M

alaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s recent comments on Taiwan have intensified scrutiny over whether the Southeast Asian nation is drifting from its long-held policy of non-alignment and tilting toward Beijing amid intensifying US-China rivalry.

In an interview with Al Jazeera aired earlier this month, Anwar stated unequivocally that he viewed Taiwan “as part of China, period,” adding that this position was “accepted by all.” The remarks drew immediate praise from Beijing and sharp condemnation from Taipei, while reigniting debate among analysts and diplomats about Malaysia’s strategic orientation.

When pressed on whether he would condemn China if it resorted to military force should peaceful reunification fail, Anwar drew a controversial parallel to his own country’s territorial integrity. If a Malaysian state attempted to secede, he said, he would use force to “protect the sanctity and unity of” Malaysia.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomed the comments, with a spokesman reiterating that Taiwan is “an inalienable part of China’s territory” and that “China must and will be reunited.”

Taiwan’s government, however, warned that Anwar’s “one-sided support for China could negatively impact Taiwanese businesses’ confidence in investing in Malaysia.” The self-governing island, the world’s leading semiconductor producer, remains a major investor in Malaysia’s critical chip manufacturing sector.

Walking back or doubling down?

Facing questions from local media in the days following the interview, Anwar appeared to soften his stance, emphasizing that Malaysia respected China’s position but favored a peaceful resolution to tensions across the Taiwan Strait.

The apparent recalibration did little to quell speculation about Malaysia’s geopolitical leanings, particularly after Anwar courted further headlines by calling for strengthened defenses in the Bornean state of Sabah. He cited the development of US-backed military facilities in neighboring Philippines as partial justification for increased defense spending.

The Philippine government is upgrading military installations on the island of Balabac, located just 50 kilometers from the Malaysian islands of Banggi and Balambangan. Balabac was recently added to the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement between Washington and Manila, granting US forces access to designated locations across the Philippines.

Anwar’s remarks have reinforced longstanding suspicions among Western observers that Malaysia is breaking from its traditional non-aligned posture and aligning more closely with China. The country has become one of the most enthusiastic recipients of Chinese investment under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, and China now represents Malaysia’s largest trading partner.

Malaysia has also diverged sharply from Western positions on other geopolitical issues, most notably the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Long a vocal critic of Israel, Malaysia under Anwar has been especially outspoken in its opposition to Israel’s war on Gaza.

The Sabah dimension

Some analysts, however, caution against reading Anwar’s comments as evidence of a strategic realignment.

Chee Meng Tan, an assistant professor of business economics at the University of Nottingham Malaysia, noted that Malaysia’s recognition of Taiwan as part of China dates back to the 1974 communiqué signed by then-Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai establishing diplomatic relations between the two countries.

“What was new was Anwar’s statement on the potential use of force, which the One China policy does not explicitly require,” Tan said, suggesting the remarks should be viewed in the context of Anwar’s scheduled visit to China in September.

Anwar’s comments on the US-backed base in Balabac are also connected to Malaysia’s long-running territorial dispute with the Philippines over Sabah. Manila has claimed the territory since it joined Malaysia in 1963, a claim Kuala Lumpur has consistently rejected.

The Philippines reaffirmed its claim to Sabah in February, maintaining that its Maritime Zones Act 2024 preserved “existing and valid claims” over part of the state. In July, Malaysia lodged a formal protest with the United Nations over the Philippines’ claim to an extended continental shelf that Malaysia argued encroached on Sabahan waters.

Tan suggested that Anwar’s comments on the Balabac military buildup may represent “a ‘protect-my-border’ reflex rather than a pro-China gesture.”

Balancing act continues

Anwar’s call to bolster Sabah’s defenses also comes as Malaysia seeks to strengthen its military posture in Borneo, partly to reinforce its claims in the disputed South China Sea, where Malaysia is a claimant state alongside China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Brunei.

While Malaysia has adopted a less confrontational stance on the South China Sea dispute than the Philippines, it has maintained robust defense ties with Western powers as a quiet counterweight to China’s military buildup in the contested waters.

This is exemplified by Malaysia’s continued commitment to the Five Powers Defence Arrangements, a multilateral security framework that also includes Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. While not a binding defense treaty, the arrangement commits members to consult in the event of an armed attack on Malaysia or Singapore.

