Strong leaders redesign systems so productivity does not depend on physical presence.

THE war in Iran may be thousands of miles away from most countries but its economic impact is being felt globally.

The situation remains fluid even if President Donald Trump has announced that the war will end in the next few weeks.

From the ordinary taxi drivers in Thailand, who now found petrol stations shutting down, to street food hawkers in India having to close up because there are no gas cylinders available, to world leaders having to grapple with the price of petrol.

The chief executive officers (CEOs) of companies may not be field marshals at the battle front but the war has hit them hard.

As heads of companies, they are required to navigate this dangerous territory of soaring energy costs, supply disruptions, inflationary pressure and renewed remote working.

For directors and senior executives, this is not merely a geopolitical story. It is a balance-sheet event, a workforce event and, ultimately, a leadership test.

They can ask the staff to work from home (WFH) to reduce the use of petrol but workers are asking who is going to pay for the home use of electricity for company work.

In every crisis, weak management reacts. Strong management recalibrates. This is when the leadership of CEOs are tested.

“Oil is not just another commodity; it is the economy’s bloodstream. When it spikes, everything else follows – transport, logistics, food, manufacturing and services.

“Supply fears tied to Middle Eastern instability have already pushed prices sharply higher, particularly because of risks to the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for global oil flows.

“Higher energy costs quickly translate into higher production costs and consumer prices worldwide,’’ as one analyst rightly put it.

It’s very simple and we don’t need economists to tell us – sustained high oil prices will slow growth while pushing inflation up.

For most CEOs, this means margins are squeezed from both ends: costs rise while customers grow more price-sensitive.

Good boards recognise that energy shocks are not temporary inconveniences. They are structural shocks that demand structural responses.

Let’s get back to the issue of WFH. It’s deja vu really as this move is the same one normalised during the pandemic.

The International Energy Agency has explicitly recommended remote work as a demand-reduction measure to ease pressure on fuel consumption during the crisis.

Forward-looking management teams are reframing hybrid work not as an employee perk but as a cost-management strategy.

Reduced commuting lowers wage pressure for transport allowances, trims corporate travel budgets and can even reduce office energy consumption.

But effective remote work requires more than laptops and video calls.

It demands clear performance metrics, strong middle management, cybersecurity investment and a culture of trust.

Research from the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) found that employers that take the time to invest in that culture and lead with trust reap the rewards of retaining the best and brightest staff.

In times of uncertainty such as an energy shock, staff turnover is the last thing you want to add into the mix.

Anyone who has been charged with recruiting new hires knows that it takes both time and money to bring in someone new and train them up.

The smarter leader doesn’t risk losing good people in the first place.

Over a third of managers told CMI that flexible working (including fully WFH and hybrid models) was the top reason they remain at their current organisation.

Three in five managers (60%) believe flexible working that includes WFH is one of the top three most important factors for organisations to offer, followed by positive and inclusive workplace culture (38%) and competitive salaries and benefits (36%).

But I have to confess that I am an old school taskmaster.

I like to see faces and to feel the energy in the office. This is the result of spending over 40 years in the newsroom.

Nevertheless, I have also embraced modern working tools and adopted new ways of working.

WFH without interference from colleagues and unproductive meetings, let’s face it, has enabled me to finish my work faster.

Weak CEOs fear loss of control because of their shortcomings including a lack of confidence.

Strong leaders redesign systems so productivity does not depend on physical presence.

Inflation management is not a finance function alone. It is a whole-company strategy.

Periods of geopolitical stress tend to tighten financial conditions.

Investors turn cautious, borrowing costs rise and capital flows retreat to safer assets.

The hallmarks of prudent management in such times include strengthening cash reserves, securing credit lines before they are needed, stretching payables without damaging supplier relationships, accelerating receivables collection and reviewing dividend policies

The fear of most CEOs is companies may fail not because they are unprofitable, but because they run out of cash.

But leaders need to keep their troops and morale high. Inflation hits employees as hard as companies.

Rising food, fuel and housing costs erode real wages, increasing stress, turnover risk and labour disputes.

Good leaders communicate early and honestly about the firm’s position and constraints, while exploring targeted support such as flexible work, transport subsidies for essential staff or performance-linked bonuses instead of permanent wage hikes.

In turbulent times, competence is not merely desirable. It is the most valuable asset on the balance sheet.

This is the time to reframe challenges, act with speed, ensure visibility to stakeholders, clients and staff.

As the late Colin Powell, an American general and diplomat, said: “Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them.’’

