.jpg)
By Mihar Dias December 2025
There is something almost refreshing about Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor’s confidence. In a political ecosystem where leaders often hedge, hedge again, and then appoint a committee to study the hedge, Sanusi simply declares that PAS is ready—not just to lead Perikatan Nasional (PN), but to lead the country. Full stop. No footnotes. No “subject to circumstances.” https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1A2aJA2Zd9/
For sheer bravado, one has to admire the guts.
Yet guts, as history repeatedly reminds us, are not a governance framework.
Sanusi’s assertion that PAS is “the best party” to lead the nation rests on two main pillars. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1A2aJA2Zd9/
First, that PAS has many technocrats among its members and supporters; second, that its party machinery and grassroots network are unparalleled.
Implicit in this declaration is a gentle but unmistakable jab at Pakatan Harapan (PH): you underestimate us, you misunderstand us, and you certainly underrate us.
Fair enough. PH has indeed spent much of its time in government discovering that slogans do not balance budgets and moral superiority does not fix supply chains. But dismantling PH’s credibility does not automatically erect PAS’s governing credentials.
That is where Sanusi’s confidence begins to float free of gravity.
The technocrat argument is the most intriguing—and the most convenient. PAS, we are told, has experts. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1A2aJA2Zd9/
Economists. Professionals. Specialists. They exist somewhere within the party’s orbit, either as members or supporters. This is a familiar refrain in Malaysian politics: trust us, the experts are there, just not necessarily visible, empowered, or previously heard.
The real question is not whether PAS has technocrats. Every major party does. The question is whether technocrats, once discovered, are allowed to lead—or merely to advise until their expertise clashes with ideology, at which point theology, populism, or moral certainty takes over.
Malaysia’s economic problems are not theoretical. Debt levels, subsidy rationalisation, foreign investment confidence, productivity stagnation, and currency pressures do not yield to sermonising or grassroots enthusiasm.
They demand technocratic decisions that are often unpopular, politically risky, and ideologically inconvenient. A party serious about leading the nation must demonstrate not just that it has experts, but that it listens to them when it hurts.
Sanusi himself gestures toward this when he warns against using “one’s own formula” and ignoring genuine experts.
It is a sound principle—one that many hope PAS would consistently apply to economics, public health, climate policy, and social cohesion. But principles are easy to declare when you are not yet the one signing the cheques.
Then there is the claim about machinery and grassroots strength. On this point, PAS is undoubtedly formidable. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1A2aJA2Zd9/
Its organisational discipline, religious networks, and ground-level mobilisation are the envy of many parties. PAS can turn out supporters, maintain loyalty, and sustain narratives with impressive efficiency.
But running a party machine is not the same as running a nation of 33 million people with diverse beliefs, aspirations, and anxieties.
Grassroots strength wins elections; it does not automatically translate into governing competence. The skills needed to rally the faithful are not identical to those needed to reassure investors, negotiate trade agreements, or design tax reforms that do not spark middle-class revolts.
PH, for all its failures, at least learned this the hard way. Idealism met bureaucracy, reform collided with reality, and slogans dissolved into SOPs.
PAS now speaks as though it can leapfrog that painful learning curve by sheer moral clarity and organisational muscle.
That confidence may energise supporters—but it should also worry undecided voters.
Sanusi’s most strategic move, however, is not claiming PAS must supply PN’s economic leadership. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1A2aJA2Zd9/
He leaves the door open. Leadership, he says, need not come from PAS as long as the individual has the right skills. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1A2aJA2Zd9/
This sounds inclusive, pragmatic, even statesmanlike.
But it also raises an uncomfortable question: if leadership can come from anywhere, why must PAS be the one to lead the country?
This is where PH is right to feel uneasy, but not necessarily outclassed. PAS’s pitch is bold, disciplined, and emotionally resonant.
PH’s problem is not that it underrates PAS; it is that it overestimated how long goodwill could substitute for delivery.
As for Sanusi, his guts are undeniable. Whether that courage is matched by the humility, restraint, and technocratic discipline required to govern a fragile, plural nation remains the unanswered question.
Admire the confidence, yes. But leadership, unlike campaigning, eventually demands results—not declarations.
Mihar Dias (mihardias@gmail.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.