It has been widely reported that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim reneged on a brokered, pre-election deal to accept the results of GE13. The agreement, between Anwar and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and brokered by Jusuf Kalla, Indonesia's former Vice President, required the loser to accept the results and work toward national reconciliation.

It was Anwar's idea.
Anwar, of course, immediately claimed the results were fraudulent and began a series of illegal rallies and protests, claiming that the Government is illegitimate.
Jusuf Kalla instead revealed the way Anwar broke his own deal. The Wall Street Journal was very clear.

Once news of the deal broke, Anwar deployed an evolving series of excuses for his violation of the agreement. Najib had said cruel things about him, Anwar said, and this was a condition of the agreement Najib violated. Najib committed fraud. Najib never signed the document.

And, he added, Kalla had reached out to him to enter the agreement in the first place. It was certainly never Anwar's idea. (That last is especially important inside of Pakatan Rakyat, as it has been reported that Anwar never bothered to share the fact of the deal with his coalition partners, leaving Lim Guan Eng in particular furious about finding out about it along with the rest of the country.)
One by one, Anwar's excuses have been demolished.

Kalla made clear in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that it was indeed Anwar who had reached out to him, and added his displeasure at Anwar's violation of the clear terms of the deal. "On Monday (May 6), I asked Anwar to accept it and look at reality. But they said, 'No, no, no, no.' "
Now, all of Anwar's excuses have been authoritatively demolished by the very man who broke the news of the deal in the first place.

It was reported some weeks ago that Hamid Awaludin, the former Indonesian minister of law and human rights, wrote a scathing editorial in Koran Tempo, the Indonesian newspaper, in which he first outlined the deal and Anwar's breach.

Hamid was a witness to all of the dealings related to the agreement, and he has personally and authoritatively rubbished each of Anwar's excuses.

"It was Jusuf Kalla who accepted Anwar's request to mediate. He (Jusuf) did not take the initiative and approach Anwar," Hamid has said in an interview, explaining that Anwar had "convinced himself that he would win the election" because of favourable polling and large ceramah turnout.
Yet it gets worse for Anwar.

On the so-called preconditions that Najib allegedly violated: "I am very sure that there were no preconditions discussed between Jusuf Kalla and Anwar. For me, a deal is a deal. And there was a deal that both parties – Anwar and Najib – agreed to. Some people always try and find a loophole after the event, or an excuse not to deliver on their promise. Some people are different in character to others."

This had been, for a time, Anwar's first excuse. It is now clear that there were no preconditions. There was simply a straightforward agreement to accept the election results.

It does not end there. Anwar has of late alleged that Najib refused to sign the deal, so there was no deal on which Anwar could be said to have reneged. (This of course contradicts his earlier assertion that there was a deal, but Najib violated it. Anwar has never been overly attached to consistency.)
Hamid here is brutal. "Anwar knew that Najib did not sign the agreement. Najib had very reasonable political reasons for not signing the agreement and Anwar understood and accepted it.

"But Najib gave his word that he would honour the agreement. He consented to the agreement. Basic morality teaches us that a man's word is more important than his signature. And deeds are more important than any declaration. Najib delivered on his promise. He called for national reconciliation during his election result acceptance speech. Najib's deeds matched his word."

In other words, Anwar accepted Najib's word in place of his signature – and only fell back on this excuse when his own poor election planning failed to yield him Putrajaya.
Hamid offers some consoling thoughts about Anwar's sincerity and belief in national reconciliation, but the overall thrust is clear:

Anwar is a man not of his word, but of expedience and a determination to have power. When he thought he would win, he was willing to agree to accept the election results. As soon as he lost, his word was without value.

Malaysia dodged a disaster by avoiding putting this man in Putrajaya. Hamid deserves the rakyat's thanks.