Malaysiakini : Within hours of Puad’s allegations regarding royal influence in Johor political affairs, the discussion shifted with familiar speed. Police reports were made. Investigations began. Public debate hardened.

Almost immediately, the focus moved away from the constitutional question, which is the central issue he raised, and shifted instead to his motives.

Motive besides the point

Was he bitter? Was he denied political reward? Was this internal party frustration repackaged as a principle?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But none of that answers the constitutional question itself.

This was never about whether Puad was right or wrong. It was about whether the constitutional question he raised could be openly discussed at all.

What is striking is not disagreement, but how disagreement is handled.

Instead of confronting the constitutional issue, the instinct is to dissect the man himself: ambition, resentment, opportunism, disloyalty.

The individual becomes the story. The institution vanishes.

This may be politically effective, but it is constitutionally corrosive because it teaches repeatedly that sensitive questions are not answered. They are neutralised.

Johor is widely discussed in public reporting as a state where the boundary between constitutional form and political reality is not always easy to separate.

Past changes in menteri besar leadership and public statements from both political and royal figures have reinforced a perception that political outcomes cannot always be understood through electoral arithmetic alone.

Whether one sees this as constitutional discretion or political influence depends on interpretation. But what matters is this: the lack of shared clarity has become part of the political environment itself.

Thus, where clarity is absent, perception fills the space.

Silence doesn’t resolve anything

It is essential to separate two things.

First, the truth or falsity of any individual allegation, including those made in current political disputes, is a matter for evidence, institutions, and due process.

Second, and more important here, is the structural issue: how constitutional questions are handled in public life once they are raised.

Our discussion is about the second.

History shows that when direct criticism becomes difficult, it does not vanish, but it changes form.

Jonathan Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels” is a classic example. Beneath its fictional worlds and absurd rulers lay a sharp critique of political systems and human authority, expressed in metaphor because direct language carried risk in its time.

Allegory became the language of survival.

Then, as now, people turned to satire and allegory not out of comfort, but out of caution and self-protection.

In recent years, individuals who raised sensitive political or constitutional questions faced investigations or legal consequences.

The case of activist Ali Abdul Jalil, who later left Malaysia and sought asylum in Sweden, is frequently cited in this context.

Walking on eggshells

Whether one agrees with his views is secondary.

The constitutional issue is the perception such cases create: that certain topics carry consequences beyond normal political disagreement.

When that perception spreads, speech does not disappear. It narrows.

Ordinary citizens who raise complaints involving powerful individuals or sensitive institutions often find themselves unsure of the consequences of speaking out, not only about their complaint, but about themselves.

Some cases proceed. Some stall. Some disappear.

What matters is not consistency, but perception: that some lines feel riskier to cross than others.

And where that perception takes hold, participation shrinks.

In pre-revolutionary France, criticism of royal authority could lead to imprisonment or accusations of treason.

The problem was not only suppression itself, but the absence of safe, legitimate channels for grievance.

Over time, unresolved pressure did not disappear. It accumulated.

Systems that cannot absorb criticism do not become stronger. They become brittle.

Tensions will continue unless resolved

This is why the Puad episode matters, not because of Puad himself, but because of the pattern it reflects.

A constitutional question is raised. It becomes personal. Then moral. Then political. Then it disappears.

The immediate issue is contained. The underlying ambiguity remains, but it will return, disguised in another case and another controversy.

Puad may be right. He may be wrong. He may be acting from conviction or calculation, but none of that resolves the issue, because the problem is not the individual.

It is the absence of a shared, explicit understanding of how constitutional monarchy and political authority interact in practice.

So, until that question is addressed openly, this will repeat with different names and different triggers, albeit with the same structure.

Constitutional ambiguity does not disappear when avoided, but it returns when tested.

The moment the debate became centred on Puad the man, the constitutional question had already been lost.

Unsurprisingly, we end where we began. With Puad.

Malaysiakini : Restaurants serving warm or iced water use 25 cubic centimetre containers, dropping the cost per serving to a microscopic 0.000735 sen.

Yet, consumers are routinely charged 60 sen (in some places RM1 or more) for plain water or iced water.

Where is the justification? There is no justification - only the reality that consumers are charged simply because the market allows it.

Who decides the percentage of profits a trader can make? Experience has shown that this is impossible for various reasons. The mathematics of overheads further dismantles the argument for price caps.

Standardising profit margins has proven, time and again, to be an unworkable policy. There is no law - written or otherwise - that compels the uniform pricing of goods or services.

Successive governments have wisely refrained from interfering in the free market, allowing supply and demand to dictate prices.

Except for a handful of essential goods (sugar, cooking oil, flour, etc), prices remain unregulated. (During festive seasons, a dozen other items go on the list.) Teh tarik and black tea have never made that list.

The principle is simple - the consumer decides. If you want to drink your tea in a conducive environment where you want to be noticed by the Joneses, or pretend to be in the class of “nouveau riche” (those who became rich recently), be prepared to pay the price.

But if price is a factor, by all means pull up a stool and sit under the withering sun at the stall.

Selangor govt’s pledge

According to a report by The Star two days ago, the Selangor government said that local councils will be tasked with ensuring food court traders maintain reasonable prices, justified by the financial support already given to them.

“Local authorities will be directed to monitor food court operators and traders renting premises under council management, with a focus on pricing practices and compliance with existing regulations,” state Local Government and Tourism exco Ng Suee Lim said at a press conference on the sidelines of the Selangor state assembly sitting in Shah Alam last week.

Yes, anyone can monitor prices, but what action can be taken against those who increase prices?

The trader can charge what he likes if he complies with the requirement that the consumer knows the price he must pay. Hence, a price tag or a list of prices (including restaurant menus) will suffice.

So, Ng’s charade of “stop the price increases” must stop. It is best left to the adage “caveat emptor” - let the buyer beware.

Ng said the state’s order was not intended to impose price controls but rather to encourage ethical business practices and prevent excessive profiteering, particularly in premises that benefit from public support and subsidised facilities.

“If operating costs are reduced through government assistance, they should keep prices under control and, where possible, offer more affordable prices to attract customers,” Ng said when winding up the debate at the assembly.

Then again, who and what defines “excessive profiteering”?

Does state govt have the power?

While councils can issue summonses for littering or hygiene breaches, only gazetted officers from the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry have the statutory power to investigate and prosecute price-related offences. Council staff are legally toothless on this issue.

If Ng’s announcement is aimed at placating Selangorians over the recent boo-boos, including those planned segregation of rubbish, restrictions on non-Muslim places of worship, and the de-gazettement of forest reserve, it will not work.

But then again, who can forget Ng’s role on the issue involving the privatisation of street parking in four districts in Selangor? Didn’t he utter a series of fibs to defend the unpopular decision before the truth emerged?

---

READ MORE: COMMENT | Stock answers to simple questions on privatised parking

---

If Ng believes this announcement will placate Selangorians, he is gravely mistaken. The rakyat have not forgotten the past debacles.

This sudden concern over prices feels less like economic policy and more like a desperate attempt at damage control to distract from a sinking credibility scorecard.

When demands for the four DAP exco members to explain their roles in approving such draconian regulations are met with resounding silence, grandstanding about food prices rings hollow.

Grandstanding not working

Ultimately, the state’s grandstanding on the so-called “excessive profiteering” is not a genuine consumer protection strategy; it is a populist distraction that undermines market confidence and insults the intelligence of the people.

In a free market, price tags and menus aren’t just labels - they are built-in safeguards. They empower consumers with the transparency they need, making regulation redundant.

