This paper attempts to explain the resilience of the "ambiguous regime" commonly assumed by proponents of transition paradigm as the "halfway house" that is unstable and will not stand. Transition theorists assume that countries that come out of the "gray zone" during the "third wave of democratisation" as having failed the democratisation process. In this paper, Malaysia is chosen as a case study to refute this assumption. Well known for its ambiguous political system, Malaysia has remained resilient in the face of political challenges. Instead of falling apart as predicted by the transition proponents, Malaysia's ambiguous regime has persisted. This paper examines how "hybrid political configuration" has served as a tool to strengthen and sustain the so-called "ambiguous" regime. It argues that democracy and authoritarian attributes that exist in this ambiguous political system have helped to uphold the regime and sustain it. This paper seeks to explain and display the mechanism in which a hybrid political system works. This analysis hopes to fill in the gaps left by the transition scholarship. Thus, this paper proposes that transition analysts should focus more on how a particular and "ambiguous" regime really works rather than 'standardising' the democratisation process.