Harsh sacrifice: Vigils are being held around the world for those killed during the nationwide protests in Iran, like this one outside the White House in Washington DC. — Photos: Reuters

WHAT is taking place in Iran is a lesson for the world, especially in countries where there are voters who wish to surrender political power to politicians who use religion to justify their hold on power.

This would include Malaysia.

Here, there are many voters who feel the mainstream political parties have let them down.

To some, when mainstream political parties appear corrupt, elitist, or indifferent, the appeal of a moralistic “clean” alternative grows strong.

In moments of deep frustration, disgruntled voters often reach for the most forceful alternative available.

The perception is that these people in religious robes, who seem to be experts in theology and are able to quote from holy scriptures, must surely be more trustworthy and cleaner than the deal-making politicians.

But the reality is that some of these purported holy men are no different from politicians. They are mere mortals.

History has shown that Malaysian political alliances have been justified from a religious perspective to suit such people.

In 1979, Iran rocked the world with its Islamic Revolution when the Pahlavi Dynasty was toppled. The violent uprising led to the replacement of the Imperial State of Iran by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The monarchical government of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was replaced with the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini.

The revolution against the Shah of Iran was fuelled by widespread perception of the regime as corrupt, excessively lavish, repressive, too Westernised, secular, and overly reliant on Western powers.

Unfortunately, the revolution was also the end of democracy. Iranians handed power on a silver platter to the clerics. Their lives have not improved and perhaps have worsened, with citizens losing their civil liberties.

History also shows that protest votes can sometimes open doors that are very difficult to close.

Malaysia today is not Iran in 1979 but the logic of political frustration that may drive voters towards Islamist parties in future elections carries lessons that Iranians learned at immense cost.

In Iran, the revolution that toppled the Shah was not initially a religious uprising. It was a broad coalition: students, workers, liberals, nationalists, communists and religious conservatives united by anger at corruption, inequality, and repression.

Many Iranians did not want a theocracy. They wanted dignity, accountability, and justice but in the absence of a clear successor, the clerics were seen as moral figures who could restrain excesses.

What followed was not what many had voted or marched for.

Once the clerics consolidated power, Iran rapidly transformed from an authoritarian monarchy into an authoritarian theocracy.

Institutions were reshaped to ensure clerical dominance. Laws became religiously enforced. Dissent was redefined as heresy.

Elections continued, but only within narrow ideological limits. They were not legitimate polls.

Many Iranians who supported the revolution later reportedly found themselves silenced, exiled, or imprisoned by the very system they had enabled.

History seems to be repeating itself in Iran today.

The country’s economy is in serious trouble with the value of its currency taking a beating, resulting in the rocketing cost of living.

A broad-based protest coalition, like in 1979, has taken to the streets but unfortunately the death toll has also spiked.

Today, decades after the first revolution, Iranian society is filled with regret. Protest slogans openly reject clerical rule.

Young Iranians, born long after the revolution, ask why their futures were sacrificed to a political regime they never chose. How long will these old men cling to power?

Many older Iranians openly admit that frustration with the Shah blinded them to the long-term consequences of empowering religious authorities with unchecked political power.

Malaysia must pay attention to this pattern – not because religion is the problem, but because political absolutism is.

Despite the pathetic performance of the Islamist party in states that it rules, it has continued to gain votes.

It lacks detailed governance plans, but presents itself as a morally pure alternative to purported corrupt mainstream parties.

In short, its leaders thrive on disappointment. Their messaging is simple: society’s problems exist because leaders are insufficiently religious; give us power, and virtue will follow.

But morality alone does not guarantee good governance. When religion becomes a political weapon, disagreement is no longer just political – it becomes sinful.

This is taking place in Iran, where the killing of protesters is justified because the positions of the clerics are threatened.

Policy debates turn into moral judgments. Compromise, the lifeblood of democracy, is reframed as betrayal. Over time, laws shift from serving citizens to enforcing ideological conformity.

The Iranian experience shows that once clerics embed themselves in the state, removing them becomes nearly impossible without massive social upheaval. Protest votes are temporary emotions; political systems are long-term realities.

Voters frustrated with mainstream parties are right to demand reform, accountability, and justice.

But replacing flawed democratic actors with ideologically rigid ones does not solve corruption – it often institutionalises it behind moral language, as one report aptly puts it.

It said there is another lesson from Iran that deserves attention: revolutions and ideological shifts rarely affect elites.

“It is ordinary people – women, minorities, artists, students, small business owners – who bear the cost when freedoms shrink and laws harden.

“Once personal liberties are curtailed in the name of religious or moral order, restoring them becomes a generational struggle.”

