Yesterday in Parliament, during the debate on the Tabung Haji Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) report, Perikatan Nasional MPs walked out of the Dewan Rakyat.

Their reason? Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was absent. Anwar had undergone surgery and was recovering. Deputy Prime Minister Fadillah Yusof was also receiving medical treatment.

PN Chief Whip Takiyuddin Hassan had formally requested the special sitting be postponed. When Speaker Tan Sri Johari Abdul rejected the request and proceeded with the briefing, PN MPs walked out.

On the surface, this looks like a protest about procedure. A demand that the most senior government leaders be present for such an important debate.

But scratch the surface, and something else emerges.

The Debate They Didn't Want to Have

What was the debate actually about?

The RCI report on Tabung Haji was declassified and made public on July 29. The 211-page report uncovered serious governance weaknesses and found that Tabung Haji suffered estimated cumulative losses of between RM10 billion and RM12.6 billion from 2014 to 2020. 

The report revealed that RM10 billion of the losses was addressed under the 2018 Recovery Plan, while the remaining RM2.6 billion was resolved progressively through the end of 2025.

The report revealed that Tabung Haji should have recorded a net loss of RM1.4 billion in 2017 instead of the reported RM3.4 billion profit. Losses were allegedly covered up through "creative accounting practices" while the government at the time insisted the institution remained profitable.

And who was in charge during most of that period? The same opposition parties now walking out of Parliament.

When Perikatan Nasional MPs left the chamber, they weren't just walking away from a debate. They were walking away from scrutiny of a period when their own leaders were in power.

The Party That Stayed

Surprisingly, there was one party that stayed during the walkout: Bersatu.

Muhyiddin himself stayed and debated the issue, calling for a comprehensive and independent forensic audit of Tabung Haji's management to be completed within a year.

He urged that anyone responsible for causing losses — whether through fraud, abuse of power, or negligence — must be brought to justice. He also raised serious questions about how "negligence, or rather, the falsification of Tabung Haji's financial reports, could be allowed to happen."

This is commendable. Bersatu stayed and debated the cause of it and provided clarity. Though they may be avoiding some blame, they were willing to stay and listen to the whole topic.

But the rest of PN? They left.

What Were They Actually Avoiding?

The Tabung Haji RCI report is not just about financial mismanagement. It is about the management of an institution that holds the savings of millions of ordinary Malaysians — many of them low-income, many of them relying on Tabung Haji for their pilgrimage funds and savings security.

The report's findings are damning. Losses of up to RM12.6 billion. Creative accounting that hid losses in a good year to keep the books looking good. An institution that should have reported losses instead reporting profits.

PN's walkout is a calculated political move. By leaving the chamber, they avoid having to answer tough questions about their own record. They avoid being forced to defend or explain the mismanagement that occurred under their watch.

Syed Saddiq put it bluntly: "Parliament is not a one-man show." The RCI report concerns the interests of more than 10 million Muslim depositors.

The issue is not Anwar's presence. The issue is accountability. And PN decided they wanted no part of it.

The Double Standard

The PN's walkout was framed as a protest against Anwar's absence. Yet when Anwar was present, when he led the government, PN still opposed everything he did. The absence was never the issue — it was just the excuse.

Consider the contrast. Bersatu, the party that was actually in power during much of the period under scrutiny, stayed. Muhyiddin spoke. He asked the hard questions. He called for accountability.

If PN truly believed in accountability, they would have stayed. They would have participated. They would have shown that they are willing to face the music, even when the music is about their own record.

Instead, they chose to leave. And in doing so, they sent a clear message: they are more interested in political posturing than in serving the 10 million depositors whose savings were mismanaged.

The Bottom Line

PN's walkout during the Tabung Haji RCI debate was not an act of principle. It was an act of avoidance.

They walked out because they had nothing to say that would not implicate themselves. They walked out because they knew that any serious scrutiny of the report would lead back to their own leaders. 

And they walked out because they believed that political optics — looking strong, looking defiant — matters more than accountability.

But the Malaysian public is not blind. They see through the strategy. They know that the same leaders now walking out were the same leaders who once oversaw the institution.

The walkout is a reminder of what PN stands for: not accountability, not transparency, but political survival at any cost.