Is Rafizi Now Blaming MACC for His PKR Defeat?

OPINION | Is Rafizi Now Blaming MACC for His PKR Defeat?


9 Dec 2025 • 9:00 AM MYT



TheRealNehruism
An award-winning Newswav creator, Bebas News columnist & ex-FMT columnist

Image credit: The Vibes / Malay Mail


Former economy minister Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli has once again thrown a political grenade into the national discourse. This time, he alleges that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was involved—intentionally or otherwise—in actions that affected the outcome of the PKR internal elections earlier this year. The allegation, which surfaced in his “Yang Berhenti Menteri” podcast, has since triggered a rapid-fire exchange between Rafizi, MACC, and anonymous insiders speaking to the media.


To understand the unfolding drama, we need to examine three layers:


Rafizi’s accusation, MACC’s rebuttal, and the counter-narratives coming from Rafizi and internal MACC sources. Only then can we ask the final question—was Rafizi simply nursing political wounds, or is there a deeper rot within the PKR electoral machinery?

Rafizi’s Accusation: A Targeted Investigation During PKR’s Election Peak

In the podcast, Rafizi recounted an incident involving a PKR candidate who was allegedly investigated at the height of the party’s April–May leadership election. According to him, MACC officers had “surrounded” the candidate’s home and conducted an inquiry that he claims could have influenced the outcome of the polls.

He portrayed the timing as suspiciously convenient and potentially damaging to the candidate’s image—and by extension—to Rafizi himself, since the candidate was someone within his political orbit.

Rafizi insists this was not a minor inconvenience but a move that potentially disrupted political momentum. He also revealed that he had personally raised the matter with the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, during the peak of the issue—suggesting that the matter had reached the highest levels of the government.


Following the podcast, Rafizi elaborated further in a detailed thread on X, where he argued that the allegation being investigated—linked to the cash purchase of a low-cost flat via auction—was flimsy at best and certainly not justification for an intrusive investigation during an internal party election.

MACC’s Official Response: “Baseless and Inaccurate”

MACC was quick to deny the accusation. In a rare late-night Sunday statement, the commission flatly rejected claims that it had been weaponised for political purposes or that it had detained a supporter of Rafizi.


The commission clarified several points:

• Officers did not surround the candidate’s home.
• They were only present to meet the individual and conduct a standard search.
• Once they confirmed the individual was not home, they left.
• The candidate later appeared at the MACC office voluntarily and was released without detention.
• Investigations are triggered by complaints—not political instructions.
• Anyone dissatisfied can file complaints through official channels.

MACC also cautioned against airing allegations publicly without evidence, warning that such claims could undermine public confidence in enforcement agencies.

MACC Insider Speaks: No Evidence of Bribery, No Fancy Houses, No Corruption

Adding another layer to the story, Free Malaysia Today reported that an MACC insider said the investigation found no evidence of bribery or corruption involving the PKR candidate in question.

The source revealed several key details:

• All funds used to purchase assets came from personal savings, business proceeds, and company sales.
• The candidate owned several medium-cost houses and vehicles, all obtained with legitimate bank loans.
• Claims that the individual owned an “extravagant” house in Port Dickson were false—the property was actually a local authority asset disposed of through normal procedures and bought for RM55,000.
• The candidate used to run several businesses before entering politics, and although the businesses were sold, the registration was not transferred officially, prompting routine queries from tax authorities.

Crucially, the source reiterated that MACC never detained the individual, aligning with MACC’s official statement.


This insider account attempts to paint the investigation as routine and justified, rather than politically motivated. It also indirectly disputes any idea that the candidate was involved in anything resembling corruption.

Rafizi’s Counter-Response: “Thank You MACC for Confirming It Happened”

Rafizi, however, argues that MACC’s statements—official and anonymous—confirm his core claims rather than deny them.

He identifies two points MACC openly acknowledged:

• The PKR candidate was indeed investigated.
• The candidate was not charged with any offence.

To him, this is enough to validate his podcast story.

He further accuses MACC of strategically avoiding two details:

• The date of the incident, which he insists fell squarely during the PKR election.
• The nature of the allegation, which he says was over a legally purchased low-cost flat.

Rafizi argues that if the timeline and allegation were disclosed, they would strengthen his claim that the investigation’s timing had political consequences.


He also noted that his communication with the Prime Minister during the incident could be verified through phone bills, should the matter escalate.


Finally, Rafizi urged the Prime Minister to reconsider extending MACC chief Tan Sri Azam Baki’s contract, arguing that the institution’s credibility is now in question.

Sore Loser — or Was the PKR Election Truly Compromised?

So what should Malaysians make of this?

Is Rafizi merely a sore loser, attempting to rewrite the narrative of his PKR election defeat by pointing fingers at MACC?


Is he weaponising a routine investigation to suggest a grand political conspiracy?


Or is he highlighting a real systemic problem—one where poorly timed investigations, lack of transparency, and leadership controversies within MACC cast a shadow over a major political party’s internal election?


Was the PKR election clean, flawed, or quietly rigged by forces no one wants to openly acknowledge?


At this stage, the truth is contested—and may depend less on evidence than on which political story Malaysians find more believable.