Malaysian politics is again at a familiar crossroads: parties are talking about staying, leaving, surviving, and waiting for the next election, while “reform” risks becoming a forgotten slogan. Perak DAP is urging the party to remain in the federal government, even as DAP prepares to decide its position at its national congress. At the same time, civil society groups are calling for the 15th Parliament to complete its full term, potentially until December 2027, while electoral reform advocates push for easier postal voting for Sabahans and Sarawakians in Peninsular Malaysia. Over this sits an earlier commitment from DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke: in December 2025, he gave the Anwar administration six months to show meaningful reforms, while stating DAP would not bring down the government before GE16.
That six-month period has now passed.
So the question is simple: if Parliament and the government are to continue their full term, what will they actually deliver with the time left?
This is not about whether Anwar Ibrahim deserves more time, nor is it about DAP’s loyalty to Pakatan Harapan. The real issue is whether political stability is being used for democratic progress or simply becoming a slogan to justify inaction.
There is a valid case for completing the parliamentary term. Malaysia has seen enough political instability to understand the cost of constant government change. The 2020 Sheraton Move showed how a government can fall without a general election. Repeated instability disrupts policy, weakens investor confidence, and pushes parties into permanent election mode.
A government elected by Parliament should normally be allowed to govern.
But governing is not the same as merely holding office.
A five-year Parliament is not a five-year entitlement.
It is five years of responsibility.
That distinction is important for DAP. Anthony Loke’s statement was significant because it came from within government, not from the opposition. He said DAP would reassess its position if reforms did not materialise within six months, while also making clear the party would not cause the government to fall before GE16.
That was a balanced position.
But a deadline without accountability becomes meaningless.
Now that the deadline has passed, Malaysians deserve clarity.
What reforms were completed?
What were started but remain unfinished?
Which were blocked by coalition partners?
Which were delayed due to political bargaining?
Which were deprioritised?
And which were never seriously pursued?
These are not accusations. Coalition governments are complex. Even well-intentioned reforms can be slowed by lack of numbers, internal disagreement, or competing priorities.
But that is exactly why transparency matters.
If a reform was blocked, say so.
If a partner objected, explain it.
If numbers were insufficient, show them.
If priorities changed, justify why.
People can accept compromise. What they struggle with is ambiguity.
This is where Perak DAP’s call to remain in government must be examined seriously.
Staying in government has clear advantages. It gives access to decision-making, Cabinet influence, and legislative power. Outside government, a party can criticise. Inside, it can shape policy.
But the key question remains:
If DAP stays, what does the public get in return?
There are different reasons for staying:
- Stability
- Political influence
- Preventing a worse alternative
- Achieving reforms from within
These are not the same.
If the reason is reform, then reform must be measurable.
If the reason is stability, then stability must produce outcomes.
If the reason is prevention of a worse government, then the principles being protected must be stated clearly.
If the reason is political influence, that is valid but it should not be presented as reform.
This is why the call for a full parliamentary term must be matched with accountability.
A full term should not be an automatic extension of power. It should be a structured period of delivery.
Parliament should complete its term, but with a clear reform record.
Before GE16, there should be a public record:
- Reforms completed
- Reforms pending
- Reforms blocked
- Reforms delayed
- Reforms abandoned
And the reasons for each.
This would shift political debate from speculation to evidence.
Instead of endless arguments about loyalty or betrayal, voters could evaluate performance.
That is accountability with proof.
The same applies to anti-corruption efforts.
Public frustration over corruption cases reflects a deeper concern: whether enforcement is consistent or politically influenced. While online allegations should never be treated as fact, the perception problem is real.
The principle must be clear:
The system must be independent.
Investigations must follow evidence.
Prosecutions must follow due process.
Courts must decide guilt.
Political affiliation must not protect or target anyone.
Reform is not about punishing opponents. It is about building institutions that remain strong regardless of who is in power.
That is why parliamentary reform is essential.
A stronger Parliament requires effective select committees, real scrutiny of ministers, transparent political financing, and stronger checks on executive power. Reform should not just improve the current government’s image. It should make future abuse harder.
Electoral reform is equally important.
Postal voting is not just convenience it is access. Malaysians working or studying far from their home constituencies should not be effectively discouraged from voting due to cost or distance.
But safeguards are necessary: ballot security, verification systems, and independent oversight must be in place. Accessibility must be matched with trust.
Sabah and Sarawak must also not be treated as secondary in national reform discussions. Issues under MA63, representation, and federal-state relations require serious attention, not administrative convenience.
At the same time, political realignments involving figures like Rafizi Ramli, Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, and Wong Chen highlight a broader question: is reform better achieved from within existing parties, or through new political movements? Both paths have limits. Inside offers access; outside offers independence.
But Malaysians should not confuse political restructuring with institutional reform.
Changing leaders is not the same as changing systems.
That is the core risk in Malaysian politics today.
Too much attention is spent on who stays in government, who leaves Cabinet, and who leads coalitions. Too little attention is given to whether institutions are actually improving.
The deeper question is:
Are the rules of the system changing?
Eventually, DAP delegates will decide the party’s direction. Civil society will continue calling for Parliament to complete its term. The government will argue for stability. The opposition will demand accountability.
But GE16 belongs to voters.
By then, voters should not be judging parties based on positions held or time in power.
They should be judging outcomes.
What changed?
What became more transparent?
What institutions became stronger?
And when reforms failed, who explained why?
Malaysia does not just need politicians to stay in office until GE16. It needs them to show what they did with that time.
Stay if it delivers leverage.
Complete the term if Parliament still has work to do.
But do not ask for time without explaining what it is for.
By GE16, the question should not be who stayed. It should be what was achieved.
Annan Vaithegi, reflecting on whether Malaysia’s reform journey will ultimately be judged by promises made or by results delivered
Share your Anak Malaysia stories and stand a chance to win prizes worth up to RM2,880! Find out how to join here. T&Cs apply.
Annan Vaithegi (annanvaithegi@icloud.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.