The Malays, as we would recognise them, did not exist yet when that expansion began - they took shape much later, inside Island Southeast Asia itself, through contact, adaptation and the gradual formation of states.

So where exactly did that happen? Several of the earliest written sources point to the same answer: southeast Sumatra, not the Malay Peninsula.

Chinese records from the 7th century mention a kingdom called Mo-lo-yu, or Malayu, in the Jambi region.

Centuries later, the Javanese court poet Mpu Prapanca, in his book titled “Desawarnana”, also located Melayu in Sumatra. Writing in the early 16th century, the Portuguese apothecary Tomé Pires associated Tanah Melayu with an area near Palembang.

What is striking here is not just what these sources say, but who is saying it.

A Chinese court chronicler, a Javanese poet and a Portuguese apothecary had nothing in common - different centuries, different civilisations, different reasons for writing. Yet they all locate the same region as the birthplace of Melayu.

What modern historians say?

Modern historians back this up. Leonard Andaya has argued that “Malay” originally referred to communities in southeast Sumatra, only later expanding to cover other Malay-speaking populations.

OW Wolters went further, describing the southeastern coast of Sumatra as the heartland of the early Malay seafaring world.

When four independent traditions - separated by centuries and by civilisation - line up this closely with each other and with modern scholarship, that is not a coincidence worth dismissing.

This should not really be controversial if you think about it. Peoples migrate. They build new centres of power.

They turn unfamiliar land into the heartland of a civilisation that had not previously existed there. The English did not originate in London. The Turks did not first emerge in Anatolia.

Recognising southeast Sumatra as the Malays’ earliest home does not take anything away from what they went on to build on the peninsula.

If anything, it explains it.

How the peninsula became Tanah Melayu

For more than 2,000 years, the Straits of Malacca connected the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea - one of the busiest sea lanes on earth.

Rather than dividing Sumatra from the peninsula, the straits bound them together. Traders crossed back and forth. So did scholars, religious teachers and ruling families.

Alliances were made, trade networks grew, and cultural habits moved freely between both shores long before Malacca ever existed.

It was this constant traffic across the straits that eventually pulled the centre of gravity of Malay civilisation away from Sumatra and onto the peninsula.

The turning point came with the founding of the Malacca Sultanate around 1400. Its founder, Parameswara, was a prince from Palembang - in other words, from the old Sumatran heartland.

His crossing to the peninsula was not an isolated event; it was really just the most consequential instance of a movement that had been building for generations, as Malay rulers, traders and settlers kept crossing the straits in search of new opportunities.

Malacca had one enormous advantage: location. Ships from China, India, the Middle East and across the archipelago all converged there, turning it into more than a trading post – it became a hub of diplomacy, scholarship and religious exchange.

Malay became the language of regional trade. Islam embedded itself in the political and social life of the region. Malay ideas about kingship, law and court culture became the template that later sultanates across maritime Southeast Asia would copy.

It is fitting that Andaya calls Malacca the “standard-bearer” of Malay civilisation.

As Malacca’s influence grew, so did the meaning of the word “Melayu” itself. What had once described communities on the Sumatran coast gradually stretched to cover a much wider cultural and political identity.

By the early 1500s, the peninsula - not Sumatra - had become the centre of Malay political power, trade and culture.

That shift, not some original point of origin, is the real reason the peninsula came to be called Tanah Melayu.

What this means for Malay identity

This history also tells us something about what being “Malay” actually meant. Anthony Milner has made the point that “Malayness” was never just about bloodline.

Over centuries, it developed into something closer to a civilisational identity - built around language, Islam, loyalty to Malay rulers, and adherence to Malay custom.

Communities from Java, Minangkabau, the Bugis lands, Banjar and Aceh were gradually absorbed into this wider Malay world through assimilation.

Families of Arab, Indian and Chinese descent who adopted Islam, spoke Malay and lived by Malay custom were, in time, accepted as Malay too.

Malaysia’s Federal Constitution still reflects this. It defines a Malay by religion, language and custom - not by descent.

Why this matters?

Does any of this actually matter, beyond academic interest? I think it does – because our understanding of history should rest on evidence, not on inherited assumptions that nobody bothers to check.

Recognising southeast Sumatra as the Malays’ earliest home does not undermine the constitutional position of Malays today, nor does it diminish the peninsula’s central role in Malay history, or the achievements of the Malay sultanates and rulers.

Those belong to a different – later - chapter of the story, and there is no need to conflate the two.

If anything, the historical record makes the Malay story more impressive, not less. Starting from southeast Sumatra, the Malays built a civilisation whose reach went far beyond its original borders.

Their language became the lingua franca of maritime Southeast Asia. Their political traditions shaped one sultanate after another. Their literary, legal and cultural legacy is still felt across the region today.

History rarely stays still. It is not about fixed homelands or unchanging identities - it is about movement, adaptation and renewal. The Malays are a good example of exactly that.

Conclusion

So, was the Malay Peninsula the ancestral homeland of the Malays? The evidence does not really support that claim.

---

READ MORE: COMMENT | History, homeland, and who belongs in Malaysia

---

The earliest surviving written references to “Melayu”, together with the conclusions of leading historians, point instead to southeast Sumatra as the Malays’ original homeland.

It was only over the following centuries that the centre of Malay civilisation crossed the straits to the peninsula, where it eventually reached its fullest political, cultural and intellectual expression.

This is not just a technical correction. It is a reminder that peoples and civilisations rarely stay put in one place, frozen at one moment in time.

What makes the Malays remarkable is not a claim to some single, unbroken homeland - it is their ability to build, again and again, a civilisation that shaped the history of an entire region.

He must question management, challenge decisions, identify risks, and ensure that the board acts in the best interests of the institution.

According to the RCI, the Tabung Haji board approved accounting practices involving subjective asset valuations which strengthened the institution’s reported financial position. These figures were then used to justify hibah payments and bonuses which the commission found were not financially sustainable.

These were not minor operational decisions. They were governance decisions.

A chairperson cannot claim responsibility when things go well, but distance himself when questions arise. A chairperson is not appointed because he knows everything. He is appointed to make sure that important questions are asked.

Power without accountability

Malaysia has developed a disturbing culture, whereby those at the top enjoy the authority, status, and benefits of leadership.

However, when things go wrong, responsibility appears to disappear. Management made the decisions. The CEO handled operations. The board relied on reports. The minister relied on advice.

Everyone had a role, yet nobody is responsible.

