of the state and the welfare of Johor”, said Johor Chief Minister Onn Hafiz in a Facebook post on Saturday (May 16). This means Barisan Nasional will not cooperate with other political parties or pacts.
While Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Harapan (PH) are governing partners in the multi-coalition Unity Government at the federal government, both are rivals at the state level in Johor and Melaka. Besides UMNO, BN is made up of smaller – and obedient – parties such as the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC).
Essentially, not only UMNO-led Barisan Nasional believes it is strong enough to retain power in the Johor state after winning 40 out of the 56 seats in the 2022 state polls, it is also confident of defeating Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Pakatan Harapan (PH), as well as the Perikatan Nasional (PN) or the Malaysian United Democratic Alliance (MUDA) in the opposition camp.
Johor’s state election is only due by mid-2027, but Johor UMNO leaders and the party machinery have been working – quietly – for an election as early as August or September this year. It’s not a coincidence that UMNO Johor made the announcement to go solo less than a month after UMNO Negeri Sembilan attempted to topple the PH state government in Negeri Sembilan led by Aminuddin, a vice-president of PKR.
Even though the betrayal to seize power in Negeri Sembilan did not fully succeed after the 14 UMNO-BN state lawmakers withdrew their support for Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) Aminuddin Harun, the political maneuvering has started the ball-rolling for a return to BN’s former glory. The latest announcement by Onn Hafiz to go alone is a message that UMNO isn’t interested in sharing power with Anwar’s PH.
If victorious in early state polls in Johor, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka, it would allow BN to rebuild momentum independently of the federal unity government, positioning itself more strongly ahead of the 16th General Election due by early 2028. While Anwar is dragging his feet – indecisive about a concurrent national and state elections – the “untrustworthy partner” UMNO decisively wanted an early polls.
BN has a strong incentive to call early state polls rather than align them with the next general election, as lower turnout in standalone contests tends to favour the incumbent while putting its main rival PH at a disadvantage. In the 2022 Johor state polls, PH won 12 seats, with DAP winning 10 and PKR and Amanah taking one each. Perikatan Nasional won three seats while Muda secured one.
Because BN had secured a two-thirds majority 4 years ago, it has no reason to work with PH. Unlike Pahang or Perak, where BN and PH formed coalition state governments, Johor remains under a BN administration with only loose cooperation involving PH. Crucially, UMNO wants to use Johor as a testing ground to see if BN is capable of winning a national election on its own.
UMNO’s gameplay is to first win strategic states like Johor, Melaka and Negeri Sembilan. From there, they could justify going solo at the federal level and returning to power like the old days. Even if BN decides to play safe by working with PH at national polls to prevent three-corner contests, they could flex muscles and use their big wins in those state elections as bullets to demand the lions’ share of parliamentary seats.
Heck, not only BN could easily blackmail and threaten PH under the weak leadership of PKR president Anwar Ibrahim and DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke Siew Fook to surrender some strategic parliamentary seats to be redistributed among UMNO, MCA and MIC, the power-hungry UMNO could even demand the post of Prime Minister as part of conditions for cooperation.
More importantly, UMNO – arguably the current most united political party – is cocksure both PKR and DAP do not have the balls to retaliate by severing relationship at the federal level due to Anwar’s obsession with premiership. Because there is room for BN and PH to work together again to form the Johor state government, Anwar and his obedient sidekick Anthony Loke would most likely keep silent.
It’s a game of brinkmanship which PKR and DAP are set to lose, if Anwar and Loke’s past cowardice in facing UMNO’s relentless bullying, backstabbing and betraying are any indicator. Even within Anwar’s own party Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR or People’s Justice Party), the party president is seen as a weakling who dares not offend UMNO at state level.
It was only last month (April) when PKR president Anwar Ibrahim – with tail between legs – told Johor PKR to use the “right channels” to hold seat talks for the next state election with its unity government allies, especially UMNO. That clearly sends the wrong message that UMNO could bully the PM’s own party in Johor because Anwar told his boys and girls to bend down to be screwed.
Yes, when Malaysia’s most powerful man is reduced to a fabulous coward, choosing to lecture his own party chapter not to rock the boat and suck up to the bully instead of reprimanding the leadership of UMNO president Zahid Hamidi, it’s a matter of time before even UMNO state leaders started disrespecting the Premier. Mr Anwar deserves every insult and humiliation.
It’s a slap in the face of both PKR and DAP. Worse, the spineless Democratic Action Party, despite possessing 40 parliamentary seats – the biggest party in the unity government – is behaving like it has only 4 seats. Minion Loke is waiting for his political master Anwar for enlightenment, but the indecisive Prime Minister could not make up his mind on the next strategy except “bragging and yapping” every day.
To save face after being humiliated, Johor Pakatan Harapan now expects everyone to believe its claims that it had anticipated Barisan Nasional’s decision to contest all 56 state seats on its own in the upcoming state polls. Left with no option, Johor PH said it will also contest all 56 state seats – a decision seen as damage control rather than strategic planning ahead of the state election.
For the past three years, the top leadership of PKR and DAP has been warned that UMNO cannot be trusted. However, Anwar, a former UMNO deputy president before he was sacked by former PM Mahathir Mohamad in 1998 for sodomy and corruption, thought he was super clever and could control UMNO. Meanwhile, silly DAP chief Loke naively thought UMNO had turned over a new leaf.
In fact, Anthony Loke almost orgasm when he made national headlines by becoming the first DAP leader in history to attend the UMNO annual assembly in 2023. Subsequently, he has attended and made appearances at several UMNO assemblies. The moron thought he was popular within UMNO and was so cocksure that BN and PH would cooperate in the next 16th General Election that he mocked opposition Perikatan Nasional’s jealousy in the strong PH-BN relationship.
The best part was when pro-Anwar bloggers, propagandists, cyber troopers, YouTubers, TikTokers, who have been blindly praising UMNO and were convinced that BN and PH would cooperate come rain or shine, are now shocked, stunned and flabbergasted when news flashed about BN Johor going solo – effectively giving the middle finger to Anwar-led PH.
Perhaps they could cook up another stupid story that both UMNO president Zahid Hamidi and deputy president Mohamad Hasan were not aware of UMNO Johor’s decision to contest all 56 seats, just like how they argued that the UMNO top leadership was kept in the dark over 14 UMNO-BN state lawmakers withdrawal of support for Negeri Sembilan Chief Minister Aminuddin Harun.
Sure, PH could gloat and fantasize about past achievements in capturing the Johor state government for the first time after defeating BN in the 2018 general election. However, there’s a reason why PH won only 12 seats four years later, and lost the state to BN. There’s no more 1MDB or GST issues today like in 2018. Anwar today lacks the pull factor that Mahathir had back then.
Worse, PH supporters are split, with an increasing number of PH voters disappointed and upset with Anwar than with UMNO Johor. Not only are there none Palestinians to vote for PKR, the Chinese community who had previously voted for DAP in droves has little motivation to vote for DAP this round, let alone PKR and Amanah. The ethnic Chinese would most likely stay home.
Adding salt to the wound is the emergence of a new “Third Force” led by former PKR deputy president Rafizi Ramli. The former Economy Minister has broken away from the toxic ruling Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), which is struggling with safe seats even for supremo Anwar, after taking over the leadership of the fringe Malaysian United Party – also known as Parti Bersama Malaysia – on Sunday (May 17).
A splinter of the Chinese-majority Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and registered in Penang in 2016, the new multiracial party launched by Rafizi would certainly contest in Johor to both split PH’s votes and to test the water. Mr Rafizi, a vocal critic of Prime Minister and PKR president Anwar Ibrahim’s leadership, could create tremendous trouble for PH as it attracts fence sitters and young voters.
Sunday, May 17, 2026
How Gen Zs Could Rewire Malaysian Politics – Lessons from Tamil Nadu
May 17, 2026
How Gen Zs Could Rewire Malaysian Politics – Lessons from Tamil Nadu
In Tamil Nadu, actor-turned-politician Vijay delivered a stunning upset, shattering the state’s decades-old political duopoly and leaving established parties reeling. The story offers intriguing parallels for Malaysia, where a youthful, digitally native electorate is increasingly frustrated with entrenched coalitions, dynastic politics, and slow progress on jobs, corruption, and cost-of-living issues.
For six decades, Tamil Nadu’s politics alternated between the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). Last week, that era ended. Vijay’s newly formed Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) won 108 seats in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election. Vijay was sworn in as Chief Minister, forming a government with support from the Congress, left parties, and smaller allies after passing a confidence motion with 144 votes.
The result was historic. A party barely two years old had upended the system. Vijay, 51, a superstar known as “Thalapathy” to millions of fans for his high-octane films portraying underdog heroes fighting the establishment, successfully transferred his on-screen charisma into real-world politics.