Credit: FB Anwar Ibrahim

KUALA LUMPUR, April 1 (Bernama) — Let’s give credit when it’s due.

The decision of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to engage in relentless phone-call diplomacy – and many foreign visits – is now yielding tangible, measurable results.

Few outcomes are as strategically significant as Iran allowing Malaysian vessels to pass through the Straits of Hormuz.

According to news reports, about 50 per cent of Malaysia’s total oil passes through the narrow strip.

The Prime Minister had called up Iranian president Masoud Pezeskian, while Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan also spoke to his counterpart, Abbas Aragchi, to allow seven ships to continue their journey home, of which four are carrying crude oil.

Iran’s Ambassador to Malaysia, Valiollah Mohammadi Nasrabadi, has stated that the vessels would be allowed to pass through the strait safely – and free of charge.

As of late March 2026, reports indicate that Iran has begun demanding "transit fees" or "tolls" from ships navigating the Strait of Hormuz, with some reports suggesting charges of up to USD2 million per vessel. 

It is not just a symbolic win but a hard geopolitical achievement. Malaysia has always strongly defended its neutrality.

Malaysia is a friend to everyone, but we are not afraid to speak up when something isn’t right, including the attacks on Iran and the Palestinians in Gaza.

The passage through the Straits of Hormuz is crucial, as while Malaysia produces its own oil, it imports significant amounts of crude from the Persian Gulf, which is roughly 69 per cent of its crude oil imports, to keep domestic refineries running.

Malaysia exports its own lighter, higher-priced crude while importing heavier, cheaper oil from the Middle East that passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has created significant economic pressure, forcing the government to increase fuel subsidies to control domestic prices.

At a time when the Strait of Hormuz – through which roughly a fifth of global oil supply flows – has effectively become a conflict zone, Iran has been restricting passage and asserting tight control over shipping. 

Yet, Malaysia has secured a special carve-out, with its tankers and crews allowed safe passage following direct engagement with Tehran and other regional powers. 

Why does Malaysia’s foreign policy work?

First, Anwar has positioned Malaysia as an honest broker, not a partisan actor. Unlike major powers entangled militarily or politically, Malaysia has consistently called for de-escalation and dialogue, rejecting military involvement while maintaining moral clarity on the conflict.  This neutrality gives Kuala Lumpur credibility in Tehran.

Second, Anwar’s personalised diplomacy matters. In an era of fractured multilateralism, direct leader-to-leader communication – phone calls with Iranian, Turkish and Egyptian counterparts – cuts through bureaucracy and builds trust. 

These are not mere formalities; they signal respect, recognition, and seriousness to a country like Iran that feels strategically isolated and “repeatedly deceived” by global powers.

Third, Malaysia brings economic relevance without a strategic threat. Iran understands that Malaysia is a major energy consumer and trading partner, not a military adversary.

Allowing Malaysian ships through does not weaken Iran’s geopolitical posture, but strengthens its ties with a key Southeast Asian nation.

We may be a small country, but middle powers like Malaysia can still exercise influence, not through force, but through credibility, consistency and communication.

Let’s not forget that when our 23 Malaysian volunteers from the Global Sumud Flotilla were detained by Israel while on a Gaza aid mission, they were freed following intense diplomatic efforts led by Anwar last October.

It was the result of many phone calls to numerous leaders, including the influential and powerful President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey.

During peacetime, it is easy to overlook the quiet effectiveness of diplomacy conducted over the phone.

Yet, the release of Malaysian tankers and the reopening of a critical supply route show that such diplomacy is not naive – it is pragmatic and consequential.

Anwar’s approach demonstrates that even in a highly polarised conflict, access is negotiated, not assumed.

And Malaysia, by choosing engagement over alignment, has secured something many larger nations have not – trust. That's the real strategic capital in international diplomacy.

WITH the world gripped by the fallout from the conflict in the Middle East, and its ripple effects on oil prices, trade routes, inflation and global security, the last thing Malaysia needs is domestic political distractions.

Malaysians are aware of the escalating conflict between Iran and United States-Israel. They know enough about the hike in oil prices, effects on shipping lanes, financial markets and food supply chains.

But the real impact has yet to fully land in Malaysia. Airline travellers have been the first to be hit with flight disruptions and shocking ticket prices.

We still have the second lowest petrol prices in Asean, after Brunei, and there are no petrol shortages or long queues at petrol stations.

That’s because the government allocates about RM2bil a month to maintain the price of RON95 petrol so as not to burden the public.

