US interference in Malaysia — fact or fiction?

SHAH ALAM - Pas president Tan Sri Abdul Hadi Awang claims the United States (US) once offered assistance to bring down the Malaysian government, while Washington maintains that no such incident ever took place.

More than a decade after the alleged meeting, both sides now stand by conflicting versions of events, but no public evidence has so far emerged to establish who was telling the truth.

Hadi claimed the incident took place when Pas was still part of Pakatan Rakyat with Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and DAP, around the time of then-US President Barack Obama’s visit to Malaysia in 2014.

Abdul Hadi said several Pas leaders had first met representatives from the US Embassy before he himself attended a meeting with Datuk Mustafa Ali.

He also claimed that the US side had asked about Pas’ preferred candidate for prime minister.

“He asked, ‘Who does Pas propose as prime minister?’ I said, ‘Who does America agree with?’ He was stunned,” he said when winding up the 72nd Pas Annual Muktamar recently.

Pas secretary-general Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan later confirmed that a meeting with US Embassy representatives had taken place and that the representatives had asked whether Pas was planning to bring down the Barisan Nasional (BN) government.

However, Takiyuddin had not explicitly confirmed the most serious part of Hadi’s allegation, namely that Washington had offered assistance for the purpose.

The US Embassy in Kuala Lumpur, meanwhile, denied ever attempting to determine Malaysia’s political leadership, with its Chargé d’Affaires David H Gamble Jr stressing that the country had never sought to determine who would lead Malaysia.

This left three versions of the story: Hadi claimed there was an offer of assistance, Takiyuddin confirmed the meeting and questions about efforts to bring down BN, while the US denied attempting to determine the country’s leadership.

So far, no meeting notes, the name of the official who allegedly made the offer, documents or independent witnesses had been made public.

Interestingly, Hadi had previously recounted in 2017 that a US ambassador had asked about the opposition’s choice for prime minister, but at the time he linked it to the period surrounding the 13th General Election in 2013.

It remained unclear whether he was referring to a separate meeting or the same incident now being linked to Obama’s 2014 visit.

If the US had indeed offered assistance to change the government, it would have gone beyond diplomatic relations or sympathy for the opposition and instead raised questions about sovereignty and foreign interference.

Meeting with diplomats

The question was, if an incident of such magnitude had taken place more than a decade ago, was it ever reported to the government or security agencies at the time?

Universiti Malaya political analyst Dr Mohammad Tawfik Yaakub said meetings between foreign diplomats and opposition leaders were not, in themselves, evidence of interference.

“The dividing line is whether there was an offer of assistance to change the government outside the democratic and constitutional process,” he told Sinar Harian.

He said that if the meeting had only touched on political developments or the choice of prime minister, it could be categorised as diplomatic information-gathering.

However, if resources, strategies or operational assistance had been offered to bring down the government, it would have moved beyond observation towards an attempt to influence the country’s political outcome.

“The term ‘bring down the government’ needs to be detailed, such as what assistance was offered, by whom, in what form and through which channel?” he said.

Historical records showed that the US had previously gone beyond diplomatic statements in the politics of other countries.

In Iran in 1953, the CIA’s involvement in efforts to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh had been documented, while a US operation in Guatemala in 1954 helped remove President Jacobo Árbenz.

In Chile during the 1970s, declassified documents showed that Washington had sought to prevent Salvador Allende from taking power and had funded groups opposing him.

In a more recent example, the US openly rejected the legitimacy of Nicolás Maduro in 2019 and recognised opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president.

However, those historical records did not in themselves prove Hadi’s allegation concerning Malaysia.

The same distinction needed to be made regarding the US’ open support for the Reformasi movement following the sacking of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 1998.

Former US vice-president Al Gore openly praised Malaysians demanding reform during his visit to Kuala Lumpur, while Washington had also criticised the treatment of Anwar.

However, open political support differed from offering assistance to bring down a government.

Al Gore’s speech had been recorded, while the allegation of an ‘offer of assistance’ to Pas still required specific evidence.

Foreign power influence

Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) political analyst Dr Ariff Aizuddin Azlan said foreign influence did not necessarily come in the form of direct military intervention.

He said it could emerge through ‘democracy assistance’, ties with certain organisations, shaping public perceptions or indirect political support, but such forms needed to be distinguished from ‘regime change’ operations.

From the perspective of current politics, Hadi’s disclosure had emerged as Pas became increasingly open about the 16th General Election, the choice of prime minister and its ambition to lead the government.

At the same time, Pas had been strengthening ties with Umno under the agenda of Muslim unity.

The narrative that Pas had once rejected foreign interference to bring down the BN government could reinforce the image of the party as being unwilling to submit to Washington, while also carrying political value in Pas-Umno relations.

However, this needed to be viewed as a political reading rather than certainty over why Abdul Hadi had raised the matter now.

Ultimately, the biggest question was not whether the US had interfered in other countries, but whether evidence could establish what had actually taken place during the meeting with Pas more than a decade ago.

As long as such evidence remained absent, the dispute between Hadi and Washington would remain two competing versions, both demanding to be believed.

WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT REMAINS UNPROVEN