Rise and fall and rise again of Umno-PAS relations

Rise and fall and rise again of Umno-PAS relations

4 hours ago

Letter to the Editor

History has shown that there are no guarantees that an alliance between the two parties would not eventually fall apart.

From Moaz Nair

Formal Umno-PAS political relations go back to the time the Islamic party was integrated with Barisan Nasional in 1973. However, this collaboration culminated in friction, which subsequently led to the declaration of a state of emergency in Kelantan in 1977.

Four decades later, in the wake of the 2018 general election, the two parties formalised a renewed alliance, known as Muafakat Nasional which eventually reached an impasse when PAS elected to form Perikatan Nasional alongside Bersatu, a strategic manoeuvre that encountered vehement opposition from Umno.

Despite top-tier leadership efforts to push for a MN 2.0 or initiate partnerships under the “Rumah Bangsa” initiative, grassroots factions and leaders from both echelons concede that such reunification lacks sustainability if it remains merely seasonal and transactional for electoral gains.

History has shown that there are no guarantees that an alliance between Umno and PAS would not eventually fall apart.

History has also shown that, although Umno and PAS may draw from the same Malay-Muslim voter base, their relationship has often shifted. They have alternated between working together and confronting each other, depending on changing power dynamics and political survival.

Although “ummah unity” is often invoked to promote political stability, several structural issues could still reignite discord between the two parties.

Demographic and geographic overlap

The two parties have historically engaged in zero-sum competition within the same voter enclaves, specifically rural, Malay-majority constituencies. Consequently, the delineation of parliamentary and state assembly seats regularly precipitates hierarchical friction.

Deadlocks routinely emerge when determining incumbency or candidacy rights in areas designated as “winnable seats”, a phenomenon previously observed during initialisation of the MN framework.

Power and leadership hegemony

Establishing the supreme leadership hierarchy, particularly concerning the premiership, remains a highly contentious point of friction.

Should PAS secure a larger parliamentary bloc than Umno, questions over who should lead the alliance could trigger intense internal power struggles and destabilise the partnership.

The trust deficit

Based on past political developments, Umno leaders remain cautious and sceptical of PAS’s calls for unity. Sentiments regarding a “breach of trust” are frequently resurrected due to PAS’s strategic pivot toward Bersatu within Perikatan Nasional.

This multi-alignment strategy, defined by a propensity to switch partners to secure political survival, directly exacerbates deep-seated institutional mistrust between the two parties.

Ideological divergence

Umno has traditionally leaned toward technocracy, economic development, and state-centric pragmatic policies.

Its political approach is ostensibly secular-nationalist and inclusive, as evidenced by its long-standing history of inter-ethnic cooperation with the MCA and MIC since pre-independence days.

Conversely, PAS prioritises Islamism as its foundational ideology, relying on an electoral doctrine rooted predominantly in a single ethnic demographic. This ideological divergence frequently engenders socio-political polemics during the formulation of public policy.

Strategic dilemma

Umno loyalists and political analysts currently face a strategic dilemma regarding proposed alliances with PAS. Umno’s political hegemony since independence has relied substantially on its capacity to capture non-Malay swing votes, particularly in straight-fight scenarios against PAS.

Closer alignment with PAS risks alienating non-Malay voters, a trajectory exemplified by the electoral marginalisation of Gerakan after integrating into PN.

Furthermore, realistic anxieties persist that Umno risks being integrated or subverted by PAS, given that PAS currently commands a superior grassroots machinery and a significantly larger parliamentary presence.

This structural reality threatens to relegate Umno to “junior partner” status, exposing the party to gradual marginalisation compared to the relatively egalitarian power balance they maintained in 2019.

Politics is about pragmatism, meaning no alliance or rivalry lasts forever.

While Umno and PAS possess the capacity to forge new alignments based on the shared imperative of countering a common political enemy, their capacity to sustain such cooperation remains fragile.

Who urged for foreign intervention into Malaysian affaors?

From Google A1:

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad called for foreign pressure in April 2016 to help remove then-Prime Minister Najib Razak amid the 1MDB scandal. [1]

Context of the Appeal

Domestic Avenues Blocked: Mahathir stated that he normally opposed foreign interference, but claimed local channels for justice were completely closed. [1]
Targeting Najib: The campaign aimed to pressure Najib Razak into stepping down or facing removal from power over financial corruption allegations. [1]
Unusual Alliances: He cooperated with political rivals and opposition leaders, including Anwar Ibrahim, to achieve this goal. [1]

Reactions

Government Criticism: Najib’s administration and allies labeled Mahathir’s appeal as a desperate and unpatriotic act that undermined national sovereignty.