By posturing over a 60 sen glass of water while remaining muted on substantive governance failures, Ng is not defending the poor; he is merely doing it for the headlines.

Selangorians are knowledgeable. They understand that a government that cannot manage parking, forestry, or religious harmony has no business dictating what a stall should charge for rice and curry.

If the exco truly wants to prevent "excessive" behaviour, it should start by curbing its own excessive appetite for populist distractions.

Because when silence falls on real issues, and noise rises on non-issues, the ballot box has a sharp way of restoring balance - and that is one price the politicians know that they cannot afford to ignore.

Malaysiakini : Going too far?

What’s next? Halal train seats? Halal toilets? Halal blood donation? Will some people stoke fear of pork molecules in non-Muslim blood?

Back in 2012, fast-food chain A&W rebranded its “Coney Dog” and “Root Beer” to “Chicken Coney” and “RB” as the Islamic Development Department  (Jakim) deemed that certain words would “confuse” Muslims.

Yet A&W had been in Malaysia since 1963, and Muslims drank root beer for over 50 years, knowing full well it had nothing intoxicating, except too much sugar.

In fact, the Malay dessert of fermented tapioca, or tapai, probably has more alcohol.

In 2017, a “halal laundry” in Muar refused to serve non-Muslims. Johor ruler Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar, as the head of state of Islamic matters, called this “extreme” and a “narrow mindset”.

He pointed out that ringgit notes may have also come in contact with pork or liquor.

“Will the government then have to produce Muslim-friendly money?” asked His Majesty.

“Think for yourselves. What about seats in public places that may have been licked by dogs? This will never end.”

Islamisation of Selangor

Some people grumble online that Selangor is slipping into an Islamic state by stealth - not via PAS but under the so-called “moderate” Pakatan Harapan.

In an earlier column, I wrote that the PKR-led state government had scored three own goals before the coming elections - restrictions to temples/churches, secretly selling forest land cheaply to cronies, and claiming there was “no land” for a public hospital in Petaling Jaya. 

---

READ MORE: Paused Selangor rules would bar non-Muslim houses of worship from exceeding mosque height

---

The fourth own goal is that “No Pork, No Lard” signs may be banned in Selangor, as they may “confuse” Muslim customers into believing they are halal.

The “halal waste” issue counts as the fifth own goal. It was left to Lee Chean Chung, the outspoken MP for Petaling Jaya, to reveal this and the church/temple issue.

He is still in PKR but will probably soon move to Bersama for the next election. 

Ng Suee Lim, the state exco for local government, then claimed that the policy on halal and non-halal waste separation in Selangor has been around since 2010.

He explained that due to “confusion and questions”, its implementation will be “reviewed” to ensure that they are “more practical, clear, and in line with current needs”.

The review will include “getting views from NGOs, industry players, local councils, and relevant agencies”.

Yet, the question remains, why did the four DAP state exco members not object to this silly policy? And is the government only seeking views from stakeholders after the rubbish has hit the fan?

Deeper problems

Malaysians generate around 8.3 million metric tonnes of food waste annually, or roughly 260kg per person. Food waste makes up 40 percent to 45 percent of all daily waste sent to landfills. No wonder garbage disposal is big business.

I see many Malaysians, including Muslims, leaving lots of perfectly good food uneaten at cafes. They don’t even bother packing it to eat at home.

Yet in Islam, wastage is a sin, and offenders are deemed as “relatives of Satan”.

I wish that halal was something that unites us - as a symbol of quality, like say the “organic” label.

Halal is supposed to mean compliance with Islamic principles of hygiene. But what about halal restaurants that are dirty? Or halal food packed with harmful preservatives and nitrates?

Most importantly, are we getting bogged down in micro details while missing the big picture?

Former minister Rafidah Aziz said in 2024 that authorities should focus on combating corruption, which was “non-halal money”, instead of “causing inconvenience” by enforcing rigid halal rules.

Thus, rather than getting fixated about halal garbage, we should examine if politicians, top civil servants, plus corporate/GLC leaders got their wealth in halal or haram ways.

Legislate against unexplained riches

Former Klang MP Charles Santiago said this can be done easily if the government has an Unexplained Wealth Law (UWL). 

So if a civil servant with a RM10,000 salary has seven luxury cars and two huge mansions, the UWL can compel such jokers to explain how they acquired such massive assets.

If they cannot justify it, the government can quickly seize illicit wealth without dragging cases forever in court, said Charles. This will stop the “systemic corruption among the elite”.

But I do wonder if his strong, uncompromising stands were what caused DAP to drop him as the Klang parliamentary candidate in the 2022 general election, even though he was an immensely popular MP?

Authorities have every right to spend immense time and effort checking cafes for the slightest mistakes on their halal status, for example, a menu listing “hot dogs”.

But perhaps more energy should be spent on doing “halal tests” on suspected corrupt wealth using a UWL.

After all, the biggest threats to Muslims and Malaysians are the 3Rs of “rempit, rokok, rasuah” - reckless motorcyclists, smoking, and corruption.

These 3Rs are what really harm lives, health, and society - not the other R - a lack of halal rubbish bins.

Malaysiakini : In every society, there are people who complain about problems. There are people who analyse problems. And then there are those rare individuals who dedicate their lives to building solutions.

Selva belonged to that third category.

The great historian Eric Hobsbawm warned against the illusion that history is made solely by heroic individuals. Yet, Malaysian politics often encourages exactly that illusion. Every few years, we are told that a new leader will save us. A new coalition will rescue us. A new slogan will transform us.

We pin our hopes on personalities while neglecting the institutions that actually determine whether communities grow and advance.

Selva understood better. He knew that when a community becomes dependent on personalities, it becomes vulnerable.

Communities become strong because they have strong institutions. They have businesses. They have networks. They have educational opportunities. They have organisations capable of opening doors for the next generation.

That is why he devoted so much of his life to moulding young leaders, including establishing Gopio. He understood that Indians across the world shared common aspirations. They wanted dignity. They wanted opportunity. They wanted a future for their children.

Most importantly, he understood that no community can survive on political promises alone.

And that is why his legacy remains so relevant today. Because there is still “the other Malaysia”.

The phrase comes from Michael Harrington’s famous book “The Other America”. In the early 1960s, Harrington exposed a reality that many preferred not to see.

While politicians celebrated prosperity and progress, millions of Americans remained trapped in poverty and exclusion. They were invisible to those in power.

We have our own “other Malaysia”. A Malaysia that exists beyond official speeches and political slogans. A Malaysia that does not appear in glossy government brochures. A Malaysia that is seen during election campaigns and forgotten immediately afterwards.

It is not hidden. It is not invisible. It exists in plain sight. The tragedy is not that we cannot see it. The tragedy is that we have become accustomed to it.

Lived reality

For many Indian Malaysians, this “other Malaysia” is a lived reality.

It is the child attending an under-resourced Tamil school while politicians boast about national achievements.

It is the graduate who discovers that hard work alone does not always translate into opportunity.

It is the small entrepreneur struggling to obtain financing, contracts and support.

It is the family trapped in cycles of economic insecurity despite generations of sacrifice.

It is the plantation worker’s grandchild who was promised social mobility but still finds too many doors closed.

This is not about victimhood. It is about reality.

Let me share some numbers, and they are damning, and they have been damning for decades.

Indian Malaysians, who make up approximately 6.5 percent of the national population, account for roughly 22 percent of the prison population and 22 percent of the inmates on death row.

Gangsterism among Indians. According to Bukit Aman’s data, 71.75 percent of all identified active gang members in Malaysia are of Indian descent. This is what happens when young men grow up with no credible path forward; no matriculation quota, no business grant, no government contract, no civil service fast track.

