Election is like a mirror that reveals the true nature of things…
Every time a general election approaches, the Najib issue gets dragged out and sensationalized again. “Voting for Barisan Nasional equals saving Najib.”
I only hope that the leader I met on 12 April 2026 at the second-hand clothing store in Masai Garden will still feel a shred of shame when he reads this article — assuming he still has any sense of shame left.
Many people say I betrayed the party. Many claim I left in a fit of anger just because my constituency was changed. But they don’t know the truth: my loss of trust in politics was never because of the constituency switch.
The conversation on 12 April 2026 was the final straw that destroyed whatever remaining faith I had in principles.
That day, I personally heard a leader who had always loudly criticized the Najib issue tell me:
“Based on Najib’s past contributions, letting him serve his sentence at home is not wrong.”
“We hope Najib receives a royal pardon only after the national election. If it happens before the election, the Chinese community’s trust in us will drop.” (They already knew very well what UMNO’s position was and how likely this was to happen. If Pakatan Harapan wins and Najib is then pardoned, the rice would already be cooked. Voters would have no choice but to accept it with tears, and there would be no need to resign from any positions.)
At that time, no one yet knew when the state election would be held, so of course no one was talking about it openly. It could be quietly swept under the rug.
This “leader” also discussed how they would handle the party’s special congress to avoid suspicion and regain the confidence of the Chinese community, and how they would resign if Najib received a pardon too early — while publicly stating that they would continue to support the existing federal government. To me, it all sounded like a carefully staged political performance. (Because they knew that by then the national election would be very close, so resigning as a minister wouldn’t hurt the party much, yet it would make them look like they had strong principles.)
Everything was done just to avoid a repeat of the voter backlash seen in the Sabah election.
But if UMNO in Johor had not been the first to declare they were unwilling to work with DAP, would this issue have been dug up so quickly and used as ammunition to attack the opposing camp? Or would it have remained hidden in the freezer, conveniently ignored?
For four years, they have been fully aware of UMNO’s stance on the Najib issue.
If DAP truly believes this is an uncompromising red line, why have they continued for four years to hope for and pursue cooperation with Barisan Nasional?
Johor was never part of the Unity Government. Without that burden, and if there really was an uncompromising principle, Johor should have been the most logical, most suitable, and first state to sever ties with UMNO. Yet right up until the Johor state election, Pakatan Harapan leaders at all levels were still actively seeking cooperation with Barisan Nasional and hoping to continue the alliance. They were the ones who initiated the partnership, but now they paint their cooperation partner as unacceptable. Is this principle, or is it just political expediency?
After the leader left, I immediately called my team members who were in the shop for a meeting. I admit, maybe I really don’t understand politics. Maybe I’m too naive.
But I couldn’t help asking: Has manipulating voters’ trust really become just another political strategy? Is my perspective too small, or has deception simply become the norm in politics?
I told the team what happened because I wanted to hear their thoughts. To me, politics is a platform. But my relationship with the residents in the community has long been like family. If one day the uncles and aunties who have always treated me like their own child come to my office, angrily questioning me about the Najib issue and losing trust in us… what should I do? Pretend I don’t know? But I do know!
Anyone who has visited my office knows that we serve everyone — regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. That’s why, when I met another leader again on 17 May, my answer was simple:
“Whatever decision is made, I will discuss it with my team first.”
Yet some people still say: Marina was misled by the people around her.
You don’t understand my team at all. My team members are not vested interests. They have never asked me for anything. If anything, I am the one who owes them. They are night market vendors, painters, single mothers, and people battling anxiety disorders. Some of them originally came to the office seeking help, and later chose to become volunteers.
When political elders portrayed me everywhere as lazy and incompetent, it was they who stood by me. When outsiders said my office was always closed, it was they who responded with action to those smears. When the top leadership turned a blind eye to factionalism, it was they who stood with me to answer the doubts.
Before making the biggest decision of my life — to completely withdraw from politics — I also met another Malay leader on 20 May. I had hoped to hear different perspectives, but what I heard instead was talk about party positions and the distribution of power, and who had been given GLC positions…
He admitted in front of me that he felt he was just a “token” in the party. He complained that the party was always pessimistic about leaders from certain communities. He complained that although he held a fairly high position, he was often excluded from important decisions and discussions. There were even leaders who would sarcastically say things like, “If Marina hadn’t withdrawn from the party election back then…”
The pitiful often have despicable sides. The same person later publicly mocked me on social media after I announced my retirement. I just want to ask: Do you really feel no shame at all?
In my official letter to the party declining to contest again, the last sentence I wrote was: I hope that, as leaders, we never forget why voters gave us their trust in the first place.
In the past, when others did this, we said it was wrong. Today, when we do the same thing… it suddenly becomes acceptable? Or does it mean that so-called principles actually change depending on who is involved? If that’s the case, isn’t that simply a double standard?
Also, Akmal was not new to Barisan Nasional, UMNO, or his role as a state executive councillor in Melaka. If UMNO had not drawn that clear line first, would the narrative “Voting for XX = Voting for Akmal” even have appeared?
Often, what’s truly frightening is not which side you stand on, but how your position keeps shifting with the political winds — while you continue to package it, rationalize it, and even mislead and incite the people to support your so-called “bigger picture.”
You can say I lack vision. You can say I lack experience. But what you call the “bigger picture” is often nothing more than a carefully constructed narrative by politicians. It exploits people’s sense of justice, their emotions, and their trust, making everyone believe this is the only correct choice.
The real bigger picture is simply this: “You (the people) are the chess pieces, but I (the politician) am the one moving them on the board.”
Source : Marina Ibrahim