This is Malaysia’s accountability discount. The higher the position, the easier it appears to simply claim: “I didn’t know.”

Unfortunately, Tabung Haji is not an isolated case. Malaysians have heard variations of the same explanation before.

Felda. 1MDB. MAS. The Scorpene controversy. The littoral combat ships scandal.

Different institutions. Different leaders. Different circumstances.

Yet the same refrain: “I wasn’t involved.” “It was management.” “The board approved it.” “Don't blame me.”

The facts of these cases are different and should be judged individually.

But the broader question remains: Why does Malaysia repeatedly fail to build institutions where responsibility follows authority?

The greatest failure is not merely that scandals happen. The greatest failure is that the lessons disappear afterwards.

More than money, a sacred trust

This is why Tabung Haji matters so deeply. It is not simply another government-linked institution. For millions of Malays and Muslims, Tabung Haji represents years of sacrifice and discipline.

Every ringgit deposited represents a dream - to fulfil one of the most important obligations in Islam.

Parents save for their children. Families put aside money for decades. Many ordinary Malaysians sacrifice other comforts because performing the haj is a lifelong aspiration.

The government was therefore entrusted with more than savings. It was entrusted with faith.

When confidence in Tabung Haji was shaken, many depositors withdrew their money. They were not reacting merely to accounting figures. They were reacting to a loss of trust.

Financial losses can be repaired. Broken trust is far harder to restore.

The Tabung Haji episode also raises a wider question about political appointments.

Why are politicians and politically connected individuals repeatedly appointed to institutions managing billions of ringgit?

A board should exist to challenge management, not simply endorse decisions placed before it. If directors do not independently question proposals, then governance becomes nothing more than a performance.

Public institutions do not need political decoration. They need professional guardians.

Structural change, not another inquiry

Malaysia does not need another RCI followed by another promise of reform. It needs structural change.

First, major public institutions should have transparent, merit-based appointments. Those managing billions of ringgit belonging to ordinary Malaysians should be selected for competence, independence, and governance experience, not political connections.

Second, RCI recommendations should not disappear into government files. Every report should trigger a formal parliamentary review, with the government required to explain what actions have been taken.

Third, those appointed to leadership positions must understand one simple principle: authority and responsibility must come together.

You cannot accept the title, influence, and benefits of leadership, then reject responsibility when failures occur.

The issue is no longer just Abdul Azeez. He represents a much larger problem.

Malaysia does not suffer from a shortage of inquiries or recommendations. It suffers from a shortage of reform and the political will to implement it.

Every government promises change when it is in opposition. Every government speaks of transparency, accountability, and meritocracy; but once in power, the temptation to preserve the same systems of patronage often proves too strong.

Real reform requires more than speeches. It requires leaders willing to change a system that may benefit those holding power.

Tabung Haji was entrusted with the hopes of millions of Muslims. Other scandals affected taxpayers, settlers, employees, and national security.

Different victims. Different institutions. Same governance failure.

Until Malaysia replaces political patronage with merit, and excuses with accountability, another scandal will come.

The institution will be different. The names will be different. But the words may sound familiar. “I didn’t know.”

Similarly, the contributions of Indians in the rubber industry are reduced to just two sentences in the same book.

Indian labourers also literally built roads, railways, bridges, ports, and government buildings all over Malaya.

The Public Works Department (PWD) was once dominated by Indian Malaysians, and that’s why the late MIC president S Samy Vellu served as the works minister.

Don’t forget that many labourers died from malaria while clearing the jungles for mines and rubber estates, and also from malnutrition and exploitation.

Dear Anwar, isn’t that the “sacrifice” that you spoke of at Fort Cornwallis?

Many towns were also built by Chinese and Indian traders. The new textbooks may deny this, but the hard evidence can still be seen in heritage shops.

How do Malay students visiting our old towns reconcile what they see with what they have “learned” in school?

I agree with Ranjit that Malays are the “tunjang” or backbone of this country. Nobody disputes that. But please lah, why resort to rewriting history to downplay the contribution of other races? That doesn’t exactly reflect self-confidence.

Sanusi covers failures with racism

Both Anwar and Sanusi made political speeches which lacked historical truth. The latter has repeatedly waded into racial issues, drawing criticism from his opponents and civil society groups, to divert from his own trainwrecks.

Kedah under PAS has failed to ensure adequate water supply while deforestation starves rivers during the dry season.

In the rainy season, devastating floods can happen, as seen in Yan in 2021.

The RM73 million Sungai Petani racing circuit lies abandoned while the RM1.3 billion race track cum resort project in Langkawi was allegedly given to a bankrupt.

The biggest blow was the withdrawal of Dubai investors from the RM40 billion Widad Langkasuka mixed development project

All these, plus the Kulim International Airport, were part of Sanusi’s “Greater Kedah” blueprint. However, they have all ended up a dud.

But Sanusi is a taichi master in avoiding blame by using racial rhetoric, including his latest Tanah Melayu comments.

---

ALSO READ: COMMENT | 'Malays only have Malaya' remark based on historical context

---

It was deemed too racist even by Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who told the Kedah MB not to come and mess up the election campaign in Negeri Sembilan.

He said Sanusi must respect Malaysia’s multiracial society and not touch on race, religion, and royalty during the Negeri Sembilan campaign.

Despite the barrage of criticism from Zahid and other BN leaders, the BN-Perikatan Nasional pact continues in the state.

This proves that even racism, which Umno itself admits has gone too far, will not derail the political cooperation.

Insulting Malay Nusantara heritage

The PAS leader has insulted not only Chinese and Indians but also trampled on the glorious regional heritage of the Malay Nusantara.

He seems to have deliberately ignored the fact that three sultans have Bugis ancestors from South Sulawesi and that the Minangkabau people of Negeri Sembilan came from western Sumatera.

Let’s not forget that the Malays of East Malaysia draw their heritage from the past Brunei empire that once controlled all of Sarawak and Sabah.

Sanusi also conveniently overlooked that many Pattani Malays from southern Thailand have opened tomyam shops all over the country!

If you go to the counter or kitchen, take a peek at the order chits, which are often written in Thai! Yet they speak a Malay dialect similar to Kelantanese.

Many Malays have Javanese roots, including Zahid and former Selangor menteri besar Khir Toyo. Malaysia has at least six places called Kampung Jawa in Selangor, Malacca, Kuantan, and Segamat in Johor.

