Johor voters have seen this movie before. DAP wins big, then confuses a mandate with ownership.

In 2022 they swept 10 seats in Johor on the back of anti Barisan Nasional (BN) sentiment.

Fast forward to 2025, and the script has flipped. After Sabah showed DAP losing every seat they contested, the same arrogance that cost them there is now on display in Johor.

The difference is simple: DAP brings perspective, Onn Hafiz brings performance.

DAP’s Perspective Problem And Failure Of Delivery

DAP in Johor still acts like it is 2018. The messaging is national, the tone is top down, and the ground work is missing.

Seats like Skudai were won with 27k majorities because voters wanted change, not because they signed up for permanent DAP rule.

Four years later, that same seat faces traffic congestion at Taman Universiti, flood mitigation delays in Kempas, and business licence bottlenecks that kill small traders.

The answer from DAP? More press statements, less site visits.

That is arrogance, assuming the 2022 majority is transferable without delivery. Sabah proved it is not.

When a party mistakes presence on social media for presence in the constituency, voters notice.

Constituency service centres that were promised to be open daily are staffed part time.

Resident complaints on drainage, street lighting and illegal dumping get redirected to the local council with no follow up.

Townhall sessions are rare, and when they happen they feel like ceramah, not problem solving.

That is the arrogance of incumbency: we won, so you will wait.

Dapsy’s Arrogance On Full Display

If DAP Johor is detached, Dapsy Johor is worse. Dapsy leaders in the state talk like they own the future of Johor, but their track record is thin.

Instead of fixing potholes or helping traders, Dapsy lecture voters on national ideology and party doctrine.

Dapsy leaders’ Social media posts attack political opponents, but rarely show ground programmes that solve local problems.

The arrogance is in the tone. Dapsy Johor speaks down to voters, dismisses criticism as “cybertrooper” or “political”, and assumes young voters will fall in line because of party brand.

Sabah should have been a warning. Young voters rejected Dapsy candidates there because they saw no work on the ground, only noise online.

Johor Dapsy is repeating the same mistake. Brand is not a substitute for boots on the ground. Arrogance is not a strategy.

How DAP Treated Marina Ibrahim In Skudai

The clearest example is Marina Ibrahim, incumbent ADUN for Skudai since 2018.

Marina won with a huge mandate and has been one of DAP’s most vocal Johor reps on local issues, pushing for accountability and service for residents and businesses.

Yet within DAP Johor she received cold treatment compared to other ADUNs.

Less allocation for constituency work, less platform at state events, and internal pressure to move out of Skudai.

In a letter dated 30 May 2026 to DAP Johor Chairman, Marina revealed she rejected an offer made by DAP Women Chief Teo Nie Ching during a discussion on 17 May 2026 with Andrew Chen Kah Eng, Johor DAP Secretary.

The offer was for Marina to contest Tiram instead of Skudai, with a GLC chairmanship promised if she failed to win.

Marina declined the offer and announced she was quitting politics.

The letter went viral after she shared it in the DAP Johor WhatsApp group.

NST reported on 31 May 2026 that Marina declined to confirm the letter’s authenticity publicly.

This exposes DAP’s hypocrisy. Before GE14, DAP attacked political appointments to GLCs.

After taking power, GLC posts were dangled as a consolation prize to shift a vocal local rep out of her base.

The message to every Johorean: serve the people loudly and DAP will offer you an exit package.

Loyalty to the party line matters more than service to constituents.

Onn Hafiz’s Performance Track And Delivery

Compare that to MB Johor Onn Hafiz. Whether you agree with every policy or not, the man is visible.

Onn shows up for roadworks, flood projects, and local business forums.

The Machap representative speaks Johor’s language: development, investment, jobs.

Under Onn’s watch, Johor has pushed the Johor Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS SEZ) with Singapore and expanded Iskandar Malaysia investments.

Approvals for factories and logistics hubs have been accelerated, with the state government cutting red tape so projects move from announcement to construction faster.

The JS SEZ is being positioned as a game changer for skilled jobs and cross border commerce.

That is ribbon cutting and site visits, not rhetoric.

On the ground, Onn’s administration has focused on delivery voters feel daily.

Flood mitigation projects in Tebrau, Skudai and Pasir Gudang have been fast tracked after years of delay, with drainage upgrades and pump stations prioritised before the monsoon season.

Road upgrades and junction improvements in Iskandar Puteri and Johor Bahru are aimed at cutting traffic congestion that has frustrated commuters for years.

Through “Jom Niaga Johor” and dedicated business facilitation units, SMEs are getting faster approval for licences and permits, something traders say was stuck under the previous administration.

At the same time, more technical and TVET training is being aligned to JS SEZ jobs so Johoreans get first access to employment, not just foreign workers.

Onn has also made “turun padang” his signature style, turning up unannounced at markets, schools and project sites to check progress himself.

Johor Voters See Onn, Not Just His Poster

There is also stronger coordination with Singapore on water, energy and customs to make JS SEZ functional, not just another announcement.

The message from Onn is consistent: fix what is broken, approve what creates jobs, and show up where people live.

It is not just Johor. BN led state governments in Pahang and Malacca run the same playbook: infrastructure delivery, clear timelines, less political drama.

In Pahang, the ECRL alignment through Bentong, Temerloh and Kuantan is framed as a logistics boost, with the state attracting warehousing near stations.

In Malacca, tourism recovery and port expansion in Tanjung Bruas are backed by direct engagement with SMEs and traders.

