Source By P Ramasamy

GEORGETOWN, Malaysia: It has become a standard norm for Malaysia to adopt contradictory positions when it comes to its foreign and domestic policies.

On the international stage—primarily for the consumption of the Western liberal world—the Malaysian government projects an image of openness, liberalism, and a commitment to pluralism and diversity.

At the recent 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim spoke eloquently, urging ASEAN to move beyond the orthodoxy of bloc politics, to embrace openness and neutrality in pursuit of regional peace and stability. His message implied that ASEAN remains committed to staying above global rivalries, avoiding alignment with major powers.

This kind of diplomatic rhetoric, often delivered at high-profile international gatherings, is part of Anwar’s appeasement politics—a strategy that seems more about endearing Malaysia and ASEAN to Western and international audiences than effecting real change. His calls for building bridges, not walls, reflect a grand vision that ASEAN has yet to demonstrate in practice.

Despite Anwar’s lofty declarations, ASEAN as a regional bloc remains deeply fragmented—divided by competing national interests, the primacy of bilateral relationships, and a lack of coherent policy direction. The United States, once a key stakeholder, now shows little sustained interest in the grouping, further diminishing ASEAN’s relevance.

Domestically, Anwar’s international rhetoric rings hollow. His calls for openness and diversity are not reflected in the policies and actions of his government—or those before him. Instead of promoting inclusion, the government continues to advance ethnically and religiously divisive policies. Successive administrations, including Anwar’s, have upheld and deepened policies that overtly favor the Malay majority.

These preferential policies cover a wide range of areas—civil service appointments, military and bureaucratic positions, access to permits, licenses, economic opportunities, and education. Justified under the notion that Malays are the indigenous people (as opposed to Chinese and Indian Malaysians, often still referred to as “immigrants”), these policies institutionalize systemic inequality.

Ironically, Malaysia’s natives—the Orang Asli and other indigenous groups—remain largely excluded from meaningful political and economic participation.

While Anwar participates in civilizational dialogues abroad, at home, his government shows little respect for the cultures, religions, and rights of non-Malay communities. The ongoing migration of non-Malays, particularly the younger generation, to other countries is a direct consequence of decades of state-sponsored discrimination.

Thus, the government’s international calls for diversity and bridge-building lack substance when measured against its internal record. The contradiction between Malaysia’s international image and its domestic reality exposes a leadership—both current and past—that speaks of unity while practicing division.