In fact, there are so many Javanese in Ayer Hitam, Johor and Sekinchan, Selangor that the two Chinese politicians there - MCA president Wee Ka Siong and Selangor exco Ng Suee Lim - can speak some Javanese!

Even Parameswara, the founder of Malacca, was a refugee prince from Palembang, fleeing the ruins of the Srivijaya empire. The empire his successors founded later was on both the Malay Peninsula and Sumatera.

Dubious claims

There were also dubious claims about the “glorious” record of the warrior Mat Kilau in a jingoistic movie, which was also debunked by Ranjit.

He pointed out that the nobles involved were actually more interested in defending their own feudal privileges, as the British wanted to restrict slavery and take over tax collection.

So, why resort to false history to bolster racial pride? Well, fake modern histories about “defending” or “uplifting” Malays are also heard nowadays from the same political party that enabled the neo-feudal plunder of 1MDB, Tabung Haji, and Felda.

There seems to be a pattern here.

---

READ MORE: Najib's 1MDB plunder made Attila the Hun look like a choirboy – judge

---

And of course, Sanusi had claimed repeatedly that Penang should be returned to Kedah.

Bashing a Chinese-majority DAP-led state is a tried and tested tactic to distract Kedah Malays from the multiple failures of the PAS-led state government.

But he should be careful while playing games with history. What if Thailand reclaims Kedah, Kelantan, and Terengganu?

Can Brunei reclaim Sarawak? Can the Philippines claim Sabah?

Is Anwar better?

Sanusi is a serial rabble-rouser, but is Anwar any better? After all, he is a “great intellectual” who (supposedly) wrote “The Asian Renaissance” book.

Anwar spoke of decolonising the past at Fort Cornwallis but ignores the whitewashing, or rather brown-washing, of history to glorify one race and downplay others.

The system has been pushing a new “ketuanan” (supremacy) version of history, but Anwar seems oblivious.

Sadly, it’s no accident that the blood and sweat of Chinese and Indians in building this nation’s wealth are being erased from school textbooks - 17 of the 18 writers are from one ethnic group, noted Ranjit.

He lamented that our Indian past has also been covered up, even though many Malay words such as “syurga” (heaven), “neraka” (hell), “suka” (like), “duka” (sad), “raja” (king), “menteri” (minister) and even “agama” (religion), “bahasa” (language), and bumiputera all come from Sanskrit or Pali languages.

The words “kedai” (shop), “katil” (bed), “kapal” (ship) come from Tamil.

---

ALSO READ: COMMENT | Restoring the Hindu-Buddhist foundations of Malay civilisation

---

Heck, even the role of the most bumiputera of bumiputera, the Orang Asli, has been ignored, said Ranjit. Does this psychologically enable powerful elites to grab their land?

A dubious academic

The distortion of history is getting extreme, with an academic declaring that ancient Malays taught shipbuilding to Romans and flying kungfu to people in China.

She even claimed that the Prophet’s wife, Khadija, was Malay.

The rewriting of history seems to say: this country was built by one race, and that’s why we “deserve” to be the masters or “tuan”.

There are many smart Malays around who don’t need this false boost. Artificially inflated bubbles don’t help genuine Malay progress; they just mask failures.

Just look at Sanusi. Yes, build real self-confidence, not fake chest-thumping from half-truths.

Meanwhile, only genuine multiracial history can build real harmony and unity.

So, dear Anwar, please stop the disease of replacing white colonial masters’ history with that of new brown “tuan”.

At 79 this year, he is hardly the person to take the country to new heights. He had his chance and blew it.

Even if he wants to switch sides to the winning coalition/electoral pact, they may not want him, even if he has willingly or unwittingly handed the mantle to them on a platter by his inaction and inaptitude, losing support from all quarters.

PN, the dominant partner

Remember PAS’ main partner in the Perikatan Nasional coalition is now Hamzah Zainudin’s Parti Wawasan Negara.

In the BN/PN coalition or electoral pact, it will be PN which will be the dominant partner.

Umno-BN is not really the phoenix rising from the ashes, even if things go well in terms of the electoral pact with PAS-PN.

If nobody derails the train, it is almost inevitable that if they combined, PN and BN will be the ones asked to form the government.

Currently, PN controls 62 parliamentary seats (PAS 43, and Wawasan Negara, 19). Given their current strength, they could take the total in a new election to over 80.

If BN can take their number to over 40 from the 30 held, PN and BN are set to form the next government on their own.

In the current 222-seat Dewan Rakyat, 112 gives a majority.

Sabah and Sarawak will be induced to join the winning side, and they will be part of quite a solid pact, even a two-thirds majority. But a pact with no direction and strategy for the future.

PAS will lead the team of PN-BN as Bersatu remains totally sidelined, although it may give up the reins to someone in Umno or to the other major partner, Wawasan Negara, in the revitalised PN-BN electoral pact, for the prime minister’s position.

No Islamic law for all

It would not lead to Islamic law for everyone, which would require a two-thirds majority. There is a body of opinion that says even then, it will go against the basic doctrine of the Federal Constitution if it is done, opening legal challenges.

Even if it is put to parliamentary vote, the move to create an Islamic state for all is unlikely to succeed because Sabah and Sarawak will largely not support it.

The non-Muslim components of BN too will oppose it.

More frightening than an Islamic state is that the non-existent fight against corruption will descend into an open support for it to fund the various parties, cultivate breeds of businesspeople who support the government, and the ignorance of all public revelations of corruption and misgovernance.

It’s a continuation of the Madani government but only much worse, a descent into the downward spiral of Umno politics which has cost the country dearly over the decades.

Spawning rapacious behaviour

It will enrich the already rich, ignoring the plight of poor Malays and others, and spawn more rapacious behaviour exemplified by the 1MDB scandal, losing RM42 billion in loans stolen and perhaps over RM100 billion in opportunity costs.

---

READ MORE: Najib's 1MDB plunder made Attila the Hun look like a choirboy - judge

---

And even in the house arrest/pardon of one of the main perpetrators.

As corruption increases, expect racism to rise. The current crop of politicians still believe that racism will unite groups to support the more dangerous corruption that they will be pushing. Malaysians are no longer convinced of that rhetoric, though.

The unique Bersama

In the meantime, Bersama is the only party that is not playing racial politics among those considered to be in contention, if not now, then in the future.

But all they are likely to do in the immediate future is to get a few seats and maintain the fight for the long term.

At the 17th general election, five to seven years from now, they may make some headway, especially with the young, our hope for the future.

