Locked in Loathing: The Endless Feud of Puad and Rafizi

Locked in Loathing: The Endless Feud of Puad and Rafizi


9 Jul 2025 • 7:00 AM MYT



TheRealNehruism
Writer. Seeker. Teacher

Image credit: Utusan TV



Umno supreme council member Datuk Puad Zarkashi and Rafizi Ramli are back at it again.


The bickering between Puad Zarkashi and Rafizi Ramli, I can't help but notice, is worse than that of an old couple in an unhappy marriage.


Old couples in broken marriages often argue over the pettiest things. I once knew an old couple who could argue endlessly because the wife made coffee for the husband ten minutes too early. The husband would insist she was being passive-aggressive by deliberately not preparing it at 5 p.m., the time he always came home. The wife, in her defense, would say she didn’t want the coffee to get cold before he arrived. But of course, the fight was never really about the coffee or the clock. It was about accumulated grievances, psychological fatigue, and emotional wounds long left unattended. When two people have been emotionally entangled for too long, their arguments stop being rational. You can’t resolve them by checking timelines or verifying claims. The real issue is that they’ve grown to irritate each other’s very existence.


As Denzel Washington once put it, “Some people will never like you because your spirit irritates their demons.”


When you’re locked in a long, mostly toxic dynamic with someone, even the smallest things start to feel like provocations. And that's exactly the energy between Puad and Rafizi. Their feud isn’t ideological, and it’s certainly not rooted in any meaningful policy debate. It’s personal. Deeply personal. It’s not even a clash of ideas—it’s a clash of psyches.


They’ve been going at each other for years. Last year, Puad dismissed Rafizi as the “king of failed formulas,” taking a swing at Rafizi’s PADU initiative and reducing it to a personal disaster: “Rafizi is now seen as the ‘king of failed formulas.’ When PADU fails, Rafizi fails. PADU is Rafizi, and Rafizi is PADU,” he told The Star. Rafizi, in turn, has never disguised his irritation. His responses have often carried the tone of someone brushing off a noisy neighbour. By dismissing Puad's criticism as coming from someone who simply doesn't like him, Rafizi then implied that Puad's hostility stems less from substance and more from personal dislike—like a grudge that refuses to age out.


And like clockwork, the back-and-forth continues. Just a couple of days ago, Rafizi took a sly dig at Puad, advising him passive aggresively to reflect on pahala and dosa—rewards and sins—since, as Rafizi pointed out with deliberate irony, Puad is two decades older than him. That gentle reminder of mortality clearly struck a nerve. Puad came out swinging, accusing Rafizi of being the very embodiment of hypocrisy. Citing a well-known hadith, Puad wrote on Facebook: “When he speaks, he lies. When he makes a promise, he breaks it. When he is entrusted with something, he betrays that trust.” He didn’t stop there. “Rafizi admitted that his job is to instigate. The job of an instigator must involve lying. Is it true he fulfilled his promises? Why did he resign? Isn’t that a betrayal of the promises he made to the people?” And then, in a final flourish, he warned: “Don’t overdo the burning, or you might end up in prison.”


None of this is about Malaysia. None of this is about the people. It’s not even about accountability. This is political theatre masquerading as discourse. These two aren’t locked in debate—they’re locked in a psychological tug-of-war, using Facebook posts and press quotes as the weapons of choice. And frankly, it’s getting old—if not already antique.


Puad is in his seventies. Rafizi is pushing fifty. That these two grown men—seasoned politicians, no less—can’t find it within themselves to let go of their petty hostilities is a sad but useful reminder that age does not necessarily bring wisdom. Sure, the body weakens, the hair grays, and thoughts of mortality start to cloud the horizon. But emotionally? Psychologically? Many never evolve beyond adolescence. Sometimes, you don’t grow wiser. Sometimes, you just grow old.