Economist Muhammad Abdul Khalid says Indian Malaysians earned, per capita, some 76 percent more than the Malays in 1970.

However, by the mid-2000s, the advantage narrowed to 27 percent, and for the bottom half of the community, it has since collapsed. The Indian story is therefore not one of uniform poverty, but a catastrophic downward mobility for those at the bottom.

Only nine percent of Indian candidates received interview call-backs compared to 44 percent of Chinese applicants, thus creating an additional barrier to fair wages, career progression and most importantly, employment.

A 2021 Discrimination in Education Survey revealed that nine in 10 Indian students felt discriminated against because of their ethnicity. About 73 percent of these students were discriminated against by fellow students, and 74 percent of Indian students were discriminated against by their teachers.

And unless we are prepared to confront reality, we cannot change it.

Hope is not weakness

For decades, Indians have been told to wait. Wait for development. Wait for reform. Wait for inclusion. Wait for opportunities. Wait for the next policy. Wait for the next government. Wait for the next election.

We have waited through different administrations, different coalitions and different political eras. Yet many of the structural challenges facing Indians remain stubbornly familiar.

Our educational inequalities remain. Our economic vulnerabilities remain. Our underrepresentation in key sectors remains. The question is no longer whether politicians recognise these problems.

The question is whether they are willing to solve them.

Many Indians placed tremendous hope in the reform movement that eventually brought Pakatan Harapan to power. They believed a new political culture would emerge. They believed long-neglected issues would finally receive sustained attention.

Those hopes were understandable.

Hope is not a weakness. Hope is what drives democratic participation. But hope must eventually be measured against outcomes. And many ordinary Indians today are asking difficult questions.

Where is the comprehensive economic strategy for Indian entrepreneurs?

Where is the bold plan to build Indian-owned businesses capable of competing nationally, regionally and globally?

Where is the transformation in educational outcomes?

Where are the institutions that can uplift communities regardless of who occupies Putrajaya?

Where is the structural change that was promised?

Many Indians voted for reform. What they received was often administration. They voted for transformation. Too often, they got management. They voted for structural change. Too often, they got announcements.

These are not questions born of hostility. They are questions born of disappointment. There is a difference. Criticism is not betrayal. Accountability is not disloyalty.

Democracy demands that citizens ask difficult questions of those who seek their votes. And Indians must ask those questions now more than ever. Because one of the greatest mistakes any community can make is becoming a guaranteed vote bank.

The moment politicians believe your vote belongs to them automatically, they stop earning it. They begin assuming it.

And when votes are assumed, accountability disappears. Politicians start believing that symbolic gestures are enough. A speech here. A photo opportunity there. A committee. A task force. An announcement. A promise. Another promise. And another.

Meanwhile, communities continue struggling with the same challenges year after year.

Influence in democracy

There is another reality we must confront honestly. Today, Indian Malaysians make up roughly 6.5 percent of the population. Some hear that figure and see weakness. I see leverage.

In a democracy, influence is not merely a matter of numbers. It is a matter of organisation, participation, purpose and vision. A community that votes strategically, builds institutions and contributes to national life can exercise influence far beyond its numerical size.

But we must also confront an uncomfortable reality. We may not always be 6.5 percent. One day, we may be five percent. Perhaps less. When that day comes, our future will not depend on how many we are. It will depend on how organised we are.

That is why the next generation matters so profoundly. Young Indian Malaysians cannot afford political apathy. They cannot afford to withdraw from public life or believe that their voices do not matter.

They must become entrepreneurs, professionals, academics, innovators, civil servants, community leaders and elected representatives. They must organise, participate and lead.

The future will not be secured by nostalgia for what previous generations achieved. It will be secured by what young Indians build from this moment onward.

Selva built platforms. Our younger generation must build power.

The question facing us is therefore not whether our community will become smaller. The question is whether it will become stronger.

Selva understood this. As a visionary leader, he understood results and outcomes. He knew that intentions alone do not build companies and communities. Vision alone does not create jobs. Good speeches do not generate wealth. Only execution does.

The same applies to politics. Governments should not be judged by slogans. They should be judged by outcomes: How many businesses were created? How many young people were empowered? How many opportunities were opened? How many barriers were removed? How many institutions were strengthened?

These are the measurements that matter.

Because the future of Indian Malaysians cannot depend on political patronage. It cannot depend on waiting for favours. It cannot depend on hoping that someone else will solve our problems.

It must be built upon entrepreneurship. It must be built upon education. It must be built upon economic participation. It must be built upon institutions.

Vote as investment

That was Selva’s vision. He believed in connecting people. He believed in creating opportunities. He believed in building networks that could help future generations succeed. He understood that economic empowerment is not a luxury. It is the foundation of dignity.

A community that controls its own economic destiny speaks with confidence. A community that depends entirely on others speaks with uncertainty.

And so, as we approach the next general election, I believe Selva would have asked these questions: Who is building institutions? Who is helping small businesses grow? Who is investing in entrepreneurs? Who is creating opportunities for young people?

Who understands that communities need empowerment rather than dependency? Who is thinking about the next generation rather than the next election? Who is prepared to do the difficult work of nation-building instead of merely campaigning?

Those are the questions that matter. Not personalities. Not slogans. Not tribal loyalties. Not fear.

For too long, Indian Malaysians have often been encouraged to vote out of fear. Fear of one coalition. Fear of another coalition. Fear of instability. Fear of losing what little we have.

But fear has never built a school. Fear has never built a business. Fear has never created wealth. Fear has never transformed a community. Only vision can do that. Only leadership can do that. Only courage can do that.

This election, our votes matter not because politicians need them. Our votes matter because our future depends on how we use them.

Every vote should be treated as an investment. And like every investment, it should demand returns. Not in the form of handouts. Not in the form of tokenism. Not in the form of symbolic recognition. But in the form of genuine opportunities.

Selva did not spend his life building Gopio so that future generations could become spectators. He built it because he believed Indians could be participants. Builders. Employers. Leaders. Institution-makers.

The “other Malaysia” does not have to remain the “other Malaysia”. But that will require courage. The courage to ask difficult questions. The courage to reject empty promises.

The courage to demand accountability. The courage to think beyond the next election. And the courage to take responsibility for our own future.

Because in the end, communities are remembered for what they created. They are remembered for what they left behind.

Selvarajoo Sundram built. The question before us is simple: Will we?

Malaysiakini : Zaid is free to choose his political affiliations, and for me, the only thing interesting about this whole affair is how long it will take to end and exactly how much trouble he will cause to his relationship with PAS.

Indeed, Zaid has always played the gadfly to any party he has represented, taking up positions that adhere to the party’s principles or not in Umno’s case, but which were at odds with the realpolitik of the situation in DAP’s case. All this is a matter of public record.

From critic to supporter, but…

The quote that opens this piece is exactly what gets Zaid into trouble. In urging young Malays to leave this country for England, no less, he said: “The people who talk about Islam in Malaysia are low-grade scholars, and many are mouthpieces of the ruling party.”

“They are sycophants, not of the same calibre as the Mu’tazillah, the jurists, and theologians of the Abbasiyah period who debated religious issues, such as the concept of ‘tawhid’ or unity of God.

“They discussed the inherent difficulties of reconciling reason and revelation. They were not preoccupied with beer festivals or dress codes for women, or separate laundrettes for Muslims, although the revelry and festivities of the caliphates were well known.”

Furthermore, when Zaid now says: “On the contrary, PAS is the only Malay-majority party with the strength and resolve to do away with inequality, hegemony, and class preferences. The essence of Islam will be the governing principle.”