However, they will probably need another five years to make a real difference and have a shot at becoming the dominant party.

The problem that faces Malaysia now is one of poor leadership. It's true what they say about others being worse than Anwar. But unless there is some change, there is no impetus towards better leadership further out. Change forces new leaders to emerge.

A new set of longer-term younger leaders is our only hope for change in the future.

The current leadership espousing patronage politics, which implies continued corruption, has to go or be forced out over time.

After GE16, it's going to be more of the same with the probability of greater misgovernance.

Priorities for economic development and better living standards will be misplaced in favour of the narrow interests of a few. The future is foreboding indeed.

A silver lining

The only silver lining is that in the likely event that the new coalition leading the government misgoverns, there will be greater impetus for change then, and perhaps Bersama might become an acceptable alternative, although it may take GE18 before it can take over.

For most Malaysians, it means making the best of a bad situation now, doing what is possible within current constraints and taking any opportunities for change, passing the mantle to others who have proven that they can be better.

Some patches of light: a strong, well-diversified economy, relatively well-trained workforce, a nice place to live although deteriorating and largely good people whom politicians are trying their level best to make racist.

This seems like a good place to stop writing and prepare with equanimity and calm for the trouble and turmoil ahead and learn how to live with it until it passes, making little transformations along the way.

Malaysians already know full well what’s happening and what they are up against.

Furthermore, it gives the DAP’s political allies a convenient whipping boy when they want to burnish their race and religion credentials.

I do not think that anyone is seriously advocating for the DAP abandoning Harapan, but many are questioning DAP’s role in Madani.

DAP could still support Anwar but play no role in this Madani sham. Furthermore, Madani has demonstrated that it would throw DAP under the bus when it comes to Malay sensitivities.

DAP representatives have been vilified.

DAP representatives have had police reports made against them.

A DAP representative had his home firebombed.

DAP representatives have been reprimanded by the prime minister of their coalition.

DAP representatives have had to make retractions and apologies.

DAP representatives have been attacked by online mobs, who happen to also be the people who voted for them, and did you see DAP having a hissy fit and threatening to resign from all posts and abandoning Madani?

Have you seen Malay/Muslim coalition partners give genuine support when the DAP has come under these kinds of attacks?

Cost of staying in govt

For the sake of Madani, DAP placed a monetary value on Teoh Beng Hock’s murder. And let us not forget all the other malfeasances that DAP has turned a blind eye to in the name of nation building.

When “Thanos” was transferred, was this nation building?

When the state does not investigate certain cases, is this nation building?

When the state claims there is not enough evidence to prosecute religious provocateurs, is this nation building?

When the police refuse to act on the kidnapping of M Indira Gandhi’s child, the spirit of Teoh is present. When Raymond Koh, Amri Che Mat, Pamela Ling, and others are subject to enforced disappearance, is this nation building?

Or maybe something like the Urban Renewal Act (URA) is the kind of nation building that DAP is into.

From P Gunasegaram’s trenchant piece - “Now, here comes the killer. Under Section 5(2) of the proposed URA, the Federal Executive Committee will have the minister as chairperson. That would be Nga Kor Ming, the rising voice of DAP and a strong advocate of the URA, which property developers love. He would steer the FEC.”

Madani is merely a vehicle for Umno to engineer a reversal of fortune. By giving such prominence to Umno in Madani, the prime minister has allowed Umno to leverage its federal influence and symbiotic relationships with an entrenched civil service to make moves on a state level.

This is why the prime minister is making all sorts of overtures to the civil service and apologises for his harsh tone towards them.

Furthermore, as cabinet members with a huge sway on policy, whatever policy moves that Umno makes are to ensure that it plays into the strategies of state moves, which ultimately is a political war of attrition with Harapan.

By kneecapping DAP, which Madani has done because it is deathly afraid of spooking the Malays, Madani has done a good job at destabilising non-Malay support for DAP, which only benefits Umno and PAS.

Madani’s political gamble

Corruption is not a recent phenomenon; rather, it is part of the DNA of the organism fueled by racial and religious imperatives and a compromised electoral system.

Umno/BN designed the system, and Madani is attempting to replicate it, so any attempt at corrective measures is met by a deluge of propaganda or the spectre of the “Green Wave”.

Remember Perikatan Nasional was briefly in power, and how did that go? With all those really dumb “Langkah, langkahs” (moves), professional charlatans figured out they didn’t even need voting to get into power, and a small shift in voting got them ejected from the halls of power in Putrajaya.

With the way the system is gerrymandered, and the unequal weightage of votes, issues like corruption and competent governance are not exactly the greatest concerns of a majority of rakyat who sustain themselves on entitlement programmes and the delirium of social media.

DAP can remain in Harapan without participating in a government that ultimately strengthens Umno and PAS strategies. Perhaps, when more Malaysians recognise that politics should not simply be about holding office, the conversation can shift.

DAP does not need government positions to support policies that benefit the average rakyat. The real question, then, is whether participation in government is genuinely about nation building - or whether it has become about preserving political power and personal interests.

It is funny; the scrapped July 12 special congress could have been the reset that Malaysia and Harapan needed.

Undeniably, the Malays emerged as the “definitive people” of the Malay Peninsula, shaping its enduring political, cultural, and civilisational identity.

The Malay Peninsula has long been the historical homeland of the Malays. Their institutions, language, customs, and rulers shaped the peninsula’s identity over many centuries. This historical reality deserves recognition and respect - and indeed, the Malaysian Constitution explicitly honours it.

Two concepts of homeland

Much of this controversy stems from conflating two distinct concepts that must be carefully distinguished.

The first is what may be called the historical homeland. The Malay Peninsula is, indisputably, the historical homeland of the Malay people. Their civilisation profoundly shaped its institutions and identity. This is a historical fact that cannot and should not be denied or diminished.

The second is what may be described as the constitutional homeland. Modern Malaysia is the homeland of all its citizens because citizenship - not ancestry - defines membership of the nation.

When someone acquires Malaysian citizenship, whether by birth, descent, or naturalisation, Malaysia becomes their homeland in the most meaningful sense: it is the country to which they owe allegiance, in which they exercise rights and responsibilities, and within which they build their lives and futures.

These two concepts are not contradictory. Recognising the historical position of the Malays does not diminish the rightful place of other Malaysian citizens. Acknowledging the equal belonging of all citizens does not weaken the historical or constitutional position of the Malays.

