THIS is a response to Bersatu supreme council member Wan Saiful Wan Jan’s essay, titled “Why did Bersatu leave Pakatan Harapan?”, in the Trends in Southeast Asia series published by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

I’d like to first extend my gratitude to Wan Saiful for attempting to explicate the matter. By virtue of being a supreme council member, his take on the issue indeed sheds light on the party’s controversial exit, and provides some clarity for Malaysians still confused by the political crisis in February.

As a political observer myself, I find that some of the reasons given by Wan Saiful justifying Bersatu’s exit need more scrutiny. There are also instances where he omitted crucial factors in the party’s departure from PH and the pact’s fall from grace.

Azmin factor

For an essay that delves into the “Sheraton Move”, there’s surprisingly little mention of Mohamed Azmin Ali and his distancing from PKR. Wan Saiful argued that Azmin and his gang of 10 MPs had no major influence on Bersatu’s decision to leave PH, despite the former PKR No. 2 playing a significant role in the formation of the Perikatan Nasional government.

Any political observer worth their salt would find this statement to be patently false, as Azmin’s move is inextricably linked to Bersatu’s exit from PH. It was among the opening acts in the February crisis, and not to mention how both episodes happened within a single lunch hour.

The vote to oust the previous Dewan Rakyat speaker showed that the PN government has a razor-thin majority of 114 in the 222-seat Parliament, which means for Bersatu to continue being in power, the support of Azmin’s faction is key.

Wan Saiful also carefully omitted how former Bersatu chairman Dr Mahathir Mohamad, while leading the PH administration, at times widened the schism in PKR to Bersatu’s advantage. This was seen in the appointment of Azmin and Zuraida Kamaruddin to the cabinet, and the naming of Latheefa Koya as Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief. The appointments intensified the power struggle within the party, and the bickering hastened Azmin’s departure. While Bersatu wasn’t wholly responsible for this, it did dutifully play the role of instigator and subsequently became the biggest beneficiary.

Hence, the Azmin issue cannot be viewed independently or omitted from the discussion, especially when the 10 MPs who took his side have helped sustain the Bersatu-led PN government. Furthermore, the argument that he wasn’t a major factor in Bersatu’s decision to quit PH would be plausible only if the party had zero intention of staying in the government.

Differences in Pakatan, Malay anxiety

Wan Saiful went to great lengths to explain that despite the signing of the PH agreement, consensus on Dr Mahathir becoming prime minister, agreement on seat distribution and launch of a manifesto uniting the pact’s original four components, there remained fundamental ideological differences and racial and religious issues, which were swept under the carpet. These differences ultimately came back to haunt PH in its 22 months in power.

He said PH’s lacklustre performance can be largely attributed to how it failed to address Malay anxiety; by appointing non-Malays as finance minister, chief justice and attorney-general, PH was seen as weakening Malay power. However, he failed to point out that the appointments were made by the then Bersatu chairman, and that any public appointment should be viewed as the cabinet’s collective responsibility. The current prime minister, Muhyiddin Yassin, was part of this very cabinet.

Wan Saiful is correct in saying PH won the 2018 elections not on the back of huge Malay support – numerous studies have suggested that it got, at best, a third of the Malay vote – but the blame shouldn’t be placed entirely on Malay anxiety. It may be true that Malays were more anxious under PH rule, but further research and analysis is required to determine whether these anxieties emanated from economic or political insecurities. To justify Bersatu’s exit from PH by citing Malay anxiety seems rash and reeks of irresponsibility to those who had voted for the pact in good faith.

I would hazard that the anxiety felt among all Malaysians stemmed from PH’s broken promises, ministers’ incompetencies and the administration’s austere economic policies. These, to me, are the real reasons behind the decline in support.

Also, there’s no mention in Wan Saiful’s article of the fact that Dr Mahathir disregarded voters by declaring that PH’s manifesto wasn’t binding. Umno and PAS utilised this to brand PH a coalition of broken promises.

For an alliance of parties with fundamentally different ideologies, the PH government was strangely consistent in cutting welfare assistance for the Malay working class. According to Parti Sosialis Malaysia’s Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj, the administration scrapped monthly allowances for fishermen, slashed a price subsidy scheme aimed at supporting rubber smallholders and reduced cash aid for needy individuals. There was even talk of phasing out the pension scheme for government servants.

Rubbing salt into the wound, Dr Mahathir took numerous jabs at Malays, calling them “lazy” and “untrustworthy”. The Malay anxiety is, in fact, real, and of PH’s own doing – it implemented neoliberal economic policies, which were supported by Bersatu, and the party’s founder himself produced racial and divisive statements.

Wan Saiful emphasised that PH’s prioritisation of institutional reforms made Malays feel like the government was no longer looking after their economic well-being. This is puzzling, as he appears to suggest that a government, which has the support of state machineries and civil servants, is incapable of executing both institutional and economic reforms. He said PH was perceived to be too focused on institutional reforms, in the process, neglecting the people’s welfare.

As explained above, welfare wasn’t neglected, but systematically reduced or abolished.

Anwar’s promise

Finally, we come to perhaps the strongest reason for Bersatu’s decision to leave PH. Wan Saiful’s essay said Muhyiddin confided that Dr Mahathir’s resignation as prime minister at a time when PH held the majority in Parliament paved the way for PKR president Anwar Ibrahim to take over with the support in hand. Therefore, Muhyiddin had to immediately lead Bersatu out of the pact to deny Anwar the majority.

Through interviews with top Bersatu leaders, Wan Saiful showed that both Bersatu and Dr Mahathir were never enthusiastic about the possibility of passing the baton to Anwar. According to Selangor Bersatu secretary Hasnizam Adham, the party’s entry into PH was merely a strategy. However, I would argue that the party’s inclusion was predicated on naming Anwar as Dr Mahathir’s successor. There was little chance of Bersatu being accepted into PH – PKR would’ve vehemently rejected it – if it didn’t agree to this arrangement.

And, most voters chose PH anticipating a premiership shared by Dr Mahathir and Anwar. The now-defunct “two years” deal was collectively preached by PH parties at rallies to assure sceptics of Dr Mahathir and Bersatu. If there had truly been dissent within the party, why did such sentiments bubble up only after the elections?

Anxiety or fear?

Wan Saiful concluded his essay by saying any party or coalition that wants to govern cannot afford to ignore Malay sentiments. There is no doubt that Bersatu’s decision to exit PH is a political masterstroke, given that it has united Malay support and is now governing with greater panache. Most of all, the question of Malay anxiety has seemingly vanished.

I have one last question for Wan Saiful: would Bersatu be bold enough to once more quit a ruling coalition should the pact come to find that it doesn’t have the numbers in Parliament? If this isn’t the case, then perhaps, the sole reason for Bersatu leaving the faltering PH is in the adage, some will do anything to stay in power. – July 30, 2020.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.