Syed Saddiq’s “Inconceivable” Changes

Syed Saddiq's recent defense of Tun Mahathir Mohamad in the midst of the controversy surrounding the Pulau Batu Puteh Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) is both perplexing and hypocritical. The former Muda president and current Muar MP, known for his previous claims of integrity and youth-driven reform, now finds himself defending the very man whose leadership is largely blamed for the monumental failure over Batu Puteh. Saddiq’s insistence that Mahathir, a self-proclaimed "ultranationalist" and "ultra-Malay," could never have sided with Singapore on such a critical issue seems to ignore the overwhelming evidence presented by the RCI, which accused Mahathir of unilaterally dropping key legal applications regarding the 2008 International Court of Justice ruling, effectively handing the island over to Singapore.

It’s difficult to take Saddiq’s defense seriously, especially when considering his own checkered political record since the fall of Pakatan Harapan (PH) 1.0. Once touted as a beacon of hope for reform, Saddiq’s actions in recent years have revealed a more opportunistic side. His initial rise was largely due to his youthful image and promise to lead with transparency, yet his political career since then has been filled with contradictions. From aligning himself with Mahathir’s former allies to becoming embroiled in the internal conflicts of PH, Saddiq has repeatedly shifted positions, often to suit his political survival rather than any consistent principle. The defense of Mahathir is just another instance of this, as he seeks to align himself with the very figure who embodies the old guard of Malaysian politics that Saddiq once sought to dismantle.

The timing of Saddiq's statements also feels politically calculated. Just days after Mahathir's controversial position on Batu Puteh comes under scrutiny, Saddiq is embroiled in his own legal battles. He is currently appealing his conviction related to the misappropriation of Bersatu Youth funds, which includes charges of criminal breach of trust (CBT) and money laundering. It is hard to ignore the parallels between his defense of Mahathir and his own legal struggles—both cases rooted in allegations of wrongdoing that involve questionable judgment and a lack of accountability. Saddiq's recent petition to the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn his conviction, may highlight his belief that the legal system should be lenient, but his own actions in politics speak to a pattern of manipulation and self-interest.

Since the collapse of PH 1.0, Saddiq’s political trajectory has been marked by inconsistency, as he has sought to retain relevance in a rapidly shifting political landscape. His alignment with the very forces he once opposed, including Mahathir, signals a shift from youthful reformism to political pragmatism. This is a far cry from the ideals he once espoused when he championed transparency and accountability. Saddiq’s political actions and defense of Mahathir now raise serious questions about his commitment to the principles of reform, and whether his motivations are genuinely about improving Malaysia, or simply about securing his own future in a complex and often murky political environment.

Saddiq’s defense of Mahathir in this case, coupled with his own legal troubles, paints a troubling picture of a politician willing to compromise his principles for personal gain. Rather than challenging the status quo as he once promised, Saddiq appears to be settling comfortably within it, defending the very figures who have contributed to the political stagnation and corruption that Malaysians are so desperate to overcome. This does little to inspire confidence in his future political endeavors and further tarnishes his once-promising image as a champion of change.