The constitutional settlement at Merdeka

Malaysia’s founders understood this delicate balance. When independence was negotiated, they did not attempt to erase the country’s historical foundations. Neither did they seek to establish an ethnically exclusive state.

Instead, they crafted a constitutional settlement that balanced historical continuity with inclusive citizenship.

The Federal Constitution preserved the institution of the Malay rulers, recognised Malay as the national language, established Islam as the religion of the federation, and accorded the Malays a special position, later extended to include the natives of Sabah and Sarawak following the formation of Malaysia in 1963.

These provisions reflected the historical reality of the peninsula and honoured the political role of Malay rulers in the independence negotiations.

At the same time, the Constitution established a common citizenship for those who qualified under its provisions. It reflected the understanding that the new nation would be built upon both its historical foundations and the loyalty of citizens from different ethnic backgrounds.

This was not an accident or an oversight. It was a conscious design reflecting the vision of Merdeka.

Article 153 illustrates this careful balance. It entrusts the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak while also protecting the legitimate interests of other communities.

These principles are complementary, not contradictory. The constitutional settlement therefore recognised historical distinctions without creating citizens who belong and citizens who merely reside.

Where the argument breaks down

Against this historical and constitutional background, Sanusi’s statement deserves careful examination. His opening premise contains an important historical truth: the Malay Peninsula has long been the “homeland” of the Malays, whose civilisation profoundly shaped its institutions and identity.

Yet the conclusion he draws does not follow.

By asserting that Chinese Malaysians have China and Indian Malaysians have India, he conflates historical origins with current national identity - implying that ethnicity, not citizenship, determines belonging. This is where the logic fails.

Yes, ethnic Malays have ancestral roots in Sumatra. Yes, some Chinese and Indian Malaysians trace their ancestry to those nations. But this does not mean Indian Malaysians “belong” to India or Chinese Malaysians “belong” to China.

Citizenship supersedes ancestry. The Constitution is clear on this point. Malaysia is the homeland of its Chinese and Indian citizens; their loyalty, aspirations, and futures are rooted in this country.

China and India may represent the lands of their ancestors, but they are not the homeland of Malaysian citizens. Ancestral origin alone cannot determine present-day national belonging.

Historical sacrifice and national belonging

We should not forget that numerous Indians and Chinese, alongside their Malay brothers-in-arms, sacrificed their lives in the struggle against the communists during the 1948-1960 Emergency and the 1968-1989 Second Emergency.

These sacrifices were not the actions of people with divided loyalties. They were the actions of patriots who understood Malaysia as their home and were willing to die defending it.

Sanusi should also take heed of a remarkable declaration made in 2013 by Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, now a deputy prime minister and chairperson of BN.

Zahid said that more than half of Malaysia’s ministers were of Indonesian descent.

This is a profound statement. It demonstrates that the highest echelons of Malaysian government have long been occupied by citizens whose ancestors came from beyond the peninsula. Ancestry, clearly, has never been a reliable measure of national belonging - nor should it be.

If the descendants of Indonesian migrants can rise to become ministers and deputy prime ministers, serving Malaysia with honour and effectiveness, then the notion that ethnicity determines true homeland is patently false.

These leaders are not guests or temporary residents. They are Malaysians who have earned their place through service, capability, and commitment to the nation.

A personal testament of belonging

I am personally offended because these remarks erase the lives and sacrifices of Malaysians like my late father, Sadhu Singh Malhi.

He migrated to Malaya in the 1940s and joined the police force on July 1, 1952. He served with distinction until his retirement on June 1, 1983 - more than three decades devoted to protecting the people and preserving the security of the country he had made his home.

His was not the life of a transient outsider, but that of a man who gave the better part of his life to this nation.

His service earned national recognition: the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s Pingat Pangkuan Negara (Dec 18, 1982), 16 commendations from the Perak police chief, and 48 monetary awards from the government for diligence, courage, and incorruptibility.

The government granted him land in Tapah and Bidor, Perak - tangible recognition that he had earned an honoured and permanent place in this country.

My question to Hadi and Sanusi is therefore simple: by what moral or national standard can a man who risked his life for Malaya, served its people honourably, was decorated by the King, and was granted land by the government still be dismissed as a “pendatang”?

My father may have been born elsewhere, but through service, sacrifice, and loyalty, Malaya - and later Malaysia - became unquestionably his homeland. His seven children built their lives here and know no other country as home. They are Malaysians, full stop.

History should unite, not divide

History is far too important to be reduced to political rhetoric. When presented honestly, it enables citizens to appreciate the complexity of their shared past. When selectively interpreted, it becomes an instrument of misunderstanding, resentment, and division.

Political leaders therefore carry a special responsibility. Their words should strengthen national cohesion rather than foster suspicion between communities or question the belonging of citizens whose roots, service, and future are firmly embedded in Malaysia.

A confident nation can affirm the historical role of the Malays while recognising, without qualification, the equal citizenship and belonging of every Malaysian.

Sanusi’s remarks are dangerously flawed: they perpetuate the toxic idea that some Malaysians belong more fully than others. That idea must be rejected categorically.

The term “pendatang” may accurately describe an immigrant at the point of arrival, but it must never become a hereditary label imposed upon citizens generation after generation.

Citizenship is not provisional, and belonging cannot be determined by ethnicity.

Non-Malay Malaysians are not guests, temporary residents, or second-class citizens. They are rightful citizens and co-owners of this nation, bound to it by birth, loyalty, service, sacrifice, and a shared future.

Their ancestral connections to China, India, Indonesia, or elsewhere do not make those countries their homeland any more than the ancestral origins of other Malaysians diminish their belonging here.

Malaysia is their one and only homeland. It is ours to build together, as equals, as citizens, as Malaysians.

DAP’s loss of support has been particularly marked and prominent - from 10 to six seats, an erosion of two-fifths. If this is replicated, even on a much smaller scale across the country in parliamentary polls, the effect on the number of seats for Harapan will be devastating.

DAP is the largest partner in terms of seats in Harapan with 40 seats. A two-fifths erosion will take the number of seats down by 16, to 24. A reduction by a fifth can take it down by eight to 32.

If this is coupled with a substantial erosion of Malay support for PKR and the effects of Bersama’s presence as an alternative, PKR’s 31 seats now may be reduced considerably. It likely spells a fatal blow to Harapan’s lofty ambitions to lead a coalition after the GE16.

