When Anwar Ibrahim recently declared that the country must be “cleansed” of illegally built places of worship following an anti-temple rally by Zamri Vinoth, the reaction was swift. Civil society figures, most prominently Ambiga Sreenevasan and N Surendran, demanded that he withdraw the term “clean up,” arguing that such language was inflammatory and dangerous.
They argued that only a court can declare a temple illegal and that demolition without due judicial process violates fundamental rights. They went further: the destruction of a temple in Rawang, they said, was a foreseeable consequence of the prime minister’s directive — something “never heard from previous governments.”
A few days later, controversy flared again. After a university student posted an image of himself stepping on the Quran, public anger mounted and many demanded swift action. Anwar responded by somewhat saying that he knew what needed to be done and did not require others to “melalak” about the matter — a Malay term that can mean to bark, wail, or harp noisily.
The youth wing of his party, Angkatan Muda Keadilan (AMK), defended him, arguing that the use of the term “melalak” must be understood in context. According to them, the prime minister was referring to those who rushed to accuse the government of inaction when investigations were already underway. Malaysia is a negara hukum — a nation governed by law — and enforcement must follow due process, not emotional pressure or populist demands.
Yet the damage was done. Once again, Anwar was criticised for his choice of words.
Going by how Anwar is being criticised by both the Malays and non-Malays alike, one would not be surprised if, at some point, Anwar were to lament that he is “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t” — that no matter what he says or does, someone will find fault.
That would be one way of seeing it and it is a convenient explanation.
But there is another way of looking at the issue. Perhaps the problem is not that Malaysians are impossible to please.
Perhaps the problem is Anwar himself.
Dignitas and Gravitas
The Romans had a concept: dignitas and gravitas — dignity and weight - that they deem as important for a person, especially if the person is to seen as a leader or representative of the people. These were not mere ornaments of office, but qualities of character.
Dignity, in this sense, is not about pride. It is about belonging to something greater than oneself — family, nation, ancestry, civilisation, or, for the religious, God. It is the awareness that though by oneself, one will inevitably be inclined to pursue such things as pleasure, wealth, fame, or power, status or position, there is still a line that one does not cross in the pursuit, less one forfeits ones dignity. To cross it would diminish not merely one’s reputation and experience of being oneself, but one’s worth in the eyes of others.
Gravitas — weight — flows from how much one is willing to sacrifice to preserve that dignity. The more one is willing to forgo victory, comfort, and even freedom for a higher principle, the more weight one carries.
We still honour figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and Nelson Mandela not because they were flawless, but because they demonstrated that there were things they valued above themselves. They endured imprisonment, civil war, even assassination, in defence of something larger than personal ambition.
Among contemporary leaders, many citizens in Russia and China perceive their presidents — Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping — as possessing such dignatas and gravitas. Their citizens may or may not agree with the policy decision of their leaders, but what is undoubted is that even if they disagree with their leader, they wholeheartedly believe that their leaders represent, embody and defend a clear conception of their nation’s destiny, even at personal cost.
In Malaysia, however, few see Anwar in that light.
A Winner, Not a Statesman?
To many, Anwar does not project the image of a man animated by lineage, ancestors, cultural code, divine mission, or civilisational loyalty. He projects something else: the instinct to win.
Personally, I see Anwar primarily as a winner — or more precisely, as someone driven above all by the singleminded pursuit of victory.
His value to the country lies in that ability. If his pursuit of victory aligns with the people’s interests — if his triumph brings tangible gains to the nation — then he is worth supporting as a leader.
But do Malaysians see him as someone who would sacrifice power for principle? As someone who would jeopardise his office for the sake of dignity? As a man who would risk political defeat to defend a moral line?
Not really.
This does not mean he lacks all virtue. It just means he is not exceptional in this regard. He is, in this measure, ordinary — garden variety - common - no different from the average person you meet on the street.
When an ordinary man lectures you on right conduct, divine will or civic virtue, you do not instinctively listen.
For the same reason, when a prime minister the people don't deem to be particularly distinguished in terms of dignitas and gravitas advise them on how to live, they might just react by pin point the prime ministers fault, rather than see fit to reflect on his opinions.
A Lesser Version of Trump?
In this sense, Anwar increasingly resembles a lesser version of Donald Trump.
No one looks to Trump for moral instruction. People judge him on whether he wins — politically, economically, strategically. His legitimacy rests not on gravitas, but on victory.
Anwar’s problem today is not that everyone is against him. His problem is that it has been some time since he looked like he was winning.
The last moment I recall him appearing triumphant was at the close of a successful ASEAN summit last year. Since then, I think he has been on a losing streak - from losing state elections to having allies leave him to controversies over temples, language or enforcement, nothing has been going his way for months.
A winner must win more than he loses. If Malaysians cease to see Anwar as a winner, they will cease to see his worth as a leader. This is the cold hard truth.
The Real Test
If Anwar were visibly winning — if the economy were surging or if Malaysia’s standing in the region and the world were rising — his words about illegal temples or about how to handle a student who desecrated scripture might be received differently.
Authority amplifies language. Weakness magnifies backlash.
When Anwar speaks as though he possesses dignitas and gravitas, but the public perceives neither, the gap becomes the story.
Ultimately, when one surveys his life, one does not see a man defined by fidelity to lineage, civilisation, or divine calling. One sees a man defined by the long pursuit of victory.
If that is his defining trait, then he would do well to embrace it fully — as Trump does — and focus relentlessly on winning.
For in Malaysia today, Anwar’s worth is measured not by the weight of his words, but by the weight of his victories.
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@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.