Even on bread and butter issues, BN states hammer delivery. Flood mitigation, road upgrades in semi urban areas, faster processing for small business licences.

Fix the roads, approve the projects, turn up for constituents. That’s BN’s style.

Voters may be frustrated with the federal government, but they can still see the difference between an ADUN who appears at ground events and one who tweets.

The Johor Choice

If DAP loses Skudai, it will not be BN magic. It will be DAP arrogance meeting Onn’s ground game.

DAP thought perspective and slogans were enough; BN put boots on the ground and delivered projects voters can see.

Dapsy’s arrogance, DAP’s failure to serve after winning big, and the Marina case that exposed GLC hypocrisy are the story here.

Johor’s upcoming polls will be a referendum on performance versus perspective.

Right now, only BN is scoring points where it matters, at the grassroots, with spades in the ground and projects on the table. – NMH

The writer is Vice-President of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

Also read:

PRN Johor 2026: Ujian Pertama BN Tanpa Faktor Najib

DAP Silence Exposes the Truth: UMNO was Always the Bogeyman

PKR Tears Itself Apart While In Power: The Real ‘Reformasi’?

Johor Polls: Can BN Win Big Without The Najib Factor?

The post Johor Polls: Performance Versus Perspective first appeared on NMH.

Democratic Action Party (DAP) spent years telling non-Malay voters UMNO was racist, from Mahathir’s era to Anwar’s time as Deputy Prime Minister.

Then DAP joined hands with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 2018. Now with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim at the helm, the party is silent on the very accusations it levelled at UMNO.

Non-Malays should realise Umno was portrayed as the villain, and ask who the real beneficiaries of race politics have been.

How DAP Built The “UMNO Is Racist” Narrative

From the 1980s right through to 2018, DAP’s core campaign message to non-Malay voters was simple.

Umno was racist. Umno practised ketuanan Melayu. Umno entrenched Bumiputera quotas, NEP (New Economic Policy) targets, and Malay-first policies that excluded non-Malays from opportunity.

That accusation was aimed squarely at the Mahathir-Anwar government of 1993 to 1998.

DAP argued that UMNO’s racial policies were the reason non-Malays faced university quotas, limited government contracts, and unequal access to business licences.

The message worked. DAP won overwhelming support from Chinese and Indian voters by presenting Umno as the bogeyman blocking equality.

Every general election, DAP told non-Malays that removing Umno was the only way to dismantle race-based politics.

DAP’s Tone Changed When It Joined Mahathir

Then came 2018. the party entered government as part of Pakatan Harapan (PH) with Mahathir as Prime Minister.

The same Mahathir who, with Anwar as his Deputy and Finance Minister from 1993 to 1998, enforced the peak of NEP quotas, privatisation guidelines, and GLC expansion.

The same Mahathir whose administration DAP had spent 20 years attacking as the source of Malay dominance.

DAP’s tone shifted overnight. The attacks on Mahathir’s racial policies stopped.

Party leaders like Lim Kit Siang who once called the NEP unjust now defended “continuity” and “political stability”.

The party that built its brand on dismantling UMNO’s race policies was now sharing power with the man who designed them.

Non-Malay voters were told to accept it as “the bigger picture”.

Silence Now With Anwar In Charge

Fast forward to 2022. DAP is back in government, this time with Anwar as Prime Minister.

The same Anwar who, as Finance Minister from 1993 to 1997, tabled budgets that maintained the 30% Bumiputera equity target, public university quotas, 7% housing discounts, and Approved Permit allocations.

Budget 1997 allocated RM2.1 billion to MARA and RM1.8 billion to FELDA.

The Universities and University Colleges Act was amended in 1996 under his watch to tighten ministerial control.

These are the very policies DAP condemned for years as racist and discriminatory.

Yet since 2022, DAP has been silent. Budget 2023 and Budget 2024 continued Bumiputera equity guidelines for IPOs.

MARA funding and housing discounts remain. Public university quotas are untouched.

The Securities Commission still enforces the 30% Bumiputera equity rule.

No legislation has been tabled to dismantle a single structural pillar. No parliamentary debate has been pushed by DAP to repeal quotas.

The party that built its political capital by calling Umno racist now governs without changing what it called unjust.

That silence tells non-Malay voters everything they need to know.

Umno As The Bogeyman, But Not The Only Actor

This is where non-Malays must be honest with themselves.

UMNO was portrayed as the sole villain for decades because it was politically convenient.

UMNO, founded in 1946, did defend Malay interests and did drive race-based policy after 1969. That is fact, and it can be debated.

But DAP’s own actions show UMNO was not the only architect.

The peak enforcement period was Mahathir-Anwar, 1993 to 1998.

Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, better known as Pak Lah, from 2003 to 2009 introduced PPSMI (Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris, or Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in English) and expanded private colleges, giving non-Malay students more options.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak from 2009 to 2018 introduced BR1M cash aid that was race-neutral, increased funding for SJKC and SJKT to RM100 million in Budget 2013, and liberalised 27 services sectors by removing Bumiputera equity rules.

Pak Lah and Najib both expanded Islamic institutions, and JAKIM’s budget grew under Najib from about RM800 million to over RM1 billion. So the Islam agenda continued under Umno.

But economically, UMNO under Pak Lah and Najib also introduced race-neutral programmes that DAP’s partners have not matched.

So Who Is The Real Villain In UMNO?

If we are talking about villains within UMNO, then we must look at leadership, not the party as a whole.

The NEP was designed under Tun Razak in 1971. It was expanded most aggressively under Mahathir from 1981 to 2003.

