Special Report: Malaysia’s Political Drama Unfolds During the Covid-19 Quarantine
Malaysia’s political drama intertwined with a global health emergency over a five-year arc, from the March 2020 lockdown to the ongoing aftershocks of that era. The COVID-19 crisis did not merely strain hospitals and cemeteries; it tested institutions, trust, and the very logic of how power is won and maintained in a democracy. This deep-dive retraces the pivotal moments, the players, and the competing narratives that shaped Malaysia’s governance during a period when public health and political strategy collided in consequential ways. It is a story of half-glimpsed consensus and hard realities, of monarchs and ministers, of experts in white coats and politicians in tailored suits, all trying to navigate a moment when the line between emergency management and political expediency could become dangerously blurred.
From the Sheraton Move to the MCO: Political Shakeup and Pandemic Arrival
The year 2020 began with a sudden, destabilizing shift in Malaysia’s political landscape. A political maneuver known as the Sheraton Move culminated in the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government. Mahathir Mohamad, previously prime minister and a central figure in the alliance that briefly held the reins of power, resigned, triggering a constitutional scramble that left the country searching for a new axis of governance. In the ensuing realignments, Muhyiddin Yassin stepped forward to form a new premiership, inaugurating the Perikatan Nasional (PN) government. This administration did not arrive through a general election; it was effectively anchored by shifting parliamentary blocs that claimed a fragile majority. The result was a government forged on parliamentary realignments rather than a clear and decisive mandate from the ballot box.
As the political drama unfolded, the COVID-19 situation in Malaysia began to intensify. On the evening of March 16, 2020, Malaysians witnessed an unscheduled live broadcast by the newly sworn-in prime minister. The message carried the gravity of a country about to embark on a drastic, nationwide measure to curb the spread of the virus: the movement control order (MCO) would commence on March 18. Streets emptied, shutters came down, and a nation braced for uncertainty. The timing could not have been more consequential. The MCO arrived at a moment when the country’s political theater was still in motion, its outcomes uncertain, and its long-term implications unknowable.
Commentators would later reflect that the Sheraton Move did more than reconfigure who held power; it amplified cynicism about Malaysia’s political class and its preoccupation with power, at a time when a global health crisis demanded unity and disciplined collective action. The shift away from PH cast Mahathir’s political capital into a trough, while Muhyiddin’s ascendancy rested on a narrow majority that could be fragile in any number of directions. This confluence of upheaval both diminished confidence in democratic accountability and underscored how crucial stable leadership would be as the pandemic unfolded.
In the early days of the MCO, the country’s ability to respond to a novel virus faced its first real stress test. Public health infrastructure, economic safety nets, and the appetite for stringent public health measures would soon be scrutinized in ways that went far beyond traditional political calculations. The period highlighted a core question: could a government established through parliamentary realignments govern with legitimacy and competence in a crisis, or would the upheaval itself become a handicap to effective governance and prudent decision-making?
Analysts weighed in on the broader implications of these developments. Datuk Dr Ooi Kee Beng, executive director of Penang Institute, suggested that the Sheraton Move intensified cynicism about the political class’s fixation on power rather than national progress, while Mahathir’s political capital neared a historically low point. The narrative emphasized a public mood wary of power games and skeptical about the ability of leaders to rise above political maneuvering in the face of a public health emergency. Yet even as cynicism deepened, the pandemic created a unifying imperative: governance that could protect lives and livelihoods, even as the political environment remained volatile.
Amid this turbulence, public trust began to hinge on individuals who could appear to transcend partisan grade curves and speak in terms that resonated with a broad segment of society. Noor Hisham Abdullah, then director-general of health, emerged as a central figure in this story. His daily briefings provided a steady, science-led cadence to a moment filled with fear and uncertainty. These briefings served as a counterpoint to political noise and offered a form of reassurance grounded in data and professional judgment. The public’s reliance on his leadership underscored a critical theme of the era: the health sector, when insulated from overt partisan contest, could act as a stabilizing force in a time of crisis. It was a reminder that institutions with perceived independence could anchor trust even when political institutions appeared unsettled.
Conversely, the political landscape was not bereft of controversy. Notable among the missteps in the early health response was a comment from then health minister Adham Baba, who suggested that drinking warm water could “kill” the virus—a claim widely viewed as misguided and scientifically untenable. This misstep stood in stark relief to Noor Hisham’s science-led updates and played into public perceptions about government communication during a crisis. Critics argued that such statements undermined credible public health messaging and created avoidable confusion, contributing to the broader narrative of political turbulence overshadowing the health response.
