.jpg)
The Great Malaysian War on Gambling — Everybody Is Against It, Apparently
By Mihar Dias August 2026
There are some things in Malaysia that are guaranteed to bring politicians together.
Gambling isn't one of them.
Instead, it has now become the latest battlefield in the increasingly entertaining war between Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.https://newswav.com/A2608_Y7qmnm?s=A_FLrrlxo&language=en
Sanusi says Kedah tried to get gambling out of the state. The Federal Court said, essentially, not quite so fast. Sanusi then warned that if gambling returns to Kedah, Kedahans will curse Anwar.
Anwar has now responded with a question that only a politician armed with a Finance Ministry spreadsheet could produce:
Why call me tauke judi when I reduced the number of special lottery draws from 22 a year to eight?https://newswav.com/A2608_Y7qmnm?s=A_FLrrlxo&language=en
Touché.
But perhaps somebody should tell both gentlemen that they are not actually arguing about precisely the same thing.
Sanusi is talking about gambling premises in Kedah.
Anwar is talking about the number of special lottery draws nationwide.
They are both talking about gambling, certainly.
But that is rather like arguing about whether a restaurant should be allowed to open while producing statistics on how many meals Malaysians ate last year.
Related?
Yes.
The same issue?
Not quite.
The Federal Court's decision concerned Kedah's attempt to refuse or stop the renewal of business licences for pool-betting operators. The courts found that the state had exceeded its constitutional powers in attempting to impose what was effectively a blanket ban through premises licensing.
That is a legal question.
But politics has never allowed a legal question to remain merely a legal question when there is an election somewhere on the horizon.
So Sanusi has turned it into a moral question.
If gambling resumes, he says, Kedahans will curse Anwar.
One can almost imagine the Prime Minister checking his diary.
Monday — Cabinet meeting.
Tuesday — ASEAN.
Wednesday — economy.
Thursday — cursed by Kedahans.
This is Malaysia, after all, where even divine retribution has apparently entered the political timetable.
But Anwar has not taken the bait entirely.
Instead, he has reached for the magic number: 22 became eight.
Under previous administrations, including the period when Perikatan Nasional was part of the federal government, the number of special draws rose to 22 a year. Under Anwar's administration it was reduced to eight.
And suddenly the anti-gambling argument has become an accounting exercise.
You had 22.
I have eight.
Therefore, who is the real gambling boss?
It is wonderfully Malaysian.
We don't necessarily abolish the problem.
We reduce it.
Then we issue a press statement.
And if eight is still too many, we point backwards and say:
“But you had 22!”
This is what I call comparative morality.
I am not necessarily good.
But I am better than you.
And in politics, apparently, that is good enough.
There is, however, an important point in Anwar's defence.
The Finance Ministry has said the Madani government has issued no new gambling licences or permits, including no approvals to increase the number of gambling premises. The government says the licences still in force are based on existing approvals dating back to the 1990s.
That rather spoils the impression that Putrajaya is suddenly opening the floodgates for gambling.
But it doesn't completely answer Sanusi's political argument either.
Because Sanusi isn't really asking whether Anwar has issued a new licence.
He is asking what happens to gambling in Kedah after the state's attempt to stop it has run into the Federal Constitution and the courts.
That is where the political sleight of hand begins.
Sanusi wants to say:
“I tried to stop gambling. The court stopped me. Therefore, Anwar must decide what happens next.”
Anwar wants to say:
“Don't blame me. I reduced special draws from 22 to eight.”
Both statements can be true.
And neither completely answers the other's question.
Which is why this argument is likely to continue.
Because gambling is merely the prop.
The real contest is over the moral high ground.
Sanusi wants to occupy it because PAS has an obvious political advantage in being seen as the party prepared to take the hardest line against gambling.
Anwar, meanwhile, cannot afford to allow the opposition to portray his Madani government as somehow pro-gambling.
So he produces the numbers.
Twenty-two.
Eight.
No new licences.
Existing licences from the 1990s.
Look, therefore, at the extraordinary political invention we have arrived at:
Everybody is against gambling.
The PAS-led Kedah government is against it.
The federal government is against it.
The Prime Minister is against it.
The Finance Ministry is against it.
Politicians across the spectrum are against it.
And yet gambling remains.
Perhaps the gambling industry should be invited to form a political party.
It seems to be the only participant in this debate that doesn't need to defend its existence.
There is another delicious irony.
If gambling is such a terrible social evil that governments must protect Malaysians from it, why does Malaysia continue to permit licensed gambling at all?
The answer, of course, is that governing a country is rather more complicated than delivering a sermon.
There is licensed gambling.
There is taxation.
There is regulation.
There are existing licences.
There are constitutional boundaries.
There are federal and state powers.
And, somewhere in the background, there is the inconvenient reality of illegal gambling, which doesn't disappear merely because politicians announce that they dislike the legal variety.
That is why the debate should really be about something much more substantive:
What is the government's actual long-term policy on gambling?
Not who had 22 draws.
Not who has eight.
Not who will be cursed.
Not who is the bigger tauke judi.
And certainly not who can shout "look at yourself in the mirror" more convincingly.
If the federal government believes gambling should eventually disappear, say so.
If the policy is to regulate it, say so.
If the policy is to reduce it gradually, explain the destination.
If existing licences must continue because of legal and contractual considerations, explain that too.
And if the objective is simply to prevent expansion while dealing with the social consequences, then tell Malaysians that honestly.
Because eight special draws may be fewer than 22.
But eight is still eight.
And that is where the politicians become vulnerable to an inconvenient question.
If eight is not enough, as Anwar himself admits, how many is enough?
Four?
Two?
Zero?
And if the answer is zero, then we have finally arrived at the real argument.
Not Sanusi versus Anwar.
Not Kedah versus Putrajaya.
But principle versus pragmatism.
Because it is very easy to be against gambling.
It is considerably harder to govern a country in which gambling has been legally licensed for decades, where federal and state powers overlap, where courts enforce constitutional limits, where existing licences remain in force, and where illegal gambling may continue regardless of what politicians say.
Sanusi has discovered that moral conviction does not automatically confer constitutional power.
Anwar has discovered that reducing gambling does not automatically confer moral immunity.
And Malaysians have discovered something even more entertaining:
You can apparently be accused of being a gambling boss while simultaneously boasting that you reduced gambling.
That takes some political dexterity.
Perhaps the next special draw should have a new category.
Pick a number between one and eight.
If you get it right, you win.
If you get it wrong, you can always blame the previous government.
And if you object to gambling altogether, don't worry.
There will probably be a politician nearby to assure you that he is against it too.
Just don't ask him when it is going to end.
That, apparently, is a different draw altogether.
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.