Anwar, as his Deputy and Finance Minister, administered it.

Those are the names tied to the peak of race-based enforcement.

But UMNO today is not led by Mahathir or Anwar.

The current UMNO leadership under Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has repeatedly stated support for reviewing race-based policies and moving toward needs-based assistance.

UMNO in the unity government is now the one being pressured by DAP to maintain quotas, while DAP itself says nothing.

The bogeyman narrative falls apart when the party accused of racism is more open to reform than the party that built its brand attacking it.

Consistency Over Slogans

DAP told non-Malays for years that Umno was the obstacle to equality.

Then it joined Mahathir and stayed silent.

Now the party sits with Anwar and stays silent again.

The policies DAP called racist are still in place, but the blame is no longer on Umno.

Non-Malay voters should realise this. UMNO was made the bogeyman because it was politically useful.

The real architects of the system were Mahathir and Anwar.

The real silence today comes from DAP.

If reform is DAP’s goal, then the demand must be placed on the leaders who designed the system and the party that now governs with them.

Malaysians deserve leaders who apply the same standard to everyone.

Not a DAP that changes its principles depending on who holds power.

Only then can we move beyond the bogeyman politics of the past. – NMH

The writer is Vice-President of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

The post DAP Silence Exposes the Truth: UMNO was Always the Bogeyman first appeared on NMH.

The Department of Statistics says Malaysia’s unemployment rate held steady at 2.9% in March 2026 for the fourth consecutive month.

Yet in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, the situation tells a different story.

A large share of retrenchments in the first quarter of this year happened right here in the Klang Valley.

For the families behind those figures, stability on paper does not translate into security at home.

Unemployment – The Gap Between Policy and Reality

Consider a 40-year-old father recently retrenched from a manufacturing plant in Shah Alam.

He has a wife at home, two children in school, and a mortgage to service.

Telling him to enrol in a training course sounds sensible in principle but in practice, attending full-time classes is not an option when rent is due and savings are thin.

He needs income now, not in several months’ time.

On the other side, employers in manufacturing and tech are restructuring to stay competitive against automation and global supply chain shifts.

Many are reluctant to rehire older workers because of higher wage expectations, retraining costs, and uncertainty over business orders.

Why The Headline Figures Mislead

The national picture hides what is happening at regional level.

According to data released by the Ministry of Human Resources, Malaysia recorded 5,900 cases of job losses in March 2026, a 21.3% decrease compared to February.

The situation worsened in April, with 7,057 job losses — a 21% increase month-on-month.

But the ministry also said it is “paying close attention to the concentration of job losses in the Klang Valley, particularly Selangor and Kuala Lumpur.

PERKESO data analysed by Hong Leong Investment Bank and reported by SAYS in April 2026 showed that Selangor accounted for 29.3% of total layoffs in March, while Kuala Lumpur made up 25.6%.

That means the Klang Valley contributed more than half of all retrenchments nationwide for that month.

Even with about 107,000 job vacancies recorded in March, the mismatch is clear.

Many roles require different skills, unsociable hours, or a pay cut that families simply cannot absorb.

The vulnerability is compounded by low household buffers.

In an analysis posted on LinkedIn in April 2026, Farid Affandi cited Bank Negara Malaysia findings that only around one third of Malaysians can sustain more than 3 months of expenses if income is disrupted.

For the 40-year-old father in Shah Alam, even a short gap between jobs becomes a crisis.

A Win Path Forward

The solution is not to choose between protecting workers or helping business.

Both can move together if the government designs support that reduces risk on both sides:-

1. For workers and families

Extend income support for retrenched workers with dependants and offer a one-off household stabilisation payment.

Make upskilling compatible with working life through night classes and training allowances so families do not have to choose between learning and eating.

2. For employers

Introduce targeted wage subsidies for companies that rehire retrenched Malaysians over 35 into roles matching their experience.

Provide tax relief for firms that partner with government reskilling programmes and guarantee interviews or placements.

Simplify the process so small and medium enterprises can access these schemes without excessive bureaucracy.

3. For both

Set up a rapid response job matching taskforce for the Klang Valley.

This unit should work directly with employers to understand hiring needs and match retrenched workers in real time.

When employers see a pipeline of ready, supported candidates, they are more likely to hire. When workers see real jobs at the end of training, they are more likely to commit.

What Must Happen Next

Until the retrenched father in Shah Alam can see a path forward that does not mean choosing between feeding his children and retraining for the future, our labour market will not be truly resilient.

For employers, until they see that rehiring local talent comes with manageable risk and real support, those jobs will stay empty.

Policy that connects the two will turn a fragile balance into a recovery that works for families and for business. – NMH

The writer is Vice-President of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

The post Sleepless in Unemployment – Klang Valley Saw 7,000 Jobs Lost in a Month first appeared on NMH.

Let’s call it what it is. Malaysia’s press freedom is backsliding, and the Madani government’s excuses are wearing thin.

We’re 95th out of 180 countries in 2026, down seven places in a year.

That’s not progress, but a signal that the space for independent journalism is shrinking again, even under a government that promised reform.

The numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. What matters is what happens in newsrooms when the phone rings, when a source goes quiet, or when an editor kills a story not because it’s wrong, but because it’s risky.

Malaysian journalists are rarely beaten in the street, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) noted a slight improvement in safety for 2026.

But safety from assault means little when legal harassment, police raids, and smear campaigns do the job instead. Cross certain lines and you risk prosecution.

Managed

When the law is used this way, the press stops being a check on power and becomes a managed channel for it.

Two things keep holding us back.

