What does Bersama’s reluctance to address Zahid Hamidi imply?

Question

Accepted Answer

Bersama’s reluctance to address Zahid Hamidi implies it is avoiding a clear, contrite stance on past political compromises rather than confronting them directly.

Bersama is described as wanting to “deal with the Zahid question” “by not,” meaning it avoids addressing the issue instead of taking a position. The text also says it is highly unlikely Rafizi Ramli could admit it was wrong not to pursue the Akal Budi case, or to be contrite about the past. In that framing, Bersama cannot “surge in the present” without admitting its leaders’ complicity in political compromises, which is characterised as “shockingly unethical.”
It avoids taking a direct position on the Akal Budi case
The discussion points to Zahid Hamidi being chairman and notes BN is “very happy” that he is not made to complete his defence in the Akal Budi case involving 47 corruption charges. Against that backdrop, the text states that Bersama’s approach to the “Zahid question” is explicitly “By not,” rather than engaging the matter publicly. This avoidance is presented as a deliberate choice rather than an inability to comment.
It is portrayed as unwilling to admit past complicity
The text argues Bersama cannot build momentum without the fortitude to admit its leaders’ “complicity” in political compromises. It labels this as “shockingly unethical,” tying the claim to a moral standard that the party is said to be failing to meet. The emphasis is on an absence of forthright acknowledgement, not merely a lack of campaign messaging.
It is described as unable to show contrition from Rafizi and Nik Nazmi
The passage says Rafizi is unlikely to say it was wrong not to pursue the case, and also unlikely to express contrition about the past. It further adds that Zahid is not the only mistake Rafizi “actively participated in,” stating Nik Nazmi also did. The text then claims Bersama’s path to the top requires cleansing their previous roles through being remorseful “at least.”
Its stated “kamikaze” ethos is framed as not being acted on
The text says Bersama announces a “kamikaze ethos” but “do not dare embrace in action,” linking the reluctance on Zahid to a broader pattern of not matching stated spirit with behaviour. It also uses the metaphor of a “high moral horse” needing an occupant, saying no one is brave enough to mount the saddle. In this portrayal, refusing to address Zahid becomes evidence of that gap between rhetoric and action.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What does Bersama’s reluctance to address Zahid Hamidi imply?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends