Skip to main content

Why Mahathir Was Right About Anwar?

In the fog of Malaysian politics, few alliances have been as dramatic and fraught as that between Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim. Once mentor and protégé, turned bitter enemies, then uneasy allies but their dynamic has profoundly shaped Malaysia’s political landscape over the past few decades.

Since 1998, I had been a supporter of Anwar Ibrahim, even when it was risky to do so. I believed in his cause and his message of reform and justice. At a time when speaking up for Anwar could attract unwanted attention, I persisted because I was convinced, he was the change Malaysia needed.

However, in recent years particularly since late 2022, my perception has shifted dramatically. I have witnessed Anwar's leadership firsthand, and it has been both disappointing and disheartening. The reformist image that once inspired millions now appears hollow, muddled by political compromises, indecisiveness, and a lack of real transformation.

For the first time, I truly understand why Dr Mahathir was so reluctant to appoint Anwar as his successor not once, but twice. While I continue to disagree with many of Mahathir's policies and authoritarian tendencies, I now appreciate the reasoning behind his hesitation. What once seemed like political sabotage now looks more like calculated pragmatism.

The first major rift between Mahathir and Anwar emerged during the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997–1998. Anwar, then Deputy Prime Minister, advocated for austerity measures and IMF involvement. Mahathir vehemently opposed both, opting instead for capital controls and homegrown economic remedies.

Their conflicting visions culminated in Anwar's dismissal, followed by his arrest and a highly publicized trial that drew international condemnation. At the time, I viewed Mahathir's actions as the ruthless suppression of a genuine reformer.

Today, I see a more complex picture. The clash was not just personal or ideological; it was a fundamental disagreement on how best to navigate crisis. Mahathir saw Anwar as inexperienced and politically impatient, a risk to stability at a critical juncture.

Their reconciliation in 2018 ahead of GE14 shocked many. Pakatan Harapan's victory over Barisan Nasional was historic, and Mahathir once again became Prime Minister under a promise that he would eventually hand over the reins to Anwar.

Yet, Mahathir never set a firm date. Some called this betrayal. But in hindsight, it was caution. The PH coalition was fragile, and Mahathir likely feared that a premature transition to Anwar would fracture it. Indeed, it collapsed anyway in 2020, and the resulting Sheraton Move plunged Malaysia into another political crisis.

Viewed through this lens, Mahathir’s delay wasn't petty but it was strategic. He knew Anwar's support in Parliament was weak and inconsistent. He feared that handing over power would trigger chaos. Sadly, his fears were not unfounded.

Fast forward to Anwar’s long-awaited premiership in late 2022. The expectations were enormous. Malaysians who had long hoped for a reformist government believed their time had come. Yet the early months of his leadership quickly eroded that hope.

From controversial judicial decisions, such as the DNAA for Deputy PM Zahid Hamidi, to the apparent stagnation in anti-corruption efforts, it became increasingly clear that Anwar's governance was built more on political survival than reform.

These compromises though arguably necessary to maintain his fragile coalition but shattered the image of Anwar as a principled reformer. Many of us who championed his cause for over two decades felt a profound sense of betrayal.

Economic mismanagement has only compounded this disillusionment. Cost of living has skyrocketed, and ordinary Malaysians are feeling the strain. Despite months of promises, the government’s much-anticipated relief initiatives remain delayed.

As of July 2025, there is still no comprehensive policy in place to ease inflationary pressures or address wage stagnation. Anwar’s administration appears caught between trying to appease various coalition partners and delivering meaningful economic solutions.

The resulting indecision has bred frustration, not just among the elite or political commentators, but among everyday citizens who once believed he would be different.

In retrospect, Mahathir’s reluctance now appears grounded in experience. He had worked closely with Anwar. He had seen his temperament, political instincts, and judgment up close. While Mahathir’s critics, myself included once labelled him paranoid or jealous, I now suspect he was simply pragmatic.

Leadership is not just about charisma or eloquence; it's about governing effectively, building consensus, and making hard decisions in the nation’s interest. Anwar may have had the heart, but increasingly, it appears he lacks the machinery and willpower to bring about real reform.

This doesn’t mean Mahathir’s own record is spotless. Far from it. His time in power saw the centralization of authority, weakening of democratic institutions, and the imprisonment of dissenters.

Yet, in this specific matter, the question of Anwar’s readiness for leadership - he might have been right. His hesitation was not purely personal; it was based on political and institutional calculation. And with each passing month under Anwar's premiership, that calculation appears more and more prescient.

The political ramifications of this could be severe. As GE16 approaches, dissatisfaction with the current administration is likely to grow. Anwar’s coalition may find itself punished by voters who feel let down and disillusioned.

Malaysians are a forgiving people, but they are not infinitely patient. If the promised reforms fail to materialize and if the cost of living continues to rise, it won’t just be Anwar who pays the price, but the broader reformist movement itself.

Looking back on my own journey from idealistic supporter to sceptical observer, I now realize that politics is often less about ideals and more about execution.

I once believed that Anwar was Malaysia’s best hope. Perhaps he still can be. But hope alone cannot lead a country. Action, courage, and competence must follow.

And if these remain absent, then Mahathir’s decision to withhold power from Anwar will not only be justified but it will be vindicated.

Kuala Lumpur.

20.7.2025

© All rights reserved.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Constitution of Malaysia: An Introduction Part 5

7 (1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed. (2) A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a retrial ordered by a court superior to that by which he was acquitted or convicted.

Brexit: A lesson for Malaysians

Yesterday, Britons through a referendum made a decision to leave European Union. The ruling Conservative Party divided on this referendum and David Cameron in favour of ‘Remain’ was defeated outright. Even though he is disagreed with the decision of Britons, he announced that he is resigning from his premiership in respect of people’s decision. We can expect in a mature democracy country like United Kingdom this is vastly anticipated to be transpired.   A few days ago, the current Chief Commissioner of Malaysian Anti-Corruption of Commission made a statement that he is stepping down from his position and there are some rumours indicating that a few prominent officers from the said Commission will either resign or retire. It’s very eccentric news for Malaysians as it will have a profound impact on bribery and corruption issues in Malaysia as a whole. Recently, the results of two by elections were won by Barisan Nasional, the ruling party of Malaysia. Many promises had been...

Two Tales, Two Leaders - PART 1

Man has dual nature; he is both his own person and a member of his country. On the one hand, the law must protect the individual from the injustices of the multitude.  History has shown how individuals fall prey to mass perversity, their crime being simply a refusal to conform to the beliefs and prejudices of the majority. Anwar Ibrahim, The Asian Renaissance, 1997., Page 63. The value system and ethical code therefore determine the success or failure of corrective measures. If the value system is wrong, corrective measures will not be productive or will be only slightly productive. When the value system motivates, very little corrective measures are needed. Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma, 1970., Pages 172-173. Introduction Malaysia is our motherland. We love our country. This country has so much of wealth. Even though, Malaysia has agonized considerably in past three decades because of the malpractices of the corrupted characters but she is never fail t...