First, the legal framework. The Sedition Act 1948 and the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) are still on the books and still being deployed.

The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) recorded a 23 per cent rise in the use of expression-restricting laws in 2025. That’s not deterrence against hate speech. It’s deterrence against scrutiny.

Second, ownership. Strict licensing and concentrated media ownership mean a handful of politically connected groups control much of the sector.

When a publisher’s business interests depend on government goodwill, editorial independence doesn’t stand a chance.

Examples From The Last Two Years

In January 2026, former FMT journalist Rex Tan was arrested after asking about race at a public forum on Palestine.

Tan was investigated under the Sedition Act 1948, Section 505 of the Penal Code, and Section 233 of the CMA.

CIJ said the arrest failed to meet international standards of proportionality and created a chilling effect.

In March 2026, Tamil-language daily’s journalist Kalidas Subramaniam was detained for over 24 hours after reporting on alleged undocumented migrant workers at Kulim Hi-Tech Park.

Police investigated Kalidas for criminal trespass under Section 447 of the Penal Code. CIJ called the arrest disproportionate and alarming.

In 2025, Malaysiakini journalist B. Nantha Kumar was arrested and charged with bribery days after publishing an investigation into an alleged migrant trafficking syndicate at KLIA.

Nantha denied the charge and said he was acting undercover with immigration officials.

In May 2024, Australian blogger Murray Hunter was arrested in Thailand following a request from the Malaysian authorities under the Madani government.

Hunter had written critically on Malaysian politics.

The case raised concerns over the use of foreign jurisdictions to pursue critics beyond Malaysia’s borders.

Social Media Pages Are Targets Too

The pressure now extends to the platforms news outlets rely on.

In September 2025, Malaysiakini’s Facebook and KiniTV pages were suspended for several hours just after the outlet published an investigation into a network of accounts boosting Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Facebook engagement.

The episode came as the government tightens control over platforms through the licensing regime under the CMA and the new Online Safety Act 2025.

When platforms are made answerable to regulators, the line between moderation and editorial pressure blurs, and newsrooms lose another channel to publish freely.

Press Freedom and the Red Lines

Under Barisan Nasional and former Prime Minister Najib Razak, the media environment was restrictive but more predictable.

Between 2012 and 2017, Malaysia’s RSF rank moved from 141st to 144th. Low, but stable.

Editors knew where the red lines were, and newsrooms could plan.

Outlets like Malaysiakini still published hard-hitting investigations, and elections in 2013 and 2018 were open and combative.

Since 2023 the picture has been volatile.

We went from 73rd to 107th, back to 88th, and now sit at 95th.

Each year brings new interpretations of old laws and fresh cases against journalists.

That unpredictability makes it harder to run investigations and easier to self-censor.

For many who worked through both periods, the Najib years allowed more room to operate day to day.

The Contradiction At The Core

The gap between what’s said and what’s done is the real story here.

Anwar says Malaysia is “maturing” and must give “more open space” for criticism.

Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil says “journalists have the right to ask any questions.”

But the laws haven’t changed, and the arrests haven’t stopped.

Rex Tan gets investigated for asking about race. Kalidas Subramaniam is detained for reporting on migrant workers. Malaysiakini’s Nantha faces bribery charges days after publishing an investigation.

Even bloggers abroad are not safe, as Murray Hunter’s arrest showed.

You can’t claim to uphold press freedom while using the Sedition Act and Section 233 of the CMA to prosecute reporting that embarrasses the powerful, and while seeking to silence critics across borders.

That’s not maturity. That’s managed messaging dressed up as reform.

If the government wants credibility on this, it needs to do two things: repeal or amend the laws that criminalise speech, and let the Malaysian Media Council operate without political control.

Until then, the quotes from Putrajaya will keep contradicting the files in the courts.

Malaysia’s press freedom won’t be measured by press releases.

It’ll be measured by whether media outlets can publish a story the government wishes hadn’t been written. Right now, many can’t. – NMH

The writer is Vice-President of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

The post Malaysia’s Press Freedom Needs More Than Rankings to Recover first appeared on NMH.

While Pakatan Harapan (PH) staged a show of unity in Johor on 17 May 2026, PKR was unravelling 300 km away.

The PH Convention, themed “Tekad Madani, Harapan Rakyat”, was meant to signal readiness for state polls and GE16.

Instead, the headlines were hijacked by a press conference in Petaling Jaya.

That afternoon, Rafizi Ramli and Nik Nazmi quit PKR, vacated Pandan and Setiawangsa, and took over Parti Bersama Malaysia (Bersama).

The timing was deliberate.

As Anwar spoke in Johor Bahru, his former deputy president launched a rival platform aimed at the urban, reformist voters who delivered PH’s 2022 victory.

Analysts call it the gravest challenge yet to Anwar’s administration.

As the South China Morning Post noted, ‘Rafizi’s breakaway gamble is unlikely to bring down Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim on its own, but it could still wound the ruling coalition by peeling away reformist voters who helped PH take power in 2022.’

Nurul Izzah – Holding the Centre or on the Sidelines?

The other question hanging over PKR is Nurul Izzah Anwar’s role.

Popularly known as Puteri Reformasi, she won the deputy presidency in May 2025 with 9,803 votes, defeating Rafizi in a contest billed as a generational handover.

Since her election, she has kept a low public profile.

No sparring with Rafizi, no high-profile interventions.

Instead, she has focused on party strategy, youth and women ahead of GE16, positioning herself as a unifying figure.

