How one TV interview left Malaysia PM Anwar walking a tightrope between Beijing and Taipei

KUALA LUMPUR – For decades, Malaysia has upheld its “One China” policy while maintaining extensive economic and unofficial ties with Taiwan.

But Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s remarks in a recent interview have put that balancing act under sharper scrutiny, as he articulated Kuala Lumpur’s stance in unusually direct terms, including an apparent acceptance of the possibility of force if “peaceful reunification” fails.

“I see Taiwan as part of China, period,” he said in an interview with news outlet Al Jazeera that aired on Aug 16.

When asked whether he would condemn Beijing if it resorted to force against Taiwan, Anwar pointed to Malaysia’s own territorial integrity.

“If one province decides to break away. Do we use force? I think I will, (to) protect the sanctity and unity of the nation,” he said.

Beijing asserts that there is only one China, of which Taiwan is an inalienable part and that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the sole government representing China. It says it prefers “peaceful reunification” but has never renounced the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control.

Anwar’s comments have reverberated in Malaysia and beyond.

Taiwan has condemned Anwar’s comments. Pointing out that Taiwan and Malaysia have always had close economic and trade ties, its Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Aug 18 that “Anwar’s one-sided support for China could negatively impact Taiwanese businesses’ confidence in investing in Malaysia”.

A day later, on Aug 19, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian commended Anwar’s remarks and said that upholding the One China principle is the right thing to do. He added that China “must and will achieve reunification”, although he did not echo Anwar’s remarks on the use of force.

The issue has also triggered considerable debate within Malaysia.

Haim Hilman Abdullah, a Kedah state executive councillor from the opposition Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), called Anwar’s remarks “a serious diplomatic mistake and unnecessary”.

But former Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) lawmaker Tian Chua said that “recognising the One China policy is not the same as endorsing violent reunification”.

Views are divided in the Malaysian Chinese community.

Those who are more sympathetic to China argue that Anwar’s remarks are consistent with Malaysia’s adherence to the One China policy and see little cause for concern. Those more supportive of Taiwan, however, believe that Malaysia should maintain strategic ambiguity over the cross-strait dispute.

Others, particularly business figures, take a more pragmatic view, arguing that Anwar should avoid wading into the issue.

Walking back on ‘unusually strong’ comments

In a doorstop interview with reporters on Aug 20, Anwar appeared to tone down his earlier comments.

Malaysia had adhered to the One China policy since the administration of second prime minister Razak Hussein in 1974, he said. Under the policy, Malaysia recognises the government of the PRC as the sole legal government of China, and acknowledges the position of the Chinese government that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the PRC.

Anwar stressed that Malaysia respected China’s position but favoured a peaceful resolution, saying, without elaborating, that the way the issue was framed during the interview may have contributed to the backlash.

“Of course, we respect China’s position, but a peaceful path is the best course,” he said.

Chong Ja Ian, an associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, said: “Anwar seems to be walking back his endorsement for the use of force against Taiwan. That suggests that he may not have thought through his words carefully enough when speaking to Al Jazeera.” 

He added that the endorsement initially articulated in the interview is new, pointing to Malaysia’s participation in a 2022 ASEAN statement on cross-strait developments that called for “maximum restraint” and avoidance of provocation.

Malaysia’s position on Taiwan has itself evolved, Chong told The Straits Times.

In 1974, Kuala Lumpur acknowledged the PRC’s position on Taiwan without explicitly endorsing it, as part of Malaysia’s One China policy.

By 2004, Malaysia had moved to recognising Taiwan as “an inalienable part” of the PRC, he said, shifting the South-east Asian nation closer to Beijing’s One China principle.

But Lam Choong Wah, an international relations expert at Universiti Malaya, cautioned against reading too much into a single statement.

Government leaders can “make unusually strong or unexpected remarks for political reasons”, he said, but can also give “off-the-cuff responses” to journalists that reflect their own thinking rather than a fully deliberated Cabinet position.

Lam said Anwar’s subsequent clarification that Malaysia respects China’s position but considers a peaceful resolution the best course provided important context.

In Lam’s assessment, Anwar’s comments in the Al Jazeera interview and his subsequent comments remain within Malaysia’s established policy: Kuala Lumpur recognises the One China policy, prefers a peaceful resolution and regards reunification as an internal Chinese matter which Malaysia would not interfere with.

What might Anwar stand to gain?

As for what Anwar stood to gain from his comments on Taiwan, Lam said these could help him regain support among Malaysian Chinese who support the unification of China and Taiwan.

Anwar’s ruling Pakatan Harapan coalition had suffered setbacks in state elections in Johor and Negeri Sembilan in the last two months, with its support waning among Malaysian Chinese.

The timing of Anwar’s comments is notable: ST has learnt that he is scheduled to visit China in late September.

Chong said it was “plausible that Anwar may believe that delivering on something rhetorically for Beijing might pave the way for a more successful visit and more support from the PRC, especially on the economic front”.

With elections approaching and Anwar’s ruling coalition facing political and economic pressures, Chong said he may think that “saying what Beijing wants to hear” could help encourage Chinese support for the Malaysian economy.

Malaysia is due to hold a general election by early 2028, and a state election in Melaka is expected to be held by the end of 2026.

Difficult balancing act

The backlash over Anwar’s comments has highlighted Kuala Lumpur’s close economic relationships with China and Taiwan, which have made the diplomatic balancing act more challenging. China is Malaysia’s top trading partner, while Taiwan is an important source of investment and technology. The United States also remains crucial to Malaysia’s trade and investment landscape, alongside Japan, South Korea and Europe.

Chong warned that Kuala Lumpur could find its traditional strategic flexibility increasingly constrained as Washington and Beijing become more insistent that countries choose sides.

“(Anwar’s) comments suggest a view that Malaysia can make statements and then change their minds later because they are unable to affect overall outcomes in the region,” he added.

Such an approach, he added, may have been easier when geopolitical tensions were less intense.

But the consequences of instability around Taiwan could be severe. Key sea lanes, air routes and submarine cables connecting South- and North-east Asia pass around the island, making any serious disruption a concern for Malaysia’s trade and communications, he said.

Amir Fareed Rahim, director of strategy at risk consultancy KRA Group, said: “So the danger is less that Malaysia has suddenly changed sides, and more that statements such as (Anwar’s) create unnecessary ambiguity about Malaysia’s traditional non-aligned posture.”

“Malaysia has been very successful precisely because companies see it as a relatively neutral node in increasingly fragmented global supply chains. That strategic optionality is an asset we should preserve,” he told ST.

For now, it remains to be seen if there are actual changes to Malaysia’s stance on Taiwan.

As Lam put it: “In diplomatic practice, states pay closer attention to actions and behaviour rather than isolated statements.”