*********

Salleh: Mahathir's urging for foreign intervention a desperate act

Published: Apr 9, 2016 7:00 PM
Updated: Apr 10, 2016 9:07 AM



Communication and Multimedia Minister Salleh Said Keruak has called former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's urging for foreign pressure to get Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to step down "a final desperate act".

"This is an alarming new development and I am very surprised that Mahathir should even suggest this," he wrote in a blog post today.

He related that back when Mahathir was the PM, any foreign country or government that said anything about Malaysia, would have borne the brunt of Mahathir's caustic retaliation, telling them that they have no business interfering in our domestic affairs.

In fact, Salleh said that during Mahathir’s time, if any local political activist were to work with a foreign government to criticise Malaysia, he or she would be detained on grounds of "treason" and accused of working with foreign powers to bring down the democratically elected government.

"Mahathir is now saying that the end justifies the means and that we must do anything possible just as long as we meet our objectives of bringing down the prime minister outside the constitutional process.

"In that case no leader is safe if all we need to do to topple a leader is to invite foreign powers to interfere in the country’s domestic matters," sniped the minister.

Salleh hoped that Mahathir is not purposely trying to set himself for arrest to gain public sympathy when he told The Weekend Australian that there was little hope that Najib would step down without outside pressure.

Mahathir had reportedly said that while he normally don’t like foreign interference in Malaysian affairs, the avenues for redress locally has been closed completely, requiring foreign pressure to help see Najib step down or removed from power.

The good doctor has been unceasing in his campaign to urge Najib's resignation or removal, even working hand in hand with his former rivals in the opposition, including allying with his former deputy and present PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim, to do so.

***

3 years later when he became PMVII 😂😂😂

***

Malaysian PM Mahathir warns against foreign meddling in Asean



Malaysia will not take sides in rivalries between major powers, and won't rely on military alliances or strategic partnerships, Dr Mahathir said.

PHOTO: REUTERS


Published Feb 23, 2019, 01:46 PM



KUALA LUMPUR (BLOOMBERG) - South-east Asian countries should guard against the involvement of big powers in the region, as such meddling may fuel conflict and lead to an arms race, according to Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

Drawing on the example of conflict in the Middle East, Dr Mahathir said if major powers were allowed to intervene in the region, countries would face pressure to stock up on weapons and fight each other.
That would destabilise the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (Asean), he added.

His remarks appeared in the text of a speech to be delivered on Saturday (Feb 23) on his behalf by Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah at a conference in Kuala Lumpur.

"We are already beginning to see the seeds of confrontation and rivalry in our region," Dr Mahathir said.

"Lines are being drawn. Bases are being built. Armadas are being readied. The pressure is on to take sides."

Malaysia will not take sides in rivalries between major powers, and won't rely on military alliances or strategic partnerships, Dr Mahathir said.

Who was trying to topple the government? — Khoo Ying Hooi

Who was trying to topple the government? — Khoo Ying Hooi

Summary

• At the PAS muktamar, Tan Sri Abdul Hadi Awang claimed that during Barack Obama's 2014 visit to Malaysia, the US Embassy offered assistance to PAS to undermine the Barisan Nasional government.
• The US Embassy has denied these allegations, affirming that the US does not interfere in Malaysia's political leadership decisions.
• The article examines the distinction between foreign influence and interference, highlighting the need for Malaysia to develop transparent political funding regulations.
• It underscores the importance of scrutinizing foreign involvement without overlooking domestic factors that allow such influence to be effective.

First Published: Monday, 07 Sep 2026 8:52 AM MYT


SEPTEMBER 7 — Tan Sri Abdul Hadi Awang has made a serious claim.

At the PAS muktamar, Hadi alleged that during Barack Obama’s 2014 visit to Malaysia, representatives at the US Embassy offered assistance to PAS to help bring down the Barisan Nasional (BN) government.



He further claimed that, after that meeting, the US ambassador requested a separate meeting with him and asked whom PAS would propose as prime minister.


The US Embassy has issued a statement saying that the US has never sought to decide Malaysia’s political leadership.


I cannot verify what was said in those meetings. At present, neither Hadi’s account nor Washington’s denial gives the public enough evidence to settle the matter. That is where I think the discussion should begin.


