Capturing and understanding the context of Anwar’s remarks on Taiwan — Phar Kim Beng

Capturing and understanding the context of Anwar’s remarks on Taiwan — Phar Kim Beng



Summary

• Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's recent comments on Taiwan highlighted Malaysia's support for Beijing's territorial claims and left open the possibility of using force.
• Anwar's remarks, interpreted within Malaysia's constitutional framework, emphasize the importance of territorial integrity and the deterrent value of state power without endorsing war.
• He likened this to Malaysia's need to defend its own federation against potential fragmentation.
• Ultimately, the focus is on maintaining unity through credible defense and cooperative governance, rather than through coercion alone, reflecting a realistic view of sovereignty.

First Published: Thursday, 20 Aug 2026 9:15 AM MYT


AUGUST 20 — Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s recent remarks on Taiwan generated international headlines for two reasons.

First, Anwar openly acknowledged Beijing’s territorial claim on Taiwan.


Second, Anwar affirmed the possibility that force could be used----as and when peaceful reunification failed.


Read without context, Anwar’s words look stark.


However, when placed within Malaysia’s constitutional make-up, Anwar’s broader point about sovereignty can be understood as a defence of territorial integrity.


In turn, the value embedded in the deterrent function of state power—not an endorsement of war.

In particular, Anwar framed his view with a domestic analogy in mind: no responsible leader could accept the breakup of the Federation without offering resistance.


In a polity such as Malaysia, formed through negotiated settlements and constitutional compact, territorial unity is not a self-evident fact.

It is a political achievement that must be continually reproduced.

That is through good governance, equitable development and a sense of shared membership.



The author says that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s Taiwan remarks reflect a realist defence of territorial integrity and deterrence, not an endorsement of war or coercion. — Picture by Yusof Isa



A government that categorically renounces the use of force risks signalling that territorial separation would carry no substantial cost.

Such a signal can, in turn, weaken the deterrence function too. It also invites attempts to alter the status quo by coercion or external manipulation.

Without a doubt, this logic rests on an important distinction.

Reserving the right to use force is not the same as advocating its employment.

Deterrence works because the option exists; it need not be exercised. Anwar was averring to the latter.

A state therefore maintains legal, political and military instruments as a last resort.

When peaceful mechanisms — dialogue, constitutional processes, mediation and arbitration — have been exhausted or are being actively undermined.

The credibility of deterrence derives not from a desire to fight but from the capacity to prevent dismemberment through credible denial.

Malaysia’s adherence to the One China policy provides the diplomatic framework in which Anwar spoke.

Kuala Lumpur recognises the People’s Republic of China as China’s government and does not accord Taiwan full diplomatic recognition.

Within that framework, Beijing treats Taiwan as a matter of national territorial integrity.

Anwar’s analogy equated Malaysia’s duty to defend its own Federation with China’s declared interest in preserving its territorial notion of unity.

Yet this diplomatic consistency collides with a contrasting political reality: Taiwan functions as a self-governing democracy whose people and government reject Beijing’s sovereignty claim.

Naturally, from Taipei’s perspective, any external statement that appears to legitimise the use of force risks normalising coercion.

That is why Anwar’s phrasing provoked alarm in Taiwan and generated regional unease.

The controversy highlights perennial tension in international politics: legal-diplomatic categories do not always match popular or political identities on the ground.

For Malaysia the episode carries a parallel lesson. The Federation’s survival depends not only on deterrence but on the continued legitimacy of the constitutional compact.

Sabah and Sarawak’s historical arrangements, regional inequalities, claims over natural resources and representation are not mere technicalities; they are potential fault lines.

Other states in Peninsula Malaysia are not oblivious to turning the same grievances into their own separatist leanings. As one saying goes: “An inch ahead in politics is darkness.”

If generational angst are allowed to accumulate, simple reliance on force as a deterrent becomes morally and politically brittle.

The confidence of citizens in federal institutions is the best prevention against centrifugal pressures.

Moreover, the current information environment amplifies risk.

Disinformation, foreign influence and rapid social mobilisation can transform local disputes into national crises.

Political entrepreneurs can convert grievances into narratives of exclusion, while external actors may exploit those narratives for strategic gain.

Preventive statecraft therefore requires both credible defence and proactive measures to heal divisions: fair development, respectful federal–state relations, honest historical dialogue and institutions that channel dissent into constructive reforms.

In sum, Anwar’s remarks are best read as a realist reflection on sovereignty: states will not pre-commit to accepting their own dismemberment.

Only the credible threat of resistance contributes to deterrence. That is distinct from endorsing war.

At the same time, Malaysia’s longer-term security rests on making unity desirable, not merely enforceable.

A federation that honours its compact, treats diversity as strength and closes gaps of opportunity will rarely face the existential dilemmas that produce calls for secession.

The challenge for Malaysian policymakers, therefore, is dual: maintain credible defence capabilities to deter coercive attempts at fragmentation.

Invariably, to, sustain political, economic and constitutional practices that keep the federation cohesive by consent.

Only by doing both will Malaysia avoid the fate of those countries whose unity depended for too long on force rather than consent.

Any attempts to characterise Anwar as a warmonger on the issue of China and Taiwan are unjustified and uncalled for to say the least.

* Phar Kim Beng, PhD is the Professor of Asean Studies at International Islamic University of Malaysia and Director of Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS).