.png)
FOR much of the past three years, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s biggest challenge has not only come from the opposition.
It has also come from people who once believed he would change Malaysia.
Many Malaysians who voted for Pakatan Harapan in the hope of seeing a political reset after decades of Barisan Nasional rule expected a government that would move faster.
They expected reforms.
They expected stronger institutions.
They expected the promises that carried the Reformasi movement for decades to finally become government policy.
But governing turned out to be far more complicated.
Instead of sweeping changes, they saw compromise.
They saw a government working with former political rivals.
They saw reforms moving at a pace that often felt too slow for a generation that had waited years for change.
For some PH supporters, especially among Chinese Malaysians who had strongly backed the coalition, the disappointment was real.
The uncomfortable question that emerged was whether Anwar, the man who spent decades fighting against the old political order, had become too willing to accept the realities of power.
Then came Johor.
And the election opened a different conversation.
One that forced some voters to confront a difficult reality: governing a country is far more complicated than winning an election.
When Anwar became prime minister, he did not inherit a clean slate.
He took over after years of political instability, changing governments and declining public confidence.
His government was not built on a landslide victory.
It was built through necessity.
The coalition formed after the 15th General Election brought together political forces that had spent years attacking each other.
Pakatan Harapan and Barisan Nasional, once bitter rivals, suddenly found themselves sharing power.
For many PH supporters, that was uncomfortable.
The same political establishment they wanted to replace was now part of the government they supported.
But that was also the reality of the numbers.
Anwar had won the premiership.
He had not won complete control.
And there is a difference.
Perhaps one of the biggest assumptions made by some voters was that becoming prime minister would automatically provide the freedom to reshape the country.
It does not.
A government inherits problems.
It inherits institutions.
It inherits political realities.
Every reform comes with consequences, and every decision carries political costs
In Malaysia, where politics remains deeply shaped by identity, economics and competing visions of the country’s future, dramatic change was never going to be simple.
Anwar has had to balance several competing pressures.
His reform-minded supporters want faster action.
His coalition partners have their own interests to protect.
Conservative groups continue to challenge his policies.
At the same time, the opposition has successfully built support by presenting itself as the defender of Malay interests.
The result is a government that has often appeared to be walking a narrow political path.
That does not mean criticism of reforms should be dismissed.
Questions over institutional reform, governance and checks and balances remain valid.
Political reality may explain delays.
But it cannot become a permanent excuse.
At some point, the government has to prove that compromise was a strategy to achieve change, not a reason to avoid it.
Beyond politics, the economic argument
Where Anwar’s supporters believe he deserves more recognition is in how his government has handled the economy. For years, Malaysia struggled with questions over investor confidence, political stability and whether it could compete against its regional neighbours.
Economic achievements rarely create the same excitement as political reforms.
They do not produce the same emotional response.
But they matter.
Since taking office, the government has focused on rebuilding confidence and strengthening Malaysia’s economic position.
The ringgit has recovered after years of pressure and emerged as one of Asia’s better-performing currencies.
International rating agencies have maintained Malaysia’s investment-grade status, while the country’s global competitiveness ranking has improved.
Malaysia has also positioned itself as an important player in the next wave of technology investment.
The country has attracted billions of ringgit in new commitments in areas such as semiconductor manufacturing and artificial intelligence-related infrastructure, as global companies look for alternatives within the regional supply chain.
Trade and investment figures have reached record levels, while the tourism sector has continued its recovery, welcoming millions of visitors and strengthening an important part of the economy.
Malaysia’s international standing has also improved, including the strength of its passport and travel access for Malaysians.
These are not the kind of achievements that dominate political conversations.
They do not erase frustrations over reforms.
But they form part of the larger picture when assessing a government’s performance.
The government has also placed greater emphasis on restoring fiscal discipline and reducing the national deficit.
When Anwar took office, the fiscal deficit stood at 5.5% of GDP.
The government has since pointed to efforts that brought the figure down to 3.8% of GDP, while maintaining that essential services have not been compromised.
The administration has also highlighted efforts to deal with the financial consequences of the 1MDB scandal, which left the country carrying billions of ringgit in obligations, including interest costs.
The government says it has recovered RM29 billion through enforcement actions and has settled RM42 billion of the liabilities linked to the scandal, with the remaining RM13 billion being managed gradually.
These efforts have also been watched by international rating agencies.
S&P Global Ratings, Moody’s and Fitch Ratings have maintained Malaysia’s investment-grade status while recognising improvements in fiscal management and the country’s economic direction.
For Anwar’s supporters, these figures are evidence that rebuilding Malaysia is not only about political reform.
It is also about restoring confidence in the economy and putting the country’s finances on a more sustainable path.
A different role on the world stage
Beyond domestic issues, Anwar’s supporters also point to his foreign policy approach.
At a time when rivalry between the United States and China continues to shape global politics, Malaysia has attempted to maintain relations with both powers without being forced into choosing one side.
The government’s approach has been to engage both countries while protecting Malaysia’s economic interests.
Hosting major international events, including the ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur, strengthened Malaysia’s position as a country capable of bringing major global players to the same table.
Domestically, long-delayed infrastructure projects such as the East Coast Rail Link are moving closer to completion, with expectations that the project will improve connectivity and create new economic opportunities for communities along the east coast.
These are not developments that necessarily change public opinion overnight.
But they are part of the broader argument made by those who believe Anwar’s administration deserves more time.
The real test has only begun
Perhaps the biggest shift after Johor is that the debate around Anwar has become more complicated.
When he was in opposition, many saw him as the person who would transform Malaysia.
But being prime minister means dealing with the country that exists — not only the country people hope to build.
That gap between expectation and reality is where much of the frustration has come from.
The Anwar who spoke from the opposition bench is not the same Anwar who has to negotiate inside the cabinet room.
That is the burden of power.
But it is also where his final judgement will be made.
History will not judge Anwar only by the promises he made.
It will judge whether the compromises he accepted were necessary steps towards a stronger Malaysia, or whether they represented opportunities that were lost.
Johor did not deliver a final verdict on Anwar.
But it changed the conversation.
The question is no longer only why he has not moved faster.
The bigger question is whether the slower pace was the price of keeping the country stable long enough to deliver meaningful change.
That may ultimately become the defining question of his premiership. - July 21, 2026