But neither should we be naïve about foreign influence. States routinely seek influence beyond their borders, and this is certainly not unique to the US.

That is hardly controversial in international relations. But influence and interference are not synonymous.


There is no universally accepted definition of foreign interference, but contemporary definitions generally distinguish it from ordinary foreign influence by looking for elements such as covert, deceptive, coercive, corrupting or non-transparent conduct.



PAS President Tan Sri Abdul Hadi Awang delivers his speech during the winding-up session at the 72nd PAS Annual National Muktamar at the Kelantan Islamic Tarbiyah Centre (PUTIK) in Kota Bharu on September 5, 2026. — Bernama pic



The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) explicitly warns against collapsing legitimate foreign influence and foreign interference into the same category.

The US also has a long and very public history of “democracy assistance”. Scholar Thomas Carothers has spent decades documenting this field, which has included support for elections, political parties, civil society, independent media and institutional reform.

None of this is secret. However, that does not mean we should be uncritical of it too.

Scholars Thomas Carothers and Saskia Brechenmacher made an important point in their 2014 report on international democracy support.

In the report, it is stated that even assistance presented as non-partisan can have different political effects on different actors.

Money, training, international access and institutional connections can change the balance of resources inside a political system.

Foreign funding therefore deserves scrutiny. So do the interests of the governments and foundations providing it.

But having an effect is still not the same as exercising control. I am not naïve about the historical record either.

Lists are now circulating online pointing to countries where the US has been accused of, or documented as having, intervened in domestic political outcomes.

There is substantial scholarship behind the broader concern. Lindsey O’Rourke’s Covert Regime Change (2018), among other works, documents an extensive history of US covert efforts to influence or change governments during the Cold War, for instance.

That history deserves to be taken seriously. But it cannot, by itself, establish what happened in Malaysia in 2014. That requires evidence specific to the Malaysian case.

Malaysia was not somehow outside this world. Malaysian organisations have received foreign support.

This is where the literature on transnational advocacy is useful. Scholars Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink argued years ago that domestic actors often reach outward when political channels at home are blocked, forming networks with international organisations, foreign governments and activists elsewhere.

Their well-known “boomerang” model was important precisely because it restored agency to local actors.

Malaysians engaging international organisations are not necessarily passive instruments of foreigners. They may be using international relationships to pursue political objectives of their own.

The reverse is equally possible. Foreign governments can use those relationships to advance their interests. Both things can be true at once.

So yes, foreign money exists, so does foreign influence. Foreign governments have interests. Pretending otherwise would be rather innocent.

But there is an equally serious mistake in moving from foreign funding to foreign control, as though the two mean the same thing.

We should not also dismiss the historical context. When Obama visited Malaysia in 2014, Washington was simultaneously deepening relations with Najib Razak’s government.

The two governments elevated bilateral co-operation, discussed trade and security, and publicly described the relationship in positive terms.

Obama also raised the issue of civil liberties and met Malaysian civil society representatives. Foreign policy frequently involves working closely with governments while maintaining relationships with people who criticise those governments.

Nor should Najib’s eventual defeat in 2018 be treated, in itself, as evidence of an American operation. The story is not that simple.

There is already substantial literature explaining GE14 through Malaysian political dynamics such as elite rupture within Umno, Mahathir Mohamad’s return, the construction of a more credible opposition coalition, 1MDB and other governance concerns, changing patterns of political mobilisation and, ultimately, voter choice.

If we are genuinely concerned about foreign interference, then we should establish transparent rules and require disclosure.

As of 2026, Malaysia still does not have a specific law regulating political funding, while the proposed Political Funding Bill remains under study, with questions such as contribution limits and the appropriate regulatory body still unresolved.

Malaysia is neither immune from foreign influence nor simply a political arena shaped from outside.

Foreign powers have interests here. Of course they do. But the language of “foreign agents”, outside interference and foreign-funded attempts to destabilise governments is hardly new in Malaysian politics.

It has surfaced repeatedly in debates around opposition politics and civil society, now and then.

That history is precisely why we need to be careful. Foreign actors can take advantage of divisions, relationships, institutional weaknesses and political opportunities that already exist.

But the harder question is what was happening within Malaysia itself that made such influence possible, useful or politically consequential in the first place.

The foreign hand is worth scrutinising. It just should not become an excuse for pretending the local hands are clean.

* Khoo Ying Hooi, PhD is an associate professor at Universiti Malaya.