A power shift driven by Gen Z
Political observers credit young voters as the decisive force. Gen Z, tired of the familiar “Rising Sun” versus “Two Leaves” symbols, saw in Vijay a fresh alternative. First-time and young voters mobilized heavily on social media, turning frustration over unemployment, exam leaks, corruption scandals, and perceived family rule into votes.
Vijay acknowledged this after the win: “One of the deeper reasons behind this extraordinary election has been the children who guided their families with their sense of conviction.” He called his online supporters “virtual warriors.”
This youth-driven surge echoes growing sentiments in Malaysia. Malaysian Gen Z and millennials, who will form a larger share of the electorate in coming cycles, are vocal on platforms like TikTok, X, and Instagram about issues such as graduate unemployment, housing affordability, racial politics, and governance fatigue. Traditional parties often appear disconnected from this cohort’s aspirations and digital-native worldview.
Vijay’s appeal and promises
Vijay positioned TVK as a clean break from the past. He promised zero tolerance for corruption (“I won’t take even a paisa of public money”), women’s safety, and a strong Youth Agenda. Key pledges included education loans up to 2 million rupees without collateral, monthly stipends for students, a Tamil Nadu Youth Advisory Council, startup support, structured recruitment, and an ambitious AI-driven economic vision.
His campaign blended cinematic storytelling, short videos, and direct influencer-style engagement — tactics highly effective with younger voters. Candidates were framed as “family members” of the people rather than career politicians.
In Malaysia, similar ingredients exist. A popular public figure — whether from entertainment, business, sports, or social media — who builds authenticity, leverages social platforms, and offers concrete solutions on youth unemployment, education reform, and anti-corruption could potentially disrupt the current landscape. Malaysia’s history already shows independents, new coalitions, and youth-led movements gaining traction. For example, the 2018 “ tsunami” and strong youth turnout in recent state polls. A charismatic outsider untainted by old scandals could consolidate this energy.
Breaking the duopoly – Relevance to Malaysia
Tamil Nadu had its Dravidian duopoly rooted in regional identity and welfare politics. Malaysia has its own entrenched dynamics: shifting coalitions between Pakatan Harapan, Perikatan Nasional, Barisan Nasional remnants, and regional parties, often coloured by ethnicity, religion, and patronage networks. Voter fatigue with perceived dynasties, elite capture, and recurring governance controversies creates space for disruption.
Political scientists note that Vijay’s success represents a “structural rupture” — the first major challenge in decades not just from a new face, but from a new demographic reality. In Malaysia, where youth bulge meets high internet penetration, a similar rupture is conceivable. Young Malaysians frequently express desire for “dignity in public life,” less bureaucratic hassle, better economic opportunities, and politics less focused on divisive identity issues.
Many of Malaysian political leaders have been active for up to 40 years.
Challenges remain significant. Malaysia’s first-past-the-post system, strong party machinery, and multi-ethnic complexities make it harder for a brand-new outfit to sweep seats compared to a more homogenous state like Tamil Nadu. Coalition-building is essential. Yet the Tamil Nadu precedent shows that with massive youth mobilization and credible anti-establishment messaging, the seemingly impossible can happen quickly.
A new dawn?
Vijay’s victory is being called one of the biggest shifts in South Indian politics in 50 years. For Malaysia, it serves as both inspiration and warning. Established parties ignore the aspirations of Gen Z at their peril. Young voters, empowered by technology and weary of recycled leadership, are looking for authentic change — someone who understands their struggles with jobs, future prospects, and clean governance.
As one young Tamil Nadu voter put it, they grew up cheering for Vijay on screen and now expect results in governance. In Malaysia, a new generation is watching closely. Whether a local “hero” figure emerges to channel this energy remains to be seen — but the conditions for a Tamil Nadu-style surprise are ripening. Malaysian politics may soon face its own youth-led rewrite.
The Malaysian Government Spent More to Capture Murray Hunter than look for Jho Low
May 17, 2026
The Malaysian Government Spent More to Capture Murray Hunter than look for Jho Low
In a striking contrast that has raised eyebrows among observers of Malaysian governance and justice, the resources deployed to pursue Australian writer and commentator Murray Hunter appear to have exceeded the visible efforts to apprehend Jho Low, the fugitive financier at the heart of the multi-billion-dollar 1MDB scandal.
Hunter, a long-time resident of southern Thailand known for his critical Substack articles on Malaysian affairs, was arrested at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport in September 2025 while attempting to board a flight to Hong Kong. The arrest stemmed from a complaint by Malaysia’s Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) alleging criminal defamation over four articles published in April 2024. These pieces criticized the MCMC’s operations, website blocking practices, and alleged conflicts of interest involving its leadership.
According to lawyers familiar with the case, the Malaysian government is estimated to have spent around RM5,000,000 on efforts to secure Hunter’s arrest in Thailand, pursue charges there, and handle related legal actions. Even after the criminal defamation charges in Thailand were eventually dropped following mediation and an apology from Hunter in early 2026, Thai authorities continued to restrict his movement, with his passport confiscated for a period.
Adding to the procedural concerns, the MCMC also initiated a civil defamation suit against Hunter in Malaysia’s High Court without properly serving documents on him, a move that drew criticism for lacking due process. Hunter reportedly only learned of the Malaysian civil ruling after his arrest in Thailand.
Human rights groups and press freedom organizations, including the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand and Human Rights Watch, highlighted the case as an example of transnational repression. They questioned the use of Thai criminal courts and laws to address alleged offenses against a Malaysian government body, especially when Malaysian authorities themselves had not pursued criminal charges domestically.
This level of cross-border coordination and expenditure stands in notable contrast to the pursuit of Jho Low (Low Taek Jho). Low remains a fugitive despite being the alleged central figure in the 1MDB scandal, which saw an estimated US$4.5 billion (over RM20 billion at the time) misappropriated from Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund between 2009 and 2015. Funds were allegedly laundered through global networks for luxury purchases, Hollywood films, and personal enrichment.
While Malaysia, the US, and other countries have recovered substantial assets—billions in total through settlements and forfeitures—Low himself has evaded capture for years. Reports place him potentially in China or elsewhere, with Interpol red notices and Malaysian warrants issued, but public updates on intensive, sustained manhunt operations or equivalent high spending specifically for his extradition have been limited compared to the Hunter operation.
Critics point out that a single blogger living modestly across the border warranted significant diplomatic and legal investment, including engagement with Thai authorities, while the alleged mastermind of one of the largest financial heists in history has proven far more elusive. Media coverage of active, expensive operations targeting Low has been sparse in recent years relative to the scale of the alleged crime.
The Hunter case has sparked broader debate about priorities in Malaysian law enforcement and the use of resources. Supporters of the MCMC action argue it was necessary to protect institutional reputation and deter defamation. Detractors see it as an overreach that diverts attention and funds from larger issues of corruption and accountability.
As of early 2026, Hunter’s ordeal concluded with the withdrawal of charges, but the episode leaves lingering questions about proportionality, sovereignty in legal matters, and how the Malaysian government allocates efforts between high-profile financial fugitives and vocal critics. In an era of tight public budgets, such comparisons fuel public skepticism about whether justice is applied equally or influenced by political sensitivities.
The Malaysian public deserves transparency on these expenditures and priorities. True accountability starts with consistent application of the law—whether pursuing billion-ringgit scandals or handling disputes with individual commentators.
Meanwhile, Hunter is fighting the system for his right to leave Thailand, after a representative from the MCMC convinced the police, prosecutors and court to prosecute this case. A senate committee is currently investigating allegations of torture against Hunter in the police lock-up.
How much will Rafizi, Nik Nazmi hurt Anwar if they quit PKR?
Wong Chin Huat
Published: May 17, 2026 1:30 PM
Updated: 4:14 PM
COMMENT | PKR dissidents Rafizi Ramli and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad are making a big announcement this afternoon on their next political move.
It would not fall short of revealing a new vehicle at least, but may go as far as announcing their resignation from the party, possibly triggering a stream of others following suit.
This would weaken Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s hand, as a loss of, say, 10 MPs would reduce PKR’s seats to 21, Pakatan Harapan's to 71, and the Madani government’s majority, including the six ex-Bersatu independents, to 143, five seats short of the two-thirds majority.
Anwar would need a deal with the Perikatan Nasional opposition to seek support for the two constitutional amendments – on the prime minister’s 10-year tenure limit, and the attorney-general-public prosecutor separation to get through.
But it would not cause a collapse of Anwar’s government. It would just severely weaken his hand in negotiating with BN, Gabungan Parti Sarawak and Gabungan Rakyat Sabah.
