Actually, truth be told, given the UK’s centuries-old democracy, short serving PM’s are quite common and bound to occur, unlike that of Malaysia’s 6 decades
IN THE spirit of the Commonwealth and Westminster, Tan Sri Mahiaddin Md Yassin and for that matter, caretaker Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob, can derive some cold comfort that they will not suffer the ignominy of being the shortest serving prime ministers (PMs).
After all, they served the nation’s highest office for 17 and 14 months respectively which, compared to their UK counterpart Liz Truss’ six weeks, the Malaysians’ tenure seems like a life time.
Mahiaddin was ungraciously ousted while Ismail Sabri opted to cut short his term by calling an early poll, obviously with the belief that he will be named as Umno/BN’s PM candidate for the 15th General Election.
Actually, truth be told, given the UK’s centuries-old democracy, short-serving PM’s are quite common and bound to occur, unlike that of Malaysia’s six decades.
The short terms of PMs of the current term — three since 2018, are unprecedented in the nation’s political history, just as unprecedented as the ruling Umno/Barisan Nasional (BN) being ousted for the first time since independence.
The frequency in the changes of PMs in a single term is associated with instability and, Umno/BN had latched on to it, offering stability as one of its key campaign propaganda.
The way it is being done is that if voters do not want another term of instability, vote for Umno/BN.
Ironically, what is not being told is that all the instability started with Umno/BN which were incapable of sorting out the nation’s anger towards the 1MDB scandal and defending their indefensible president Mohd Najib Razak.
In fact, if Umno/BN had heeded public outrage over the international infamy, the possibility of them not losing the government would have been very possible.
Prior to the formation of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition, Umno leaders, former president Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Mahiaddin, the then Deputy Prime Minister and deputy president and Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal, then Umno VP Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir then Kedah Mentri Besar, as well as other party leaders and members from all levels and positions, had voiced their concern.
Attempts to get Umno to step up and resolve the scandal from within was ignored and instead, all efforts were directed at punishing those who spoke up, their protagonists were treated as enemy of the party and not the voices of conscience.
These stalwarts were painted as dissidents and when their efforts to get the party gets back on track failed, and in fact, some were even sacked, they formed Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia which later formed the PH coalition.
If Umno had managed to get Najib to take a step back, agreed to allow the 1MDB to be scrutinised and remedial efforts were taken to stop the plundering and leakage amounting to billion, Bersatu would not have been formed.
For that matter, there would probably be no PH and Dr Mahathir would not have been the PM.
Of course, all this is now moot but the crux of the matter is that the instability originated from Umno/BN which chose to ignore public concern, which turned into outrage and instead, stood by a leader who was not jailed and consequently gained international disrepute as a plundering idiot.
That was the beginning.
The second stage was the inability of Umno/BN leaders to take the cue from the public rejection for their defending of the kleptocrats.
Despite Najib stepping down and Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi taking garden leave, the party was eventually back into the control of the leaders who led the party’s downfall.
In other words, Umno did not change and was not prepared to change. It then started working on fissures within PH arising from differences in political philosophy and priorities, resulting from the marriage of convenience.
The PH was also not devoid of guilt as intra-party bickering, inter-party backstabbing and ambitious personalities, created the window for Umno to sow further discord and riding on the Malay/Muslim cause which it claimed to have been trivialised under PH rule.
Then the Sheraton Move occurred and Umno were prepared to just be the backers and allowed Mahiaddin to take lead.
When its demands and expectations were not met, Umno showed its true colours and dumped Mahiaddin unceremoniously while placing their own vice-president Ismail Sabri as the other two senior leaders were unsuitable.
By then, Umno too is a fractious force as some of its Members of Parliament had decided to abandon ship, joining Bersatu, which in effect diluting the party’s bargaining power.
Despite that, the memorandum of understanding signed with the Opposition pertaining to the confidence and supply agreement was supposed to stop the PM from being under perpetual threat of losing the majority in parliament as what had happened with Mahiaddin.
And some semblance of stability did prevail as the nation struggled to get to its feet after the devastating effect of the pandemic.
While the nation grapple to regain their focus and direction, Umno went on overdrive to pressure Ismail Sabri to call for an early poll even if it meant that it was during the monsoon and flood season.
This came after successfully affecting polls and successfully winning them in Melaka and Johor. Believing that the tide is on their side, Umno did not want to lose the momentum regardless whether the nation was stabilising or otherwise.
The important thing was to win the poll even if the voters turnout is low as witnessed in the two state polls.
Along the way, either through sheer stupidity or arrogance, the Umno leaders revealed that if they did not win the polls, several more of their leaders are in line to be charged for various financial misdeeds.
When that was revealed, public opinion, which was never really for Umno, swung further against them.
Alas, stability is actually an out-of-jail card.
Shamsul Akmar is the editor of The Malaysian Reserve.
RELATED ARTICLES




Candidate of GRS party with most seats to be chief minister – Ahmad Zahid