Religion can inspire compassion, honesty, and social responsibility but when political power claims divine authority, citizens lose the ability to challenge it without being labelled immoral or disloyal.

The Iranian tragedy was not that people wanted change – it was that their desperation made them overlook the danger of absolutism.

Their regret today is not abstract; it is lived daily.

The Iranian clerics are not going to give up their power without a fight, and if that means many more Iranians will lose their lives, the clerics have no qualms about that.

So much for so-called God-fearing, ethical holy men.

IT was certainly a good start for the new year when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced a fresh set of reform moves last week, signalling the need to fast track the changes.

During his three years in power, Anwar has faced persistent criticism that his reform agenda, once synonymous with urgency and moral purpose, has been slow.

He has found – to his chagrin – that when you are heading a government with 18 partners and your party does not have the largest number of seats, there will be many stumbling blocks.

Coalition arithmetic, bureaucratic inertia and the need for political stability to ensure the Unity Government does not collapse are serious concerns that he has to grapple with in the real political world.

His opponents have attacked Anwar for allegedly being trapped by the very system he once vowed to dismantle, prioritising coalition management over transformation.

Unfortunately, the idealistic PKR faithful and voters are not likely to care or be interested in the details of such compromises. All they know is that their hopes and expectations have not been met as fast as they would like.

But the significance of his Jan 5 announcement lies less in the fine print of policy and more in the message embedded in the moment.

It is best understood as a deliberate political reset: a reassertion that reform remains central to his leadership, and that 2026 will be defined by acceleration rather than hesitation.

For much of his tenure, Anwar has governed under the shadow of his own legacy.

Reformasi is not merely a campaign slogan; it is a political identity forged through decades of struggle, imprisonment, and public expectation.

While it grants Anwar unparalleled credibility on reform, it also magnifies disappointment when progress appears incremental or delayed.

Supporters who rallied behind him did not expect easy change – but they did expect visible momentum.

After three years, the Unity Government has remained intact. There is no danger of a collapse.

The Opposition has not attempted to move any motion to remove Anwar beyond the “Turun Anwar’’ protests to keep themselves relevant simply because they know that they don’t have the numbers.

Perikatan Nasional’s direction remains uncertain after Bersatu president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and his supporters quit their coalition posts and passed the problem to PAS.

Within Bersatu, MPs aligned with deputy president Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainuddin have been targeted and face disciplinary action, including sackings.

But for Malaysia’s unity government, structural reform in areas such as governance, subsidies, or institutional independence inevitably creates winners and losers.

On that front, Anwar has struggled to convince a sceptical public that reform is moving fast enough.

However, by acting on Jan 5, before the narrative of race and religion resumes, before Parliament settles into routine, before crisis dictates agenda, and before critics can frame the year as another exercise in delay – Anwar has seized the narrative initiative.

He is no longer responding defensively to accusations of slowness; he is defining the year on his own terms.

The message is unmistakable: reform is not something to be revisited later in the term, but the organising principle of governance in 2026.

An early-year announcement signals confidence and intent. In short, the narrative is that the PM is willing to spend political capital rather than hoard it. When reforms are announced late, they are seen as tactical – designed to placate voters ahead of elections.

When they are announced early, they appear strategic, even ideological. That distinction matters for credibility.

From a purely political standpoint, this early start is a good tactical move. Reform takes time, not just to legislate, but also to implement, communicate, and normalise.

Coalition partners who might quietly resist change find it harder to do so when reform is publicly framed as a priority from the outset of the year.

In that sense, Jan 5 was not just a signal to voters, but a disciplining mechanism for the coalition itself.

But Anwar has to make sure that this acceleration has to materialise in clear timelines, measurable benchmarks, and visible enforcement. It should not be mere promises.

An early start also raises expectations; failing to meet them would reinforce the very narrative he is trying to escape.

Anwar’s greatest political test in 2026 will not be whether he can announce reform, but whether he can sustain it when resistance emerges — from within institutions, from vested interests, and even from allies.

Anwar making an announcement of reforms and other initiatives on Jan 5. — Bernama

He does not need to call for an early election this year although the temptation is there with the opposition in disarray.

The current ground remains uncertain as there are many grievances, especially the increasing cost of living.

But the PM’s announcement that all Malaysian adults aged 18 years old and above will receive the second round one-off Sumbangan Asas Rahmah (Sara) RM100 credit on Feb 9, 2026, is welcomed news.

Sara is a cash aid from the government which is utilised to purchase essential goods at participating supermarkets and retail outlets.

