Harapan's Twenty-Two Months: Why the First Term Was Never Stable

After the first change of government, the people quickly discovered an unromantic fact.

Opening a filing cabinet is easier than dismantling an entire old system.

Pakatan Harapan took power carrying the "Buku Harapan." That manifesto listed sixty promises, covering governance, anti-corruption, cost of living, education, youth, women, Sabah and Sarawak, and institutional reform. It was like an invoice, telling voters: give us power, and we will deliver these items. ^1,2

In May 2018, voters indeed gave it to them.

Then, the second test began.

Clarifying What Was Actually Done#

One cannot say Pakatan Harapan did nothing during its twenty-two months.

Old accounts such as 1MDB and Tabung Haji were re-examined, and powerful figures from the previous administration began facing investigations. Parliamentary reform, electoral reform, and institutional transparency were also placed on the agenda. ^1,3,2

The clearest institutional achievement was Parliament's passing of the constitutional amendment in 2019 lowering the voting age to eighteen and implementing automatic voter registration. What it changed was not a press conference, but who was qualified to enter the electoral roll in the next general election. ^2,4

But what a reform government fears most is not having zero results.

It is having results while supporters still feel they are too slow, and opponents have already framed every step of reform as a threat.

The First Rock: ICERD#

ICERD is the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination."

Supporters viewed it as an ordinary human rights commitment. Opponents linked it to Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, the special position of the Malays, and Bumiputera policies. A subsequent booklet by UN Malaysia recorded that, after the controversy escalated, the cabinet decided on November 23, 2018, not to ratify ICERD. ^1,6

Pause here.

The problem was not just an international convention.

The problem was that Pakatan Harapan did not first settle the most sensitive domestic political math: which clauses would not be touched, which policies needed to be retained, which discrimination had to be changed, and who had the authority to give a credible explanation to rural Malay voters.

When the explanation arrived late, the opposition provided theirs first.

They said: The new government wants to dismantle the position of the Malays.

This statement may not have been accurate, but it was highly effective.

The Second Rock: Rome Statute#

On March 4, 2019, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Malaysia acceded to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Officials stated this was a commitment to combating serious international crimes and supporting global peace and security. ^7,5

A month later, the government backed down.

An RSIS analysis placed this event within the context of domestic political pressure: the role of the royalty, opposition mobilization, Malay political suspicions, and Pakatan Harapan's communication missteps compounded to turn a diplomatic legal issue into a test of the domestic regime's legitimacy. ^3,5

Technically, ICERD and the Rome Statute are not the same thing.

Politically, they fused into the same question in voters' ears: Which side is this new government actually standing on?

Every time Pakatan Harapan took a step back, its supporters were disappointed.

Every time Pakatan Harapan explained its steps, opponents asked: If there is no problem, why did you retreat?

The Longest Shadow: Mahathir and Anwar#

There was an even more difficult question.

When would Mahathir hand over power to Anwar?

The 2018 arrangement allowed two old enemies to temporarily stand on the same side. But the arrangement was not written with an indisputable date. Mahathir's supporters worried that if Anwar took over too quickly, it would change the government's direction; Anwar's supporters worried the "transition" would turn into another delay. Later ISEAS research referred to this as the unrealized Mahathir-Anwar transitions. ^1,3

This was not simply a personal grudge.

If a government does not know who the next prime minister will be, every policy debate has an extra layer of calculation: Is this reform helping the current PM, or his successor? Is this minister loyal to the coalition, or loyal to a specific side in the future?

Consequently, Pakatan Harapan's time was cut in half.

Half was spent governing.

Half was spent guessing who would take the baton.

February 24, Documents Delivered to the Palace#

On February 24, 2020, Mahathir resigned as Prime Minister. Bersatu subsequently left Pakatan Harapan; Azmin's faction also left PKR. Pakatan Harapan lost its majority, and the regime began fracturing from within the coalition. ^1,3

This scene had no ballot boxes.

Not a single national voter queued up again.

What existed were resignation letters, party leader meetings, MP support lists, and the Palace's judgment on who might command majority confidence.

Pakatan Harapan's twenty-two months ended just like that.

It did not lose in an ordinary general election.

It was dragged down after winning an election by its own unresolved issues, the opponents' Malay political mobilization, and the math of MPs realigning.

On the night of February 23, 2020, politicians separately entered the Palace, party headquarters, and a hotel in Petaling Jaya.

The next day, Mahathir resigned.

Next: "The Sheraton Move: How a Government Emerged Without an Election". Voters did not re-vote, but the entire support alignment in Parliament changed.