Published: May 17, 2026 1:30 PM
Updated: 4:14 PM
COMMENT | PKR dissidents Rafizi Ramli and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad are making a big announcement this afternoon on their next political move.
It would not fall short of revealing a new vehicle at least, but may go as far as announcing their resignation from the party, possibly triggering a stream of others following suit.
This would weaken Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s hand, as a loss of, say, 10 MPs would reduce PKR’s seats to 21, Pakatan Harapan's to 71, and the Madani government’s majority, including the six ex-Bersatu independents, to 143, five seats short of the two-thirds majority.
Anwar would need a deal with the Perikatan Nasional opposition to seek support for the two constitutional amendments – on the prime minister’s 10-year tenure limit, and the attorney-general-public prosecutor separation to get through.
But it would not cause a collapse of Anwar’s government. It would just severely weaken his hand in negotiating with BN, Gabungan Parti Sarawak and Gabungan Rakyat Sabah.
PM Anwar Ibrahim
The biggest damage would be a new party to openly challenge PKR, and possibly DAP and Amanah, for the discontented minority and liberal votes.
Anti-hopping law trap
But what differences does it make for Rafizi and Nik Nazmi to quit PKR now instead of after the dissolution of Parliament?
If this had happened before Oct 5, 2022, Rafizi and Nik Nazmi could simply announce a new party in Dewan Rakyat, as Muhyiddin Yassin and Shafie Apdal did in launching Bersatu and Warisan. The quitters stay on as incumbents in the upcoming election.
The anti-hopping law changes (Article 49A of the Federal Constitution), but with a catch. Any sitting MP who quits their party or ceases to be a party member would lose their seat. But MPs sacked by their parties would be free to join other parties or form a new one.
The Bersatu dissidents in the Dewan Rakyat and state legislatures, led by former Bersatu deputy president Hamzah Zainudin, are now free men because of the sacking.
The exemption of expulsion as a ground of seat vacancy is to protect lawmakers from being purged by their party leaders, as Muhyiddin did to his rivals. This is perhaps why Anwar did not want to sack Rafizi and gang.
The biggest damage would be a new party to openly challenge PKR, and possibly DAP and Amanah, for the discontented minority and liberal votes.
Anti-hopping law trap
But what differences does it make for Rafizi and Nik Nazmi to quit PKR now instead of after the dissolution of Parliament?
If this had happened before Oct 5, 2022, Rafizi and Nik Nazmi could simply announce a new party in Dewan Rakyat, as Muhyiddin Yassin and Shafie Apdal did in launching Bersatu and Warisan. The quitters stay on as incumbents in the upcoming election.
The anti-hopping law changes (Article 49A of the Federal Constitution), but with a catch. Any sitting MP who quits their party or ceases to be a party member would lose their seat. But MPs sacked by their parties would be free to join other parties or form a new one.
The Bersatu dissidents in the Dewan Rakyat and state legislatures, led by former Bersatu deputy president Hamzah Zainudin, are now free men because of the sacking.
The exemption of expulsion as a ground of seat vacancy is to protect lawmakers from being purged by their party leaders, as Muhyiddin did to his rivals. This is perhaps why Anwar did not want to sack Rafizi and gang.
Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin
“Ceasing to be a party member” is the catch that allows parties to tighten their grip on lawmakers by way of party constitution. It is up to parties to decide what behaviour should cause all or certain members, such as lawmakers, to “cease to be members”.
However, as Article 49A gives the power to the respective speaker to ascertain the vacation of seats, this can and has resulted in different interpretations on how party constitutions matter.
Meanwhile, if a seat vacancy happens after Parliament completes its third year, there would be no by-election under Article 54(1).
PKR reps free to be rebellious
DAP, Amanah and Umno had their party constitution amended to cause disobedience of party instructions in allegiance or legislative voting, a ground for lawmakers to lose their membership, and then, under Article 49A (and similar provisions in the state constitution) to lose their legislative seats.
Bersatu tried the same, but only after the seven turncoats, of which one was a Selangor state assemblyperson, switched their allegiance to Anwar and Selangor Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari while remaining Bersatu members.
It got the Nenggiri by-election in Kelantan because the Kelantan speaker from PAS agreed with Bersatu’s new constitutional provision.
There was no Selangor by-election because the state assembly speaker from DAP did not reject Bersatu’s new rule, but rejected it on the grounds that this was retrospective and hence a “planned dismissal”.
Most interestingly, the Dewan Rakyat speaker from PKR simply rejected the constraining power of the party constitution.
To my knowledge, PKR has no such provision to cause lawmakers to lose their seats as long as they do not voluntarily quit the party.
Rafizi’s options
Because of Articles 49A and 54(1), if Rafizi and gang all quit now, it makes things simpler for Anwar. They would all lose their seats without an election.
The less prominent rebels would have to stay relevant while PKR appoints prospective candidates to serve their constituencies.
“Ceasing to be a party member” is the catch that allows parties to tighten their grip on lawmakers by way of party constitution. It is up to parties to decide what behaviour should cause all or certain members, such as lawmakers, to “cease to be members”.
However, as Article 49A gives the power to the respective speaker to ascertain the vacation of seats, this can and has resulted in different interpretations on how party constitutions matter.
Meanwhile, if a seat vacancy happens after Parliament completes its third year, there would be no by-election under Article 54(1).
PKR reps free to be rebellious
DAP, Amanah and Umno had their party constitution amended to cause disobedience of party instructions in allegiance or legislative voting, a ground for lawmakers to lose their membership, and then, under Article 49A (and similar provisions in the state constitution) to lose their legislative seats.
Bersatu tried the same, but only after the seven turncoats, of which one was a Selangor state assemblyperson, switched their allegiance to Anwar and Selangor Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari while remaining Bersatu members.
It got the Nenggiri by-election in Kelantan because the Kelantan speaker from PAS agreed with Bersatu’s new constitutional provision.
There was no Selangor by-election because the state assembly speaker from DAP did not reject Bersatu’s new rule, but rejected it on the grounds that this was retrospective and hence a “planned dismissal”.
Most interestingly, the Dewan Rakyat speaker from PKR simply rejected the constraining power of the party constitution.
To my knowledge, PKR has no such provision to cause lawmakers to lose their seats as long as they do not voluntarily quit the party.
Rafizi’s options
Because of Articles 49A and 54(1), if Rafizi and gang all quit now, it makes things simpler for Anwar. They would all lose their seats without an election.
The less prominent rebels would have to stay relevant while PKR appoints prospective candidates to serve their constituencies.
For now, if the 16th general election is to be called after the October budget session, the quitters would only be absent for two parliamentary sessions, July and October.
However, if Anwar sees Rafizi’s group as the main threat, and the economic crisis makes it risky to call for an early election, Anwar can theoretically serve his full term for GE16 in February 2028 at the latest.
While this is an unlikely scenario, if this happens, many of the PKR parliamentarians may find themselves losing relevance as non-MPs.
The unintended consequence of how the Dewan Rakyat speaker handled the Bersatu 6’s defection is that PKR may not be able to do anything about Rafizi and gang, even if they stay back in the party but openly appear on the new party’s platform.
In other words, Rafizi and Nik Nazmi need not helm the new party for it to take off. They can get a senior leader to run it for them without sacrificing their incumbency in any constituency.
It could be Anwar’s worst nightmare if Rafizi’s faction effectively leads the new party – like the Bersatu 6 serves Anwar – without losing their seats.
WONG CHIN HUAT is a political scientist at Sunway University and a member of Project Stability and Accountability for Malaysia (Projek Sama)
***
Well, Rafizi and Nik did the 3rd option, resigned their parliamentary seats, wakakaka. And Anwar can't do sh*ts.
However, it's not good for PKR, by numbers, stability and optics for these two to leave. I see Rafizi as a 'pampered' childish brat for leaving PKR just because he didn't secure the party's deputy president post.
On a separate issue, I have always eyed Nik (rather than Rafizi) as a future PM for many reasons, but I wonder whether his departure from PKR will diminish his potential-PM prospects??? It'll be a shame if it does, as I luv to see Nik become PM one day - I bet he'll be a good one, if given the opportunity and circumstances.
Wesak Day celebration with 666 Prince Siddartha’s statues trolled; “non-Muslims given too much face”
By Jesus Gautama
15/05/2026
Letter to Editor
A MALAYSIAN Malaysia where diversity is celebrated and treated as a badge of honour has long been the hope and aspiration of many citizens of this beautiful nation.
A land where people from different ethnicities, religious and cultural backgrounds all live in perfect harmony with tolerance and mutual respect underpinning the social fabric. That is the dream.
Lately, however, challenges to this notion have become increasingly shrill and louder whereby anything that does not conform to Malay-Muslim culture is viewed as having no place in Malaysian society.
Worse yet if the Madani government has a hand in an especially cultural or religious celebration or event.
I point to a recent example of this. Bernama reported that the Pakatan Harapan (PH)-led Selangor state government aims to create a national record of installing 666 statues of Prince Siddartha in conjunction with the state-level Wesak Day celebrations on June 6.
The underlying intention is none other than to foster harmony among multi-racial communities and deepen understanding of Buddhist culture.
However, the news when shared on Bernama’s Facebook platform was met with a less-than-resounding reception from those with rightist leanings.
Kerajaan Negeri Selangor menyasarkan untuk mencipta rekod kebangsaan dengan memasang 666 patung Putera Siddhartha sempena sambutan Hari Wesak peringkat negeri pada 6 Jun ini, sebagai usaha memupuk keharmonian masyarakat berbilang kaum serta memperdalam kefahaman terhadap budaya Buddha.
Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Hal Ehwal Bukan Islam Selangor Ng Sze Han berkata pemilihan jumlah patung tersebut melambangkan tarikh istimewa sambutan pada tahun ini yang jatuh pada 6 Jun 2026.
Berita...
See moreExamples of zealots making their displeasure known included a comment that sought to limit the number of statues that were put up for this event.
It was also surmised that these events were done in the name of multi-racial harmony but was just a move to step on Malay-Muslim sensitivities. This is what happens when the kafir (infidels) have power was the alarmist call.
Another narrow-minded individual proclaimed that these statues did nothing to promote racial harmony.
The bald-faced bigotry was not in short supply with various netizens showing their true stripes (though some chose to hide behind anonymous social media accounts).
As previously mentioned, there will be plenty of vitriol when an event has official state or national backing. Of course, non-Muslim taxpayers have no right to expect their cultural or religious events to have government support as contended by those blinded by prejudice.
One disgruntled citizen even asked why Teacher’s Day celebrations are banned in Selangor but the Wesak Day event is allowed.
That is just like comparing apples with oranges. The state-level Teacher’s Day celebs were halted in schools by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (JAIS) as a means to curb unnecessary spending in line with the Federal government’s call to be thrifty following the global energy supply crisis.
On the contrary, this Wesak Day celebration is in one Buddhist temple (as opposed to all schools) and only involves those who follow the Buddhist faith.
Apparently, this state-level Wesak Day celebration is perceived as a concrete proof that the current Madani administration is giving too much face to non-Muslims. Time for a change is the rallying call among these hate-mongers.
According to this blinkered bunch, the rights of Muslims and status of Islam as the official religion of Malaysia are under threat simply because there is a state-level event celebrating another religion.
One can clearly see that it matters not whether an event is a fun-filled (and harmless) water jamboree or if it’s a solemn religious festival.
If it doesn’t conform to supposed (and extremely conservative and narrow interpretation of) Malay-Muslim values and identity, it has no place in Malaysia according to these rightist extremists.
I urge all Malaysians to stand up to enlighten such individuals with far-rightist mindset. We are a melting pot nation. Religious festivities of every citizen should be recognised, celebrated and yes, cherished.
Do NOT let the zealots have their way because if they do, it won’t just be your right to dance in the streets in wet clothing that will be taken away. It will be much more. – May 15, 2026
Jesus Gautama
Petaling Jaya
OPINION | The Last Leap? Why the Battle for Batu Could Be Anwar Ibrahim’s Final Electoral Gamble
Malaysia's #1 Content Aggregator
OPINION | The Last Leap? Why the Battle for Batu Could Be Anwar Ibrahim’s Final Electoral Gamble
17 May 2026 • 4:00 PM MYT
Malaymail
In the labyrinth of Malaysian politics, the seat of P115 Batu has always been more than just a parliamentary constituency; it is a barometer of urban sentiment and a theater of high-stakes drama. But as we edge closer to the 16th General Election (GE16) in 2026, a new and whispered narrative is taking hold in the coffee shops of Sentul and the corridors of Putrajaya. The rumor? That Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is preparing for a strategic "leap" into the Batu parliamentary seat. If true, this wouldn't just be another campaign it would be a final, high-risk attempt to secure a legacy in a territory that has become a symbol of both PKR’s dominance and its deepest internal fractures.
The ‘Nomadic’ Prime Minister: A Legacy of Seat-Hopping
Anwar Ibrahim’s electoral history is famously nomadic. From his original stronghold in Permatang Pauh to his post-prison comeback in Port Dickson, and finally his high-stakes raid on Tambun in 2022, Anwar has never been one to sit still. While his supporters view this as the mark of a "national leader" willing to take on tough fights, critics have begun to frame it as a lack of a "fixed deposit" a reliable base that he can call home.
The speculation surrounding Batu stems from a growing realization within the Pakatan Harapan (PH) camp: Tambun is no longer the safe haven it was in 2022. With the "green wave" still rippling through the northern states and the Islamist Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) emerging as the dominant opposition force in 2026, Perak has become a political minefield. Batu, with its diverse demographic and deep PKR roots, offers a "Tier 1" urban fortress but at a significant reputational cost.
The Batu Power Vacuum: Prabakaran, Ramanan, and the ‘Looming Shadow’
The current incumbent of Batu, P. Prabakaran, has been a loyal soldier for PKR since he was first recruited as an independent in 2018. However, the seat has recently become the subject of intense maneuvering. Reports from Malaysiakini in early May 2026 suggest that heavyweights like Datuk Ramanan Ramakrishnan and Fuziah Salleh have been "eyeing" the seat, leading to a sense of unease among the local grassroots.
If Anwar decides to claim Batu, he would be entering a constituency that has historically been the site of bitter internecine warfare, most notably the fallout with former PKR Vice President Tian Chua, who contested as an independent in 2022. For Anwar, Batu represents the ultimate "safe" urban seat, but displacing a young incumbent like Prabakaran or bypassing hungry party veterans could trigger a backlash that mirrors the "corporate mafia" scandals currently dogging his administration’s inner circle.
Anwar’s Electoral Journey: The Road to Batu?
Election YearConstituencyOutcomeStrategic Context2018 (By-election) Port Dickson Won The "PD Move" to facilitate his return to Parliament.
2022 (GE15) Tambun Won Direct challenge to Bersatu in their own territory.
2026 (Speculation) Batu TBD A move to a safe urban 'Tier 1' seat to avoid PAS resurgence.
GE16 Target National Mandate TBD Anwar bets on reformism and governance over rhetoric.
The ‘Fixed Deposit’ Crisis: Is Anwar Losing His Grip?
The narrative that Anwar is losing his "fixed deposit" is gaining traction among political analysts. By constantly moving seats, he avoids the localized accountability that comes with long-term representation. In Gombak, for instance, Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari is fighting to defend his "fortress" against rumors of an escape to Selayang. If the Prime Minister himself chooses to "leap" again, it sends a signal of institutional fragility.
Critics argue that a Prime Minister should be a unifying figure with a deep-rooted connection to his people. Instead, Anwar’s potential move to Batu is being framed as an "electoral parachute" a way to bypass the public anger over the 'corporate mafia' storm and the rising cost of living by hiding behind the demographic safety of a KL urban seat.
The Institutional Stakes: PKR’s Meritocracy Test
At the Terengganu PKR Mini Convention in April 2026, Anwar himself stressed that GE16 candidates would be picked based on "active and strong divisions." He warned that he would reject candidates from weak divisions, regardless of their party rank.
This creates a fascinating institutional contradiction. If Anwar moves to Batu, he must justify why the Batu division already a hotbed of competing ambitions should be "sacrificed" for the leadership. It puts his own merit-based selection criteria to the ultimate test. Is the Prime Minister above the rules he sets for his own party members?
Social and Cultural Analysis: The Urban Heartland
Batu is the heart of Malaysia’s multi-racial, working-class urbanity. It is a place where the promises of "Reformasi" were first chanted with conviction. For the voters of Batu, having a Prime Minister as their representative would be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it guarantees federal attention and infrastructure; on the other, it means their local issues might be drowned out by the noise of national crises and geopolitical "storms."
The cultural risk for Anwar is the perception of elitism. By moving from a semi-rural seat like Tambun to the heart of the capital, he risks appearing disconnected from the "Rakyat Marhaen" (the common people) who are currently battling subsidy rationalizations and economic shifts.
What do you think? I’d love to hear your opinion in the comments section.