Anwar has two more years to go and that is still plenty of time. There is no reason why he should not go for the full term. It would be better that he does so, while focusing on fulfilling these reforms.

So is the extension to 2027 for the implementation of e-invoices for businesses with an annual turnover of below RM5 million a year. It will bring relief to many as this is a hugely unpopular move for many small businesses.

In fact, the entire process should be ended for these small businesses.

If he succeeds, Jan 5 may be remembered not as another announcement, but as the moment reform finally reclaimed the driver’s seat of Malaysian politics.

Will Perikatan crumble in the face of a state political feud reaching the national level? — Bernama

IT was a political bomb that dropped perfectly, just before the year ended – and its loud impact is still being felt even as we enter into the second week of the new year.

Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s decision to step down as Perikatan Nasional chief has been followed by a cascade of resignations among state-level leaders.

The Bersatu president’s decision to walk away from the post is as good as a farewell to the Opposition front and certainly its most serious internal rupture.

There will be attempts to put on a brave front, with a top-level meeting involving its component leaders being planned.

But the real test will be for Islamist party PAS now that Bersatu has left a huge crater. The other Perikatan partners, Gerakan and the Malaysian Indian People’s Party, have virtually no influence.

The fact is that Muhyiddin has been the coalition’s glue: a former prime minister with national name recognition, acceptable to Malay conservatives yet not threatening to fence-sitters uneasy about PAS’s ideological edge.

His departure strips Perikatan of that moderating influence and exposes the coalition’s underlying imbalance of power.

National figure: Muhyiddin (right), here seen with Azmin, has been Perikatan’s glue – acceptable to Malay conservatives yet not threatening to fence-sitters uneasy with PAS’ ideological edge. — Bernama

There is really nothing to gain for PAS, which no doubt feels betrayed by the coup in Perlis, the country’s smallest state, where its mentri besar was replaced by a Bersatu assemblyman.

PAS has made its anger known, and while it has expressed support for the new MB, none of the PAS representatives will be in the new state government line-up.

The political feud can now be expected to reach the national level as Perikatan crumbles.

PAS will surely be tempted now to take on the lead role, believing that a possible Malay tsunami is on the horizon and it has nothing to lose. After all, over the past several election cycles, PAS has emerged as Perikatan’s electoral workhorse.

It delivered votes, mobilised grassroots machinery and has dominated parliamentary representation within the coalition.

Bersatu, by contrast, has struggled to build durable party structures beyond its leadership elite. The mass resignations of state chiefs – many of whom were already under pressure or facing credibility issues – underscore this weakness. While Bersatu thins out, PAS remains embedded.

The reality, though, is that PAS is only strong in the predominantly Malay states of Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, and Terengganu, all of which have demonstrated only mediocre economic performances.

PAS simply lacks appeal in urban and mixed constituencies, which have always depended on reassurance that PAS’s Islamist agenda would be tempered by coalition politics.

Without a figure like Muhyiddin at the helm, that narrative becomes harder to sell.

The support for PAS in the Malay heartland is undeniable but national power requires a broader appeal.

A PAS-led Perikatan will completely turn off non-Malay voters and moderate Malays.

There is no way that the clerics, who call the shots in the party, will allow professionals like Terengganu MB Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar to helm the coalition.

He may be a PAS vice president but the clerics decide, and even if leaders like him are put there, they would merely serve as political cosmetics with no real clout.

Decision-making authority is dispersed among religious councils and senior ulama, which lends moral legitimacy but limits decisiveness.

Technocract Ahmad Samsuri is popular but the powerful clerics call the shots in the party. — AZLINA ABDULLAH/The Star

What helped Perikatan grow was not just PAS’ organisational muscle, but the promise of a multi- party front that could govern inclusively.

It served as a realistic option to the Umno-led Barisan Nasional or PKR-helmed Pakatan Harapan.

There is also the question of succession and leadership style. Muhyiddin was a unifying, if pragmatic, figure.

With the senior Bersatu leaders having quit en masse, it will be odd for deputy president Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainuddin, the Opposition leader, to take over the driver’s seat.

His differences with his party boss, Muhyiddin, and secretary-general Datuk Seri Azmin Moha-mad Ali, are an open secret.

He has maintained his silence following Muhyiddin’s departure but he should not nurture any hope of taking over.

Negri Sembilan Bersatu chief Hanifah Abu Baker has expressed support for PAS president Tan Sri Abdul Hadi Awang to replace Muhyiddin, but one wonders if this was even a sincere proposal.

The 78-year-old theologian is in a wheelchair, has earned the unenviable title of being the Member of Parliament with the worst attendance record in the august House, and had nothing much to show for his time as Terengganu mentri besar (1999-2004).

The other options are PAS deputy president Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, the MP for Kubang Kerian, and secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan.

These top figures command loyalty within the party and respect among grassroots supporters, but none have broad appeal across Perikatan’s non-PAS components or among swing voters.

Steering a national coalition in turbulent political waters requires not only ideological clarity but tactical flexibility, something PAS will need to demonstrate more convincingly in the post-Muhyiddin era.

If Muhyiddin’s resignation creates a leadership vacuum, it does not automatically follow that PAS can – or should – fill it.

A PAS leader elevated to Perikatan chief would remain constrained by internal consultative structures, reducing the agility expected of a coalition leader.

The Islamist party will continue to face the problem of optics and a PAS-led Perikatan would almost certainly intensify fears about its ideological rigidity.

For urban Malays and non-Malays, a PAS Perikatan chief could harden resistance and shrink the coalition’s already limited reach in competitive constituencies.

PAS has not made any serious attempt to change the minds of non-Muslim voters who see the party as a hardline one wanting to impose an Islamic State. Worse, it has taken on a racist tone as well now.

Umno Youth leader Akmal Saleh’s call for a revival of the Muafakat Nasional Muslim-dominated front sounds more idealistic than realistic as PAS is not going to give up its dominance for Umno.

Muafakat Nasional was a shortlived political alliance formed by PAS and Umno in 2019 with the intention of consolidating the Malay-Muslim vote.

Umno tried to work with PAS and failed. The same type of bad marriage between Bersatu and PAS has now flopped.

The question is why PAS continues to be a poor choice for any political marriage? Blaming DAP and proclaiming Malay unity is the easy out. The reality is Bersatu-PAS backstabbed each other in Perlis.

Good performance: According to the IMF, Malaysia’s economy expanded at a healthy pace in 2025 and has shown ‘notable resilience against global trade tensions and policy uncertainty’. — AZMAN GHANI/The Star

IT was the kind of uplifting news that the federal government could do with to wrap up the year.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has announced that Malaysia’s economy expanded at a healthy pace in 2025, driven by strong domestic demand.

The IMF also noted that Malaysia had shown “notable resilience against global trade tensions and policy uncertainty”.

In a statement released recently, the IMF said growth this year was underpinned by robust consumption and investment, solid employment gains, and a global technology upcycle.

The IMF said this performance, in part, reflects sound economic policies and prudent macroeconomic management. However, it cautioned that external risks could weigh on growth in 2026 as global uncertainty becomes “a new normal”.

At the same time, it must be recognised that the ringgit has performed very well against the US dollar and is poised to do well in 2026.

It has performed strongly recently, becoming a top Asian currency, driven by our robust economic growth, improved investor confidence, and a weaker dollar. The ringgit, in fact, has outperformed many regional peers against the dollar.

Last week, the ringgit climbed to another new high at Tuesday’s closing, touching RM4.0615, the strongest level last seen in early March 2021, as expectations of a US interest rate cut continued to pressure the greenback.

Bank Muamalat Malaysia Bhd chief economist Afzanizam Rashid said the ringgit continued to appreciate further, as anticipation of an interest rate cut in the US remained the key factor driving the weaker US dollar.

“Clearly, foreign exchange traders are constructive on the ringgit in the near-term, and RM4 seems to be the next level.”

Despite the impressive economic show, there has been much criticism against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. The critics says he came into office with a strong reformasi/anti-corruption mandate but the pace and depth of reform have fallen short.

Civil society and reform advocates argue that promised changes, especially anti-corruption, judicial and governance reforms, have been slow.

Long-awaited changes to institutional independence, political financing, and civil liberties have often stalled at the discussion stage.

But take away all the political expectations and whining, how did the government fare exactly?

The past year for the Malaysian government has been neither a triumph nor a failure, but a study in incrementalism – marked by a few genuine high points and some disappointments.

But the government’s most underappreciated achievement this year has been political stability. Many of us have taken this for granted but without this stability, no investor will put their money here.

We keep forgetting we have had three prime ministers since 2018 and despite the criticism against Anwar, he has outlasted all of them.

Most coalition governments never last but he has held the reins for three years and still commands majority support among Members of Parliament.

It is the Opposition that is in disarray, actually.

The durability of the unity government matters. It has allowed ministries to plan beyond crisis management and given investors, civil servants, and ordinary citizens a sense – however fragile – that tomorrow will not bring another abrupt reset.

On the economic front, the government deserves credit for resisting populist temptation.

Budget measures, while hardly generous, were largely pragmatic, focusing on targeted assistance rather than blanket giveaways.