Full term and retire

With that, chances for Anwar Ibrahim to be prime minister for a second term too. If Anwar reads the tea leaves right, he will want to go full term and retire. This may get pushback from Umno/BN now on a roll. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Other reasons why Umno/BN is strong in Johor include Johor rights, with both the menteri besar and the Johor royalty asking for a greater share of revenue produced in the state, ala Sarawak.

A recent ranking of gross domestic product (a measure of output of goods and services) by state places Johor at number three, below Selangor at number one and Kuala Lumpur at number two, just pipping Sarawak at number four.

This “Johor for Johoreans” clarion call seems to have struck a chord with voters, as it has for Sarawakians and Sarawak, many of whom are happy with the apparent support that the Johor royalty gives to the current state government and its chief minister.

More than any other state in Malaysia, Johor has benefited much from Singapore’s proximity. The state’s closeness, not just proximity but in terms of economic and other ties with Singapore, helps drive incomes higher, making Johoreans happier.

These are some factors that will not be replicated elsewhere in Malaysia and will be unique to Johor. But do they form the main reasons why Umno/BN is so powerful in Johor? Difficult to say.

DAP, PKR under threat

In addition to this, the erosion of support for both PKR, among the Malays, and for DAP, among the non-Malays, is a serious threat which will undermine Harapan’s strength in other states even if Harapan stalwarts say otherwise. The question is by how much.

The other key factor which will affect outcomes is the Umno/PAS alliance. Despite Umno’s strength in Johor, PAS is likely much stronger than Umno almost anywhere else other than Pahang or Sabah.

They will ally for mutual benefit and make way for each other where the other is stronger. This would mean PAS would be the stronger of the two with 45 parliamentary seats now, against Umno’s 26 and BN’s 30.

And then there is the possibility of taking another 25 at least with Hamzah Zainudin’s new Parti Wawasan Negara. Wawasan Negara already has 19 seats after its MPs broke away from Bersatu, which has the remaining six. Bersatu seems only to have a ghost of a chance of retaining them.

With PKR on the decline, some of their seats won with Malay support may be fodder for PAS or even Umno. Thus, it is likely that a PAS/Umno combination may have the most seats post GE16, as I explained in this article.

The Najib factor

That combination towards power seems more likely post the Johor polls. But if Umno thinks this is a licence to give Najib a “get out of jail card”, they are mistaken - I am not saying it, the numbers say so.

Umno’s support declined from 88 parliamentary seats in 2013 to 56 in 2018 when they lost power following the 1MDB scandal to 26 in 2022 when they kept harping on a pardon/house arrest for Najib.

How could a move to pardon or put under house arrest a person responsible for billions stolen from borrowed money in 1MDB’s coffers get public support anywhere? What is it that Umno wants to achieve? I am at a loss for answers.

Like Harapan, Umno also needs to pay attention to public sentiment over certain things. By now, it must be quite clear why an increasing number of people, barring non-Malays, are leaning towards PAS as their saviour. I don’t support it, but that’s the way the curry puff crumbles.

Bersama may make some headway in terms of a handful or two of MPs at the general election, but it is very difficult to predict their performance except to say they will take votes away from PKR and DAP, especially in urban areas.

It will take them at least until the next polls before they can become a threatening third force with their laudable and very reasonable Malaysian approach - the only one likely to give long-term benefit to all Malaysians.

But this was flawed, and there was an immediate retort from Lawyers for Liberty adviser Eric Paulsen, who explained that the legal provision referenced by Saifuddin relates to calculating the period of residence for persons who have already resided in the country for a certain number of years when applying for citizenship.

At the same Parliament session, Saifuddin revealed that 23 foreigners had been made citizens by naturalisation since 2018, a figure never made public before.

He insisted they underwent a lawful and transparent process in full compliance with the Federal Constitution. But was he stretching the truth?

EAIC’s findings

On July 10, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) concluded that in the case of the seven players, citizenship approvals were rushed through in an unusually short period.

Entry permits were issued without proper interviews or security screenings, and the Malay language test was mishandled.

On July 12, still in denial mode, the ministry issued a statement accepting the recommendations for improvement to the process of managing citizenship applications by naturalisation.

The Home Ministry stated: “The ministry always respects the checks and balances function of institutions established under the law and will examine every recommendation submitted for the purpose of strengthening the public service delivery system and the ministry’s governance.”

But where were these checks and balances then? On Sept 19 last year, National Registration Department (NRD) director-general Badrul Hisham Alias, in a statutory declaration to Fifa, stated that the players submitted documents listing their grandparents’ details, conducted cross-verification, and received supporting documents from Argentina, Brazil, and Spain.

“However, original handwritten birth records couldn’t be retrieved. Instead, official copies were issued based on secondary evidence,” he said, but what secondary evidence was adduced and from where?

What documents did it receive from these countries? If they had been birth certificates of the grandparents, NRD would have known none of them were born in Malaysia.

Side-stepping fundamental issue

But the Home Ministry’s statement side-stepped a fundamental issue. It said that the discretionary power over citizenship applications is subject to the provisions of the Federal Constitution and is exercised with due care, taking into account various factors, including public interest, national security, and the facts of each case.

The ministry said it would examine the findings and, together with relevant agencies, including the NRD, the Immigration Department, and the police, would identify appropriate areas for improvement.

These include aspects of strengthening standard operating procedures, documentation, coordination of work processes, as well as governance mechanisms that are aligned with best practices in the public service.

Really? Does the minister have the power to exempt the residency period and issue citizenship within 40 days instead of 10 years?

Why then the rebuke from EAIC? Does it also mean that the NRD did not coordinate with the police and the immigration authorities regarding the seven players? Then who did the security vetting as required by the law?

So, the inevitable question is: Did successive home ministers exercise a power they did not have under the Constitution?

Data debunks minister

Twentytwo13.com, a news portal that specialises in sports and related activities, compiled data based on information available in the public domain.

What is startling is that while Saifuddin continues the charade of “underwent a lawful and transparent process in full compliance with the Federal Constitution”, this table counters that claim.

None would have met the 10-year requirement, and it goes to show that the citizenships of these journeymen were fast-tracked, albeit illegally (or improperly - the polite terminology used by the EAIC).

Take the case of Briton Lee Tuck, who had been playing football in Malaysia since 2017.

On Merdeka Day, 2022, he announced on Instagram that he had become a naturalised Malaysian citizen. Six months later, he represented Malaysia in the Asean Football Championship, producing a Malaysian passport.