“You will not have under the PAS rule where we are described as equal, but some are more equal than others.”

However, the grand poobah of his party, Abdul Hadi Awang, obviously does not agree with him.

Remember, Hadi thinks non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims. He has said it, and it is a matter of public record.

“Islam has to be the leader and ruler; those who are not of Islam must be followers (pak turut).

“Let’s not place religion and politics in separate corners.”

Hadi also thinks that non-Muslims are the source of corruption and economic and political malfeasances, which affect the majority community.

Of course, this is why Hadi really likes the idea of an all-Malay cabinet, which PAS had to clean up.

“Here, Hadi’s message clearly states that Islam is very open to non-Muslims for wizarah al-tanfidz ministries… unlike other political systems, which only accept those with the same ideology.

“Instead, he was stressing the importance and need for Malay-Muslims to be the core of Malaysia's political system and administration,” said PAS leader Nasrudin Hassan when defending Hadi’s proposal.

He knows what the issues are

In an interview some time back, Zaid clearly articulated the problem with theocratic rule.

“It’s not Islam that has intruded into the public sphere. It is the proponents of tyranny and fascist leaders who have used religion to control the apparatus of the state. Democracy and the rule of law are endangered when you allow such leaders to continue to rule.”

Think about this for a moment. Muslim potentates would decide policies, of which there is enough empirical evidence to suggest that these policies are detrimental to non-Muslims.

But at the same time, non-Muslims are told that they are “lucky” enough because this is “unlike other political systems, which only accept those with the same ideology”.

Zaid, of course, is intelligent enough to know that this isn’t solely about how a theocratic state treats non-Muslims with regard to “moderate” Islam.

“Whether Pakatan Harapan is a moderate voice, we have to wait and see. The test is not whether they allow non-Muslims sufficient freedom; that’s easy, but whether they will be ‘moderate’ to Muslims.”

This is exactly why I consider extremism an existential threat to this country, because once the majority is co-opted into this religious enterprise, it is game over.

What separates Hadi from the rest of these Malay uber alles parties is that the PAS base believes that they have a shot at truly influencing the direction of this country, and Madani has been extremely helpful in this.

Folks who vote for PAS do not view what Hadi says as malicious or bigoted, but rather ideas which they believe are embedded in the Federal Constitution.

So what will Zaid do?

The question is, how does someone like Zaid spin such undemocratic ideas?

And really, it is not only in this country where Hadi is viewed with scepticism or downright hostility by rational people.

Remember that Hadi was the vice-president of an Islamic organisation, the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), which has been disavowed by the House of Saud and was described by a prominent West Asian journalist as follows.

“IUMS members justified violence and started an intellectual war with muftis and traditional Islamic scholars, undermining them in their home countries and ridiculing their religious edicts.”

Hadi, of course, went into conniptions and dissed the whole of West Asia.

“The Arab civilisation was respected because of Islam, but is now crumbling under the weight of their own crimes by recognising the Zionist regime and neglecting Palestine and its rights.

“They are now driven by their belief and admiration for the Zionist Jewish powers-that-be, more than to trust in God, Islam, and their fellow Muslims.”

I have concentrated on Hadi in this piece because he really does not care about how minority communities perceive him.

Meanwhile, what he says and the very effective propaganda machine of PAS run by true believer technocrats and useful idiot influencers is shaping the religious and political narratives of this country.

Now, Zaid is part of this. His job, if PAS gives him the opportunity, is to convince rational Malaysians that PAS can lead this country, which is going to be difficult considering PAS has made it clear that rational people are the enemy of religious hegemony.

It remains to be seen whether Zaid can effectively carry water for PAS or if he will eventually throw it in their faces.

• Debt servicing charges: In the first six months, these reached approximately RM33.9 billion, reflecting the burden of accumulated public debt (federal government debt hovering around 64-65% of GDP, with broader general government debt higher).

  iseas.edu.sg

• Fuel subsidies: Over RM20 billion disbursed in the first half. Monthly costs spiked dramatically earlier in the year (peaking near RM7.5 billion in April) due to higher Brent crude prices but have since eased to around RM3.5 billion per month (roughly RM2 billion for RON95 and RM1.5 billion for diesel) as oil prices moderated.

  Policy Constraints and Trade-offs

Cutting or significantly scaling back fuel subsidies is politically and socially challenging. The government has committed strongly to maintaining affordable fuel prices for citizens through targeted mechanisms like the Budi MADANI RON95 (BUDI95) programme, which provides subsidized RON95 at RM1.99 per litre (with quotas) to eligible Malaysians. Blanket or broad subsidies remain sensitive, as any sharp removal risks inflating living costs for lower- and middle-income households.

This stance limits immediate fiscal flexibility. While targeted rationalization (e.g., income-based adjustments or quota reductions from 300 to 200 litres in some periods) has been explored or implemented, full liberalization appears off the table in the near term.

The Need for a Supplementary Budget

Given these pressures, issuing a supplementary budget appears necessary. This would allow the government to:

• Reallocate or trim non-essential operating expenditures.

• Adjust development spending priorities, and

• Seek additional revenue measures or financing without derailing core growth initiatives.

Failure to adjust could widen the full-year deficit beyond the 3.5% target and strain the medium-term goal of reaching 3% by 2028, as outlined in the Public Finance and Fiscal Responsibility Act (Act 850). Debt levels are already approaching or testing self-imposed ceilings (around 65% statutory limit for certain borrowings), with debt servicing consuming a growing share of revenue (projected near 17% in some estimates).

Positive Offsets: Growth Narrative vs. Fiscal Reality

The government and Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) continue to project resilient economic performance. Malaysia’s economy expanded 5.4% in Q1 2026, with full-year growth forecasts in the 4-5% range, supported by domestic demand, private consumption, exports (especially electrical & electronics), and foreign investments in data centers and strategic sectors.

Strong GDP growth, export performance, and FDI inflows provide a buffer and are frequently highlighted in official communications. However, critics argue this optimistic narrative can sometimes overshadow underlying fiscal vulnerabilities. High subsidies and debt servicing risk crowding out productive spending in education, healthcare, and infrastructure if not managed carefully.

Time for Transparent Discussion

Malaysia’s fiscal position remains fundamentally stronger than many emerging markets, thanks to diversified revenue streams, a credible central bank, and ongoing reforms in tax enforcement, digitalization, and subsidy targeting. Yet, the early overrun in 2026 underscores the need for greater transparency and proactive adjustment.

A national conversation on sustainable public finances, balancing welfare commitments with long-term debt prudence is not just timely but essential. Without course corrections, repeated supplementary budgets and rising debt servicing could erode investor confidence and limit fiscal space for future crises or growth-enhancing investments.

The coming months will reveal whether the government can steer the deficit back toward target through prudent management or if more decisive structural reforms are required. Malaysia’s economic resilience offers a window of opportunity—best not to squander it.

The rising Cost of Living is eroding a family’s ability to spend. Urban middle-class households face higher living costs, with incomes barely covering essentials in cities like Kuala Lumpur or Johor Bahru. For example, an M40 household earning RM7,000/month may struggle in urban areas due to high housing, education, and healthcare costs.

Many M40 households face “lifestyle inflation,” juggling rising costs and family obligations, such as supporting B40 relatives. A single financial shock, like a medical bill or job loss, can push these households toward financial instability, as they often lack a sufficient savings buffer. This is especially the case after the Covid era, where many families and proprietors of MSMEs are still facing debt repayments. M40 households are facing rising costs inhibiting their ability to save for when they need money to cover unexpected expenses. The relative ease that M40 households can obtain credit cards has played a role in pushing them into a debt lifestyle. The bottom line is households are not saving, they are paying off debt instead.

One of the major challenges to the Malaysian economy today are stagnant wages. Despite Malaysia’s economic growth (projected at 4–4.8% in 2025), wage growth lags behind inflation and productivity gains. The benefits of economic growth are not being passed onto M40 households. The middle class, particularly young graduates, struggles to find high-skilled jobs, with 42% of late primary-school children showing poor learning outcomes, limiting future workforce competitiveness. This compounds financial strain as aspirations for upward mobility and thus higher wages are unmet.

Malaysia has not been immune to pressure on the Ringgit. The ringgit’s volatility, despite a 0.8% appreciation against the US dollar in Q1 2025, increases costs for imported goods, which hit urban middle-class households harder due to their consumption patterns. Global trade tensions and higher shipping costs (e.g., due to Red Sea disruptions) further drive-up prices, squeezing budgets. The rise of the cost of goods in many categories is greater than the official inflation rate.

Malaysia has fallen victim to the “Middle Income Trap”, where middleclass families are unable to transition into the upper-middle class. This is partly a result of stagnant productivity and the failure of corporations to more equally share their profits to their respective labour forces.

While the government has been focusing on programs for the poor, the middle class feels pinched by policies that disproportionately affect their disposable income and limited safety nets. The government’s income classification system is not picking up this problem (or politicians are ignoring it). Malaysia’s statistical system needs an overhaul to better reflect regional cost-of-living differences and multidimensional poverty. The B40-M40-T20 classification system fails to account for these disparities, leaving urban M40 households feeling squeezed.

As a result, many families have been forced to curtail spending decisions. This means deferring holidays, going out less for dinner, wearing old clothes for longer, not buying consumables, and even cutting down on the food they buy outside the house. Come the end of 2025 and into 2026, aggregate household spending will no longer be a major driver of the economy.

With pensions not rising according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), tolls rising, more taxes coming, and living costs rising, the middleclass is being squeezed. This is happening at the same time the T20 is getting a ‘free ride’ from the government. Taxes on the T20 have not risen proportionally to the middleclass.

Politically, the middleclass is a powerful voting cohort for Pakatan Harapan. Pakatan relies on the middleclass vote in urban areas, where it holds many of its seats. Failure to address the above problem will logically cost Pakatan dearly in the seats it holds.

The government still has three annual budgets to address this mostly unidentified issue. Overlooking the middleclass will be an electoral disaster. Budget 2026 needs to be a budget for the middleclass to get them back onboard and maintain a robust economy in 2026.

Malaysiakini : There’s a lot to absorb in mere weeks following the long seeming calm after Anwar renewed ties with Umno and Sarawak, making promises to both as he cobbled together a loose alliance, stable on the surface but with deep undercurrents beneath post-15th general election in November 2022.

Despite appearances of calm, there was dissension waiting to bubble up at the right time. Anwar’s excessive comfort cost him as Umno showed its hands despite many concessions given, dissolving the Johor state assembly and promising to contest all seats in the state.

It has been a rocking, roiling month for politics in May as Umno announced on May 16 it will contest all state seats in Johor, throwing the fragile Madani coalition headed by Anwar into chaos and for the PM to give a sharp rebuke to Umno at a Harapan summit the following day.

As if that was not enough, even as the Harapan summit was in progress and Anwar with his hands full with Umno’s intransigence, former PKR ministers and MPs Rafizi Ramli and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad dropped a bombshell.

The duo exited PKR and Parliament, uniting under the dormant Bersama to push a fresh agenda for Malaysians, vowing to ally with no other party and fighting for a new agenda which was announced in some detail on their website.

Anwar’s woes continue

Anwar’s woes continued into June when PAS ended its dalliance with Bersatu, terminating political ties after six years. It was announced by its president Abdul Hadi Awang on June 9 on the back of continued wrangling between the two parties.

Not so bad for Harapan and PKR, but PAS seems amenable to making political pacts with other parties, including Umno, which should worry the Madani coalition a lot about what Umno is up to, even if now that is with regard to Johor only. Nothing says it can’t happen for parliamentary elections too.

And then former Bersatu deputy president Hamzah Zainudin, who has fallen out with the party president Muhyiddin Yassin, announced he has formed a new party called Parti Wawasan Negara.

It’s a mystery how it was formed so fast and whether they have the necessary approvals, but the party will be aligned to the Perikatan Nasional coalition.

What is significant is that the new party has the support of PAS, whose president Hadi was present to lend his support. In fact, Hamzah said the party’s name was approved by PAS’ leadership, including Hadi, who was at the so-called “Reset” gathering. Hadi even launched the meeting.

Also present were PN chairperson Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar, Gerakan president Dominic Lau, and Kelantan Menteri Besar Nassuruddin Daud. Significantly, Samsuri is a rising star within PAS and vice president.

It is often speculated that either he or Hamzah may be prime ministerial material if PAS should be asked to form the next government.

Hadi also announced in his officiating speech at the so-called “Reset” convention on Saturday that PAS and its allies within PN have decided to retain Hamzah as its parliamentary opposition leader.

Now, this coalition seems rather strange considering that PAS and Bersatu are the main parties in it and PAS has announced they are cutting political ties with Bersatu. But it looks like if the PN coalition remains, it will be controlled by PAS and Wawasan Negara, sidelining Muhyiddin.

Hamzah’s Wawasan Negara has the backing of 19 previous Bersatu MPs, leaving six with Muhyiddin. Together with PAS’ 43, they form the backbone, accounting for 62 of PN’s 68 seats. The other two parties, Gerakan and MIPP, don’t have any seats.

PAS in strong position

And then on Saturday night too, former Umno member and minister, lawyer Zaid Ibrahim, joined PAS. He said in a Facebook post on Sunday: “Last night I was welcomed as a PAS member by its top national leaders. They're warm, sincere, and friendly.

“I will repay their faith. I will work hard to dispel the image of PAS as an extreme anti-democratic party, not suitable for a multicultural Malaysia.

“On the contrary, PAS is the only Malay-majority party with the strength and resolve to do away with inequality, hegemony and class preferences. The essence of Islam will be the governing principle.

“You will not have under the PAS rule where we are described as equal, but some are more equal than others. That's why PAS will govern Malaysia together with like-minded progressive MPs after the next GE.”

That’s a coup of sorts for PAS: a Malay liberal who has previously been a member of Umno, DAP and PKR - the three other major parties in Malaysia besides PAS - has unequivocally endorsed PAS. A feather in PAS’ cap even if one thought of Zaid as an itinerant party hopper.

The developments perhaps favour PAS most, which seems to have a more coherent strategy going forward than the other three major parties, PKR, DAP and Umno/BN. Bersatu had previously rode on PAS’ robes to gain 25 seats but is now left with six.

By aligning with Wawasan Negara, PAS hopes to have some semblance of multiracialism and moderation. That is helped by Zaid coming into PAS and extolling its virtues, including an endorsement as the only party which might work for all.

Together with the groundwork that it has been doing to strengthen its position and extend its support base, PAS is probably the strongest, best organised party going into the polls and stands the best chance of getting the greatest number of seats for the second time in a row.

Umno is all gung-ho about Johor, but as with previous polls, it has no standing in the Malay heartland where PAS and its allies reign supreme. Even if it retains Johor, it is not likely to do much better elsewhere.

PAS is too smart to ally with Umno in areas where it is dominant, although Umno may make overtures in that direction. Umno’s performance is likely to be middling or even worse at GE16 for Parliament. It has nothing new to offer.