The continued emphasis on subsidy rationalisation, though unpopular, signals a recognition that Malaysia cannot indefinitely fund inefficiency without undermining its fiscal future.

That the government has tried, however cautiously, to explain this logic to the public is itself progress but it has not been easy.

Still, the public expects reforms to be fast tracked in 2026. The language of reform has to be met with deliveries.

The ringgit has appreciated and IMF has praised us, but all this must be felt by the ordinary people.

Renewed anti-corruption rhetoric has helped restore some credibility to governance after years of scandal-driven cynicism but we also want to see formal legal charges.

We read of so many high-profile cases involving Tan Sris and Datuks and yet many have yet to be formally charged, including the fraudulent MBI Group ponzi scheme.

While we demand more anti- corruption drives, it is odd that many of us still insist on amnesty, including pardons, for elites who have committed grave corruption. It is an oxymoron.

Internationally, Malaysia has benefited from a more coherent foreign policy voice. As the Chair of Asean, Anwar has performed incredibly well and it will be a tough act to follow.

The government has balanced relations with major powers carefully, defended national interests without unnecessary theatrics, and reaffirmed Malaysia’s relevance in Asean at a time of growing regional uncertainty.

Even Anwar’s biggest critics have admitted that he did well on the regional and international stage, including his handling of the visit by unpredictable US President Donald Trump to Malaysia.

But Malaysians expect Anwar to spend more time at home in 2026 as we head towards a general election in a year or two. Certainly the ground work has to begin soon.

While trips abroad are necessary to attract investments, he also needs to focus his time on the ground for Malaysians.

For many Malaysians, foreign achievements feel abstract when measured against daily realities.

The cost of living remains the government’s most persistent vulnerability. Food prices, housing affordability, and wage stagnation continue to erode public confidence.

Explanations about global inflation or structural constraints may be accurate, but they offer little comfort at the pasar.

In some cases, the government appears constrained by its own coalition arithmetic; in others, by an understandable but frustrating aversion to political risk.

The result is reform fatigue among supporters and vindication for critics who argue that Malaysia’s political culture changes far more slowly than its slogans.

Equally damaging has been the persistence of racial and religious grandstanding on the political fringes – and sometimes uncomfortably close to the centre.

Malaysians often wonder why certain serial stirrers are able to get away with it – is it because they belong to a component party in the ruling coalition?

The government’s responses have been cautious to the point of ambiguity, leaving it open to criticism for failing to draw firmer lines in defence of moderation and pluralism.

Finally, communication remains a weak spot. Policies are sometimes announced without sufficient groundwork, inviting backlash that might have been mitigated with clearer messaging and earlier engagement.

Where are the Pakatan cybertroopers as the PM gets hammered on social media?

While the Madani government has kept the ship steady in choppy waters, it has to do more to convince many Malaysians.

The Madani government has kept the ship steady in choppy waters, but has to do more to convince many Malaysians. — Bernama

Yes, many Malaysians know that there are no viable options besides PMX now.

Certainly many do not want to see discredited parties being returned to power although they can tolerate these parties as part of a coalition.

The worst scenario is to see a theologian party coming into power, specifically PAS, which some see their disciplined followers turning Malaysia into the dark ages.

Angry voters who used to be supportive of Pakatan may insist on staying home as a protest, but they can be sure that the PAS faithful will turn up in full force.

There has to be rational answers to the whining and grumbling.

But Pakatan must take heed that they should be voted in again – not because there are no options but because voters are convinced they are the best option. Not out of necessity.

As the new year approaches, the challenge is clear. Stability must now be converted into delivery; rhetoric into results. The year 2026 has to be a year of deliveries as the clock ticks away.

In harmony: Anwar with religious leaders at the recent Christian Federation of Malaysia’s Christmas high tea, where he spoke at length on the need for national unity. — Bernama

THERE has been much controversy – and even misinformation – over the recognition of the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) issue.

It has come to a point that even what Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said in his recent speeches have been eclipsed. Some of his messages have been lost in translation or skewed by certain media to fit their narrative.

The Malay media has been understandably strongly against any move to recognise the UEC. The Chinese media has been the same but in the opposite direction, advocating recognition.

Social influencers are also getting in on the act but many do not have accurate information about and basic understanding of the matter.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has found himself being pulled by both sides. There are Malays who accuse him of selling out to the DAP, while sections of the Chinese community are unhappy that Pakatan Harapan has not fulfilled its promise to recognise the UEC.

At the recent Christian Federation of Malaysia’s Christmas high tea, the PM spoke at length on the need for national unity and the emphasis on Bahasa Malaysia, without forgetting the importance of English and other languages, including Mandarin.