At the May 2025 congress, Anwar dismissed nepotism claims, telling delegates Nurul Izzah was ‘chosen by members’.

Nurul Izzah has since said her priority is “leading PKR to GE16 victory, with an emphasis on unity, women, youth and rebuilding voter trust.”

That approach carries tradeoffs.

Staying above the fray avoids framing the split as a personal feud and keeps her positioned as a potential stabiliser.

But without publicly defining her stance on the split, both supporters and critics can interpret her role.

If PKR holds its urban base, she can point to steady stewardship.

If it doesn’t, questions about her influence will resurface.

Can PKR Hold Its 31 Seats? The Numbers Say No

On paper, PKR enters GE16 with 31 parliamentary seats and key ministries.

On the ground, it looks shaky.

First, seat share is shrinking. Rafizi estimates PKR can contest only 50 federal seats this time, half of GE15, perhaps due to negotiations with BN and DAP, if any.

Second, the Malay vote remains the problem. PKR needs 35% to hold 30-40 seats. It is at 27%.

Third, incumbency is no guarantee. Merdeka Centre’s Ibrahim Suffian warns that ‘PKR’s big problem is that it has not used incumbency as the lead player in government to build a power base that will make it a lasting political institution’.

The scenarios are sobering.

Best case: PKR holds 22-25 seats by retaining Malay-belt incumbents and limiting urban losses.

Base case: It slips to 18-22 seats and becomes a junior partner in PH.

Worst case: It falls below 15 seats and risks irrelevance in Peninsular politics.

According to a leaked internal ‘GE16 Strategic Analysis’, the party is defending just seven safe seats.

Even Anwar’s Tambun seat is marginal, while vice-presidents Amirudin Shari and R. Ramanan’s Gombak and Sungai Buloh seats are in the red zone.

PKR is on the defensive across most seats, forcing it to concentrate resources and drop weak divisions as Bersama and PN target the same urban Malay base.

Reformasi in Government: The Identity Crisis Returns

This is not just about seats.

It is about what PKR stands for, now that it is the party of government.

For 20 years, Reformasi was a movement outside the gates.

Now it is inside, delivering cash aid, wage hikes and stability while being blamed for the rising cost of living.

Rafizi’s pitch with Bersama is simple: ‘Existing political parties can no longer respond to issues of rising cost of living, employment and salary mismatch.’

He called it a ‘kamikaze’ for Gen Z, Gen Alpha and Gen Beta who want a choice outside the PH-BN duopoly.

If PKR bleeds urban seats to Bersama, Anwar can’t blame the opposition. He’ll be defending a party that lost its reason for existing the moment it won power.

And if voters decide that in GE16, Anwar won’t just lose seats. He’ll lose the story that put him in Putrajaya.

PKR at the Crossroads

PKR’s split is less about personalities and more about an identity crisis deferred too long.

Anwar needed Rafizi’s machinery to win in 2022.

Now that machinery has left, Nurul Izzah must prove PKR can win without it.

The party’s 31 seats are not safe. They depend on whether PH holds the urban-reformist vote and whether Anwar’s cash politics wins back the Malay ground PKR has lost.

If it cannot, GE16 will show that PKR’s Reformasi brand was always stronger outside government than inside it.

That would be the most damning verdict of all. – NMH

The writer is Vice-president of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

The post PKR Tears Itself Apart While In Power: The Real ‘Reformasi’? first appeared on NMH.

NOT every tradition survives by accident. Some endure because they remain relevant, because they hold a society together when everything else pulls it apart, a point DAP’s Tony Pua seems to have missed.

In Malaysia, respect for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Malay Rulers was once instinctive.

It formed part of our national rhythm — a quiet thread linking history, identity and continuity in a country of many races and faiths.

You did not have to agree with every decision. But you understood that the institution stood above the daily churn of politics.

The Latest Flashpoint: Tony Pua

That understanding is now fraying.

The latest flashpoint is Tony Pua and his Facebook post responding to Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah’s decree on the Rukun Negara controversy.

This week, Malaysians watched what happens when that thread is tugged too hard.

Pua’s post has drawn dozens of police reports nationwide and reignited debate over the limits of political speech.

According to Bernama, Pua has since provided a statement to police over his Facebook post on Wednesday (21 May 2026).

“It was an investigation under Section 505 of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act,” he was quoted as saying.

More than 80 police reports have reportedly been lodged, with the first made in Sri Muda, Shah Alam.

Constitutionally Framed, But Incomplete

Pua’s argument is straightforward.

Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy. Royal powers are defined and limited. Citizens, he says, should follow the Constitution and the Rukun Negara, not treat royal decrees as binding in all aspects of life.

Framed that way, it sounds like civic education.

But for many Malaysians, it landed differently.

Umno secretary-general Asyraf Wajdi described the remarks as “disrespectful towards the monarchy”, adding that mocking a Sultan’s decree crosses a line beyond free speech.

A PKR youth leader put it more bluntly: the monarchy is not merely symbolic, but a pillar of sovereignty and unity.

Both reactions point to something deeper.

The issue is not whether the Constitution limits royal power. It does.

The issue is whether the monarchy can be reduced to only those limits.

More Than a Legal Institution

The role of the Rulers has never been purely legal.

It is also symbolic, cultural and unifying — a shared reference point that sits above party lines, above ethnicity, above the next election cycle.

Meanwhile, legal scholar Prof Madya Dr Shahrul Mizan Ismail cautions against reducing the monarchy to what he describes as a “constitutional minimalism”, a reading that strips the institution down to its narrowest legal functions while ignoring its structural role within the Federation.