With Chinese and non-Malay support, DAP will still likely pull through but probably could lose seats because of its voicelessness on important issues and the rising support for the Bersama duo, Rafizi and Nik Nazmi, where they are likely to take some urban votes from DAP.

The party most likely to be wiped out in the next election is Bersatu, and with it the exit of Muhyiddin from politics. Its standing of 25 seats in the last election is most likely entirely due to aligning with PAS. They could lose all their seats.

Uncertain future

Anwar’s PKR faces a rather uncertain future from Bersama, which is mounting a credible, coordinated and early challenge to almost all of PKR’s seats, with 10 MPs already in the bag by some counts.

Peculiarly, any support that Anwar may have through Harapan post GE16 may continue to come from DAP, the largest party in the coalition with 40 seats compared to PKR’s 31 and Umno/BN’s 30.

It’s hard to see how Anwar can win enough to ensure the largest number of seats for Harapan to ensure he gets a chance to form the government again. That is likely to pass on to PAS.

It’s unlikely that even if there was some kind of electoral pact with PAS, the Islamic party will give up an opportunity to get its own prime minister. Anwar must be able to see this and therefore will likely go for a full term and announce his resignation before the polls.

As for dark horse Bersama, it is likely to make a significant impact by taking seats in urban areas previously the domain of PKR and even DAP. They may do very much better than expected, but even if they don’t, they will likely set a base for the future by retaining their deposits.

As the only party which has nothing to lose and everything to gain, the possibility for significant upside surprise for Bersama cannot be dismissed. They are, so far, acting true to their intentions, asking for a review of Selangor’s controversial guidelines for places of worship of non-Muslims, for instance.

One thing for sure, this is not an election that Malaysians are going to sit out. Expect participation to increase even if early polls are not called.

Official figures reveal the mismatch. Between 2010 and 2024, Malaysia’s real GDP grew substantially (around 82% cumulatively in some measures), yet median monthly wages rose only modestly, from roughly RM1,300 to RM1,864 in real terms, with average wages showing similar subdued gains. Productivity improvements have not translated into higher worker compensation. Much of the growth stems from capital-intensive sectors, resource extraction, or efficiencies captured by top firms that fail to scale benefits broadly across the community.

Public sector wage hikes, often politically timed, create a demonstration effect that private employers resist. Meanwhile, the informal sector, estimated to comprise a massive portion of economic activity, operates outside minimum wage protections, with low capitalization, minimal innovation, and seasonal or precarious employment. Graduates and young workers frequently drift into this sphere, underemployed and disillusioned.

Comparisons with Thailand underscore the issue. Similar basic wages exist although there are differences in labor market flexibility, foreign worker policies, and export orientation. Malaysia’s reliance on low-cost foreign labor in plantations, construction, manufacturing, and services keeps domestic wages anchored at the bottom. Employers prefer migrants for “3D” (dirty, dangerous, difficult) jobs that locals shun at prevailing pay rates, creating a segmented labor market that discourages wage competition and productivity-enhancing investments in local workers.

Patronage, GLCs, and the NEP Legacy

Malaysia’s economy is not a level playing field. GLCs dominate key sectors, controlling significant market share and prioritizing dividends to fund government budgets over broad-based development. These entities, often shielded by regulations, monopolies, or preferential access, exemplify rent-seeking rather than competitive dynamism. Private firms, especially SMEs and informal operators, face barriers including licensing restrictions, equity requirements rooted in the New Economic Policy (NEP) framework, and patronage networks that favor the connected.

The NEP originally designed to address ethnic economic imbalances, evolved into a tool of social engineering and discrimination that has outlived its utility in many respects. It fostered a privileged elite often intertwined with political families, bureaucracy, and royalty, while stifling genuine entrepreneurship and innovation across communities. Race-based policies deter foreign investors seeking scale, discourage local firms from upgrading (due to equity dilution fears), and channel resources toward low-value, low-productivity activities.

This creates a three-tier labor market. At the bottom, foreign workers in precarious conditions with limited rights. In the middle, Malaysian workers in semi-skilled or service roles with limited career ladders. At the top, public sector, GLC management, and connected professionals who benefit from announcements and networks. The informal sector sits outside, invisible to official statistics but central to survival for many.

Productivity remains low because value addition remains weak. Firms stick to copying, low-tech methods, and short-term coping rather than innovation. Education emphasizes rote learning and religious studies over STEM and critical thinking, producing graduates mismatched for high-value roles. The brain drain is stripping the country of talent seeking better opportunities abroad. Logistics, cabotage policies, and infrastructure gaps further hinder rural and regional enterprises, particularly in Sabah and Sarawak.

The Middle-Class Trap and Inequality

The middle class, which expanded during the boom years of the 1990s and early 2000s, is now squeezed. Rising costs of housing, education, healthcare, and daily essentials outpace wage growth. Many families are “too rich for assistance, too poor to thrive” where people are unable to access targeted subsidies yet struggling with debt and eroded purchasing power. This stagnation risks turning aspiration into resentment.

Income inequality metrics have worsened in periods, with the Gini coefficient reflecting concentration at the top. The B20 (bottom 20%) capture a tiny share of national income, while the T10 take a disproportionate slice. Corporate and civil service elites, often overlapping through patronage, capture gains from GDP growth, leaving workers behind. This is not shared prosperity but a zero-sum dynamic masked by aggregate figures.

Foreign workers, while filling gaps, have externalities such as remittance outflows, social tensions, and depressed wages that discourage locals from certain sectors. Without comprehensive reform, better enforcement, levies that truly incentivize local hiring, and pathways to skills upgrading, the dependency persists, locking the economy into a low-wage, low-productivity equilibrium.

Technology, Unions, and Future Risks

Industry 4.0 and AI promise transformation but currently threaten displacement more than upliftment. Automation in manufacturing, services, and even white-collar tasks (banking, retail) hits the middle tiers hardest without corresponding creation of high-skill jobs accessible to average Malaysians. The education and training systems lag in preparing the workforce.

Trade unions face societal and institutional headwinds. Historical preferences for harmony over confrontation, combined with restrictive laws and ethnic fragmentation, weaken collective bargaining. Without stronger worker voice, employers hold the upper hand in wage negotiations. The political economy compounds the problem. Elite families and networks dominate decision-making, prioritizing control and distribution among insiders over systemic reform. Narratives of supremacy or protectionism obscure the need for merit, competition, and inclusivity. Corruption and favoritism raise business costs and deter efficiency.

Pathways Out of the Trap

Solving wage stagnation requires more than minimum wage tweaks or one-off bonuses. Fundamental shifts are needed:

• Labor Market Reform: Reduce over-reliance on foreign workers through stricter levies, skills thresholds, and enforcement. Pair this with incentives for training and productivity-linked pay.

• Boosting Value and Innovation: Ease regulatory burdens on SMEs, reform equity rules to encourage investment and scaling, and refocus education on practical skills, creativity, and STEM. Support genuine R&D and commercialization rather than patronage-driven projects.

• GLC and Governance Overhaul: Shift GLCs toward efficiency, innovation, and multiplier effects rather than rent extraction. Reduce barriers to private competition.

• Inclusive Growth Policies: Address the informal sector with access to finance, markets, and formalization support that does not choke small operators. Targeted cost-of-living measures and progressive taxation could help without distorting incentives.

• Social Compact Renewal: Encourage constructive unionism and tripartite dialogue. Tackle brain drain by improving opportunities and reducing discrimination.

