When Mahathir Mohamad recently warned that Malay unity is collapsing under the weight of political fragmentation, he was not merely offering commentary — he was issuing a diagnosis of a crisis he claims now defines the Malay political condition.
“Today… several parties were formed. This has divided the Malays. They compete among themselves. It is impossible for any of them to win,” he said. He went even further: “Who is at fault? The Malays are at fault,” he wrote in a Facebook post.
On the surface, this appears like a blunt, even uncomfortable truth. Malay politics is fragmented. The once-dominant axis of United Malays National Organisation has splintered into multiple competing centres — Parti Islam Se-Malaysia, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia, People's Justice Party, and a host of smaller outfits. Electoral competition has become intra-Malay, not just inter-ethnic.
But what Mahathir presents as a neutral observation is, in reality, a deeply selective reading of history.
Because if Malay politics today is fractured, it did not fracture itself.
It was fractured — repeatedly, decisively, and often irreversibly — through political conflicts in which Mahathir was not a bystander, but the central actor.
The Pattern of Division
Mahathir’s political career is often framed as one of strength and vision. Less frequently acknowledged is the consistent pattern that underlies it: confrontation over compromise.
He did not merely inherit a unified Malay political structure — he inherited one of the most cohesive ruling coalitions in the postcolonial world. Under Tunku Abdul Rahman and later Hussein Onn, the first and third leader of UMNO and prime minister of Malaysia, UMNO functioned not just as a party, but as a unifying vehicle for Malay political expression.
Mahathir changed that dynamic.
His fallout with Tunku and Hussein Onn was not ideological evolution — it was political rupture. By the late 1980s, this rupture culminated in the UMNO split, where even former prime ministers aligned themselves against him. This was not merely a factional disagreement; it was the first major crack in the edifice of Malay political unity.
And it did not end there.
Mahathir’s clashes with Musa Hitam and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah further entrenched divisions within UMNO. These were not marginal figures — they were among the most capable leaders of their generation. Their exit from the party was not inevitable; it was precipitated, “largely due to Dr Mahathir’s heavy-handed style of governance.”
The Anwar Break — A Point of No Return
If the 1980s split was the first fracture, the 1998 crisis was the breaking point.
Mahathir’s confrontation with Anwar Ibrahim did not just remove a deputy — it birthed an entirely new political movement.
Anwar was not just any subordinate. He was deputy prime minister, heir apparent, and a figure with significant grassroots appeal. Yet Mahathir’s response to their disagreement was not accommodation, but elimination.
Anwar was sacked, publicly humiliated, assaulted while in custody, and imprisoned.
The consequences were historic.
The Reformasi movement emerged not as a minor protest, but as a mass political awakening. From it came PKR — a party that would permanently alter the structure of Malaysian politics. For the first time, a significant segment of the Malay electorate broke away from UMNO not due to external pressure, but internal revolt.
This was not fragmentation by accident. It was fragmentation by design — or at the very least, by decision.
From UMNO Collapse to Systemic Fragmentation
Mahathir’s defenders might argue that whatever divisions he caused were contained within UMNO.
But that argument collapses when one examines his actions after stepping down.
His campaign against Abdullah Ahmad Badawi contributed directly to Abdullah’s resignation. His subsequent war against Najib Razak went even further.
Mahathir did not simply oppose Najib — he aligned himself with opposition forces, including those he had previously demonised, to bring down UMNO itself.
The result was the 2018 election — the first time UMNO lost federal power.
It was a historic victory. But it was not a unifying one.
Instead, it marked the full transition from a dominant-party system to a fragmented multi-polar one. Malay political power was no longer concentrated; it was dispersed across competing blocs.
And once again, Mahathir was at the centre of that transformation.
The Sheraton Move and After
Even Mahathir’s return to power did not restore unity.
His fallout with Muhyiddin Yassin triggered the Sheraton Move — a political realignment that collapsed the Pakatan Harapan government.
It is worth recalling a key point often overlooked: Mahathir himself resigned. As critics have noted, “no one from Pakatan attempted to oust him… he chose to resign.”
Yet today, he attributes the resulting instability to others.
This pattern — act, trigger division, and then assign blame externally — has become a defining feature of Mahathir’s political legacy.
Blaming the Malays
Which brings us back to his recent statement.
“Who is at fault? The Malays are at fault.”
This is not just a diagnosis. It is a deflection.
Because it transforms a historically traceable series of political decisions into a vague cultural failing. It shifts responsibility from leadership to the masses, from agency to abstraction.
It is also strategically convenient.
There is an old saying: when a theft is discovered, the thief shouts “thief” the loudest to deflect suspicion.
Mahathir’s rhetoric fits this pattern. By blaming Malays collectively, he dilutes the role of individual actors — including himself — in producing the very fragmentation he now condemns.
Unity, or Control?
Mahathir insists that unity is paramount. “United we stand, divided we fall,” he reminds us.
But unity, in his political practice, has often meant something more specific: unity under him.
Time and again, when faced with rivals he could not control — whether Anwar, Razaleigh, or even Muhyiddin — the outcome was not reconciliation, but rupture.
This raises an uncomfortable question: was the goal ever unity itself, or was it dominance disguised as unity?
Because true unity requires compromise. It requires accepting limits, sharing power, and sometimes even stepping aside.
On this, Mahathir’s record is far less convincing.
The Final Irony
Today, at the twilight of his political life, Mahathir calls for Malays to unite.
But unity cannot be built on selective memory.
It cannot be achieved by ignoring the of that produced the current landscape. Nor can it emerge from narratives that blame the many while absolving the few.
If anything, Malay disunity is not a sudden crisis — it is the cumulative result of decades of , many of which bear Mahathir’s imprint.
This does not make him the sole cause. But it makes him an unavoidable one.
And that is the irony.
The man who now warns that Malay unity is at stake is also the man who, more than most, shaped the conditions under which that unity collapsed.
Until that contradiction is acknowledged, calls for unity will remain hollow.
Because before Malays can unite, they must first confront the truth.
And the truth is this: division did not simply happen to them.
It was done — step by step, conflict by conflict — by the very leaders who now ask them to forget.
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.