Writing in response to the same controversy, he argues that the Federal Constitution does not merely limit the monarchy, but embeds it as part of Malaysia’s governing framework: from executive authority to discretionary powers in moments of political uncertainty.

To frame the Rulers as purely ceremonial, he suggests, is not just incomplete but legally imprecise, overlooking the balance the Constitution deliberately strikes between elected authority and constitutional monarchy.

This is the point often missed in public debate.

The danger lies not in constitutionalism itself, but in reading the Constitution too narrowly.

Progress Without Continuity Has No Centre

For most Malaysians, the monarchy remains a symbol of unity above politics.

For some, its role feels outdated.

But progress without continuity becomes change without a centre.

Strip away that centre, and what follows is not clarity, but fragmentation.

This is not the first time Pua has ventured into this territory.

In 2024, the former Damansara MP was investigated under the Sedition Act over comments on the Pardons Board’s decision involving Najib Razak, with police saying the posts could incite public disdain towards the royal institution.

DAP distanced itself then, noting that the views did not reflect the party’s position.

Yet the pattern persists.

Respect Keeps Us Connected

Malaysia does not need less debate.

It needs debate that understands what it is debating.

Criticising policy is one thing. Reducing centuries-old institutions to inconvenient relics is another.

The Rukun Negara itself begins with “Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan” and includes “Kesetiaan kepada Raja dan Negara” for a reason.

These were not written lightly. They were meant to hold the country together, not to be selectively invoked.

Traditions like this must endure — not because they are frozen in time, but because they continue to serve a purpose.

Respect is not submission.

It is recognition of what keeps us connected when politics threatens to pull us apart.

Lose that, and Malaysia does not become more modern.

It becomes more divided.

Daulat Tuanku. – NMH

The writer is the Vice-president of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

The post Tony Pua, the Constitution and the Monarchy: When Legalism Misses the Point first appeared on NMH.

The announcement of Barisan Nasional (BN) Johor to go solo and contest all 56 seats in the country’s southernmost state has reopened one of Malaysian politics’ oldest questions: can the coalition win on its own machinery and brand, or did its 2022 landslide victory depended on a single man now behind bars?

On 16 May 2026, Johor Menteri Besar Onn Hafiz Ghazi declared that BN would go it alone, framing it as “a clear offer to the people that we are ready to continue to form a stable, strong government and fully serve to the development of the state”. This was later followed up with a statement by the Barisan Nasional Hq.

The response from Pakatan Harapan (PH) was immediate.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said PH was prepared to contest all 56 seats too, and warned that a solo BN push amounted to “betrayal” of the federal unity government.

The 2022 Playbook Is Hard To Replicate

In March 2022, BN swept Johor with 40 of 56 seats on just 43% of the vote.

The victory was widely attributed to a mix of low turnout, a divided opposition, and what Umno leaders openly called the “Najib factor”.

Former Prime Minister Najib Razak campaigned heavily, and his social media reach helped mobilise rural Malay voters at a time when the party was battered nationally.

That advantage no longer exists. For now, at least.

Najib has been in prison since August 2022, and for now, BN cannot deploy him on the ground or as a campaign drawcard.

The party’s own acting president, Mohamad Hasan, acknowledged during the 2022 election run that Najib’s contributions were “significant” to BN’s wins.

Complicating things for PH are renewed reports that Najib may receive a full pardon on the King’s birthday.

Several foreign news agencies have reported speculation around the timing, though no official confirmation has been issued by Istana Negara.

If the pardon materialises before polling, the Najib factor remains and it would reintroduce the single variable that BN has been planning to campaign.

What’s Changed On The Ground

The arithmetic is different. In 2022, PN, Pejuang and Warisan split the anti-BN vote, letting BN win many seats with under 50%. With PH now planning a straight fight in all 56 seats, that split is unlikely to repeat.

DAP’s Ong Kian Ming says BN wants the poll to “build momentum for GE16”, but it faces a more consolidated PH. State chairman Aminolhuda Hassan has called to “bury” BN again. PH’s urban base remains intact and will argue for state-level checks on BN.

That leaves BN exposed. Defending its record without PH’s coattails while governing with PH in Putrajaya creates a contradiction.

As Anwar put it, “Do not threaten us or move toward betrayal”.

The Incumbency Edge Remains

BN is not starting from zero.

Onn Hafiz has cultivated a relatively clean, technocratic image, and Johor’s economy has shown resilience post-pandemic.

Analysts say the MB’s best asset in the absence of Najib is his personal standing.

Francis Hutchinson of ISEAS has previously observed that PH performs better when state and federal polls are held together; a standalone Johor election favours the incumbent.

Most Probable Outcome

BN will likely hold Johor, but it probably won’t repeat the 40-seat landslide it had in 2022, unless the pardon speculation turns into reality before polling day.

With PH now planning to contest all 56 seats alone and Najib currently off the campaign trail, BN would need to keep that same 43% vote share against a less divided opponent.

The expectation remains that BN stays in power, but with a smaller majority, barring a late political shift.

The real test is whether BN can prove it still has a narrative beyond personalities.

If it cannot, Johor 2026 may mark the end of the idea that Umno/BN can win nationally on nostalgia alone. – NMH

The writer is the Vice-president of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

The post Johor Polls: Can BN Win Big Without The Najib Factor? first appeared on NMH.

The latest split in PKR should surprise no one who has been watching the party since 2018.

On Sunday (17 May 2026), Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad announced they are quitting PKR, vacating their parliamentary seats.