Without these reforms, Malaysia risks prolonged middle-income entrapment. GDP may rise, but if wages lag, social cohesion frays. The “middle-class trap” becomes self-reinforcing: squeezed households consume less, invest less in human capital, and demand more from a fiscally strained state. Malaysia possesses resources, strategic location, and a young population (though aging).

The question is whether policymakers can move beyond patronage, ethnic lenses, and short-termism toward a genuine Malaysian economy where productivity gains are shared. The alternative is growing polarization, talent loss, and unfulfilled potential—a nation richer in aggregates but poorer in lived experience for most. The window for reform narrows with each passing year of stagnation.

Malaysiakini : Furthermore, it was Anwar, through his religious czar, who was pursuing the Federal Territories Mufti bill, which would have radically transformed the powers of the religious far right in this country.

This is something that PAS dreamt of. This is something the deep Islamic state has been preparing for.

The bill was best defined by SIS Forum - “The Mufti bill, which grants unelected officials the power to legislate without transparency or due process, exemplifies the dangerous erosion of democratic principles and constitutional rights.

“Such laws risk undermining the fundamental freedoms of Malaysians, fostering a culture of control rather than empowerment, and silencing diverse perspectives crucial for a progressive society.”

This country has been run by Perikatan Nasional before, and it was a time when Malaysia went through so many prime ministers; it was difficult keeping track of who was in charge of the circus.

Also, as we can see, the only thing these Malay uber alles types love more than making alliances to defend race and religion is breaking up that alliance for perceived slights and infractions, which merely means that various potentates were not getting their due.

Non-Malays voting for Harapan, which Leong acknowledges is not the coalition that got the most Malay votes, means that everything Madani does in terms of policy and optics is to appeal to the Malay community, which is what PAS does already.

Keep in mind that for decades, the non-Malays voted for BN and demonised the opposition using pragmatism as a rallying cry instead of institutional reform. And to be fair, for decades, the non-Malays prospered while their Malay/Muslim brethren were short-changed by the Malay uber alles party they voted for.

Umno collapse drives PN surge

Three years ago, former DAP MP Ong Kian Ming agreed with Umno man Khairy Jamaluddin that the Green Wave narrative was a “lazy shorthand”.

Ong wrote: “It diverts attention from the main reason for the increase in votes for PN: a disastrous collapse in support for Umno in all states in Peninsular Malaysia, except for Negeri Sembilan and Johor.

“It was this unhappiness with Umno and specifically, the leadership of Zahid, that enabled PN to benefit from the groundswell of dissatisfaction.”

What most politically correct observers do not want to publicly acknowledge is that if the dominant polity that voted for PN really wanted an alternative, they would have chosen PKR and Harapan.

After all, Harapan-controlled states were run more efficiently than BN states and were drawing local economic migrants from less developed states.

Now, of course, in Johor, Umno is in ascendancy, and with this comes all sorts of political opportunities which make anything the non-Malays do mean bupkis.

There really is nothing stopping Umno, PAS, and Bersatu from joining forces or any kind of political alliances which shut out non-Malay power brokers. They have done this before and imploded spectacularly.

While Zahid may say that there will never be another pact with its sworn enemy, PAS, can any rational Malaysian take his word for it?

Folks got their knickers in a twist when PN candidate Goh Gaik Meng said the non-Malays cannot stop the Malay tsunami - “I actually want to tell the people of Selangor... the Chinese cannot stop this Malay tsunami. A so-called tsunami within the Malay community has been set off.

“As a minority ethnic group with only 20-30 percent (of the population) in this country, we cannot stop this so-called Malay tsunami.”

PAS strategy and Malay political unity

However, the reality is that the mainstream Malay political establishment, from the royal institution to a significant segment of the vox populi, wants some sort of Malay unity.

Do not for one second think that I am downplaying the threat of the Green Wave. PAS has very clear ideas about how to use democracy and legislation to suppress the non-Malay vote.

PAS will lead the effort to disenfranchise the non-Malay vote even more and perhaps make the non-Malay vote meaningless. This is the plan, and PAS has been very open about it.

In 2021, then-PAS central committee member Khairuddin Aman Razali said, “There are long-term (needs) that require us to win the next general election with a two-thirds majority.

“(Upon achieving this), the electoral boundaries need to be changed to benefit Muslims.

“We also need to increase the number of parliamentary seats in Malay-majority areas.”

Keep in mind, two years ago, folks were going on about “coalition politics” as if it were the new normal. The reality is that there really wasn’t any real coalition give and take, but rather Madani rearing snakes in their tent while carrying out policy-making initiatives which put a smile on the visage of the Green Wave.

Have you noticed that, especially among PN supporters, there really is no central figure standing in opposition to Anwar? The theocratic state-in-waiting understands they have no need for prime ministers in the sense of someone leading the country. All they need is a figurehead.

The fact is that what Madani is doing is making it easier for PAS when it eventually takes over. We are not dealing with differing political ideologies here. What Muslim disunity has achieved is the suppression and dismantling of progressive ideas and personalities in the majority community.

The Green Wave is the existential threat facing rational Malaysians, but it is not simply about not voting for PAS, as the facts demonstrate. Non-Malays haven’t been able to stop the Green Wave, and PAS is merely a fait accompli.

What non-Malays need to do is to vote for Malaysians who are not too concerned about spooking the Malays.

Malaysiakini : Why turn it into racial issue?

The first problem is that this is not a non-Malay issue. Malays are frustrated too, as are Chinese, Indians, Sabahans, and Sarawakians.

The cost of living does not ask your race before emptying your wallet. Corruption does not ask your race before damaging public trust. Poor governance does not ask your race before affecting your daily life.

So why are we still talking about frustration through racial lenses? Leong should know better.

For decades, politicians told us that we are one nation. Yet whenever problems arise, we are immediately divided into Malay concerns, Chinese concerns, Indian concerns, and non-Malay concerns.

Perhaps one reason Malaysia struggles to move beyond race is that our politics keeps dragging us back into it.

Then there is the economy. Leong points to gross domestic product (GDP) growth, foreign investment, a stronger ringgit and record tourist arrivals. Good to know these, but ordinary Malaysians do not live inside GDP statistics.

They live in the space between payday and the next bill. They see the economy every time they buy groceries, pay rent, settle their utility bills, or wonder whether their income will stretch to the end of the month.

A mother buying groceries cannot pay with GDP growth. A retiree cannot settle his electricity bill with foreign investment figures.

Always getting there but not quite there

His article also asks for patience, that reforms take time, coalitions are complicated, bureaucracies are slow, and institutions resist change.

All true, but Malaysians did not elect a government to explain obstacles with endless spin. They elected a government to overcome them.

Coalition politics may explain the delay. They do not excuse it. Institutional constraints may explain the difficulty. They do not replace delivery.

At some point, a reason stops being a reason. It becomes an excuse, and that is why many voters are asking a simple question: Where are the reforms?

We don’t need the endless speeches, announcements, and promises of reform because reform cannot permanently exist in the future tense. It cannot always be “coming soon”.

Madani’s reforms are like a bus that is always about to reach the next stop, but never does.

Pussyfooting around racial issues

The same applies to religious and cultural issues. Citizens are told these matters are sensitive. We know they are, but sensitivity cannot become a substitute for fairness.

When temples are relocated, when non-Muslim places of worship face restrictions and when questions arise over whether a church or temple should be lower than a mosque, citizens have every right to ask why.

Why should the height of another person’s building threaten the strength of one’s faith? A confident faith does not require a tape measure.

Right to ask questions

And while we are on the subject of questions, citizens also have every right to question government decisions, especially about public spending, procurement, governance, or competence.

