Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia
No News Is Bad News
Many Malaysians still say a leopard cannot change its spots to describe Anwar Ibrahim’s Islamist and Abim DNA in him
Of aging Malaysian political leaders and who’s the real Anwar?
KUALA LUMPUR, March 10, 2025: While young politicians are struggling to fit the shoes of their elders, Malaysians are also left wondering who is the real Anwar Ibrahim.
Two years as Malaysia’s 10th Prime Minister (PMX), Malaysians are still wondering whether Anwar is the reformist thery had hoped for multiracial Malaysians and Malaysia.
The country appears to have become even more Islamist with Anwar’s so-called Madani Unity Government doing nothing significant or effective to reign in on the racial and religious bigots who continue to threaten national unity and harmony.
No News Is Bad News reproduces below two Channel News Asia (CNA) on the issues:
Commentary: Why Malaysia’s political elite remains dominated by elderly men
Malaysia’s political landscape is dominated by ageing leaders, with key figures well into their 70s, 80s and even 90s. Southeast Asian politics expert Sophie Lemiere argues that younger leaders must be given a chance to shape the country’s future.
Composite image of Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar Ibrahim and Muhyiddin Yassin. (Photos: AFP/Mohd Rasfan; Reuters/Franck Robichon/Pool; Facebook/Muhyiddin Yassin)
Sophie Lemiere
10 Mar 2025 06:00AM(Updated: 10 Mar 2025 09:58AM)
KUALA LUMPUR: By the end of 2025, some of Malaysia’s most prominent figures will be well into their twilight years.
Mr Mahathir Mohamad - who served twice as prime minister for a total of 24 years - will be 100. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim - who just over two years ago finally won the job he spent decades fighting for - will be 78.
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah - the former finance minister and longest-serving Member of Parliament known affectionately as Ku Li - will be 88.
Then there’s opposition leader and former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin, who’s already gearing up for Malaysia’s next general election, which must be held by February 2028. And Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) president Abdul Hadi Awang, who’s also eyeing the prime minister seat. Both men turn 78 this year.
The list goes on.
In Malaysia, politics is steeped in patriarchy and feudal tradition. Age is often equated with wisdom and authority. Longevity in office is seen as proof of one's skill in navigating the complexities of power.
Age and longevity aren’t inherently bad, but they become a problem if they breed a system that’s resistant to change and stifle new ideas and voices.
In a country where the median age is 30, young Malaysians are underrepresented in politics. The average politician is around 60, and most top leaders are older men. This risks creating a gap between leaders and younger voters, and has real consequences for policymaking and governance.
PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang turns 78 this year. (Photo: Facebook/Abdul Hadi Awang)
A GLOBAL GERONTOCRACY
Why do ageing politicians hold on to power? Is it because voters keep electing them, or because political institutions fail to develop credible successors? What are the consequences of their prolonged grip on power? And most importantly, how do they know when it’s time to step aside?
Gerontocracies thrive in societies with rigid hierarchies, where older leaders are revered as embodiments of tradition and continuity. This phenomenon is partly fuelled by the baby boomer generation, a large cohort born between 1946 and 1964, which has dominated politics and other sectors for decades.
This is not unique to Malaysia. Over the past five decades, the average age of world leaders has climbed from 55 to 62, according to The Economist, with leaders in their 70s and 80s increasingly common.
This reflects a broader shift towards gerontocracy, a system where power is concentrated in the hands of the elderly.
In China, President Xi Jinping has consolidated power going into his seventies. A two-term limit on the presidency was abolished from the constitution in 2018, effectively allowing him to remain in power for life.
In Russia, President Vladimir Putin signed an order in 2020 that could keep him in office until 2036, by which time he will be 84.
And in the United States last year, the world watched (until the Kamala Harris late show) as two elderly men, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, battled for the presidency. Former president Biden turns 83 in November; while his successor, Mr Trump, will be 79 in June.
Mr Biden’s frail appearance and disastrous debate performance against Mr Trump last June had raised concerns about his mental acuity and ability to lead the world's biggest economy.
File photo. Joe Biden walks off stage at the end of a presidential debate Donald Trump on Jun 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, File)
STRONG YOUNG LEADERS, SOME FEMALE
Why do so many societies continue to elect older men to the highest offices? The answer, in part, lies in the enduring appeal of the patriarch - a safe, reassuring figure in a world of uncertainty. Older leaders are seen as steady hands, their age a proxy for experience and resilience. This rationale is particularly pronounced in times of crisis.
Yet the notion that age equals competence is increasingly being challenged. Around the world, crises have created opportunities for younger leaders to rise and demonstrate that competence and vision are not bound by age - or gender.