The duo declared taking over Parti Bersama Malaysia (Bersama) as their new political vehicle.

Six other PKR MPs appeared alongside them at the launch. More may follow.

The split is personal as well as political. Rafizi’s resignation is effectively a break with Prime Minister and PKR President Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the man he once helped bring back to power.

The PKR Strategist

For years Rafizi was seen as Anwar’s strategist and heir apparent.

Rafizi’s departure, alongside Nik Nazmi, signals that the working relationship at the heart of PKR has collapsed.

When the former deputy president publicly says the party has abandoned its purpose, it undermines Anwar’s authority directly.

What is striking is not that two former ministers have left, but the reasons they gave for leaving.

Both argued that PKR has abandoned the very principles it was founded upon.

For a party that built its brand on integrity, accountability and institutional reform, that is a damning indictment from within when it comes from two men who were, until recently, at the heart of PKR’s leadership.

Rafizi was deputy president and economy minister. Nik Nazmi was vice-president and minister for natural resources and environmental sustainability.

If even they no longer believe in PKR’s direction, why should the public?

The End Of The Reformist Pretence

When Pakatan Harapan (PH) won in 2018, it did so on the promise of a “New Malaysia”.

Eight years on, the language remains, but the practice has changed.

Rafizi and Nik Nazmi have been the most consistent internal critics of that shift.

Since losing their party posts in May 2025, they have warned that PKR is increasingly reliant on fear-based narratives and elite bargaining rather than structural change.

Their decision to leave, and to frame it as a return to “basics”, confirms what many voters already suspect: the reformist agenda has been shelved in favour of staying in power.

This is not simply about personalities or internal party elections.

It is about whether PKR still has a coherent purpose beyond managing the status quo.

The evidence suggests it does not.

A Coalition Held Together by Convenience

PH today is less a political movement than an arrangement held together by Anwar’s premiership.

Remove the glue of his leadership, and the contradictions between PKR, DAP, Amanah and Umno/Barisan Nasional (BN) become impossible to ignore.

PKR, DAP and Amanah govern alongside Umno, a party they once vowed to replace.

The ideological contradictions are obvious, and they are becoming harder to paper over.

The creation of Bersama under Rafizi and Nik Nazmi is a direct response to that contradiction.

They argue that the reformist space cannot be occupied by a coalition that has absorbed the very practices it once condemned.

Whether Bersama succeeds electorally is a separate question.

What matters is that it exposes PKR’s central weakness: it no longer represents a clear alternative.

For BN, this moment is an opportunity to restate what it stands for.

BN’s record is not without fault, but it has always been a coalition built on stability, continuity and a clear federal structure.

Voters know what BN is. They know its constituent parties, its track record in government, and its approach to national unity and economic management.

In contrast, PH now looks like a collection of factions with no shared direction.

The Cost Of Political Fragmentation

The immediate parliamentary impact of these resignations is limited.

PH retains a comfortable majority in the Dewan Rakyat, and the Speaker will decide whether by-elections are called in Pandan and Setiawangsa.

But the longer-term risk is fragmentation of the political centre.

If more PKR MPs follow suit, PH will be hollowed out.

That would leave the coalition weaker, more dependent on its partners, and less able to set policy.

For voters, it means more instability and more horse-trading after the next general election.

BN has always argued that Malaysia needs a government with the mandate and discipline to make difficult decisions.

Reform cannot be delivered by a coalition that spends its time managing internal dissent and negotiating with partners who have fundamentally different objectives.

What This Means For GE16

The next general election will be fought on trust as much as on policy.

Can voters trust PH to deliver reform when its own coalition leaders say it has abandoned that path?

Can they trust a new party built around two former ministers to build a national platform from scratch?

Or will they look back to the coalition that, for all its flaws, provided decades of political and economic stability?

BN should not assume that PH’s problems translate automatically into BN gains. It should recognise that the political ground is shifting.

Many Malaysians who supported PH in 2018 are now disillusioned.

They are looking for a platform that is consistent, experienced and not defined by infighting.

BN has that platform. It has the machinery, the local presence and the record in government.

What BN needs now is the discipline to present a clear, forward-looking agenda that speaks to those disillusioned voters without indulging in the same blame politics that has paralysed PH.

The Bottom Line

The departure of Rafizi and Nik Nazmi is not just another PKR internal crisis.

It is a public break with Anwar and a public admission that the reformist project within PH has failed.

BN’s role is not to gloat, but to offer a credible alternative. Stability, national unity and pragmatic governance are not outdated ideas.

In a political environment defined by fracture and uncertainty, they are precisely what many Malaysians are looking for again.

If BN can articulate that message clearly and avoid the distractions of personality politics, GE16 will be a contest between a leadership that has lost its original purpose and one that remembers why it was built in the first place. – NMH

The writer is the Vice-president of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

The post PKR Fracture Proves the Reformasi Promise Was Never More Than a Slogan first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR – The Cabinet’s decision to allow Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) holders into public universities is being sold as a step towards inclusivity.

In reality, it is a shortcut that bypasses the standards and coherence of Malaysia’s national education system.

By admitting students on the basis of a pass in only two SPM subjects, the government risks normalising parallel qualifications that do not align with the curriculum meant to unify all Malaysians.

Undermining The National Syllabus

For decades, national education policy has placed Bahasa Melayu and a common Malaysian History syllabus at the core of nation-building.

The UEC, administered by Dong Zong, operates outside this framework, using Mandarin as the medium of instruction and a History syllabus focused on Chinese and East Asian history.

