Why Is PAS so Racist?

OPINION | Why Is PAS so Racist?


24 Dec 2025 • 2:00 PM MYT


TheRealNehruism
An award-winning Newswav creator, Bebas News columnist & ex-FMT columnist

Image credit: MyKMU


PAS is once again doing what it does most predictably when it finds itself out of power: playing the racial and religious card. Its criticism of the recent cabinet reshuffle is merely the latest example in a long and familiar pattern.


In a long and ongoing series of tirade against the non-Malays and non-Muslims for being the source of much if not all the problems in the federation, PAS is now saying indicating that the Chinese might be up to something, by concentrating the powers to manage the urban areas of the country in their hands.


What is interesting, however, is not that PAS is doing this—but when it chooses to do so.


If we look back at PAS’s behaviour during the Muafakat Nasional government, which came to power after the Sheraton Move in 2020, we notice something striking. During that period, PAS did not aggressively weaponise race and religion against non-Malays and non-Muslims. In fact, it went out of its way to appear conciliatory and accommodating.


This is not an isolated phenomenon. Many observers have noted that in PAS-governed states such as Kelantan, the PAS administration often treats non-Malays and non-Muslims with greater magnanimity and gentleness than it treats the Malay-Muslim majority itself. Whether one agrees with PAS ideologically or not, this pattern is difficult to deny.


So what explains this apparent contradiction?


The behaviour of non-Malays and non-Muslims clearly does not change depending on whether PAS is in power or in opposition. Millions of people do not suddenly alter their attitudes, values, or conduct simply because a different coalition forms the government.


The variable here is not society.


The variable is PAS.


PAS’s attitude toward race and religion changes according to its status, authority, and proximity to power, not according to any real transformation in the behaviour of minorities. When PAS is in power, it is calm, benevolent, and restrained. When it loses power, it becomes agitated, volatile, and increasingly reliant on racial and religious grievance.


To be fair, PAS is hardly unique in this regard.


UMNO and DAP exhibit the same behavioural pattern.


Consider Mahathir Mohamad. When he was climbing the ranks of UMNO, he was notorious for ultra-Malay rhetoric and an unapologetic willingness to play the race card. Yet once he reached the apex of power—as UMNO president and Prime Minister—he reinvented himself as a statesman who governed as “Prime Minister for all Malaysians.”


When he later fell from power, especially after the Sheraton Move, the racial and civilisational rhetoric returned with renewed intensity.


Najib Razak provides an even starker example. As an aspiring UMNO Youth leader in the 1980s, he infamously spoke of “bathing his keris in Chinese blood.” As Prime Minister, however, he championed “1Malaysia” and presented himself as a unifying national leader beyond race and religion.


This pattern—aggressive racial moralism when out of power, magnanimity when in power—is not an aberration. It is a defining feature of Malaysian politics across parties and ideologies.


Why does this happen?


My explanation is simple, though uncomfortable: Malaysians, as a political culture, are weak in character.


We are not weak in intelligence or ability—but we certainly are weak in virtue.


A weak person is neither good nor evil. They are simply weak. Because of this weakness, they often resemble good people. They speak kindly, act politely, and moralise frequently—not because they love goodness, but because goodness is the safest strategy when one lacks power.


Unlike a truly good person, who chooses virtue freely and experiences an inner joy that comes from being good, a weak person is forced into being good by circumstances— they do not experience much or any inner joy in being good. As a matter of fact, they will often resent and blame the fact that they were good, as the reason why they have to suffer injustices, humiliation and betrayal.


Other than being good to protect themselves, the weak also tend to be good because they hope that being good will grant them success in life.


Unlike the strong, the weak do not seek success through competition, excellence, or strength. Instead, they expect success to seek them, merely because they are “good.” They hope that by saying the right things, adopting the right moral language, and displaying public virtue, they will be noticed, rewarded, and elevated.


This is one of the biggest difference between the good and the weak - the good are good because they take joy in being good, in and off itself. The weak on the other hand, are good only because they expect to be rewarded for it - sometimes they expect to be rewarded by god, and sometimes they expect to be rewarded by society, but what is of no doubt, is that the weak always expect to be rewarded for being good - to the weak, being good is like having a 9 to 5 job - something you do although you don't want to do it, because you are expecting a salary and a bonus to make it worthwhile.


When this strategy works and the weak are indeed rewarded for being good, they will feel vindicated and content.


When it fails however, they grow bitter and resentful.


When the weak feel that they have not been rewarded although they have been good, in a snap of finger, the world will start to appear to them as unjust, racist, oppressive, and evil. Convincing themselves that their failure is not due to their shortcoming, but due to the moral corruption of the world itself, they will then persuade themselves to fight against “an evil and unjust world”, as something that they are obliged to do as “good people” for the sake of all that is good and right in the world.


But here is the crucial point:


This moral outrage lasts only until they succeed.


Once the weak gain power—once they win elections, hold office, and receive admiration, respect and authority—the world will suddenly no longer appears unjust. It will now seem fair, reasonable, and worth preserving. From being intent on fighting against an unjust and evil world, they will suddenly make a 180 degrees turn and deem themselves to be responsible to defending and preserving such a good and decent world.


This is why a truly good person and a weak person can appear identical when they are down—but become radically different once their circumstances change.


A truly good person does not alter the manner that they see themselves or the manner that they treat everyone else in the world, according to their circumstances, status and power level.


A weak person does.


To the weak, the same people who appeared “evil and unjust” when the weak were powerless will suddenly become “decent and deserving” once the weak are in charge—only to become “evil and unjust” again when power is lost.


PAS, therefore, is not uniquely racist. It is merely uniquely transparent in its weakness.


And PAS is not alone.


This loser-psychology permeates all Malaysian parties—and indeed, much of Malaysian society. It also explains a recurring phenomenon in our politics, where we only feel that a politician is “one of us” when they are out of power. The moment they succeed, they become alien to us.


This dynamic also sheds light on the growing disenchantment of the Chinese electorate with DAP. For decades, Chinese voters identified with DAP as a perpetual opposition party—unsuccessful, aggrieved, and critical of a system portrayed as unjust and oppressive.


Once DAP became successful and formed the government however, that identification collapsed. The same party is now accused of arrogance, betrayal, and self-interest—not because DAP changed overnight, but because their success made it impossible to sustain their identity with their followers. DAP now feels conciliatory, responsible and understanding towards the Malay-Muslims, because it is now successful and at the top . Its non-Malay and non-Muslim followers however, who are still feeling aggrieved and treated unfairly by the system, are thus inevitably feeling alienated from DAP, who no longer shares their grievances and sense of injustice.


Just because you dress a donkey in a suit, it won't become a gentleman. All you will get in fact, is an ass with a delusion of standing.


In the same way, just because we have tall skyscrapers and wide highways, will not make us a developed nation. As a matter of fact, all it will do is just frustrate us, by revealing to us that we are not really as good as we assume we are, and that we are much more weaker in virtue and character, than our appearance would suggest.



If we want things to change for the better, we have to accept that we are weak, not good, and stop putting people who are weak in power, simply because we identify with their weakness.


If we keep putting a weak person in power, all we will get is an ass with a delusion of standing.

***

Nehru matey tends to be far too philosophical. If I were to write this piece (mind, not that I could as well as Nehru matey), I would just cut to the chase and merely say: "PAS is racist because they are S-Wholes". 😂😂😂