RAFIZI RAMLI AND ANWAR IBRAHIM: A Question of Collective Responsibility

From the FB page of:

Anas Zubedy

podnSsetor88fg4u0t01mu19383i6u1i43mtf64mm7201455ca6c76631h1i ·


RAFIZI RAMLI AND ANWAR IBRAHIM: A Question of Collective Responsibility

Rafizi Ramli has gone to town attacking Anwar Ibrahim. This sharp turn has been highly visible since Rafizi was sidelined during the PKR internal elections, losing the Deputy Presidency to Anwar’s daughter, Nurul Izzah. For those with a clear head and a long memory, this public onslaught begs a few fundamental questions.

Before proceeding, let me be entirely transparent. I have been consistently critical of Anwar Ibrahim’s suitability to become Prime Minister since the 1990s. I have stated this clearly in my writings, talks, and discussions for over three decades. My position has never been that he lacks talent. Rather, his strengths are not the ones most critically required in a Prime Minister. For more than thirty years, my assessment held true, until he finally assumed the office in 2022.
However, I have always maintained that when an individual is given a responsibility, they deserve a fair opportunity to prove themselves. Likewise, when a coalition is handed the mandate to govern, it must be given the space and time-ideally a full term-to demonstrate its capability and deliver on its promises.

A Prime Minister is, in many ways, the CEO of a nation. The role demands conceptual thinking, strategic clarity, the capacity to manage both today’s crises and tomorrow’s vision, and the ability to build systems, structures, and processes that unite diverse groups of people. It requires reducing uncertainty and fostering trust across society. This cannot be achieved through personality alone-which has often been Anwar’s primary modus operandi. It requires institutional strength, a healthy administrative culture, consistency over time, and a talented team of successors to sustain the journey.

People need to know where the nation is heading; they must trust that today’s policy will not be contradicted tomorrow. Leadership at the highest level is about creating stability and predictability through consistent decisions. Anwar’s true strengths lie elsewhere. He is an exceptional communicator, a man who can inspire and mobilize masses- a fantastic salesman. But even the best salesperson requires a robust marketing machinery, innovation, manufacturing, strict general management, and an effective delivery system behind them.

If Anwar had spent his career championing reform, justice, and the Palestinian cause strictly on the global stage, he would have excelled without measure. My long-standing question has never been whether he is gifted, but whether his specific gifts fit the office of the Prime Minister.

The Collective Silence

Now, let us turn to Rafizi Ramli.
I established my view on Anwar first because I do not want what follows to be mistaken for a defense of the Prime Minister, or an endorsement of the current administration's policies. My inquiry is much narrower: Why is the spotlight now focused almost entirely on Anwar Ibrahim? And why now?

Rafizi speaks today as though the multi-faceted problems he highlights can be traced solely to the Prime Minister. Certainly, Anwar bears the largest share of accountability; that is the burden of the office. But a government is not a one-man show. It is run by a Cabinet, a coalition, party leaders, ministers, and senior decision-makers.

Rafizi was no bystander. For years, he was one of Anwar’s closest political allies and among the most influential architects within PKR. He stood beside Anwar during major political campaigns, engineered core strategies, and shaped national narratives. He was a key player in the September 16 takeover attempt and deeply involved in the Kajang Move. He defended and promoted the exact positions, promises, and political arguments that are now being questioned.

More importantly, after 2022, he moved from outside critic to inside operator, sitting at the highest echelons of executive power as the Minister of Economy.
This is the logical disconnect. If Anwar abandoned certain positions, compromised on core principles, or failed to deliver on reforms, Rafizi was in the room. He was part of the leadership team, part of the discussions, and part of the compromises. He remained in government and continued to serve. To attack these collective decisions now, as though they belonged solely to Anwar Ibrahim, is difficult to reconcile with Rafizi's own history.

Where is the criticism of the other senior leaders who sat around that very same table? Where is the accountability for senior PKR, DAP, and Amanah leaders, or ministers like Anthony Loke, who continue to serve in government today? If mistakes were made and promises broken, responsibility cannot be conveniently singularized.