Beyond the immediate health and political challenges, several scholars and analysts highlighted how the pandemic intersected with questions of institutional legitimacy, accountability, and public governance. Ibrahim Suffian, co-founder of the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, emphasized that trust in politicians was deeply eroded by a series of events and public disagreements, particularly when political actors appeared to be more concerned with power than with national progress. He underscored the role of public institutions as anchors of stability, suggesting that the health crisis revealed the essential value of trusted civil servants who could provide continuity in governance when political leadership wavered.
As the MCO and the pandemic unfolded, a broader theme emerged: the need for a credible, science-based approach to crisis management that could coexist with a functioning, legitimate political system. The interplay between public health and politics would define the next several years, shaping how Malaysians perceived their leaders and how those leaders navigated the dual challenges of safeguarding public health and maintaining political legitimacy in a crisis-prone environment.
The Pandemic, Public Trust, and the Politics of Communication
Even as the MCO became a daily reality for millions, the broader narrative of the period centered on public trust, credible communication, and the ability of institutions to reassure a wary population. Noor Hisham’s leadership during the early phase of the pandemic proved pivotal in restoring public confidence in the bureaucracy at a moment when political figures were often entangled in crises of their own making. His science-led updates provided a sense of rationality and reliability that many citizens found essential amid a flood of alarming statistics, sometimes contradictory messaging, and the social strain of lockdowns.
Public skepticism toward political actors grew as the months passed. Ibrahim Suffian highlighted the risk that political deal-making and maneuvering could erode confidence at a moment when the public needed transparent, accountability-driven governance. The reliance on a trusted civil servant to anchor credibility reflected a desire for institutions that could operate with a degree of autonomy from the cutoff boundaries of partisan politics. In this context, Noor Hisham’s role extended beyond disseminating numbers; he became a symbol of a bureaucracy viewed as capable, professional, and, crucially, independent when independence mattered most.
Aira Azhari, who serves as acting CEO of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), stressed the significance of science-led leadership in reassuring the public during health crises. She pointed to a moment when trust in politicians was “severely eroded,” and a senior civil servant’s presence could offer “stability and confidence.” The key, she argued, was to preserve the perception of institutions as entities that can act beyond the political fray to safeguard the welfare of citizens. The pandemic thus underscored a broader principle: durable public trust often depends less on immediate political affinity and more on demonstrable competence, transparency, and a commitment to evidence-based policymaking.
In the midst of political upheaval and health emergencies, the narrative also encompassed episodes designed to reassure the public about continuity and safety. The leadership’s ability to communicate effectively in times of crisis became a proxy for the legitimacy of the political system itself. When politicians were seen as divided, the public looked to technocrats and health experts to provide a stable narrative about how the country would move forward. In that sense, the period from 2020 onward highlighted a paradox: political volatility persisted, yet the crisis demanded a resilience and a governance approach that could transcend partisan differences and ensure the well-being of the population.
Elections, Realignments, and Leadership: Shifts in Power, Policy, and Public Perception
Within months of the pandemic’s onset, Malaysia’s political dynamics were already reconfiguring in ways that would leave lasting marks on the country’s governance. The Sabah election of 2020, held during the early days of the pandemic, became a focal point for examining how political power and public safety interact in a crisis. The electoral process occurred in the shadows of a broader crisis, with rallies and campaigning continuing in ways that some observers argued did not fully align with health-safety norms. The result illustrated a broader truth: the appetite for political power could outpace concerns about public health, especially when the electoral outcome would shape government policy during a critical period of the pandemic.
As the pandemic continued into 2021, Muhyiddin Yassin’s grip on power began to loosen. The political calculus shifted as Umno, a major ally, withdrew its support for PN, triggering Muhyiddin’s resignation in August 2021. The succession brought Ismail Sabri Yaakob to the premiership, marking Malaysia’s third prime minister in as many years. Ismail Sabri launched the “Keluarga Malaysia” (Malaysian Family) concept, a slogan designed to unite a divided nation and project a sense of shared national destiny. Yet the term, while aspirational, often felt disconnected from the ground realities faced by many Malaysians, who continued to wrestle with economic hardship, health concerns, and a sense of political dissonance in daily life.
The 2022 general election represented a watershed in the country’s political evolution. It delivered Malaysia’s first-ever hung parliament, a result that underscored the fragility of traditional party arithmetic and the volatility of coalition politics in a deeply polarized landscape. After days of intense negotiation, Anwar Ibrahim—often referred to as PMX—emerged as prime minister after more than two decades outside the premiership. The formation of a unity government bringing together PH and Barisan Nasional (BN) marked a dramatic pivot away from the long-standing rivalry between these two blocs. The monarchy’s influence remained pivotal, with the Agong stepping into a kingmaker role in determining who would govern in the wake of the election and in casting a balancing act between competing political forces.