The question is: how long can our government support the subsidies, given that there are no signs of the conflict ending soon. The continuous disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have driven the monthly subsidy bill to RM3.2bil.

The consensus is that the government can only sustain the current price ceiling for about two or three months. After that, petrol price will have to be revised up.

Amidst these problems, Malaysia cannot afford domestic squabbles.

Wake up, please. All the nasty racist postings on social media won’t help to stop the increase in the prices of meals on the dining tables of ordinary Malaysians.

This is the moment to close ranks, steady the ship and put the economy first.

Small traders, factory workers, gig drivers, young graduates, pensioners – they do not experience geopolitics as headlines.

They experience it as more expensive groceries, higher transport costs, slower hiring, rising household debt and uncertain business prospects.

No amount of ethnic posturing or religious grandstanding can lower the price of cooking oil or school supplies.

Ahead of Hari Raya, Malaysia received encouraging news: leaders from several Malay Muslim and Indian Hindu non-governmental organisations sat down together to seek reconciliation and a comprehensive resolution to tensions between the two communities.

It’s a good start. One meeting will not resolve the issues immediately but it’s good to meet with a desire to end the tensions.

It will also be good if the stakeholders can promise to put a stop to the provocative and insulting social media postings which bring no benefit. The group should also be expanded to include other individuals and organisations who are prepared to be committed to find amicable solutions.

For weeks, public discourse has been dominated by issues touching on race and religion – unregistered temples, vigilante actions, inflammatory rhetoric online and competing narratives of grievance.

These issues are deeply sensitive and cannot be dismissed lightly. But neither should they be allowed to spiral into a national obsession that crowds out far more urgent concerns facing every Malaysian household.

At such a moment, national unity is not a moral luxury – it is an economic necessity. Simply put: division is expensive.

This is why the dialogue between Muslim and Hindu NGOs matters. It signals that civil society can step in where noise and polemics have drowned out reason.

It demonstrates that communities themselves do not wish to be dragged into perpetual conflict by fringe actors, political opportunists or social media provocateurs.

Most Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, want the same things: affordable living, good jobs, safe neighbourhoods, quality education for their children and a stable future. They are far less interested in symbolic battles than in practical solutions.

That is why face-to-face dialogue remains irreplaceable. When leaders sit across a table, look each other in the eye and listen rather than shout, the temperature drops.

Misunderstandings can be clarified. Genuine grievances can be acknowledged. Compromises become possible.

Malaysia’s strength has always been its imperfect but resilient pluralism. The nation has weathered crises before because society did not fracture beyond repair.

Each time tensions rose, cooler heads prevailed. Today requires the same maturity.

The choice for Malaysia is simple. One path leads inwards – towards suspicion, identity politics and endless cultural skirmishes. The other looks outward – towards competitiveness, resilience and shared prosperity.

When headlines from Malaysia focus on communal tensions rather than economic reforms, the signal sent abroad is troubling: a country preoccupied with internal divisions rather than growth.

Malaysia’s competitive advantages – strategic location, skilled workforce, strong financial system and diverse economy – can quickly be overshadowed by perceptions of instability.

The Middle East conflict will eventually subside. Oil prices will stabilise. Trade routes will adjust.

But the damage from prolonged domestic polarisation – lost investment, weakened institutions, frayed social trust – can take decades to repair.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that Malaysia stood out from its South-East Asian peers “as the newfound darling of global investors”.

“A rare stretch of political stability and investments in higher value manufacturing and data centres lifted Malaysia’s appeal as some of its neighbours grappled with leadership changes and fiscal strains,” it said.

It added that “while Thailand and Indonesia contend with policy uncertainty, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s administration rolled out plans to boost spending in the semiconductor industry and build capabilities in manufacturing and renewable energy”.

These are good optics and we need to continue such a narrative. At a time when the world is becoming more volatile, Malaysia’s greatest strength would be to remain calm, cohesive and economically focused.

That is not merely good politics. It is national survival.

As we celebrate Hari Raya, let us be reminded that this is the season of forgiveness and reconciliation.

Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri, Maaf Zahir Dan Batin.

KUALA LUMPUR, March 15 (Bernama) — Malaysia certainly deserves better than the race and religion rhetoric fanned by several figures who are using social media as their platform.

Race and religion have long been the most combustible elements in politics — easily ignited, difficult to extinguish, and devastating when weaponised.

We are now seeing troubling signs that these fault lines are once again being exploited, not as expressions of genuine concern, but as calculated tools to discredit Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his government.

These narratives have become louder and more frequent as part of a run-up general election campaign against the government.

The controversy surrounding unregistered Hindu temples illustrates how a single issue can be spun into two conflicting narratives — both designed to inflame emotions and erode confidence in the administration.

On one side, a campaign has emerged portraying Anwar as weak in defending Malay-Muslim interests while non-Muslims perceive him as not acting against the serial Muslim convert provocateurs.

The narrative against him is simple but dangerous – the MADANI Government, in particular, Pakatan Harapan, needs to be replaced in the next general election.

Social media posts, ceramah rhetoric, and selective reporting suggest that the government is bending over backwards to appease minorities while neglecting the sensitivities of the Muslim majority.

The game plan against him is that Islam is under threat, Malays are losing ground, and the government cannot be trusted to protect them.

The language used by several high-profile personalities is harsh, inciting and emotionally charged.

The comments towards these posts are worse as they are seditious and hidden behind anonymous accounts.

If words like “pendatang” (immigrants) were used previously, social media is filled with derogatory words like “kicap” (black sauce).

On the other side, Hindu communities, understandably distressed by incidents of self-appointed vigilantes demolishing or threatening small temples, are being led to believe that the government is indifferent to their fears, or worse, complicit through inaction.

Images of destroyed shrines circulate widely, fuelling anger and anxiety that minority rights are being trampled.

They have demanded to know why these self-appointed vigilantes are allowed to demolish places of worship even if they are unregistered. Shouldn’t it be the job of the local governments and police?

The result is a dangerous pincer movement: Malays are told the government is too soft on minorities, while minorities are told it is too hard on them.

Both narratives cannot simultaneously be true, yet both gain traction because they appeal to deeply rooted insecurities. 

It is hard to explain or rationalise with many, regardless of their religions, why no one can simply put up a place of worship without permit or sit on someone’s land. That is simply unlawful.

On the other hand, neither can anyone set out to destroy a place of worship on the assumption that the local authorities have not acted or that it is too costly to seek a court order, so they have to act themselves.

These disturbing actions do not appear to be accidental. They reflect a sophisticated political strategy — to manufacture the perception of failure regardless of what the government actually does.

If authorities act against illegal structures, they are accused of targeting minorities. If they hesitate, they are accused of betraying the majority.

What makes the situation particularly volatile is the involvement of non-state actors — vigilante groups or personalities who claim to defend religion but operate outside the law.

The last thing we want is for the police to face orchestrated condemnations that they are slow in acting against these culprits.

Their actions create flashpoints that force the government into reactive mode. Every demolition, confrontation, or viral video becomes political ammunition. 

There is no quick fix to the issue of unregistered temples. Malaysia’s legal framework on places of worship is complex and often poorly understood.

Many small temples, especially in urban areas, were built decades ago on land that has since changed ownership or zoning status.

Resolving such issues requires negotiation, relocation plans, and sensitivity — not sledgehammers, literal or rhetorical.

Anwar’s long-standing message of reform, inclusivity, and multiracial governance makes him particularly vulnerable to such attacks.

He is the first Prime Minister from a multi-racial party to lead a Unity Government and has only held the helm for three years.

But a perfect storm is brewing ahead of the elections to ensure that PKR will have to hand over the reins to race-based or religious-based parties.

To hardliners, moderation is suspicious. To cynics, unity is naive. And to those who thrive on division, harmony is bad for business. 

But Malaysians should ask a crucial question: Who benefits from heightened distrust between communities?

It is certainly not ordinary citizens, who must live, work, and raise families together. Nor is it businesses, investors, or young people hoping for a stable future.

The beneficiaries are those who gain political mileage from chaos — those who find it easier to win support by stoking fear than by offering solutions.

The real test is not whether one community “wins” over another, but whether the rule of law prevails over mob action, and whether political leaders refuse to exploit divisions for short-term gain.

Malaysia’s strength has always been its ability to manage diversity through negotiation rather than confrontation.

Allowing provocateurs — political or otherwise — to dictate the national conversation risks undoing decades of careful balance.

The danger today is not simply that Anwar’s government may be made to look bad. It is that the country itself may be made to look fractured, intolerant, and perpetually on edge — a narrative far more damaging than any single political setback.

Now is not the time for more manufactured race and religion divisions but for us to come together to face a bigger challenge — the war in West Asia and its far-reaching impacts on our cost of living as Malaysians.