Sanna Marin, who became Finland’s prime minister at 34, led the country through a turbulent political period before stepping aside at 37. Gabriel Boric assumed the presidency at 35, propelled by widespread protests demanding systemic change.
Similarly, Jacinda Ardern’s leadership in New Zealand during the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises demonstrated that decisiveness is not exclusive to older leaders. These examples challenge the long-held patriarchal notion that age equates competence. It also calls for a rethinking of how we choose our leaders.
WHAT’S AT STAKE?
The problem is not that older leaders are incapable of governing effectively. It is that they risk concentrating power among ageing elites, leaving younger generations sidelined and underrepresented in decision-making.
Today’s world is rapidly changing and shaped by technological advancements such as artificial intelligence and evolving social norms. Older leaders, shaped by a different era, often struggle to reconcile with these transformations, whether they involve technology, gender, identity or equity.
Additionally, as leaders age, health limitations and mental health risks become more pressing, raising questions about their ability to lead effectively in increasingly complex times. The US has already seen concerns over Mr Biden’s health, while in Malaysia, Mr Mahathir - who is still active in politics - has been hospitalised numerous times in recent years.
The issue, then, is not merely one about age but also ensuring leadership reflects the realities of the world it aims to govern.
Is there a way forward?
The first step is to challenge the assumptions that underpin gerontocracy. Age should not be the sole criterion for leadership; competence, vision and the ability to connect with diverse constituencies are equally important.
Political systems must also create pathways for younger leaders to ascend to positions of power, not as proteges to be sidelined, but as equals capable of shaping the future.
Term limits too should be sacrosanct, so that power is not concentrated indefinitely in the hands of one person.
The case for generational renewal in politics is not merely about replacing old leaders with young ones; it is about reimagining leadership itself.
Malaysia does not lack young, capable leaders. What it lacks is a system and a political culture that allows them to thrive. Until that changes, the country will remain stuck in a loop of the same ageing leaders rehashing the same debates and power struggles that have dominated its politics for decades.
Dr Sophie Lemiere is a political anthropologist who specialises in Malaysian and Southeast Asian politics, and has held research and teaching positions in major universities across Europe, the United States and Southeast Asia. She is currently Adjunct Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, as well as Research Fellow at College de France in Paris.
Source: CNA/aj
Commentary: After two years as Malaysia’s PM, it’s still hard figuring out who the real Anwar Ibrahim is
When Anwar Ibrahim was sworn in as Malaysia’s prime minister two years ago on Nov 24, many critics doubted he would last very long. He’s still here, but questions remain about who the real Anwar is, says Asian Studies professor James Chin.
Photo of Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim in Rio de Janeiro for the opening of the G20 Summit, Nov 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)
James Chin
25 Nov 2024 06:00AM(Updated: 25 Nov 2024 12:14PM)
HOBART: Two years. Anwar Ibrahim has now been Malaysia’s prime minister for two years.
When he was sworn in as Malaysia’s 10th prime minister on Nov 24, 2022, many critics doubted he would last a year, given the country’s turbulent politics. After all, Anwar did not win the election, but was asked by the King to form a coalition government because there was no clear winner.
His decades-long journey to power has been nothing but bumpy, marked by two stints in jail that Anwar has long maintained were politically motivated.
Yet, as he completes his second year in office, Anwar has already outlasted all three of his immediate predecessors, whose tenures were prematurely ended.
Still, questions remain about the man in the prime minister’s seat.
Is he the reformer he claimed to be before becoming prime minister, or is he a closet Islamist pushing an agenda now that he is in power?
Simply put, he could be both. But there is also a third explanation.
THE REFORMER
Ever since Anwar was sacked from his posts of deputy prime minister and finance minister in 1998 after a bitter fallout with then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad and subsequently tried for corruption and sodomy and thrown in jail for the first time, his watchword has been "reform".
His People’s Justice Party (PKR) has always been committed to reforming Malaysia into a more democratic country. This is most clearly shown by the party's logo - a depiction of a "black eye", inflicted on Anwar in prison by Malaysia’s then police chief Abdul Rahim Noor.
Anwar’s years in prison strengthened his belief that radical reforms were needed to transform Malaysia's political system into a model of democracy for Muslim countries. In fact, he is often presented as a "Muslim democrat", a type of Islamic leader who can blend the main principles of Western democracy with political Islam.
Anwar has frequently spoken about the compatibility of Western ideas of human rights and democracy with Islamic law in his public speeches. He gained admiration not only by Western countries, but also from non-Malay politicians in Malaysia who saw him as a leader capable of steering Malaysia back to the centre after years under Dr Mahathir and UMNO.