The speculation about Anwar Ibrahim’s "leap" to Batu is a symptom of a larger political anxiety. It suggests that even after four years in power, the architect of the Madani vision still feels the need to secure his personal survival through tactical maneuvers rather than relying on the strength of his reforms. If Batu is indeed intended to be his "last leap," it is a move that reeks of both strategic brilliance and profound insecurity.
Malaysian voters are becoming increasingly sophisticated. They no longer see a seat-swap as a sign of strength, but as a lack of accountability. If Anwar wants to lead a nation into 2028 and beyond, he needs to prove that his vision can survive in the "Red Zones" of the north and the volatile heartlands of the south. Hiding in the safe urban enclave of Batu might save his seat, but it might also cost him the "fixed deposit" of public trust that he has spent 30 years building.
Ultimately, the battle for Batu won’t be won on posters or through party conventions. It will be won in the minds of Malaysians who are asking: Is our Prime Minister leading us into the future, or is he simply looking for the next place to land? If GE16 becomes a referendum on Anwar’s "nomadic" politics, the "Last Leap" might just be the one that falls short.
In the labyrinth of Malaysian politics, the seat of P115 Batu has always been more than just a parliamentary constituency; it is a barometer of urban sentiment and a theater of high-stakes drama. But as we edge closer to the 16th General Election (GE16) in 2026, a new and whispered narrative is taking hold in the coffee shops of Sentul and the corridors of Putrajaya. The rumor? That Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is preparing for a strategic "leap" into the Batu parliamentary seat. If true, this wouldn't just be another campaign it would be a final, high-risk attempt to secure a legacy in a territory that has become a symbol of both PKR’s dominance and its deepest internal fractures.
The ‘Nomadic’ Prime Minister: A Legacy of Seat-Hopping
Anwar Ibrahim’s electoral history is famously nomadic. From his original stronghold in Permatang Pauh to his post-prison comeback in Port Dickson, and finally his high-stakes raid on Tambun in 2022, Anwar has never been one to sit still. While his supporters view this as the mark of a "national leader" willing to take on tough fights, critics have begun to frame it as a lack of a "fixed deposit" a reliable base that he can call home.
The speculation surrounding Batu stems from a growing realization within the Pakatan Harapan (PH) camp: Tambun is no longer the safe haven it was in 2022. With the "green wave" still rippling through the northern states and the Islamist Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) emerging as the dominant opposition force in 2026, Perak has become a political minefield. Batu, with its diverse demographic and deep PKR roots, offers a "Tier 1" urban fortress but at a significant reputational cost.
The Batu Power Vacuum: Prabakaran, Ramanan, and the ‘Looming Shadow’
The current incumbent of Batu, P. Prabakaran, has been a loyal soldier for PKR since he was first recruited as an independent in 2018. However, the seat has recently become the subject of intense maneuvering. Reports from Malaysiakini in early May 2026 suggest that heavyweights like Datuk Ramanan Ramakrishnan and Fuziah Salleh have been "eyeing" the seat, leading to a sense of unease among the local grassroots.
If Anwar decides to claim Batu, he would be entering a constituency that has historically been the site of bitter internecine warfare, most notably the fallout with former PKR Vice President Tian Chua, who contested as an independent in 2022. For Anwar, Batu represents the ultimate "safe" urban seat, but displacing a young incumbent like Prabakaran or bypassing hungry party veterans could trigger a backlash that mirrors the "corporate mafia" scandals currently dogging his administration’s inner circle.
Anwar’s Electoral Journey: The Road to Batu?
Election YearConstituencyOutcomeStrategic Context2018 (By-election) Port Dickson Won The "PD Move" to facilitate his return to Parliament.
2022 (GE15) Tambun Won Direct challenge to Bersatu in their own territory.
2026 (Speculation) Batu TBD A move to a safe urban 'Tier 1' seat to avoid PAS resurgence.
GE16 Target National Mandate TBD Anwar bets on reformism and governance over rhetoric.
The ‘Fixed Deposit’ Crisis: Is Anwar Losing His Grip?
The narrative that Anwar is losing his "fixed deposit" is gaining traction among political analysts. By constantly moving seats, he avoids the localized accountability that comes with long-term representation. In Gombak, for instance, Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari is fighting to defend his "fortress" against rumors of an escape to Selayang. If the Prime Minister himself chooses to "leap" again, it sends a signal of institutional fragility.
Critics argue that a Prime Minister should be a unifying figure with a deep-rooted connection to his people. Instead, Anwar’s potential move to Batu is being framed as an "electoral parachute" a way to bypass the public anger over the 'corporate mafia' storm and the rising cost of living by hiding behind the demographic safety of a KL urban seat.
The Institutional Stakes: PKR’s Meritocracy Test
At the Terengganu PKR Mini Convention in April 2026, Anwar himself stressed that GE16 candidates would be picked based on "active and strong divisions." He warned that he would reject candidates from weak divisions, regardless of their party rank.
This creates a fascinating institutional contradiction. If Anwar moves to Batu, he must justify why the Batu division already a hotbed of competing ambitions should be "sacrificed" for the leadership. It puts his own merit-based selection criteria to the ultimate test. Is the Prime Minister above the rules he sets for his own party members?
Social and Cultural Analysis: The Urban Heartland
Batu is the heart of Malaysia’s multi-racial, working-class urbanity. It is a place where the promises of "Reformasi" were first chanted with conviction. For the voters of Batu, having a Prime Minister as their representative would be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it guarantees federal attention and infrastructure; on the other, it means their local issues might be drowned out by the noise of national crises and geopolitical "storms."
The cultural risk for Anwar is the perception of elitism. By moving from a semi-rural seat like Tambun to the heart of the capital, he risks appearing disconnected from the "Rakyat Marhaen" (the common people) who are currently battling subsidy rationalizations and economic shifts.
What do you think? I’d love to hear your opinion in the comments section.
The speculation about Anwar Ibrahim’s "leap" to Batu is a symptom of a larger political anxiety. It suggests that even after four years in power, the architect of the Madani vision still feels the need to secure his personal survival through tactical maneuvers rather than relying on the strength of his reforms. If Batu is indeed intended to be his "last leap," it is a move that reeks of both strategic brilliance and profound insecurity.
Malaysian voters are becoming increasingly sophisticated. They no longer see a seat-swap as a sign of strength, but as a lack of accountability. If Anwar wants to lead a nation into 2028 and beyond, he needs to prove that his vision can survive in the "Red Zones" of the north and the volatile heartlands of the south. Hiding in the safe urban enclave of Batu might save his seat, but it might also cost him the "fixed deposit" of public trust that he has spent 30 years building.
Ultimately, the battle for Batu won’t be won on posters or through party conventions. It will be won in the minds of Malaysians who are asking: Is our Prime Minister leading us into the future, or is he simply looking for the next place to land? If GE16 becomes a referendum on Anwar’s "nomadic" politics, the "Last Leap" might just be the one that falls short.
***
I have no sympathy for Batu's current incumbent Prabakaran if he has to surrender his seat to Anwar Ibrahim, Nurul, Amirudin or Ramanan. Prabakaran already has a long enough run as Batu's MP when he serendipitously became the constituency's representative - t'was a good judge who by fining Tian Chua a 'certain' amount disqualified Tian Chua from standing in that election.
Prabakana, as mentioned, serendipitously was also standing in Batu as an 'Independent' (but more likely, IMHO, to attract away from Tian Chua the Indian votes) and became (by default of his non-BN status) Tian Chua's (emergency) candidate-for-PKR replacement, against the BN's competition. Thus I find in him not a true PKR member but becoming one by serendipity (luck) - time he goes - afterall he has already earned for himself a guaranteed MP's pension.
OPINION | Why are the Muslims imposing their religious values on the entire country?
Malaysia's #1 Content Aggregator
OPINION | Why are the Muslims imposing their religious values on the entire country?
17 May 2026 • 9:30 AM MYT
Image credit: Medium
Last February, the Sultan of Selangor had decreed that pig farming should not be permitted anywhere in the state. Part of the reason given for the decree is to "avoid public unease and ensure peace and harmony in Selangor is preserved."
The recently concluded "Rain Rave Water Music Festival" in KL also elicited heavy backlash from religious authorities and conservative critics. The Chinese Muslim convert and influencer Ridhuan Tee Abdullah would even label the event as a "pesta maksiat" and suggested that Bukit Bintang should be renamed “Bukit Binatang" for holding the festival.
Recently, an ex-managing director of Malaysia Airlines also felt compelled to defend why MAS continues to serve alcohol on its flights.
Parti Islam Se-Malaysia has consistently called for a total ban on alcohol by the national carrier, citing Islamic principles and the comfort of Muslim flight attendants.
MAS has already made several concessions to the demands of religious conservatives, including allowing Muslim crew members to wear the hijab while at work.