Where is he now? After that, he packed his bags and left for Halifax, England, midway through the season to focus on his real estate career, but still feels there’s money to be earned in Malaysia and suggested he would return.

“Currently, I am not playing for any club. Terengganu are a great club, and I have many fond memories. My daughters were born in Kuala Terengganu, so it’s a very special place for our family.

“Thus, I am ready to wear the Terengganu jersey if there is an offer from the team,” New Straits Times quoted him as saying on Feb 27, 2024.

Best of both worlds

Dual citizenship enables journeymen to enjoy the best of two worlds! No allegiance, no patriotism, no loyalty, no commitment. Period.

Again, the same question has to be repeated: Did Tuck and the others surrender the passports issued by the country of origin, and have they revoked their citizenship elsewhere because Malaysia does not recognise dual citizenship?

The time has come for everyone involved - the FAM, the Youth and Sports Ministry, the sports commissioners, the NRD, and especially the minister, to come clean by placing all cards on the table.

They cannot go on dishing out fictitious information or telling tall tales.

Now, the final and most important questions: Will the citizenships of the 23 players be revoked because they did not meet the residency period?

Secondly, have they all given up their citizenship from other countries and submitted their passports to the authorities as required?

Or are some of them having one leg in two countries and enjoying the best of both worlds?

This scandal is not just football. It is about accountability. Taxpayers have been misled by shifting narratives, half-truths, and contradictory announcements - many of which have now been exposed by the EAIC.

Each misleading claim has chipped away at trust in the institutions charged with safeguarding the Constitution.

Respect constitutional recognition

Citizenship is not a ministerial favour or a sporting shortcut. It is a constitutional recognition of belonging, and its integrity must be protected.

When approvals are rushed, rules bent, and oversight ignored, the cost is borne by ordinary Malaysians who expect honesty and transparency from their leaders.

The time has come for systemic accountability. Officials must stop hiding behind legalese and half-truths. They must disclose the full facts, accept responsibility, and commit to reforms that ensure citizenship is never again treated as a bargaining chip.

The taxpayers whose RM30 million went to the FAM for “boosting” the national team contributed indirectly to this fiasco, and we have a right to demand and get the truth.

Accountability is not optional - it is owed. Malaysians have been misled by half-truths, contradictory announcements, and evasive statements, all of which the EAIC has now exposed.

The institutions involved must face the public with honesty. Taxpayers deserve the truth, not tall tales. Integrity, transparency, and accountability were promised as the foundation of governance.

Delivering on those promises is the only way to restore trust. Although the process should have begun on day one when Fifa’s disciplinary committee made public its findings, it is still not too late.

In an interview with the Star Online, recorded on July 2, 2026, I predicted that BN would win between 45 and 50 seats, which was more accurate.

Heads in the sand

The early response from some DAP leaders does not indicate, at least not publicly, that they have learned crucial lessons from the Johor polls.

DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke, while stating the fact that many of the votes which went to Perikatan Nasional in the 2022 state and federal polls were “transferred” to BN in this state election, did not bring up why Harapan failed to win or even make a play for the PN votes, which were presumably up for grabs.

In addition, he failed to take note of the fact that Harapan support fell by 10 percent compared to the 2022 general election, which should be Harapan’s frame of reference, especially if it wants to retain the 15 Johor parliamentary seats it won in GE15.

In addition, even though DAP managed to retain six out of its 10 incumbent seats, its vote share dropped from 61.2 percent in 2022’s GE15 to 50.8 percent in PRN 2026, representing a drop of 10.4 percent.

This drop in support cannot be attributed to PN’s vote “transfer” to BN but is a reflection of the drop in support for Harapan and DAP.

Former Damansara MP Tony Pua said in a Facebook post that DAP’s performance was “Not great. But Credible”. In the same post, he said that Bersama was a “spoiler” in some seats, which caused the DAP to lose its former stronghold of Perling, for example.

For this, he was called out and criticised by many of the two thousand or so comments on his post, mostly in English (at the time of writing).

There was absolutely no introspection as to why these voters chose to vote for Bersama or why DAP failed to retain four state seats, including Perling.

Johor DAP chief and Kulai MP Teo Nie Ching came closest to admitting mistakes and shortcomings of the campaign in Johor in her Facebook post, but this wasn’t enough to stop many of the negative comments, in different languages, in response.

What went wrong for Harapan and DAP

There were a few things which Harapan and the DAP got wrong in this campaign. These include the following:

(i) Lack of a coherent campaign narrative

Before even the campaign began, Harapan already started on the wrong foot by calling BN “betrayers” or “pengkhianat” for deciding to contest on its own in the Johor state elections during a heated Harapan convention on May 17, 2026.

The state Harapan chief, Aminolhuda Hasan, who opted not to contest in the Johor state polls, even stated that the coalition would “bury” or “kuburkan” BN in Johor for the second time.

This kind of attacking mindset, perhaps not suitable for a state election in a place like Johor, where voters value a more practical and policy-minded approach towards governing, would plague Harapan during the entire campaign.

This includes Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim calling the caretaker Johor menteri besar candidate (then), Onn Hafiz Ghazi, “kurang cerdik” or “not very clever” during one of his campaign speeches.

The delay in launching the Harapan manifesto, one week after BN had already launched theirs, and with no clear spokesperson to explain the manifesto to the public, allowed BN to label the Harapan manifesto as a “copy and paste” version of the BN manifesto.

The attempt, particularly by DAP, to say that a vote for BN is a vote for PAS, and to link the Johor campaign to the possible royal pardon (or house arrest) of former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, looked increasingly desperate towards the last days of the campaign and obviously did not work.

In other words, the entire Harapan campaign in Johor was a “hot mess” compared to the disciplined campaign of BN, led by Onn, and ably backed up by Khairy Jamaluddin during his campaign for various BN candidates in the state.

(ii) Lack of coordination among Harapan parties

During the campaign, I was receiving images and posters via WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram of various ceramah being organised by Harapan across different constituencies in Johor.

What became clear to me was that each Harapan component party was running their own party campaign in Johor rather than running a coordinated campaign under the coalition’s banner.

For example, most of the ceramahs in seats contested by DAP featured mostly DAP speakers.

Even in seats like Jementah (part of the Segamat parliamentary constituency, with a PKR MP), Penggeram (part of the Batu Pahat parliamentary seat, with a PKR MP), Johor Jaya (part of the Pasir Gudang parliamentary seat, with a PKR MP), and Perling (part of the Pulai parliamentary seat, with an Amanah MP), I did not see much of the presence of the respective MPs for these constituencies in the ceramahs or the walkabouts organised by the DAP.