KUALA LUMPUR, March 10 (Bernama) — Democracy is noisy, but social media is noisier. By almost any measure, one would think Malaysia is in perpetual crisis and even perceived to be a failed state if social media were the only lens through which we see the country.

Scroll through the endless stream of posts, comments and viral videos, and the picture painted is bleak: political, racial, and religious chaos and a nation supposedly on the brink of decline.

It is a narrative repeated so often that many begin to accept it as truth. The campaign has become more aggressive because the political actors believe a general election is looming.

But away from the noise of the digital echo chamber, Malaysia today enjoys a high degree of political stability that has been missing in recent years.

Malaysians have always taken political stability for granted. We have forgotten that we lost precious time when we had three Prime Ministers within a single five-year term between 2018 and 2022.

Whether we like Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim or not, we cannot deny that he has brought a measure of steadiness to the political landscape.

Investors, both domestic and foreign, tend to value predictability, and stability has helped restore confidence in Malaysia’s direction.

The foreign community looks at Malaysia with greater respect now, with Anwar playing a big role on the global stage.

Put aside the politics. Let’s look at the data. Malaysia has recorded a historic high of RM426.7 billion in total approved investments in 2025, marking an 11 per cent increase from 2024, and is expected to create over 244,000 new jobs.

Johor recorded RM110 billion in approved investments for 2025, the highest ever for a single state in Malaysian history.

This record-breaking performance accounts for 25.77 per cent of Malaysia’s total approved investments for the year.

Major multinational companies continue to choose Malaysia as a base for advanced manufacturing, data centres and technology supply chains.

From electronics to green technology, the country is positioning itself within industries that will define the next phase of global growth.

No serious investors will put billions into Malaysia if it continues to be rocked by political turbulence, changing PM and policies.

Bank Negara Malaysia’s international reserves reached USD128.3 billion as of Feb 27, 2026, the highest ever since Aug 2014. Supported by stronger exchange and gold accumulation, the reserves rose for an 11th consecutive month.

These reserves are more than just numbers; they represent economic resilience, providing the country with the capacity to weather global uncertainties and financial shocks.

The ringgit emerged as Asia’s best-performing currency in early 2026, driven by strong economic fundamentals, increased foreign investment, and a narrowing interest rate differential with the United States.

The ringgit, once the subject of constant alarmist commentary online, has strengthened against major currencies.

Even critics of PMX will agree that the stronger ringgit reflects improving confidence in the country’s economic fundamentals and policy direction.

Our unemployment rate has reached a near-decade low of 3.1 per cent as of December 2024, reflecting a stable and strengthening labour market. The rate has remained consistently low between 3.1 per cent and 3.3 per cent throughout late 2024 to early 2026.

Malaysia’s inflation rate in 2026 is expected to remain broadly stable at around two per cent, but with the war in West Asia and price hike in oil, there would probably be an impact on our inflation and cost of petrol as with the rest of the world.

These figures do not support the narrative that the PM is doing a bad job. It takes a lot of hard work to make this happen.

“The problem with the digital space is not merely that criticism exists – criticism is essential in any healthy democracy. The problem arises when outrage becomes the dominant currency of engagement.

“Algorithms reward anger, exaggeration and sensationalism. Nuance rarely goes viral,’’ as one report put it.

Unfortunately, data-driven analysis is not social media viral material. Malaysians do not have the patience to read a thoughtful analysis.

Economic data seldom attracts the same attention as a dramatic claim that the country is collapsing. Over time, this creates a distorted perception. The loudest voices online can make it appear as though the nation is perpetually failing, even when evidence suggests otherwise.

Many of us seem to be affected by a few religious extremists who are bent on creating hatred over the Hindu temple issues with their incessant, provocative actions and postings.

They would have been detained under the Internal Security Act in the era of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, but these draconian laws have been repealed.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner, Tan Sri Azam Baki, is in the spotlight as we await the report of the internal investigations against him.

He is under probe for dabbling in the shares market and whether he has crossed the permissible level as a civil servant, and whether he did obtain approval, not for corruption.

Azam may not be a popular figure with many questioning his stand and methods of his work, but never in the country’s history has so many big personalities been arrested and investigated. His job is to hand over his recommendations to the Attorney-General for court actions once the MACC completes their investigations.

Certainly not everything is well and fine in Malaysia. Issues such as income disparity, governance challenges, delayed reforms and the rising cost of living remain real concerns for many Malaysians. 

