THE Bersatu annual general assembly (AGM) held in Shah Alam over the weekend did not go as smoothly as expected.
This was not election year in the party and everything was supposed to be in order but it was not to be.
Unfortunately, the commotion that took place at the event was triggered by party president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin himself.
Many saw his claim of “an attempt to oust him” as a sign of internal unrest.
The underlying tensions in Bersatu are being exposed by none other than the president. Not unexpectedly, this did not sit down well with many in the party as the president also has his fair share of opponents.
During his address at the AGM, Muhyiddin publicly raised concerns about a purported movement within the party to unseat him.
He warned that the collection of signatures against him contravened the party’s constitution, stressing that if that method were allowed, leadership at all levels – from vice-presidents to the supreme council – could be similarly targetted.
His revelation almost immediately triggered a contentious response from a vocal minority. Some delegates (later, it was claimed that only two were responsible) heckled him with chants of “turun, turun” (step down, step down) and “letak jawatan, Muhyiddin” (resign, Muhyiddin), while others countered with “kekal presiden” (remain president) and “hidup Tan Sri” (long live Tan Sri).
A physical scuffle broke out in one section of the hall, with some delegates even standing on chairs or staging walkouts before order was restored by party officials
I’m not sure why the party president found it necessary to bring the matter up publicly at the AGM. It should have been discussed and resolved within close doors at the supreme council level.
I consider this an error in judgement on the part of Muhyiddin.
The incident turned underlying tensions within Bersatu into a visible rupture. Though only a fraction of the 2,700 delegates was involved, the scale of the commotion magnified perceptions of disunity.
By verbalising allegations of a signature campaign, Muhyiddin aired internal conflict publicly, something generally approached with caution in political parties. This move arguably may have fuelled dissent rather than suppressing it.
Muhyiddin’s denouncement could inadvertently have mobilised sympathisers of reform. According to analysts, ignoring these voices may allow the movement to swell into a much more significant internal challenge.
The commotion, later described by party spokespeople as “embarrassing”, created an awkward optics moment for Bersatu, particularly as the party seeks to project strength and unity ahead of the upcoming 16th General Election.
Let me say this again. Indeed, Muhyiddin’s decision to raise the matter of a purported attempt to oust him at the Bersatu AGM is puzzling on the surface, especially since he later tried to downplay it by insisting there were “no camps” in the party.
This does appear contradictory; why bring it up in the first place if it wasn’t serious enough to warrant further discussion?
But politics often operates on layered motives, and Muhyiddin may have had strategic reasons for doing so. At least, this is what I think.
Firstly, by making the issue public, he could be attempting to assert his authority. Even if the threat was exaggerated, surfacing it at the AGM allowed him to remind members that he remains in control and that any moves against him will not go unnoticed.
It’s a way of testing loyalty in the open, forcing delegates to signal their support, which reinforces his position.
The statement could also serve as a warning shot to ambitious leaders within Bersatu – notably deputy president Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin or others seen as potential successors.
By airing the matter publicly, he signals that he is watching closely, and that any manoeuvring will be painted as divisive to the party.
Hamzah, being linked (at least by speculation) to the alleged signature campaign, suddenly found himself cornered.
By raising the issue on the AGM floor, Muhyiddin put Hamzah in the spotlight, effectively forcing him to choose between being seen as a plotter or as a loyal deputy.
Hamzah’s subsequent public declaration of loyalty – almost submissive in tone – suggests the tactic worked. He had no choice but to reaffirm his allegiance, lest he be painted as the culprit destabilising Bersatu.
In this sense, the AGM became a stage-managed loyalty drama. Muhyiddin’s accusation (without naming names) created tension, and Hamzah’s “servile” response became the resolution – a demonstration of the president’s dominance and the deputy’s obedience.
For party members watching, the message was unmistakable: Muhyiddin still holds the reins, and even his most ambitious lieutenant has to bow to him.
The irony, of course, is that the whole episode exposed Bersatu’s fragility instead of strengthening its image. To the outside world, it looked like a party leader manufacturing or exaggerating a crisis to keep his own deputy in check.
To insiders, it was a reminder of how mistrustful and insecure the leadership circle has become.
• Francis Paul Siah is a veteran Sarawak editor and currently heads the Movement for Change, Sarawak (MoCS). He can be reached at sirsiah@gmail.com
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune.