Perhaps they were busy campaigning for their respective parties in other constituencies, but the outcome was that Harapan was not properly coordinating its campaign.

(iii) Lack of self-awareness, especially among certain DAP leaders

In the interview on the Star Online, I said that BN had two poster boys in the Johor campaign.

Meanwhile, DAP deputy national chairperson Nga Kor Ming, in an exclusive interview with Oriental Daily, said that he would resign from the cabinet if BN won big in Johor and Najib was freed.

This not only allowed BN leaders, including Umno deputy president and foreign minister Mohamad Hasan, to urge Nga to resign even before polling day, but also made this a campaign theme for the Malay voters to come out and vote against Harapan and to vote for BN.

To a lesser extent, the remarks by Pua, before and during the Johor campaign, on the pig-rearing issue and later the LRT3 issue in Selangor, seemingly directed at the Selangor sultan, also provided ammunition to BN and PN cybertroopers to galvanise Malay voters to swing their support behind BN in Johor.

I do not have conclusive survey data to support this view, but one of the reasons why I think the Malay voter turnout in the Johor state election, estimated at 77 percent, was much higher than the Chinese voter turnout, estimated at 58 percent, was because the Malay voters were much more motivated to vote against the DAP and Harapan (and in support of the BN).

In comparison, Chinese voters did not seem to have a compelling reason to vote for Harapan.

I am making an educated guess that the anti-DAP backlash led to an anti-Harapan swing, which resulted in Malay support strongly returning to BN with an estimated 85 percent of Malay support in the Johor state election.

While the Chinese support for DAP and Harapan remained above 50 percent, estimated at a maximum of 80 percent overall (but much less in seats like Paloh and Yong Peng, which were won easily by the MCA incumbents), this is a reduction of at least 15 percent compared to the 95 percent support received by Harapan in the 2022 general election.

Sadly, many DAP leaders don’t realise that what they say in the ceramah in their own constituencies will affect the Malay sentiments in other constituencies, including those contested by PKR and Amanah, which are mixed and Malay-majority.

DAP may have defended six of the 10 seats it won in the 2022 state elections in Johor, but at what cost, especially to its coalition partners?

(iv) Losing the moral high ground

One of the incidents which were reported during the final days of the campaign was when two DAP campaigners, Ong Hui Xue (special officer to Deputy Education Minister Wong Kah Woh) and David Tiang (special officer to Housing and Local Government Minister Nga) were caught on video hanging a banner with the title “Bebas Najib” next to the billboard of Li Tiang Soon (or “Ah Soon”), the BN-MCA candidate for Yong Peng.

What really shocked me was that Wong not only defended the two DAP campaigners for putting up the banner during a campaign speech in Yong Peng, but they were even invited on stage by Ipoh Timur MP Howard Lee, and were then applauded and congratulated by the crowd of supporters!

The DAP I joined back in 2012 would have criticised BN for hanging banners demonising party elder Lim Kit Siang for being anti-Islam during election time, for example, and would have lambasted any BN candidate for asking their campaigners who hung such banners to go on stage to be applauded and congratulated!

To me, this was the moment when the DAP lost any moral high ground that it may have had, including on the 1MDB issue.

And this is after the revelation by DAP’s former Skudai assemblyperson, Marina Ibrahim, that a senior DAP leader who had been campaigning hard against Najib on the 1MBD issue also told her to expect the former prime minister to be pardoned eventually, in a very matter-of-fact way.

(v) Loss of trust towards Harapan among Indian voters

I do not have access to the detailed ballot stream results for Johor, which would reveal more distinct voting patterns among the Indian community, but the anecdote by former Klang MP Charles Santiago that Indian voters are “angry, not disappointed” with Harapan when meeting Indian community leaders and voters is telling.

The fact that the DAP lost badly in Paloh, a seat with 15 percent Indian voters, and lost Perling, a previously safe seat with 13 percent Indian voters, should be an indication that Indian voters have defected from Harapan in larger numbers in Johor.

This is a reflection of a much larger national trend where there is no clear narrative from Harapan on its deliverables to the Indian community, despite numerous declarations and campaign manifesto promises in the past.

What applies at the national level and what doesn’t

Of course, there are some trends in Johor that don’t apply to national sentiment and to other states. This is what some Harapan and DAP leaders have and will continue to say.

Amanah communications director Khalid Samad, after the Johor results were announced, said that Harapan still has the advantage at the federal level because Anwar is a better prime minister candidate than whoever BN has to offer.

While this may be the case if we take the latest Merdeka Center polls as an indication, would Harapan be confident of retaining the same number of seats which it won in GE15 (Harapan won 82 parliament seats in 2022) if a general election were to be triggered before the end of 2026?

Yes, BN doesn’t have Onn as a poster boy in states other than Johor, but does Harapan have someone close to the stature and popularity of Khairy at the national level, who has higher approval ratings among Malay respondents than Anwar in the recent Merdeka Center survey?

While Khairy may not be BN’s candidate for prime minister, he has shown in Johor that he can be a very effective campaigner, perhaps more effective than Anwar himself.

Even if we restrict BN’s popularity to Johor, a translation of the state election to the parliamentary seats shows that BN would go from winning nine seats in GE15 to winning 25 out of 26 parliamentary seats in Johor, including wresting 14 out of the 15 Harapan seats, leaving the latter with only Bakri.

Of course, Harapan leaders can say that they would fare better in a general election compared to a state election, but this remains to be seen.

Other factors could come into play in a general election that would continue to disadvantage Harapan, including lower turnout rates among the coalition’s supporters.

Implications for the N Sembilan polls

BN should not be overconfident and expect the same kind of result in the upcoming Negeri Sembilan state election.

They do not have the same kinds of advantages, such as having a popular menteri besar candidate like Onn.

It is also not the incumbent state government, and Harapan, as the incumbent, should be able to run a more coherent and disciplined campaign.

What may continue to apply in Negeri Sembilan is the loss of confidence and support among Malay voters towards Harapan, as well as continued implicit and explicit support for BN by PAS.

---

READ MORE: COMMENT | Hot Negeri Sembilan polls

---

It is too early to say whether this will be sufficient for BN to retake Negeri Sembilan, but what is clear is that another wake-up call has been issued to Harapan and particularly to the DAP.

I am not confident that DAP leaders have woken up yet.