They deserve honest discussion and policy attention, but a nation’s challenges should be debated in proportion to its achievements and strengths.

Constantly projecting an image of failure does little to help Malaysia. Instead, it risks eroding confidence among citizens and investors alike, creating a self-fulfilling cycle of pessimism.

“Malaysia’s story today is not one of perfection, but neither is it one of collapse. It is the story of a country gradually regaining stability, attracting investments and strengthening its economic foundations,” said one analyst.

It’s just been three years since PMX held the job. We are still grappling with the 1MDB issue. As of late 2025, Malaysia has had to pay RM42.17 billion to service the debt and interest obligations of 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

The debt burden is gigantic as the remaining balance is about RM9.02 billion, with the final maturity date for the principal payment in 2039, according to reports, and all this is funded from the federal budget.

In the end, we must ask a simple question: should we allow the loudest voices with political interest to define our national narrative on social media, or should we judge our country by facts and evidence, and not merely emotions and prejudices?

KUALA LUMPUR, March 4 (Bernama) — It’s a big let-down for Malaysians. We would have thought that our Members of Parliament (MPs) would support the rare and defining moment to back the long-awaited reform initiative, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2026, which cuts across political divides.

Our lawmakers cannot be whining about the purported slow progress of reforms, and yet when an opportunity comes to make a difference, many choose to abstain and worse, are absent from the Dewan Rakyat.

It was an opportunity to entrench in the Federal Constitution a limit of 10 years for any individual to serve as Prime Minister.

The absence of eight government lawmakers, coupled with the refusal of some opposition lawmakers to support the amendment, has been hugely disappointing.

Bukit Gantang MP Datuk Syed Abu Hussin Hafiz Syed Abdul Fasal, a former Bersatu leader who is now backing the government, said he decided to skip the meeting because he disagreed with the new law.

Datuk Larry Sng, the Sarawakian MP from Julau, said he was caught in a traffic jam, which can hardly be accepted as an excuse.

“I was on my way back to Parliament from a prior engagement but was stuck in traffic,” Sng reportedly said.

Datuk Seri M. Saravanan, the MP for Tapah, said he was attending a religious function.

Other absentees were Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein (Sembrong), Datuk Henry Sum Agong (Lawas), Datuk Suhaimi Nasir (Libaran), Riduan Rubin (Tenom) and Datuk Seri Jeffrey Kitingan (Keningau).

In the bloc vote, 146 MPs supported the Bill, 44 abstained and 32 were absent. It needed at least 148 votes to meet the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment. All the Pakatan Harapan MPs from the DAP and PKR attended and voted for the Bill.

The failure of the MADANI Government to push through the bill isn’t a vote of no confidence. No one voted against the Bill.

But without doubt, it is an embarrassment as the optics were bad. There should have been better coordination.

Surely, the government whips and coordinators should not take for granted that our MPs will turn up.

This was, after all, an amendment to the Federal Constitution.

The Malaysian voters are not going to buy the flimsy excuses offered by the absentee government MPS. Some have not even bothered to explain.

We are not talking of just missing the approval by two votes, but the fact that 32 MPs were missing. To put it bluntly, they ponteng (play truant).

When MPs fail to show up for such a historic vote, it is not a minor procedural lapse; it is a dereliction of responsibility.

There was no excuse to abstain either unless the aim was not to support for the sake of putting down a government Bill.

Thus, the opposition MPs could not find a reason to vote against, as it was a fundamental reform aimed at strengthening democratic governance.

A two-term or 10-year limit for the PM would have signalled Malaysia’s commitment to institutional renewal and the prevention of excessive concentration of power.

But the Opposition chose to abstain and then gloat and celebrate after the Bill failed to get through. One may disagree with the government of the day, but constitutional reform should transcend partisan lines.

 The proposed amendment was not about targeting any individual or any political party. It was about ensuring that no future PM, regardless of party, would be able to remain in office indefinitely. 

It was about institutional safeguards, not personalities. It was not about politics. This was a major political reform initiative.

It is not even something new, as in the United States, for instance, the presidency is capped at two terms and in Indonesia, the constitution similarly limits the president to two five-year terms.

As voters, we have every right to demand accountability, and the media must ask the 32 MPs why they were absent. It is bad enough that we have to put up with the theatrics of some MPs, but when it comes to deciding on critical issues, we expect them to be there.

Nevertheless, this is not the end, as the amendment can and should be re-tabled. If reform is to mean anything, it requires discipline, unity of purpose, and above all, the willingness to put national interest above party strategy.