But at the rate that the national airline has been put on the defensive by the demands of religious conservatives, I wouldn't be surprised if MAS gives out further concessions in the future, which might even culminate to alcohol no longer be served to passengers someday.
Anyway, when we read about these developments, I am sure that many of us might be wondering why the Muslims in our country are becoming increasingly intent on projecting their religious sensitivities onto public life.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of a Muslim, I actually see much simpler ways that I can apply to resolve such issues as having alcohol served on flights or a rave party held in KL.
I could have, as the tourism minister Tiong King Sing argued, simply chosen not to attend the rave festival if I didn't like it, instead of demanding that the entire festival be cancelled. I could have also simply chosen not to have alcohol served to me on a flight if I didn't want it as well, instead of requiring the entire airline to be free from alcohol.
As a matter of fact, 20 or 30 years ago, I will even go on a limb and say that this was the way Muslims in our country chose to resolve whatever issues that they found to be in conflict with their religious practices.
It is only in recent times that, instead of controlling themselves in order to fulfil their religious obligations, Muslims are increasingly trying to control their environment or surroundings.
What precipitated this change?
In my view, I think that the reason is psychological.
Human psychology, in my view, is spread across a spectrum with three distinct divisions.
In the middle, you have the moderate section, while on its left and right-hand sides, it is flanked by the fanatical sections.
When your mindset is mostly in the moderate section, you will be geared more towards finding success and happiness than towards being yourself.
In other words, a moderate is someone with a fluid sense of self. If you are a moderate Muslim, for example, you will not predetermine that "this is how a Muslim should or should not be" and follow it rigidly or fanatically. Instead, you will simply believe that you can achieve success and happiness by following the Muslim way, while remaining willing to change your concept of how a Muslim should or should not be in a way that is conducive to your pursuit of success and happiness.
A fanatic, however, is someone with a very rigid and fixed sense of self. If you are a Muslim fanatic, for example, you will predetermine that "this is how a Muslim should or should not be" and follow it rigidly and fanatically, even if it brings you unhappiness and failure. To a fanatic, being happy or successful is not important. What matters is that they are able to be themselves, even if being themselves brings them unhappiness and decline.
Of fanatics, there are two types.
On the right-hand side, you have the ultra-conservatives or fundamentalists, whose chief aim in life is to revert back into becoming who they were in the past. If you are a Muslim ultra-conservative or fundamentalist, for example, you will probably dress like, eat like, think like and behave like how you presume Muslims behaved in the early days of Islam.
On the left-hand side, on the other hand, you have the ultra-liberal revolutionaries and radicals, whose chief aim in life is to become what they have not yet become. If you are a Muslim ultra-liberal, for example, you will probably try to be as different from your Muslim peers as possible. You will not act like them, think like them, behave like them, dress like them or even eat like them. Instead, you might deliberately do everything in opposition to what your fellow Muslim contemporaries are doing. You will do this because you wish to change the Muslims into something that they have yet to become, and to do that, you will aim to demolish what they currently are.
Now as a rule, we all — whether as individuals or collectives — are capable of being moderates, fundamentalists or radicals.
Even if you reflect upon yourself, you will find that there are times and occasions when you are moderate, just as there are times when you operate as a radical or fundamentalist.
As a rule, when you do not find your sense of self to be under threat, and you are confident that you are enough to achieve success and happiness, be it in this life or the next, you will operate mostly in the moderate section of your psychological spectrum.
But if you find that your sense of self is under threat, then you will revert to a fundamentalist mindset, and when you lose confidence in yourself, you will apply a more radical or revolutionary mindset.
Judging from the way Muslims in our country are behaving, I believe that they are collectively shifting towards the right side of their psychological spectrum, and the reason they are doing so is because they probably believe that their identity is under threat.
Now because our country is composed of Muslims and non-Muslims, there is an inclination — both among Muslims and non-Muslims — to assume that a threat to their identity must always come from the other half of the country, but this might not necessarily always be true.
Yes, to an extent, a threat to a Muslim identity comes from a non-Muslim source and vice versa, but there are other reasons as to why Muslim and non-Muslim identities can feel threatened.
Global events are one example of why Muslims in our country might feel that their identity is being threatened. The origin of Islamic civilisation — the Middle East — is currently suffering from an existential crisis due to the Iran war and the Gaza war. The Muslim world is being pressured by Western civilisation, and for now at least, it appears that Muslims are on the losing side. This being the case, it is inevitable that Muslims in our country too will feel that their identity is under threat, in tune with the threat that the Muslim world is facing globally.
Secondly, the march of time and technological advancement might also be a reason why not only Muslims, but all older identities, might be feeling an existential threat. Time destroys everything — and when time seems to be marching rapidly, fuelled by intense and relentless technological progress, those of us already struggling to keep up with the times might feel that our entire existence is being upended by change. Such rapid technological advancement, including social media and AI, is causing the new generation to become more estranged from the previous generation. Faced with the loss of their ability to connect with and pass down their identity to the next generation, Muslims — as well as other older identities not only in our country but throughout the world — might feel that their identity is at risk of becoming extinct.
That being the case, it is only natural that their mindset shifts to the right, causing them to become more aggressive in reshaping their surroundings in a way that allows their identity to survive, rather than adapting themselves to their surroundings, as they might have done if they did not believe that their identity was under threat.
One of the challenges of being a multiracial country like ours is that the races in our country tend not to experience reality in the same way, even though we possess a common nationality.
This discrepancy often causes one race to be unable to relate to the experience of another, which then threatens to break the nation apart.
We must remember that a group — be it a family, race, clan or nation — must more or less share the same experience in order to retain its group identity.
If you alone are suffering while everybody else in your group appears to be okay or having a good time, you are bound to become estranged from your group.
If half of the nation is suffering from an existential crisis while the other half is not only unaware of it, but is blaming the half that is suffering for making things difficult for everyone in the country, the country will break.
Sometimes, the solution to a problem does not lie in an outward action or decision, but in an enlargement of one's awareness.
Just take your family for example — if you find that your spouse and you are often in conflict, and you are wondering what you can do in order to re-establish your relationship with them, the answer might not come from you doing anything. The answer might actually come from enlarging your awareness to the point that you are able to understand their experience better.
It is only after you understand their experience that you will be able to reconcile your experience with theirs, and it is only if you more or less share a similar experience with your spouse that your marriage will endure.
As it is in a marriage, so it is in a country.
For so long as we believe that the tension in our racial and religious relationship can be resolved through action - by winning an election or winning an argument or passing a bill in parliament, for example - I foresee our racial and religious relationship to continue to deteriorate, to the point that it might divide or even break up the country.
To me, the solution is clear - to end our racial and resolve tension, we have to heighten and enlarge our awareness, to the point that we can meaningfully put ourselves in the shoes of each other and gain a meaningful understanding of how all of us are experiencing our reality.
Once we have such a meaningful understanding, then we can reconcile our experiences into one, and it is only if we are able to unify our experience, what we will be able to endure as one people in one nation, even if we came from different backgrounds.
As of now, I won't say that I am optimistic of our future, but as they say: "Life is a box of chocolate, you will never know what you are going to get."
No matter what I think today, tomorrow is another day, and anything can happen tomorrow.
Last February, the Sultan of Selangor had decreed that pig farming should not be permitted anywhere in the state. Part of the reason given for the decree is to "avoid public unease and ensure peace and harmony in Selangor is preserved."
The recently concluded "Rain Rave Water Music Festival" in KL also elicited heavy backlash from religious authorities and conservative critics. The Chinese Muslim convert and influencer Ridhuan Tee Abdullah would even label the event as a "pesta maksiat" and suggested that Bukit Bintang should be renamed “Bukit Binatang" for holding the festival.
Recently, an ex-managing director of Malaysia Airlines also felt compelled to defend why MAS continues to serve alcohol on its flights.
Parti Islam Se-Malaysia has consistently called for a total ban on alcohol by the national carrier, citing Islamic principles and the comfort of Muslim flight attendants.
MAS has already made several concessions to the demands of religious conservatives, including allowing Muslim crew members to wear the hijab while at work.
But at the rate that the national airline has been put on the defensive by the demands of religious conservatives, I wouldn't be surprised if MAS gives out further concessions in the future, which might even culminate to alcohol no longer be served to passengers someday.
Anyway, when we read about these developments, I am sure that many of us might be wondering why the Muslims in our country are becoming increasingly intent on projecting their religious sensitivities onto public life.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of a Muslim, I actually see much simpler ways that I can apply to resolve such issues as having alcohol served on flights or a rave party held in KL.