There were hopes that if he came to power, he would undo the excesses of the previous government.
In the 2022 general election, the Democratic Action Party (DAP), the Chinese wing of Anwar's coalition government, won 90 per cent of the Chinese vote, in part because the Chinese community viewed Anwar as the only Malay leader who could reform the political system.
THE ISLAMIST
Since then, however, Anwar has faced growing criticism from many Malaysians, particularly for actions that some view as increasingly aligned with Islamist policies.
Key to this discontent are his strong stances on issues like the Palestinian cause and his support for the Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill, a controversial piece of legislation that would give religious authorities unbridled powers without parliamentary oversight.
A fatwa is a religious edict or formal ruling on Islamic law, and it is binding on Malaysian Muslims. Currently, fatwas can be legally binding in Malaysia if they are gazetted by the relevant state governments or federal territories.
Under the proposed Bill, however, fatwas issued by the FT mufti cannot be challenged in court. Critics warn that this could lead to punishments for actions that are not criminalised under the country’s secular law. It would also give power to the government, through the mufti, to police nearly every aspect of Muslim life in Malaysia.
A further concern is that the Bill will set in law that only a person belonging to certain streams within the Sunni school of thought can hold the position of FT mufti. There are fears this will marginalise non-Sunni sects and make Malaysia into a de facto theocratic state in the long run as other states adopt the same legal framework as the FT Mufti Bill.
This would leave no room for alternative streams of thought. There are some who argue that the real target of the Bill is the Shia movement in Malaysia, which has been gaining strength and followers in the past decade. Many of the top Sunni clerics in Malaysia support this Bill.
The Bill is in its final stage in the Malaysian parliament and thus far, the mounting opposition has had no effect. Critics argue that Anwar may delay the Bill but will proceed with it later.
Some Muslims and non-Muslims are concerned that if the Bill is passed, Islamisation will accelerate to the next level.
Malaysia Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim meeting with the Malaysian Consultative Council of Islamic Organisation (MAPIM) at the Parliament Building, Oct 16, 2023. (Photo: Facebook/Bernama)
Another issue that worries many is Anwar’s announcement that the Malaysia’s Islamic Development Department (JAKIM) be involved in all aspects of public policy. JAKIM used to be mostly concerned with the administration of Islam in the country. For example, if JAKIM intervenes in financial matters, it is feared that Malaysia's large non-halal industry will suffer.
There are also concerns that Anwar's high-profile crusade for Palestine may harm Malaysia internationally. His request for Israel's expulsion from the United Nations contrasts sharply with Malaysia's previous actions.
Malaysia typically collaborates with other Muslim nations to diplomatically isolate Israel and use the UN to condemn it. It has never previously called for Israel's expulsion from the United Nations. Even China and Russia, permanent members of the UN and critics of Israel’s actions in Gaza, has not called for Israel to be expelled.
OR THE OPPORTUNIST?
The third explanation is that Anwar is simply doing whatever is necessary to ensure that he wins a second term.
Again, one must not forget that he did not win the last general election; he was selected by the King to form a “unity government” and he did it by forming a coalition with UMNO and the Borneo parties.
The big test for the coalition was the six state elections held last August and they failed. The majority of the Malay vote went to the opposition Perikatan Nasional (PN), in particular PN’s Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS). For example, PN managed to win 100 per cent of the seats in Terengganu.
Thus Anwar’s swing towards the religious vote is simply a matter of political survival and his current political manoeuvre is simply to ensure that he can get enough seats to win the next general election (GE16).
GE16 is due in 2027, but most believe it will be held much earlier.
TURN TO THE RIGHT
In some ways, it does not matter who the real Anwar is simply because the needle of Malaysian politics has moved significantly to the right.
The middle ground for Malaysian politics is no longer a tolerant multiracial Malaysia but a conservative Malaysia with an Islamic outlook. The fear is that this will lead to sectarianism never seen before in Malaysian history and split the Muslim population more.
The real tragedy of Anwar is that his “Muslim democrat” approach will bite the dust of history, and no other young Malaysian Muslim leader would dare to return Malaysia to the centre ground in the future.
Under Anwar, Malaysia is getting more and more polarised along religious lines and Anwar’s position on political Islam may just move the country to uncharted territory.
Nonetheless, there is hope that Anwar's political manoeuvres are aimed at winning big in GE16, which will provide him with the political capital needed to return the country to the moderate road.
James Chin is Professor of Asian Studies at the Asia Institute Tasmania, University of Tasmania. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Jeffrey Cheah Institute on Southeast Asia and adjunct professor at Monash University.
Source: CNA/aj
No comments:
Post a Comment