Under the framework, annual military exercises involving personnel and assets from member countries are conducted. The arrangement maintains an air defense operations headquarters at a Malaysian Air Force base in Butterworth, Penang, headed by a senior Australian Air Force officer. Australia also maintains a rifle company in Butterworth and regular maritime patrol aircraft deployments to Malaysia.

As a central pillar of the arrangement, Malaysia facilitates a Western military presence in the region that analysts say provides a quiet deterrent against potential aggressors.

M

alaysia has implemented a ban on all Israeli-flagged vessels from docking at its ports, a move that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim says is in response to the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The Malaysian leader asserts that Israel’s military actions constitute a violation of international law and demonstrate a disregard for humanitarian principles.

The ban specifically targets ZIM, Israel’s largest shipping company, and comes amid heightened concerns over the safety of maritime routes in the Red Sea, which have seen recent attacks on cargo ships. Malaysian authorities have confirmed that, effective immediately, ships destined for Israel will also be prohibited from loading cargo in the nation’s ports.

Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim country with no formal diplomatic ties to Israel, continues to champion a two-state solution. The new maritime restrictions reinforce Malaysia’s long-held position and its vocal condemnation of Israel’s military operations in Gaza, which began on October 7.

Following attacks in the Red Sea

The Prime Minister’s office reported that Malaysia has been a consistent donor of humanitarian aid to Gaza and has maintained a relationship with Hamas. The recent measures by Malaysia coincide with significant disruptions in global shipping, especially in the Red Sea, which is critical for East-West trade and connects to the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal.

The genocide in Gaza has led to a substantial number of casualties, with reports indicating that at least 19,667 Palestinians have lost their lives since the onset of the war in October, while the toll on the Israeli side stands at approximately 1,140 following Hamas’s initial attack.

Anwar Ibrahim’s administration has annulled previous permissions granted to Israeli-registered companies for anchorage and docking, dating back to decisions made in 2002 and 2005. This ban aligns with Malaysia’s continued advocacy for the Palestinian cause and its criticism of the Israeli offensive in Gaza.

BDS Malaysia

BDS Malaysia has intensified its campaign against Israeli-linked maritime activities by urging the Malaysian government to enforce a ban on ships owned by Israeli companies, particularly targeting ZIM, Israel’s leading shipping firm. The movement’s call for action was articulated in a public statement via Instagram, where it emphasized that permitting these vessels to dock contradicts Malaysia’s longstanding policy of prohibiting trade with Israel.

The movement’s representatives have pressed the transport ministry to issue directives to the Port Klang Authority to prevent the berthing of a ZIM-owned ship anticipated at Westports on December 26. BDS Malaysia contends that allowing the vessel to dock would undermine the Malaysian government’s commitment to opposing the ongoing violence in Gaza and the West Bank, which they attribute to Israeli policies.

BDS Malaysia’s advocacy is part of a broader push to halt what it views as complicity in the reported suffering of Palestinians through business or trade relations with Israeli entities. The group’s call to action serves as a litmus test for the Malaysian government’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its humanitarian implications.

Sources: Aljazeera English, Anadolu Agency and BDS Malaysia

M

alaysian Prime Minister Ismail Sabri bin Yaakob dissolved the Malaysian parliament on Monday, October 10, paving the way for snap elections in the country which has seen political tensions in the last few years.

“Yesterday I met the king… and I sought his permission to dissolve the parliament,” Yaakob said in a televised statement. “The king agreed to my request to dissolve parliament today,” he continued.

According to the Malaysian constitution, elections must be held within 60 days of the dissolution of parliament.

Yaakob also called for the dissolution of the 13 federal local parliaments in the country.

The decision for snap elections came after calls made by the United Malays National Organization (UNMO), the ruling party in Malaysia, following the infighting and differences that surfaced within the country’s fragile political coalition.

Election is the way to political stability

Yaakob noted that it is time to obtain a mandate from the people to ensure “political stability and the formation of a strong and stable government.” He stressed that the Electoral Commission will announce the date of the next elections.

General elections were supposed to be held by September 2023 but calls from within UMNO to hold snap elections pushed Yaakob in this direction after ruling this possibility out a few days back.

The Malaysian parliament comprises two houses: the upper house which has 70 members and the lower house with 222 members.

Malaysia has experienced political tensions recently especially after corruption charges were made against the former prime minister Najib Razak, who was handed a 12-year prison sentence and was fined $55 million.

The Malaysian king expressed his hopes that the elections will be held by November this year before the monsoon season, which is expected to start in mid-November and usually causes floods across the country.

Vote before monsoon season

“With this announcement, the mandate will be returned to the people. The people’s mandate is a powerful antidote,” Yaakob said in a televised statement, adding that he hopes the elections will create a firm and stable government.

Sultan Abdullah, the king of Malaysia, who left Malaysia on Sunday for a visit to the United Kingdom, said he had approved the prime minister’s request which will allow people to vote for a stable government.

UMNO ruled Malaysia since independence from Britain in 1957; however, in 2018, it took on the role of opposition after a financial scandal involving ex-prime minister Razak came to the surface. The UMNO’s current head, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, was also on trial on graft charges of which he has been acquitted.

Despite these allegations, UMNO returned to power in March 2020 after the new alliance of former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad dissolved because of defections.

Malaysia is a multi-ethnic nation in Southeast Asia which is known as a tourism hub in the region. The country, known for its stability, might face political turmoil due to the repeated dissolution of governments and parliament. For the time being, all eyes are on how the elections will go and who will come to power in the country.

Amid the Russia-Ukraine war in Europe, the United States has reaffirmed its commitment to counter China in the strategically vital Indo-Pacific region, by putting $2.2 billion on the table.

But in the end, what price are the regional and world powers willing to pay—not only in financial terms—to ensure a free and open South China Sea against the backdrop of China’s rising military maneuvering?

Bone of contention

The South China Sea, which encompasses 1.4 million square miles, is of tremendous economic and geostrategic importance. More than $3 trillion in trade is transported over it each year, and roughly one-third of the world’s maritime shipping moves through its waters. It also hosts a huge number of fisheries, indispensable for the food security of China, Southeast Asia, and beyond.

Yet, apart from the economic benefits, this large swath of war is on the top agenda of many countries due to its geopolitical significance. From a narrow perspective, only a few neighboring nations have domain over parts of the South China Sea due to their respective geographic position. This includes China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. Nevertheless, many other countries such as Indonesia, Singapore, Cambodia, and Japan play a vital role in this maritime region, extending the circle of the partners involved.

Stirring opposition, China has claimed not only most of the waters of South China Sea for itself, but also competes for two groups of islands of strategic importance: the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands are contested by China and other neighboring countries.

No one wants to abandon their claims, given the richness in deposits of natural resources, and the potential to strengthen a country’s security and to open trade routes. This creates a source for a conflict which some have attempted to resolve by negotiation and legal challenges. So far, this has been in vain.

Empires’ loud talk

In the whole saga of this maritime dispute, the United States’ role cannot be ignored. The country evokes legal treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to affirm the claim that the South China Sea is international waters and accuses China of militarizing the area. In recent years, artificial islets have been built by China, and some of the reefs have been converted to military facilities, paving the way for the dominance of one power.

Frothy waters amid the controversies

Due to China’s economic prowess and consequently the dependency of its neighbors on bilateral trade, many regional countries have embraced appeasing politics. However, some cracks have started to appear very recently on the surface of these seemingly friendly relations.

Last year, China deployed three ships to the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ), prompting a fast rebuke from Rodrigo Duterte, the country’s president. Also, Malaysia summoned China’s ambassador to protest against the activities of Chinese vessels in Kuala Lumpur’s EEZ.

Vietnam and Taiwan that have experienced more ups-and-downs in dealing with China than anyone else are already on a buying spree of military equipment, searching to pro-actively improve their defense capabilities (without searching for excuses for doing so).

In the eyes of many analysts, Russia’s war in Ukraine turned the rules-based order upside down. The Russian Federation resorted to a military solution to respond to the self-perceived feeling of endangerment, and in order to return its so-called ancestral lands back to the motherland after they were allegedly wrongly gifted to Ukraine.

But the erosion of the rule of law did not start in 2022.

Previously, in 1994, Ukraine was given security assurances for abandoning its nuclear weapons by the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Yet, the United Kingdom and the United States, subsequently joined by France and China, allowed Russia to annex Crimea exactly twenty years after the agreement.