He acknowledged the importance of Mandarin, saying this will help open Malaysia up to economic powers such as China.

It was a similar message to the one he had given the media on Dec 12 in Langkawi. But for some reason, the angle in the media then was that he had rejected UEC recognition when the truth is, what he said was turned out differently.

His stand has been consistent: the official position of Bahasa Malaysia must remain, and its importance must be recognised.

There is no excuse for any Malaysian not to be proficient in Bahasa Malaysia. No one should dispute that. It is shameful if any of us are not fluent in Malay, or worse, cannot speak it, when migrant workers are able to.

Here is what Anwar actually said:

“Lately, there have been various voices raising different demands regarding language issues. Some want to emphasise the English language, while others seek recognition of the UEC.

“I want to explain it this way: This is Malaysia. Malay is the national and official language, and anyone, in their efforts to promote any language, must remember that the official language — Bahasa Melayu — must be upheld as a language of knowledge mastered by all Malaysians.”

Anwar went on: “For example, is there a need for better mastery of the English language? The answer is yes. Is there a need to teach English in certain new fields in schools and universities? The answer is yes.

“Even the need to increase the use of the Chinese language in certain courses at universities poses no problem, including the issue of the UEC.

“Next, Arabic. We have faculties of Islam and faculties of Islamic Studies in many universities. Therefore we want courses in Arabic to also be given opportunities. Likewise, if there are several specialised lectures in the Tamil language, they may be used.

“However, when the narrative or discourse leans towards a single language and a single race while neglecting discussion of the country’s main language, that is where the problem arises.

“So I want to remind everyone: Any race or party may put forward proposals – there is no problem with that.

“But they must remember that as citizens who adhere to constitutional principles, understanding must begin by affirming the priority of the mastery of Bahasa Melayu.

“After that, I agree to elevating the status of the mastery of other languages — not only English, Chinese, Arabic, and Tamil, but any other languages as well.’’

Datuk Joy Appukuttan, a past president of the Malaysian Catholic Lawyers Association who attended the high tea, posted on Facebook that Anwar’s speech was better than as reported in the media.

“His focus was on national unity, keeping to the national agenda of using BM, without forgetting the importance of English and Mandarin,’’ he said, adding that “there seems to be a lot of negativity surrounding PMX,” referring to Anwar’s nickname as the country’s 10th prime minister.

“But he admits that being at the helm leading a multiracial country is more complex and more challenging. It is timely that he is allowed space to let his words turn to action.

“For this, he needs support. I say this because he spoke out loudly and clearly on moral deficits, corruption and endemic corruption.

“He ostracised intolerance towards the marginalised, the oppressed and the poor. He spoke against perpetrators of injustice and cruelty. In all these, there is much to be done.

“His timely reminder was that despite being complex, multi-racial and multi-religious, our country is certainly one of the most peaceful countries in the world.

“We must cherish it as we continue to move forwards as a united nation.”

Malaysia will continue to face challenges, including emotive and confrontational racial responses, on numerous issues, including education.

As long as we live in a diverse society, this can be expected, but any discourse should be calm and backed by facts and figures.

Let’s look at the UEC. The reality is that only about 10,000 students sit for the exam annually, and many do so after completing their Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) exam, or they sit for both.

In short, most of these Chinese students have opted for SPM and most obtained their passes in BM, or even a credit.

The UEC is the school leaving certificate for students attending Chinese private schools and is academically equivalent to the national Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM) or international A-levels.

It was created by the United Chinese School Committees’ Association of Malaysia (Dong Zong) to provide a unified examination.

The UEC is accepted by over 1,000 universities, including top universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Purdue, Tsinghua, Peking, Monash, and the National University of Singapore, among others.

For the record, UEC graduates have been accepted by private universities in Malaysia since the 1990s. The UEC is also recognised by Sabah and Sarawak and accepted by state-run education institutions.

There is much misconception that there are plans to replace the SPM with the UEC. That is impossible as most parents and students understand the importance of having an SPM certificate.

According to statistics, between 2021 and 2024, an average of 8,000 to 9,000 Chinese independent students sat for the SPM each year.

Of these, 85% to 90% qualified for the SPM, which requires a pass in Bahasa Malaysia and History. That means only the remaining 10% to 15% — or 1,000-odd — failed to pass the SPM.

Almost all Chinese independent school students then go to Senior Middle Level 3 to sit for the UEC exam the following year.

In short, the majority of the Chinese community, who send their children to government-run Sekolah Rendah Jenis Cina (SRJK), or vernacular schools, proceed to the normal secondary schools and sit for the SPM.