That is not extremism. That is simply citizenship.

Democracy is not strengthened when people stop asking questions. It is strengthened by answers and facts, not debates, police reports, and enforcement language.

Take the littoral combat ships project. Billions of ringgits were spent, years passed, deadlines missed, explanations offered, and then even more explanations followed.

The public kept asking the same question: Where are the ships? Unsurprisingly, the answers have always been more “explanations”.

Then there is Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd. Taxpayers’ money is not a bottomless pit of bailout money. Citizens are entitled to ask why money intended for national defence appears entangled with corporate rescue exercises and debt problems.

We are justified in asking at what point does public money stop serving the public and start serving institutional failure?

Then there is corruption. Ordinary Malaysians are repeatedly told nobody is above the law, but high-profile cases often seem to end with acquittals, discharge not amounting to acquittals (DNAA), reduced sentences, reduced fines, compounds, or pardons.

Each case may have its own legal explanation, but public trust is built on consistency, which many people feel is missing.

The same applies to concerns about powerful networks operating behind the scenes. Take your pick: Corporate interests, political patronage, procurement ecosystems, cartels, and cases that fade away.

Whether these concerns are justified or not, they exist, and ignoring them will not make them disappear.

Silence rarely builds confidence. Transparency does.

Bogeyman tactics

Finally, Leong warned about the Green Wave.

Many Malaysians share legitimate concerns about extremism, but fear cannot become a government’s permanent campaign strategy.

A government cannot endlessly ask voters to support it because the alternative may be worse.

So we will ask this question. “What have you done with the opportunity we already gave you?”

We deserve an answer, and we do not need another warning from politicians, because the biggest mistake they make is assuming public frustration comes from misunderstanding.

More often, it comes from understanding perfectly well. We understand what was promised, what was delivered, and the gap in between.

Explanations are not achievements, and when the same explanations are repeated year after year, they stop sounding like explanations. They are excuses.

Leong said that we are voting for ourselves and our children, and that not voting means surrendering our power to those who may not have our best interests at heart.

That is the theory, because our experience is simple: votes are repeatedly used to return to power people who later prove they do not have our best interests at heart.

Malaysiakini :  For the non-Malays in this country, this merely means baseline democratic norms.

Nobody is questioning the position of the religion of the state, the role of the monarchy and of course the entitlements of the majority.

What we want is not to be persecuted using the religion of the state, the weaponisation of the royal establishment and being marginalised by the entitlement programmes of the majority.

We expect the leadership of our chosen political parties to look after the interests of the people, specifically the non-Malay communities.

Mind you, what the non-Malays value in terms of economic posterity and political stability are policies which would benefit all Malaysians, hence mainstream non-Malay politics are utilitarian in nature.

Malay rights have been weaponised to the point that the Madani regime would rather not carry out any utilitarian policies that would benefit everyone, especially the Malays, because they are the majority, for fear of the opposition claiming that Malay/Muslim rights are being sidelined because of the DAP.

The lesson of the failure and failings of Madani is that the non-Malay community must give up this idea of governing.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

Even with the best of intentions, non-Malay political operatives are hampered by the mainstream political dogma of all parties, which is grounded in ethnic and religious superiority.

Non-Malay political operatives say one thing to the base and do the exact opposite when they sit down and formulate policy, either on a state or federal level.

Campaign promises are discarded, or their failure to implement them is blamed on the deep state.

Non-Malay politicians act as if they have no power, or when they attempt to use it, they are vilified by being labelled anti-Malay, at which point they fold and conform to official state and federal religious and ethnic narratives of superiority.

In Pakatan Harapan’s brief tenure in the federal government, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad publicly castrated Lim Guan Eng when he said that Lim had to run everything through him before he made any important decisions.

There was a concerted effort to give the Malays more at the expense of the Chinese community, but nothing could be said at the time because this would upset the DAP’s non-Malay base.

This is how the Malay establishment wants it. Read Aminuddin Yahaya’s piece in Malaysiakini back in 2020 - “MCA boleh jatuhkan kerajaan Melayu-Islam?”

What the author describes in his piece is what the Malay establishment wants from its non-Malay partners. What they want is subservience.

Aminuddin is gleeful of the fact that the MCA only survived because Umno breathed life into it, and bemoans the fact that even though the MCA relies on Malay-dominated polities, they continue insulting the Malay uber alles government with the interests of the community they represent.

He even makes the point that the MCA, in order to get back Chinese support, mimics the DAP.

“Pada PRU 14, MCA sebenarnya sudah mati tetapi diberi nafas kembali oleh Umno. Ini kerana lebih 90 peratus daripada masyarakat Cina sudah menyokong DAP melalui PH dan menolak MCA. MCA yang memang sudah sekian lama terdesak mahu memenangi kembali hati pengundi Cina, mereka sanggup berbuat apa sahaja termasuklah ‘berperangai’ seperti DAP.”

(In GE14, MCA already met its end but was given a new breath of life by Umno. This is because more than 90 percent of the Chinese community is already supporting DAP through Harapan and has rejected MCA. MCA has indeed long been desperate to win back Chinese voters’ hearts; they are willing to do whatever it takes, including ‘acting’ like DAP.)

Ideals clash with reality

The non-Malay political narrative post-May 13 has been one of backpedalling, reversals, sycophancy, and Orwellian doublespeak because the weight of expectations collided with the realpolitik of Malay rule.

Deputy Investment, Trade and Industry Minister Liew Chin Tong’s description of how the DAP gave everything to then-home minister Muhyiddin Yassin, but it wasn’t enough, points to how non-Malay political operatives were desperate for some sort of consensus or compromise, but this still made them targets of opportunity for the Malay establishment.

The DAP, which should have been an outspoken political bloc in the regime, is neutered by Umno and sidelined by the chief executive because Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim understands that the very appearance of relying on them or defiance from them would be bad optics for the voting base he wants to cultivate.

We see all these non-Malay political operatives in government at the state and federal levels, but what changes have they made to the way this country is governed?

Partisans have this really dumb line about how non-Malay politicians are “hard working”, and you have to ask yourself what exactly they are working hard for, or better yet, who are they working hard for?

Some non-Malay partisans are contributing to the racist narrative that non-Malay politicians ab initio are hardworking compared to their lazy Malay counterparts. The reality, of course, is all these politicians are doing is nurturing a conducive ecosystem of political and corporate malfeasance.

These days, the DAP seems to be the connective tissue between the mainstream Malay establishment and the plutocratic class rather than the connective tissue between democratic ideas and their non-Malay base.

What other choice do we have?

The reality, of course, is that all these politicians are doing is nurturing a conducive ecosystem of political and corporate malfeasance.

During election season, all these non-Malay political operatives start banging the drum when it comes to issues facing the non-Malay communities, and of course, the threat of the Green Wave is shouted from the rooftops of Putrajaya and urban and semi-urban centres.

Anwar is very well aware that although non-Malays rant and rave on social media, the reality is that when it comes to the ballot box, they will vote for his proxies because they believe that, as flawed as he is, there is no alternative.

Rational Malaysians have to understand that it is pointless to be in any kind of supremacist government because the price of admission is subservience. Better to be on the outside on your feet than inside on your knees.

The problem is, being on your knees inside gets you paid. As it is, non-Malay governing seems more like gaslighting for entrenched supremacist interests.

I truly believe when non-Malays realise that it is better to have a strong opposition voicing baseline democratic ideas and not be involved in the current swamp of policymaking and becoming contributors to the swamp, there will truly be a movement of reform for rational Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or class.

This is what mainstream Malay politicians fear.