The timing also raises legitimate questions. Why are these criticisms peaking only now? Why were they not articulated with this same intensity when Rafizi held peak influence as Deputy President of PKR and a senior minister?

Consider the case of Azam Baki. Before the 2022 general election, Rafizi repeatedly used the MACC Chief as a symbol of systemic failure. Ceramah after ceramah created a powerful public expectation that decisive action would follow once power was secured. Yet, when Pakatan Harapan entered government and Rafizi became Minister of Economy, Azam Baki remained in office.

If this issue was as fundamentally non-negotiable as Rafizi suggested before 2022, what changed after? Why was there no public ultimatum? Why was there no resignation on principle? Why did the issue lose urgency while he was in power, only to regain relevance after his internal party influence waned?

The same can be asked regarding UMNO. Before 2022, Rafizi aggressively dismantled UMNO’s credibility. Post-election, UMNO became a governing partner. Realpolitik often requires compromise, but the question remains: was the public given a realistic picture before power was obtained, and were the same standards applied afterward?

These are not questions asked to shield Anwar Ibrahim. They are questions about intellectual and political consistency. Governments rise and fall as teams. Decisions are made collectively, policies are defended collectively, and failure must be owned collectively.

The Path to Redemption

Having said that, if I were in Rafizi's shoes, I would likely share his frustration. As a fellow man, I can understand how political setbacks, coupled with personal dynamics, can leave one feeling disappointed or betrayed. Politics is one thing; family is entirely another.

Perhaps the most critical factor we must acknowledge is the abhorrent attack directed at his young son. Most decent people will agree that children must remain strictly off-limits in the blood sport of politics. A politician is fair game; their children are not.
When a politician’s child is targeted, the state apparatus should leave no stone unturned. The investigation should be visible, thorough, and beyond reproach, regardless of whether the parent is Rafizi, Anwar, Muhyiddin, Hadi Awang, or Anthony Loke. If Rafizi felt that this deeply personal matter was not met with the urgency and seriousness it deserved by the authorities, it is completely understandable why it would leave a profound, permanent scar. Such an experience can cause any parent to radically reassess relationships, loyalties, and politics itself.

If Rafizi has genuinely changed his mind about his past compromises and political alliances, he should say so openly. There is no shame in admitting a shift in position, nor is there shame in admitting one was wrong.

However, this is a broader challenge facing every politician across the spectrum - from PKR and DAP to UMNO, Bersatu, and PAS - who promised one thing on the campaign trail and executed another upon entering Putrajaya. How does a politician regain public trust after disappointing the voters who believed in them?
The answer does not lie in another podcast, an analytical thread, or a fiery ceramah. It begins with genuine humility.

The first step is to apologize.
Not a token, calculated political statement designed to reframe the narrative. Not an apology followed by a hundred justifications. But a real, unconditional apology that openly states: “I promised one thing, and I did another. I asked for your trust, and I failed to live up to it. I was wrong.”

Many voters cast their ballots, argued with friends, and campaigned based on those foundational promises. When politicians do the exact opposite upon gaining power, the public's feeling of betrayal is entirely valid.

Politicians who want a second chance must earn it by lowering themselves, swallowing their pride, and asking for forgiveness with genuine remorse. I have far more respect for a leader who stands before the nation and admits, "I made promises I could not keep; please forgive me," than one who spends years pretending the goalposts never moved.

Only after that vulnerability can the conversation about redemption truly begin.

Furthermore, if leaders want voters to believe they have genuinely reformed, they must offer a binding commitment for the future. They must assure the electorate that if they make a promise in the next election and later find it compromised by coalition friction or party pressure, they will not simply sit quietly to preserve their titles.

They must be prepared to stand by their principles, speak up publicly, and if necessary, have the courage to walk away.

Only then will the apology carry weight. Only then will voters believe the lesson has been learned. Only then can trust begin to be rebuilt.

The ball is in your court Rafizi “dan ahli-ahli politik yang sama waktu dengannya ”

Peace,

Anas Zubedy