I could have, as the tourism minister Tiong King Sing argued, simply chosen not to attend the rave festival if I didn't like it, instead of demanding that the entire festival be cancelled. I could have also simply chosen not to have alcohol served to me on a flight if I didn't want it as well, instead of requiring the entire airline to be free from alcohol.
As a matter of fact, 20 or 30 years ago, I will even go on a limb and say that this was the way Muslims in our country chose to resolve whatever issues that they found to be in conflict with their religious practices.
It is only in recent times that, instead of controlling themselves in order to fulfil their religious obligations, Muslims are increasingly trying to control their environment or surroundings.
What precipitated this change?
In my view, I think that the reason is psychological.
Human psychology, in my view, is spread across a spectrum with three distinct divisions.
In the middle, you have the moderate section, while on its left and right-hand sides, it is flanked by the fanatical sections.
When your mindset is mostly in the moderate section, you will be geared more towards finding success and happiness than towards being yourself.
In other words, a moderate is someone with a fluid sense of self. If you are a moderate Muslim, for example, you will not predetermine that "this is how a Muslim should or should not be" and follow it rigidly or fanatically. Instead, you will simply believe that you can achieve success and happiness by following the Muslim way, while remaining willing to change your concept of how a Muslim should or should not be in a way that is conducive to your pursuit of success and happiness.
A fanatic, however, is someone with a very rigid and fixed sense of self. If you are a Muslim fanatic, for example, you will predetermine that "this is how a Muslim should or should not be" and follow it rigidly and fanatically, even if it brings you unhappiness and failure. To a fanatic, being happy or successful is not important. What matters is that they are able to be themselves, even if being themselves brings them unhappiness and decline.
Of fanatics, there are two types.
On the right-hand side, you have the ultra-conservatives or fundamentalists, whose chief aim in life is to revert back into becoming who they were in the past. If you are a Muslim ultra-conservative or fundamentalist, for example, you will probably dress like, eat like, think like and behave like how you presume Muslims behaved in the early days of Islam.
On the left-hand side, on the other hand, you have the ultra-liberal revolutionaries and radicals, whose chief aim in life is to become what they have not yet become. If you are a Muslim ultra-liberal, for example, you will probably try to be as different from your Muslim peers as possible. You will not act like them, think like them, behave like them, dress like them or even eat like them. Instead, you might deliberately do everything in opposition to what your fellow Muslim contemporaries are doing. You will do this because you wish to change the Muslims into something that they have yet to become, and to do that, you will aim to demolish what they currently are.
Now as a rule, we all — whether as individuals or collectives — are capable of being moderates, fundamentalists or radicals.
Even if you reflect upon yourself, you will find that there are times and occasions when you are moderate, just as there are times when you operate as a radical or fundamentalist.
As a rule, when you do not find your sense of self to be under threat, and you are confident that you are enough to achieve success and happiness, be it in this life or the next, you will operate mostly in the moderate section of your psychological spectrum.
But if you find that your sense of self is under threat, then you will revert to a fundamentalist mindset, and when you lose confidence in yourself, you will apply a more radical or revolutionary mindset.
Judging from the way Muslims in our country are behaving, I believe that they are collectively shifting towards the right side of their psychological spectrum, and the reason they are doing so is because they probably believe that their identity is under threat.
Now because our country is composed of Muslims and non-Muslims, there is an inclination — both among Muslims and non-Muslims — to assume that a threat to their identity must always come from the other half of the country, but this might not necessarily always be true.
Yes, to an extent, a threat to a Muslim identity comes from a non-Muslim source and vice versa, but there are other reasons as to why Muslim and non-Muslim identities can feel threatened.
Global events are one example of why Muslims in our country might feel that their identity is being threatened. The origin of Islamic civilisation — the Middle East — is currently suffering from an existential crisis due to the Iran war and the Gaza war. The Muslim world is being pressured by Western civilisation, and for now at least, it appears that Muslims are on the losing side. This being the case, it is inevitable that Muslims in our country too will feel that their identity is under threat, in tune with the threat that the Muslim world is facing globally.
Secondly, the march of time and technological advancement might also be a reason why not only Muslims, but all older identities, might be feeling an existential threat. Time destroys everything — and when time seems to be marching rapidly, fuelled by intense and relentless technological progress, those of us already struggling to keep up with the times might feel that our entire existence is being upended by change. Such rapid technological advancement, including social media and AI, is causing the new generation to become more estranged from the previous generation. Faced with the loss of their ability to connect with and pass down their identity to the next generation, Muslims — as well as other older identities not only in our country but throughout the world — might feel that their identity is at risk of becoming extinct.
That being the case, it is only natural that their mindset shifts to the right, causing them to become more aggressive in reshaping their surroundings in a way that allows their identity to survive, rather than adapting themselves to their surroundings, as they might have done if they did not believe that their identity was under threat.
One of the challenges of being a multiracial country like ours is that the races in our country tend not to experience reality in the same way, even though we possess a common nationality.
This discrepancy often causes one race to be unable to relate to the experience of another, which then threatens to break the nation apart.
We must remember that a group — be it a family, race, clan or nation — must more or less share the same experience in order to retain its group identity.
If you alone are suffering while everybody else in your group appears to be okay or having a good time, you are bound to become estranged from your group.
If half of the nation is suffering from an existential crisis while the other half is not only unaware of it, but is blaming the half that is suffering for making things difficult for everyone in the country, the country will break.
Sometimes, the solution to a problem does not lie in an outward action or decision, but in an enlargement of one's awareness.
Just take your family for example — if you find that your spouse and you are often in conflict, and you are wondering what you can do in order to re-establish your relationship with them, the answer might not come from you doing anything. The answer might actually come from enlarging your awareness to the point that you are able to understand their experience better.
It is only after you understand their experience that you will be able to reconcile your experience with theirs, and it is only if you more or less share a similar experience with your spouse that your marriage will endure.
As it is in a marriage, so it is in a country.
For so long as we believe that the tension in our racial and religious relationship can be resolved through action - by winning an election or winning an argument or passing a bill in parliament, for example - I foresee our racial and religious relationship to continue to deteriorate, to the point that it might divide or even break up the country.
To me, the solution is clear - to end our racial and resolve tension, we have to heighten and enlarge our awareness, to the point that we can meaningfully put ourselves in the shoes of each other and gain a meaningful understanding of how all of us are experiencing our reality.
Once we have such a meaningful understanding, then we can reconcile our experiences into one, and it is only if we are able to unify our experience, what we will be able to endure as one people in one nation, even if we came from different backgrounds.
As of now, I won't say that I am optimistic of our future, but as they say: "Life is a box of chocolate, you will never know what you are going to get."
No matter what I think today, tomorrow is another day, and anything can happen tomorrow.
OPINION | The Sunday Gambit: Rafizi, Nik Nazmi and the Politics of Expulsion
Malaysia's #1 Content Aggregator
OPINION | The Sunday Gambit: Rafizi, Nik Nazmi and the Politics of Expulsion
17 May 2026 • 12:30 PM MYT
The blue horizon of a new movement. Visual created Gemini prompt by Annan Vaithegi
"His recent show-cause letters and open challenge for the party to sack him reveal a deeper chess game. If he resigns, anti-hopping rules may complicate his parliamentary future. If he is expelled, he preserves political room to move. This is not emotional rebellion. It is strategic survival."
That single reality now hangs over Malaysian politics like a storm cloud before heavy rain.
The upcoming Sunday announcement by Rafizi Ramli and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad is no longer merely an internal PKR affair. It is shaping into a real-time test of whether Malaysia’s anti-hopping law can genuinely curb political manoeuvring or whether seasoned politicians have already found ways to navigate around it.
And Rafizi, for all his flaws, has never been politically naive.
Under Article 49A, MPs who resign from their party can lose their parliamentary seat. But there is one major exception: if the party expels them, they remain protected. In simple Malaysian political language, the law punishes jumpers but not those pushed out of the vehicle.
That loophole changes everything.
For months now, Rafizi’s behaviour has looked less like emotional frustration and more like controlled provocation. The public criticism. The podcast episodes. The refusal to stay quiet. The challenge for PKR to sack him. Taken separately, these may look like personal disputes. Put together, they resemble a carefully constructed political exit strategy.
And honestly, it is difficult not to admire the tactical brilliance.
If PKR expels him, Rafizi keeps Pandan. He keeps national visibility. He keeps legal safety under the anti-hopping framework. Most importantly, he gains total freedom to build a new political platform without surrendering parliamentary relevance.
This is not merely survival politics. It is political repositioning.
The bigger question is what exactly emerges on Sunday.
A new party? An alliance? A movement? A pressure bloc inside the opposition ecosystem? Malaysian politics is now flooded with speculation because Rafizi occupies a unique space too progressive for conservative blocs, too rebellious for establishment comfort, and too recognisable to simply disappear.