The UEC path for Chinese students is actually narrow, and those who tread the path understand the need to have the SPM cert as a form of insurance for their education and future career. The Chinese are practical people.

Malaysia currently has 63 independent Chinese schools with about 90,000 students in total – which is just 20% of the country’s 400,000 ethnic Chinese students. The other 80% are in the national education system.

In fact, there are UEC graduates with SPM passes who have joined the civil service as Chinese language teachers.

Those advocating for UEC recognition point out that 25% of about 8,000 graduates who studied overseas choose not to return to Malaysia to work, leading to a serious brain drain.

They argue that it is a myth that when students choose the UEC path, most will not study in local public universities because of financial reasons.

Free Malaysia Today journalist Rex Tan, a UEC graduate, shared that the UEC exam was “gruelling” and “I take pride in our competitive maths and science courses, which make SPM Science a piece of cake for most.

“I am grateful for my school’s strict academic regimen, its six-day school week and 60% passing-score grading system, with those who fail to meet the threshold having to retake in the same year. This moulded me into a disciplined person and a believer in diligence and merit.

“However, I found Dong Zong’s dedication of my second senior year (Year Five) to learning China’s history rather dubious.

“The syllabus felt overly ethnocentric – just like how my national school counterparts had Tamadun Islam choked down their throats in secondary schools and universities.

“That said, I benefited immensely from the final-year course on South-East Asian history, with a focus on Malaysia and Singapore.

“This was far more informative compared with the cherry-picked history textbooks of national schools,’’ he wrote.

He estimated that half of his peers now work in Singapore, with 20% in Johor Baru, another 20% in Kuala Lumpur (including himself), and the rest overseas.

“Since entering public university was never an option at the outset, most studied either in local private institutions or abroad, especially in Taiwan, which offers competitive tuition fees for ‘overseas Chinese’.’’

Tan said that “notwithstanding these fundamental flaws of independent Chinese secondary schools, I categorically disagree that UEC holders should be denied entry to public universities.

“The reason is simple: Public universities can serve as places for culturally outcast students to reintegrate into Malaysia’s diverse social fabric.”

Universiti Teknologi Mara Shah Alam coordinator of Liberal Studies and senior lecturer Dr Mohd Yusof Zulkefli said the current debate over the UEC “is not about whether it should be recognised but how it should be recognised’’.

He reportedly said that unconditional recognition could blur the role of Bahasa Melayu in national education and weaken long-term policy objectives, particularly those outlined in the Malaysia Education Blueprint.

“A requirement for a good Bahasa Melayu SPM grade is both reasonable and fully aligned with national policy.

“Bahasa Melayu functions as the language of civic participation, public administration, and social cohesion,’’ he told the New Straits Times.

The Malaysian Union of Malay Teachers has also reportedly reaffirmed its opposition to UEC recognition, saying its syllabus does not meet national curriculum standards and undermines nation-building efforts.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Institute for Inclusive Development and Advancement deputy director Dr Anuar Ahmad has suggested discussions about the UEC’s status be addressed in a judicial setting.

He said the issue touches on constitutional interpretation, like the Education Act 1996 and the National Language Act 1963/67.

Amidst the noise, the door to getting the UEC recognised isn’t entirely shut, but Dong Zong has to take steps to fulfil certain requirements.

Certainly it has to seriously strengthen its BM and History syllabus in line with the national education system.

It should even consider having a compulsory Bahasa Malaysia Kertas Am, formerly known as the General Paper, in the Higher School Certificate (HSC) syllabus.

It has to revamp its curricula to have stronger students’ use of Bahasa Melayu and streamline its courses with the national syllabus.

It is understood that Dong Zong has formed a task force with Ikram Malaysia, a Malay NGO, to improve its BM learning and worked with Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka on a BM enhancement programme as well initiated a multi-lingual group called Inisiatif Pengislahan Pendidikan Nasional (National Education Reform Initiative).

It is important that Dong Zong engage with Malay nationalists regularly to look for common ground and to reduce, if not remove, suspicion and misunderstanding.

Dong Zong, under the leadership of educationist Datuk Tan Yew Sing, has even started a media group to handle BM and English-speaking circles.

Tan is the founder and chairman of INTI International University and Colleges.

It is important that any national policy should be discussed rationally instead of in the midst of demands and threats made in a confrontational manner.

Finding practical and amicable solutions is much harder than making emotive arguments in the media.

Malay-based parties will never recognise the UEC for fear of grassroots backlash; Chinese-based parties will only raise the issue temporarily when they perceive a cascading loss in ground support, Tan wrote.