Therefore, many point to the perishability of certain norms of international law due to the lack of their enforcement. Washington’s selective application of rules does not help its argument when evoking the need to uphold the law. However, it is without dispute that apart from deploying its armed forces, the U.S. has supported Ukraine in countering the aggressor and it remains to be seen who will be called the winner.

With American ships frequently passing through the South China Sea, not far from the Chinese ones, it is rightly feared that one small clash could lead to a full-scale war anytime as neither China nor other parties to the dispute want to deescalate easily.

It is worthwhile to bear in mind that diplomatic solutions have not been completely exhausted despite the rounds of diplomatic salvos between China and the U.S.

Whilst modern-day official diplomatic relations between Malaysia and Turkey were established in 1964, the ties between the two countries predate the modern era. Early relations can be traced back to the early sixteenth century when the Malay Sultanate of Malacca received the Ottoman help to fend off an attack by the Portuguese.

In the nineteenth century, a number of Malay states had close relations with the Ottoman Empire and notable amongst these was the personal ties between Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor and the Ottoman Sultan Abdülhamid II.

High-level visits between Malaysia and Turkey started in 1974 and since 2000 there has been undoubtedly greater interaction between the two states. Both countries are active members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation. In 2014, relations between the two countries received yet another impetus when they were elevated to a strategic partnership.

Trade and investment between Turkey and Malaysia have been growing significantly especially since August 2015 when a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the states entered into force. For Turkey, the FTA with Malaysia was its first with a member state of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its second in the Asia-Pacific region.

There is also the Turkey-Malaysia Business Council, which was created in 1995 to facilitate trade. In 2019 alone, total trade between Malaysia and Turkey was valued at US$2.2 billion, with the balance of trade in favor of the former.

In the same vein, while Malaysia is Turkey’s largest trading partner in Southeast Asia, for Malaysia, Turkey is its third most important trading partner in West Asia. A number of Turkish companies also operate in Malaysia and these include FNSS A.S., Evyap, Haus, Yonca-Onuk, Prota Asia, Novaplast, Dorce, Tepe Kimya, Polin Waterparkbuilds, Arcelik-Beko, Dalin, LC Waikiki, Aselsan, and De Facto – to name a few.

Similarly, a few Malaysian companies too have invested in Turkey, notable amongst which is the Malaysian Airports Holding Berhad (MAHB) that not only operates but is, in fact, the largest shareholder in Istanbul’s Sabiha Gökçen International Airport, Turkey’s second busiest airport.

In terms of trade and investment, Turkey views Malaysia as its gateway to Southeast and East Asia, and likewise Malaysia sees Turkey as its doorway into the West Asian and European regions.

In the defense sector, Turkey is one of Malaysia’s main source of defense procurement, namely armored vehicles and military communications. During the visit by President Erdoğan to Malaysia in December 2019, a number of agreements between firms in the defense sector were signed.

At the global level, both Malaysia and Turkey have been described as emerging middle powers often playing a pro-active role in international affairs, and especially on issues concerning the Islamic world.

A recent example of this role was when Malaysia convened the Kuala Lumpur Summit (KL Summit or Perdana Dialogue) with the theme “The Role of Development in Achieving National Security” in December 2019. The summit was attended by 450 delegates from 56 countries.

Notable among the attendees were Turkish President Erdogan, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar. The summit’s main agenda was to discuss problems besetting Muslim nations and undertake efforts to enhance unity in the Islamic world.

Notwithstanding the above, there were those who viewed the KL Summit as an attempt by Malaysia (and perhaps even Turkey) to create a new bloc in the Islamic world and provide an alternative to the Saudi-led OIC. The non-attendance of Saudi Arabia and even Pakistan (apparently at the insistence of the former) gave further credence to such views.

Compounded with the KL Summit were attempts by the Mahathir government to distance itself from Saudi Arabia, witnessed especially its decision to shut down the King Salman Center for International Peace (KSCIP) in Putrajaya in August 2018.

That said, the KL Summit was also very much in line with Malaysia’s new Foreign Policy Framework (FPF), launched in September 2019, which amongst others envisions a greater role for the country vis-à-vis the Islamic world.

However, barely three months after the summit, in late February 2020, the Mahathir government fell and since then little has been heard of the whole scheme. With Mahathir, the driving force behind the summit, out of power, it appears that the whole initiative to provide leadership and some form of direction in the Islamic world may have passed into oblivion.