This period also amplified Islamic sentiment and online polarization, phenomena that had been brewing in prior years but found greater traction during and after the pandemic. The so-called “Green Wave” became a shorthand for the rising influence of conservative, faith-aligned political currents in the public sphere. The rise of such currents coincided with a broader trend of politicized online discourse, where narratives about national identity and social cohesion often collided with demands for secular governance and inclusive policy-making. The net effect was a more pronounced public discourse about the role of religion, culture, and national unity in shaping policy decisions during a crisis.
Two prominent voices offered thoughtful counterpoints to the prevailing momentum. Sunway University political scientist Wong Chin Huat offered a counter-intuitive assessment, suggesting that the Sheraton Move, though controversial, could be viewed as a “blessing in disguise” if it prevented irrational or uncoordinated emergency policies. He argued that the most critical decisions during a pandemic were not simply about locking down or relaxing measures, but about ensuring that religious, cultural, and social life could be reasonably managed without provoking irrational policy responses. He cautioned that closing down essential institutions, including mosques, temples, and churches, or allowing those institutions to operate unchecked, could drastically worsen public health outcomes and economic stability. In his view, the balance between restrictive measures and social function was delicate and essential to overall governance during a health crisis.
Another respected voice, Bridget Welsh, observed that the king’s involvement in 2020 and 2022 demonstrated the monarchy’s ability to stabilize governance when political parties seemed unable to secure durable majorities. Her perspective highlighted how the monarchy could serve as a stabilizing force, acting as a moderator in moments of political transition rather than a mere ceremonial figurehead. This assessment framed the monarchy as a potential mediator in a system where political actors sought to navigate the consequences of a crisis without eroding the broader legitimacy of the democratic system.
Yet not all reflections agreed with the conclusion that unity was an unambiguous improvement for governance. Wong Chin Huat suggested that rapid, hurried negotiations to assemble a government within a narrow window could undermine long-term political stability. He posited that a more deliberate transition—potentially with Ismail Sabri serving as an interim caretaker prime minister to allow for more robust coalition-building—might have produced a more resilient political structure. Despite such concerns, the resulting arrangement—often described as a pragmatic compromise rather than a grand coalition—was defended on the grounds that it avoided the risk of a government captured by a single dominant faction, which could invite abuse of power or inter-ministerial paralysis.
In discussing these developments, the period’s political actors and analysts often circled back to a central theme: the need for practical governance that can survive the pressure of political incentives, public health emergencies, and economic strain. The unity government’s creation raised the question of whether it could sustain itself amid ongoing external and internal pressures, or whether it would be reconfigured again as political and economic conditions evolved. The balance between stability and accountability remained a live debate, with scholars, policymakers, and citizens watching how future governance would navigate the continuing aftershocks of a crisis era.
Unity, Governance, and the Kingmaker Dynamic
The cohesion of Malaysia’s unity administration hinged on more than party platforms or policy platforms. It reflected a realignment of political forces under extraordinary circumstances, in which the monarchy played a decisive, if constrained, role. The Agong’s interventions in 2020 and 2022 were interpreted by many as essential to preventing legislative gridlock during periods of precarious majorities. This monarchy-driven stability helped sustain governance while parties negotiated the contours of possible coalitions, a dynamic that some scholars argued had the effect of reducing direct electoral leverage in favor of a broader, caretaker-style governance framework.
For opponents of the unity approach, the rapid pivot toward a large, cross-coalition government raised concerns about potential governance inefficiencies and the risk of policy paralysis. Others emphasized that the arrangement built a more resilient structure that could better absorb shocks from the pandemic’s economic aftershocks and from ongoing global uncertainties. The debate over whether this arrangement represented a temporary compromise or a durable solution continued to shape the political discourse well into the mid-2020s.
Wong Chin Huat reflected further on the practical implications of this approach. He noted that the transition to a “Madani government”—a term used to describe a broad, reform-oriented administration—should be seen as a structural adjustment rather than a mere patchwork solution. In his view, the risk of corruption and inter-ministerial tension remained a possibility in any large coalition; nonetheless, the avoidant strategy of a grand coalition could help prevent extreme concentrations of power and the potential for governance stagnation. He emphasized that credit could be given to Muhyiddin for resisting pressure to form a national unity government, an act that preserved a more balanced distribution of authority within a more widely constructed Madani framework.
This period also highlighted the monarchy’s contribution to stability by serving as a mediator that could guide governance through turbulent transitions. Bridget Welsh described the king’s role in decision-making as having shifted power dynamics in a way that supported governance during moments of crisis, while reducing the likelihood that voters’ voices would be overridden by opaque backroom negotiations. The evolving role of the monarchy, she suggested, signified a reconfiguration of political power in which the crown played a more dynamic part in steering the country through periods of political volatility while guarding the public’s trust in democratic processes.