Among grassroots reform supporters, there is growing frustration with what many see as PKR’s transformation from a movement into a machinery of preservation. The reform generation that once shouted “Reformasi” in the streets now watches internal party politics with exhaustion rather than excitement.
That is where Rafizi’s appeal still survives.
To supporters, he represents unfinished reform flawed, blunt, sometimes arrogant, but still willing to confront power from inside the room. To critics, he represents instability: a politician who burns bridges faster than he builds coalitions.
Both views may be true at the same time.
The problem for Rafizi is that Malaysia’s political battlefield is not won only by intelligence or online support. Elections are won through machinery, rural penetration, coalition discipline, funding networks, and relentless grassroots organisation. Urban applause alone does not capture Putrajaya.
And this is where the fear among moderate voters quietly grows.
If Rafizi and Nik Nazmi split progressive votes without building a strong nationwide structure, they may unintentionally weaken Pakatan Harapan while strengthening more conservative forces. That anxiety is already visible among grassroots supporters who fear GE16 could become less about reform and more about fragmentation.
Still, the existence of that fear also reveals something deeper that many Malaysians remain politically homeless.
There are voters who no longer trust the old government. Others feel disappointed with the current one. Some fear PAS-style conservatism. Others are tired of endless party loyalty, factional wars, and recycled slogans.
These voters are not searching for political perfection anymore. They are searching for political sincerity.
And that is the dangerous space Rafizi may be trying to occupy.
His podcast, Yang Berhenti Menteri (YBM), has quietly become more than content creation. It is now a parallel political platform bypassing traditional media, bypassing party gatekeepers, and speaking directly to a disillusioned audience that still wants reform but no longer trusts political branding.
Ironically, Rafizi often sounds politically strongest when he is outside power.
Many Malaysians still remember the whistleblower who exposed scandals using spreadsheets and forensic detail. But once inside government, expectations changed. Some admired his technocratic confidence. Others saw arrogance and disconnect. His critics say he struggles with grassroots politics. His supporters argue Malaysia punishes leaders who speak too directly.
That tension defines his entire political career.
And now, the anti-hopping law has accidentally turned that tension into opportunity.
The law meant to stop political betrayal may instead become the legal bridge for a new rebellion.
This is why Sunday matters.
Because this is no longer only about Rafizi or Nik Nazmi. It is about whether Malaysian politics still has room for a genuine third force one that is reform-minded, cross-ethnic, progressive, and willing to challenge both government comfort and opposition extremism.
Yet history also offers a warning.
Malaysia has seen ambitious political breakaways before. Many began with idealism and ended with fragmentation, personality clashes, or irrelevance. Building outrage is easy. Building durable political structure is much harder.
That is the mountain Rafizi now faces.
Can he transform frustration into organisation? Can he attract serious grassroots machinery beyond urban bubbles? Can he build trust across races and regions without becoming another temporary protest vehicle?
Most importantly, can he prove this is more than just one man’s fallout with his own party?
Because if this Sunday announcement becomes merely another episode of elite political drama, Malaysians will move on quickly.
But if it becomes the beginning of a genuine political reset, then GE16 may remember this week as the moment a rebel stopped waiting for permission.
And perhaps that is Rafizi’s real gamble.
Not whether PKR expels him.
But whether enough Malaysians still believe reform is worth risking another fight for.
Annan Vaithegi writes sharp and thoughtful columns on Malaysian politics, power struggles, reform, and the voice of the rakyat.
"His recent show-cause letters and open challenge for the party to sack him reveal a deeper chess game. If he resigns, anti-hopping rules may complicate his parliamentary future. If he is expelled, he preserves political room to move. This is not emotional rebellion. It is strategic survival."
That single reality now hangs over Malaysian politics like a storm cloud before heavy rain.
The upcoming Sunday announcement by Rafizi Ramli and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad is no longer merely an internal PKR affair. It is shaping into a real-time test of whether Malaysia’s anti-hopping law can genuinely curb political manoeuvring or whether seasoned politicians have already found ways to navigate around it.
And Rafizi, for all his flaws, has never been politically naive.
Under Article 49A, MPs who resign from their party can lose their parliamentary seat. But there is one major exception: if the party expels them, they remain protected. In simple Malaysian political language, the law punishes jumpers but not those pushed out of the vehicle.
That loophole changes everything.
For months now, Rafizi’s behaviour has looked less like emotional frustration and more like controlled provocation. The public criticism. The podcast episodes. The refusal to stay quiet. The challenge for PKR to sack him. Taken separately, these may look like personal disputes. Put together, they resemble a carefully constructed political exit strategy.
And honestly, it is difficult not to admire the tactical brilliance.
If PKR expels him, Rafizi keeps Pandan. He keeps national visibility. He keeps legal safety under the anti-hopping framework. Most importantly, he gains total freedom to build a new political platform without surrendering parliamentary relevance.
This is not merely survival politics. It is political repositioning.
The bigger question is what exactly emerges on Sunday.
A new party? An alliance? A movement? A pressure bloc inside the opposition ecosystem? Malaysian politics is now flooded with speculation because Rafizi occupies a unique space too progressive for conservative blocs, too rebellious for establishment comfort, and too recognisable to simply disappear.
Among grassroots reform supporters, there is growing frustration with what many see as PKR’s transformation from a movement into a machinery of preservation. The reform generation that once shouted “Reformasi” in the streets now watches internal party politics with exhaustion rather than excitement.
That is where Rafizi’s appeal still survives.
To supporters, he represents unfinished reform flawed, blunt, sometimes arrogant, but still willing to confront power from inside the room. To critics, he represents instability: a politician who burns bridges faster than he builds coalitions.
Both views may be true at the same time.
The problem for Rafizi is that Malaysia’s political battlefield is not won only by intelligence or online support. Elections are won through machinery, rural penetration, coalition discipline, funding networks, and relentless grassroots organisation. Urban applause alone does not capture Putrajaya.
And this is where the fear among moderate voters quietly grows.
If Rafizi and Nik Nazmi split progressive votes without building a strong nationwide structure, they may unintentionally weaken Pakatan Harapan while strengthening more conservative forces. That anxiety is already visible among grassroots supporters who fear GE16 could become less about reform and more about fragmentation.
Still, the existence of that fear also reveals something deeper that many Malaysians remain politically homeless.
There are voters who no longer trust the old government. Others feel disappointed with the current one. Some fear PAS-style conservatism. Others are tired of endless party loyalty, factional wars, and recycled slogans.
These voters are not searching for political perfection anymore. They are searching for political sincerity.
And that is the dangerous space Rafizi may be trying to occupy.
His podcast, Yang Berhenti Menteri (YBM), has quietly become more than content creation. It is now a parallel political platform bypassing traditional media, bypassing party gatekeepers, and speaking directly to a disillusioned audience that still wants reform but no longer trusts political branding.
Ironically, Rafizi often sounds politically strongest when he is outside power.
Many Malaysians still remember the whistleblower who exposed scandals using spreadsheets and forensic detail. But once inside government, expectations changed. Some admired his technocratic confidence. Others saw arrogance and disconnect. His critics say he struggles with grassroots politics. His supporters argue Malaysia punishes leaders who speak too directly.
That tension defines his entire political career.
And now, the anti-hopping law has accidentally turned that tension into opportunity.
The law meant to stop political betrayal may instead become the legal bridge for a new rebellion.
This is why Sunday matters.
Because this is no longer only about Rafizi or Nik Nazmi. It is about whether Malaysian politics still has room for a genuine third force one that is reform-minded, cross-ethnic, progressive, and willing to challenge both government comfort and opposition extremism.
Yet history also offers a warning.
Malaysia has seen ambitious political breakaways before. Many began with idealism and ended with fragmentation, personality clashes, or irrelevance. Building outrage is easy. Building durable political structure is much harder.
That is the mountain Rafizi now faces.
Can he transform frustration into organisation? Can he attract serious grassroots machinery beyond urban bubbles? Can he build trust across races and regions without becoming another temporary protest vehicle?
Most importantly, can he prove this is more than just one man’s fallout with his own party?
Because if this Sunday announcement becomes merely another episode of elite political drama, Malaysians will move on quickly.
But if it becomes the beginning of a genuine political reset, then GE16 may remember this week as the moment a rebel stopped waiting for permission.
And perhaps that is Rafizi’s real gamble.
Not whether PKR expels him.
But whether enough Malaysians still believe reform is worth risking another fight for.
Annan Vaithegi writes sharp and thoughtful columns on Malaysian politics, power struggles, reform, and the voice of the rakyat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)