“I’m proud to say I was part of a movement in which we sang ‘All You Need Is Love’ at political rallies.”
– Marianne Williamson, American author and political activist
CALLS for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to resign midway through his term, including the weekend ‘Turun Anwar’ rally, represent an alarming disregard for democratic norms and a dangerous flirtation with instability.
Sarawak minister and GPS leader Datuk Seri Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah was absolutely right when he said Anwar must be allowed to serve out his full term. This is not just a matter of political protocol but of national survival.
Malaysia has only recently emerged from a period of intense political turbulence. Between the historic 2018 general election and Anwar’s appointment as the 10th Prime Minister in late 2022, the country saw three prime ministers in just four years.
These frequent leadership changes, engineered not through the ballot box but through backroom deals and political defections, undermined governance, rattled investor confidence and left ordinary Malaysians bearing the brunt of policy paralysis.
In this context, it is shocking that some quarters are already trying to push Anwar out just halfway through his tenure. The July 26 ‘Turun Anwar’ rally in Kuala Lumpur, led by PAS Youth and its allies, was emblematic of this restlessness.
While the organisers had wildly ambitious expectations of drawing 300,000 or more to the streets, police figures put the turnout closer to 18,000. That discrepancy alone suggests the majority of Malaysians are not on board with such premature agitation.
Yes, cost of living is a major concern. Yes, many campaign promises remain unfulfilled. But let us be honest and realistic. Governing a multiracial, multi-religious federation with deeply entrenched political and economic interests is no simple task.
No leader, however visionary, can implement wholesale reform within 18 months, particularly when leading a unity government formed out of necessity, not ideological alignment.
Abdul Karim’s voice of reason deserves amplification. As he rightly pointed out: “Just because of a small mistake, we should not immediately demand his resignation. That’s not the right approach.”
While he didn’t specify which mistake, many observers have highlighted issues such as the delayed subsidy rationalisation, unfulfilled pledges for institutional reform and continuing struggles to contain inflation. But these are not grounds for toppling a government; they are challenges to be evaluated by voters when the next general election is called, most likely in 2027.
We all know premature leadership changes hurt nations. History offers cautionary tales of countries that paid a steep price for frequent leadership changes or street-driven removals of elected leaders. India, in its earlier post-independence decades, suffered political instability due to infighting and factionalism within parties like the Congress.
At one point, from 1996 to 1999, India saw four different prime ministers in quick succession, weakening its policy continuity and deterring foreign investment. Only after the electorate decisively gave Atal Bihari Vajpayee a clear mandate in 1999 did stability return, laying the groundwork for economic reforms.
Thailand offers another sobering example. The cycle of protests, judicial interventions and military coups that began in the early 2000s resulted in no fewer than nine prime ministers in 15 years.
Each time a leader was elected, a section of society would rally for their removal, either on allegations of corruption or mismanagement. The result? Political fatigue, economic stagnation, and the erosion of faith in democratic institutions.
Malaysia cannot afford to walk down this road again!
Democracy is not a system built for instant gratification. It is built on mandates, institutions, and accountability through regular, free and fair elections. The obsession with instant political change outside of this framework threatens not only the incumbent government but the very spirit of constitutional democracy.
Those calling for Anwar’s resignation need to remember that he did not seize power through backdoor channels. He was appointed prime minister after a hung parliament in the 15th general election, and with the backing of a majority in the Dewan Rakyat, as per the constitutional process. Whether one agrees with his policies or not, he has earned the right to govern until the end of his term.
Indeed, some of his policies have rankled various segments of society. The gradual removal of fuel and electricity subsidies, though economically necessary, has driven up household expenses.
His administration’s handling of the Palestine issue, LGBT rights, and institutional reform have also sparked criticism from both conservatives and progressives. But none of these constitute grounds for immediate removal; at most, they offer talking points for the next general election.
It is also important to recognise the limitations Anwar is working within. As the head of a unity government comprising ideologically diverse parties, namely from DAP to UMNO to GPS, Anwar has had to navigate a political minefield.
Every decision must be balanced against the competing interests of coalition partners, many of whom do not share a common vision for reform. That he has managed to hold this fragile coalition together for over 18 months is itself a significant political achievement.
Let’s also not forget that Anwar inherited a deeply fractured nation which was economically drained from the pandemic, politically weary from years of infighting, and socially polarised along racial and religious lines. Expecting him to deliver sweeping changes overnight is not just unrealistic, it is unfair.
The right to protest is fundamental in any democracy. But protests that aim to delegitimise a sitting prime minister, barely two years into his term, are neither constructive nor democratic. They send the wrong signal to investors, frighten businesses and deepen social divisions. Worse still, they embolden a politics of disruption that puts spectacle over substance.
It is critical that Malaysians reject attempts to bring down leaders through extra-parliamentary pressure and instead recommit to democratic norms. Wait for the general election. Campaign hard. Present alternatives. Vote your conscience. That is the way to decide whether Anwar deserves another term, or not.
For now, however, he deserves the space to govern.
Sarawak’s political maturity, exemplified by leaders like Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Abang Johari Tun Openg, and Abdul Karim, who is Tourism, Creative Industry and Performing Arts Minister, offers a model the rest of Malaysia should follow. GPS has consistently emphasised political stability, development continuity and cooperative federalism.
Rather than engaging in power plays, Sarawak’s leaders have chosen to work with the federal government, regardless of who is in charge, for the benefit of their people. That is the kind of politics Malaysia needs more of.
Those advocating otherwise must ask themselves: What do they truly gain by cutting short a leader’s tenure? What alternative are they offering? And at what cost to national unity and economic progress?
Malaysia stands at a crossroads. It can either regress into the chaos of leadership roulette and populist agitation or move forward with democratic resilience and institutional continuity. We must choose the latter.
Anwar Ibrahim may not be perfect; no leader is. But he has earned his mandate. Let him fulfil it.
Let the people decide his fate, not through rallies but through the ballot box, as any mature democracy should.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at rajlira@gmail.com