Five Years On: Reflections, Reckonings, and the Long View
As Malaysians reflect on the half-decade since the early months of the MCO, the country has emerged with a sense of resilience tempered by fatigue. The pandemic’s legacies extend beyond the immediate public health impacts to the realm of governance, institutions, and democratic norms. The public health crisis provided a crucible in which political reforms, accountability mechanisms, and the capacity of state institutions to respond were tested and re-evaluated. The economic toll of lockdowns, the necessity of targeted relief, and the broader implications for social cohesion have remained central to the national conversation, shaping policy debates for years afterward.
Ibrahim Suffian emphasizes that the episode has underscored the need for ongoing accountability. Missteps and concerns about fund mismanagement during the period have created an enduring imperative: a robust public oversight framework that can monitor how funds intended for crisis response are spent and how decisions are justified. He argues that a culture of accountability must endure beyond the crisis, ensuring that the public realm remains vigilant and that government actions remain subject to scrutiny even once the immediate emergency subsides. The overarching lesson, in his view, is that public trust is not a static asset; it requires consistent demonstration of responsibility and transparency over time.
Aira Azhari echoes the sentiment that political trust remains fragile. She warns that behind-the-scenes dealmaking, even when legally valid, can erode public confidence and undermine the legitimacy of the governing institutions. Her caution underscores a broader concern about the long-term health of Malaysia’s democratic processes: that when political actors frequently resort to maneuvering rather than constructive negotiation, citizens may conclude that the system is more committed to maintaining control than to delivering on promises of reform and progress. The public’s trust, she argues, must be earned again through transparent policy-making, accountable leadership, and tangible improvements in people’s lives.
Beyond domestic concerns, the era’s experiences intersect with broader global uncertainties. The period’s memory—stories of daily health briefings, vaccine rollouts, and the quiet perseverance of civil society—serves as a reminder of resilience that carried Malaysia through a dark chapter. It is a narrative about how a nation navigates a crisis while negotiating the politics of reform, and about how a diverse polity can attempt to forge a pathway toward stability in the absence of simple answers.
In this light, the central question endures: has Malaysia learned from that turbulent phase, and will future political episodes honor the hard-won lessons of crisis governance? The answer remains complex, because the landscape of politics and policy is never static. Yet the country’s experience—its willingness to lean on scientific guidance, to respect institutions, and to seek practical, albeit imperfect, coalitions—offers a reference point for how to navigate future crises with a balanced emphasis on public welfare, accountability, and democratic legitimacy.
Nebulous as the future may be, the era’s memories provide a repository of insights. The public’s appetite for accountability, the necessity of credible health communication, and the reminder that unity in purpose is essential when facing existential threats—these are enduring themes. The path forward will require careful attention to how political actors treat electoral mandates, how institutions preserve their independence, and how leaders communicate with citizens about risk, trade-offs, and shared interests. The aim, always, remains the same: to safeguard lives, secure livelihoods, and sustain the democratic project even as the country confronts new challenges on an international stage that remains uncertain and dynamic.
Conclusion
In hindsight, the five-year arc from the March 2020 MCO through the turbulent realignments of 2021 and the hung parliament of 2022 reveals a nation negotiating the dual imperatives of public health and democratic governance. It shows how a health crisis can amplify the fragility of political institutions while simultaneously offering opportunities for reform, accountability, and renewed trust when institutions act with transparency and competence. The Sheraton Move’s legacy is not solely a tale of political intrigue; it is a reminder that leadership during emergencies requires not only strategic navigating of power but also a steadfast commitment to the common good and to the integrity of the democratic system.
Malaysia’s experience during this period underscored several core truths. First, credible, science-driven public health leadership can serve as a stabilizing anchor when political factions clash. Noor Hisham’s public presence and the clear, data-based messaging he delivered helped restore public confidence in the bureaucracy in a moment when trust in politicians was waning. Second, the health crisis magnified the importance of accountable governance, with calls for oversight and transparency growing louder as financial and policy decisions affected millions of households. Third, the political landscape’s shift toward unity government, while controversial, reflected a pragmatic attempt to balance competing demands in a moment of crisis, and it highlighted the monarchy’s potential role as a stabilizing intermediary in a fragile parliamentary system.
The conversation about Malaysia’s political drama amid the quarantine is far from complete. The next chapters will likely test whether the lessons of the pandemic era translate into lasting reforms, more resilient institutions, and a renewed social contract that can weather future storms. As the country moves forward, the enduring question remains: can the political class, the public, and the institutions responsible for safeguarding national well-being come together to sustain progress, reduce polarization, and deepen democracy in a way that reflects the needs and aspirations of all Malaysians? The answer will depend on ongoing accountability, thoughtful leadership, and a shared commitment to public service that transcends partisan divides.