One side exploits the fear that Malays will lose their rights and fail to protect the national language while the other plays the UEC issue as a symbolic battle for equality under the Malaysian sun.

In the end, not enough Malaysians talk about how we should make our education system more attractive and better. All of us want to make Malaysia better, and while our approaches may be different, we all have that common end.

Certainly, we can all sit down together to find common approaches – with common sense – to make Malaysian education world class.

Wise words: Sultan Sharafuddin being interviewed by the writer. The Selangor Ruler says political leaders should avoid using state rights as a tool for short-term political gains or rhetoric. — Bernama

THE reminder from Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah that states should avoid pushing their rights in ways that overshadow or undermine national interests is timely and insightful, especially in the current political climate.

Discussions about federal–state relations have become increasingly prominent in recent times and certainly no one understands and realises the importance of state rights better than the Sultan of Selangor.

But as His Royal Highness correctly said, there is a need for balance, wisdom, and perspective in navigating the delicate relationship between state autonomy and national identity.

Last week, the Selangor Ruler expressed concern over the practice of certain states in amplifying state rights, saying there must be an awareness of broader national interests.

The principles of state sovereignty and local self-governance, he said, were fundamental for any state – “but they must not go overboard”.

“It is essential that states exercise their rights with an awareness of the broader national interest.

“The strength of the nation depends not only on the autonomy of its individual states but also on the cohesion and stability of the union as a whole,’’ he said in an interview with Bernama.

Certainly, it is understandable that states which are rich in mineral resources would want to get better royalties.

Some have complained that they have been left out of development and that it is time that they get what they deserve or were promised.

The Federal Government has been left in a quandary – the country is no longer as rich as it used to be.

We are still struggling to pay off debts from the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) financial scandal, which have not been fully settled. The total financial obligations exceed RM50bil, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim told the Dewan Rakyat.

The government, he said, had already paid RM42bil to settle 1MDB debts, principal, and interests, and commitments from 2018, adding that only RM29bil could be financed through funds derived from 1MDB asset recovery out of the RM42bil paid by the government.

States may not be concerned about this as it is not their problem but it shows how such debt repayment has caused a drain on Federal Government coffers.

Money which would have been used for the rakyat has gone instead to meeting such financial obligations. To put in simple English, Malaysia is struggling to manage its coffers as a result of the colossal theft.

While it is easy to make federal leaders the punching bags, it should also be asked whether past state leaders themselves had carried out their responsibilities and duties diligently.

But in any federation, as in other countries, differing needs, identities, and priorities among states are inevitable.

States naturally want greater control over their own resources, development strategies, and administrative powers.

These aspirations are legitimate and form an important part of Malaysia’s democratic and constitutional landscape.

However, when demands become overly aggressive or are framed in ways that challenge the spirit of national solidarity, they risk creating friction not only between state and federal institutions but also among citizens.

Let’s not forget that whether we are from Selangor, Johor, Sabah, Sarawak or Kelantan, we all carry Malaysian passports. We are all Malaysians.

Without the Federation of Malaysia, regardless of where we come from, the respective states on their own are nothing.

State demands and rhetoric help win votes, but politicians need to get back to reality once the elections are over.

That means they should not over-promise or raise unrealistic expectations they know cannot be delivered.

The Sultan’s message underscores that Malaysia’s strength lies in cooperation and shared responsibility. Whether we like it or not, state leaders and the Federal Government must work in tandem, seeking solutions that address regional disparities while ensuring stable governance at the national level.

Excessive decentralisation, if pursued without coordination, can weaken common policies, fragment national planning, and foster competition rather than complementarity.

On the other hand, if federal leaders ignore local needs and sentiments, it can also breed dissatisfaction and hinder development. This is precisely why balance is crucial.

Tuanku’s remarks serve as a reminder that political leaders should avoid using state rights as a tool for short-term political gains or rhetoric.

Instead, these issues should be approached with statesmanship, guided by constitutional princi-ples and a long-term vision for Malaysia’s prosperity. Construc-tive dialogue, rather than confrontation or unilateral demands, is what leads to enduring solutions.

Ultimately, the Sultan’s call is a reminder that Malaysia’s future depends on unity, cooperation, and mutual respect across all levels of leadership.

State autonomy and national interests are not opposing forces; they are interconnected pillars that, when managed with wisdom and moderation, can strengthen the country’s governance and ensure equitable progress for all Malaysians.

As HRH rightly reminded us, “We must understand that state pride is important, but we must not forget that we all belong to one big Malaysian family. Sacrifices must be made for national interests’.’