Admitting UEC holders without requiring full alignment with the national curriculum sets a precedent where alternative streams can bypass core national subjects yet still gain access to public universities.

This weakens the principle of a unified system and erodes the role of education in fostering a shared identity.

UEC – Unequal Academic Burden

Students in the national stream undertake STPM or Matriculation, both centrally governed and subject to standardised assessment.

UEC examinations are set and marked independently by Dong Zong.

Allowing UEC holders entry with only a pass in SPM Bahasa Melayu and History creates a two-tier structure.

STPM candidates face a heavier academic load with no assurance of better admission prospects, while matriculation students already benefit from a streamlined route.

Adding UEC as a third pathway with lighter requirements complicates admission and risks eroding perceptions of merit.

Concerns Over Equity and Cohesion

The policy also extends to graduates of Arabic schools, religious schools, tahfiz institutions and Malaysian students in international schools.

Framed as equal treatment, it lowers the entry threshold across multiple streams that do not follow the national syllabus.

For students who have studied within the national system, this may appear as a dilution of the standards expected of them.

As Umno deputy president Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan said, the education system “must be built in line with national aspirations” and “grounded in the national language” to strengthen identity.

“Until the UEC meets these criteria, it cannot be considered equivalent to national qualifications,” he said.

A Precedent For Fragmentation

The previous Barisan National government has long maintained that the UEC cannot be recognised for public university entry because it does not follow the national curriculum.

Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir has also said the SPM Bahasa Melayu and History requirement is “not yet a final decision” and requires further study across the education ecosystem.

Recognising qualifications that diverge significantly from the national curriculum without full alignment signals that core subjects are optional supplements rather than essential requirements.

Once such a precedent is set, maintaining a single standard becomes increasingly difficult.

If inclusivity is the objective, the fairest approach is to require full alignment with the national curriculum for any qualification seeking recognition for public university entry.

Anything less compromises academic standards and risks creating a system where the pathway matters more than the preparation.

In education, consistency is not exclusion; it is the foundation of fairness. – NMH

The writer is the Vice-president of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

The post UEC Recognition: A Shortcut That Undermines National Standards first appeared on NMH.

According to the U.S. Justice Department website, fugitive financier Jho Taek Low (Jho Low) has filed a request for a presidential pardon from Donald Trump.

While Jho Low is still at large, former Prime Minister Najib Razak is in Kajang Prison. That contrast alone tells you everything wrong with how the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) case has played out.

Jho Low is the man U.S. prosecutors call the architect of the $4.5 billion fraud that looted 1MDB. He was charged in 2018, fled, and has remained beyond the reach of Malaysian and U.S. law enforcement ever since.

Najib, by contrast, was tried, convicted, and is now serving time for corruption, money laundering and abuse of power tied to the same scandal.

Here is the problem: you cannot have a fair trial against the alleged beneficiary without the alleged mastermind in the room.

Jho Low This, Jho Low That, But Where Is He?

Throughout Najib’s trial in Malaysia, the prosecution’s narrative placed Jho Low at the centre of every transaction.

Tim Leissner, the former Goldman Sachs banker who pleaded guilty in the U.S., testified that Jho Low ran the scheme and invoked Najib’s authority to move the money.

Yet Jho Low never took the stand.

Malaysia maintains a Red Notice for Jho Low is active, but he is not listed publicly and remains at large.”

Najib was left to defend himself against accusations built around a man he could not cross-examine.

That matters. In any adversarial system, the right to confront your accuser and test the evidence is not a technicality. It is the mechanism that separates a conviction from a railroading.

When the central witness is absent, the court is forced to rely on second-hand accounts, emails and inferences about intent. That’s why there were boxes and boxes among the Prosecutors’ files with the title “Hearsay”.

Malaysian courts ultimately found that sufficient, but “sufficient” is not the same as “fair” when the person who could confirm or refute the entire chain of events remains beyond jurisdiction.

What Sentence?

The irony in Jho Low’s application is stark. He has filed for a “Pardon after Completion of Sentence” despite never having faced a sentence.

The DOJ lists the request as pending with no further details.

If granted, the pardon would extinguish U.S. charges and remove any legal incentive for him to ever return and testify.

It would permanently freeze the record in amber, with Najib convicted and Jho Low free.

That is not justice. It is closure by attrition.

A pardon in this case does not merely forgive Jho Low but validates the idea that fleeing jurisdiction and waiting out the news cycle is a viable legal strategy for the wealthy and connected.

Precedents

It tells every future white-collar fugitive that if you hold out long enough, you can negotiate your way out while your co-defendants take the fall.

Supporters will argue it is about Jho Low offering to return hundreds of millions if charges are dropped, but transactional clemency makes sense only when the trade actually serves justice.

Returning money does not restore the process that was denied to Najib, nor does it restore public confidence that the law applies equally.

If the U.S. is serious about the rule of law, it should deny the pardon and cooperate with Malaysia to bring Jho Low back.

The 1MDB saga will not be resolved by forgiving the man everyone agrees ran it.

It will only be resolved when he faces a courtroom and answers the questions Najib was never allowed to ask.

Until then, what we have is not a concluded case. It is a half-tried one, and a pardon would make sure it stays that way. – NMH

The writer is the Vice-president of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

Related articles:

Seven Years After Najib: The Lessons We Haven’t Learned

Black Day For Justice In Malaysia As Najib Begins Sentence

Jho Low Threatened Jasmine Loo Not To Return to Malaysia

The post A Jho Low Pardon Would Make A Mockery of Due Process in 1MDB Case first appeared on NMH.