Mahathir Set The Scene For Muhyiddin

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s accusation that Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin misappropriated party funds is not an act of accountability; it is quite literally arson by the house’s architect. Coming from the man who presided over the systematic erosion of institutional transparency for more than two decades, the allegation exposes not Muhyiddin’s alleged wrongdoing, but Mahathir’s enduring refusal to accept responsibility for the political culture he himself designed and normalised.



Mahathir governed Malaysia during the very period when opaque party financing, blurred boundaries between state and party resources, and patronage-driven loyalty became the organising principles of power. Cronyism was not an aberration of his era; it was a governing method. Political survival depended on proximity to power, access to state-linked capital, and loyalty to the centre. Figures like Muhyiddin did not emerge despite this system - they were shaped by it. Mahathir did not merely tolerate such practices; he set the example.

Under his leadership, institutions that might have checked abuse were systematically weakened. The judiciary was subdued, executive authority centralised, and internal party democracy hollowed out. Political disputes were resolved not through process, but through dominance. These were not unintended consequences of strong leadership; they were deliberate tools of control. To now posture as a crusader for probity is not just hypocritical - it insults public memory and attempts to sever cause from consequence.



Worse, Mahathir’s public attack shatters the myth of “Malay unity” that he continues to invoke when politically expedient. The unity he advocates has never been institutional or principled; it has always been hierarchical, conditional on obedience to his authority. When protégés operate within the rules he established, they are tolerated. When they break free or outgrow his control, they are delegitimised.

The Mahathir–Muhyiddin clash also lays bare the stagnation of Malay politics under Mahathir’s prolonged influence. Rather than enabling generational transition or institutional maturation, Mahathir has ensured that Malay political discourse remains trapped in an endless loop of recycled personalities, recycled grievances, and recycled power struggles. Younger Malaysians are not disillusioned because politics is inherently messy; they are disillusioned because it never evolves.

There is a deeper cynicism at play. Mahathir’s accusations arrive not through legal channels or institutional review, but as political theatre. This pattern is familiar: morality is invoked selectively, accountability demanded only of enemies, and silence maintained when allies benefit. It is the same discretionary moral framework that defined his years in power, now repurposed for opposition politics.

If Mahathir truly believed in reform, his final political chapter would have been devoted to rebuilding institutions he once weakened and creating space for leadership beyond himself. Instead, he continues to dominate discourse, fracture opposition efforts, and undermine any chance of genuine renewal. He demands accountability from successors without acknowledging that they are, in many ways, his political offspring.

At this point, the greatest obstacle to Malay political coherence is not ideological difference - it is Mahathir’s refusal to exit. His legacy is no longer one of leadership, but of prolonged obstruction. Malay politics cannot heal until it stops mistaking the architect of its dysfunction for its moral arbiter, and until it recognises that the past cannot be both the problem and the solution.