.jpg)
In Malaysian politics, being a target is almost a job requirement. But if you know the hunters are watching, perhaps it is time to stop making their work easier.
By Mihar Dias October 2026
Malaysian politicians are being watched, tracked, recorded and exposed. Former minister Rafizi Ramli has denounced what he calls “gutter politics” in the Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad khalwat controversy. According to Rafizi, Nik Nazmi was tracked for months with a hidden GPS device, while CCTV footage was leaked to provoke public outrage. https://focusmalaysia.my/rafizi-denounces-gutter-politics-in-the-nik-nazmi-khalwat-case/
If accurate, these allegations raise serious questions about surveillance, privacy and the misuse of information. Who installed the device, obtained the footage and released it—and why? These questions deserve investigation, not merely political finger-pointing.
But another question also matters: If you know you are being targeted, why make yourself such an easy target?
This is not a defence of spying, entrapment or public humiliation. Politicians do not surrender their right to privacy, and being photographed or recorded does not establish wrongdoing. The allegations must be investigated; guilt cannot be determined by social media or political opponents.
Yet politicians voluntarily enter a profession in which their conduct, judgment and associations face far greater scrutiny than those of ordinary citizens. They seek the microphone, ministerial car and authority to tell millions how to live, but some seem surprised when the public examines how they live themselves.
Welcome to the fishbowl
Rafizi says he has spent two decades fighting gutter politics and that politicians across PKR, UMNO and other parties have faced similar attacks. https://focusmalaysia.my/rafizi-denounces-gutter-politics-in-the-nik-nazmi-khalwat-case/
That history makes the lesson clear: when surveillance, leaks and character assassination are known risks, prudence is part of the job. A politician who may be watched should consider where he goes, whom he meets and what circumstances he creates. This is not an endorsement of fear, but an acknowledgment of the environment.
A bank director expects audits. A judge knows impartiality must be both real and visible. A journalist knows a private conversation may become tomorrow’s headline. A politician should know that an unfortunate encounter can be turned into a national scandal.
In politics, innocence may be a legal defence. It is not always an effective public-relations strategy.
The enemy does not need to invent a scandal
The most effective smear may involve a genuine event stripped of context. A recording can be authentic but selectively edited; a photograph can be real but incomplete; CCTV can show an encounter without revealing what came before or after.
The public must therefore distinguish evidence from interpretation, allegations from established facts, and legitimate scrutiny from deliberate humiliation.
Politicians, however, must understand that a leaker need not prove their opponents are saints. The leaker only needs to persuade the public that the target is not the person he claimed to be. By the time the target is explaining himself before the cameras, the political damage may already be done.
Private morality, public responsibility
Rafizi distinguishes private conduct, which he regards as a matter between an individual and God, from public accountability when personal conduct conflicts with public expectations. https://focusmalaysia.my/rafizi-denounces-gutter-politics-in-the-nik-nazmi-khalwat-case/
Politicians are entitled to private lives, and not every personal failing should disqualify someone from office. But public office carries obligations beyond legal compliance. Integrity, judgment, credibility and responsibility matter because politicians exercise power on behalf of others.
The issue is not whether politicians must be morally perfect. It is whether their conduct compromises their duties, contradicts standards they impose on others, or raises legitimate questions about abuse of power, conflicts of interest, coercion or hypocrisy.
The public deserves answers when public responsibilities are implicated. It does not automatically acquire a licence to inspect every bedroom.
An apology is not a time machine
Rafizi commended Nik Nazmi for apologising to his family and noted that Bersama suspended him for three months. Those actions may show an attempt to take responsibility, but they do not settle the facts, applicable rules or circumstances.
An apology cannot reverse an event, and a suspension cannot erase a headline. Political parties often treat disciplinary announcements as fire extinguishers: suspend a leader, issue a statement and hope the controversy disappears before the next election. Public confidence does not operate on a three-month timetable.
If a party takes accountability seriously, it must apply its standards consistently, explain its decisions where appropriate and avoid treating discipline as a temporary public-relations exercise.
The larger issues
Four broader principles emerge.
First, if surveillance is being used to intimidate political figures, it threatens everyone. The alleged tracking device and release of CCTV footage warrant a credible investigation, especially if official access to surveillance material was abused.
Second, political parties must distinguish loyalty from protection. Damaging material should neither be accepted uncritically nor dismissed automatically as a conspiracy. The facts must be established and the rules applied fairly.
Third, the public must become more discerning consumers of scandal. Rapidly circulating footage is not proof of accuracy or completeness. Citizens who demand accountability should also demand evidence.
Finally, politicians must recognise that personal judgment is part of public leadership. They cannot eliminate every risk or surrender their privacy, but they can avoid unnecessary exposure, recognise hostile environments and understand that opponents may weaponise a private moment.
This is not victim-blaming. Responsibility for unlawful surveillance or malicious disclosure belongs to those who engage in it. Responsibility for one’s own decisions, however, cannot always be outsourced to one’s enemies.
Rafizi is right to condemn gutter politics if that is what occurred. Nobody should be tracked, entrapped or publicly humiliated for political gain.
But every politician who believes he is being hunted should remember: condemning the hunters will not necessarily protect him, nor will his party always save him. The public may not carefully distinguish between the person he is and the image his opponents create.
You may not be able to stop your enemies from watching you. But you can stop giving them unnecessary reasons to press the record button.
After all, politics is already a circus. There is no need for politicians to volunteer as the next act.
Mihar Dias (mihardias@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.
