The Prime Minister’s use of the phrase “my friends” in warning against vigilantism raises a serious question: if such a warning is now necessary, does it not suggest that his earlier rhetoric has already inflamed sentiments beyond his control and emboldened elements who interpret enforcement rhetoric as a call to action? Words from the highest office are not casual remarks — they are “signals”. And when those signals are framed by Anwar in a way that stirs communal anxieties, they embolden those who interpret enforcement language as endorsement to act and take the. law on their own.
In the Malaysiakini newsreport this morning Anwar was quoted as saying "Therefore, I want to remind my friends you have been told to observe these rules and you must adhere to these principles, and you have no right whatsoever to take the law into your own hands."
Anwar made this remark in response to the demolition of an alleged unlawfully constructed temple in Rawang yesterday.
So the question arises, why is Anwar referring to those who commit crimes and take the. law into their hands as “friends”.
It suggests an awareness that his earlier statements have emboldened “his friends” and they are no longer controllable.
Let it be stated clearly: the Prime Minister cannot ignite a fire and then lecture the nation about restraint. The issue of long-established Hindu temples is not a sudden — it is the consequence of decades of unresolved land policy failures. Yet instead of explaining this historical reality and committing to a lawful, practical structured solution, Anwar Ibrahim chose rhetoric and to falsely term temples as illegal that predictably inflamed religious sensitivities.
This diversion emerged precisely when serious questions were intensifying about his constitutional conduct, his legitimacy as PM, and the controversial international agreement he signed with U.S. President Donald Trump — an agreement that have bypassed fundamental constitutional safeguards.
The Prime Minister speaks of the “rule of law,” but the rule of law begins with the Prime Minister himself. It demands fidelity to the Federal Constitution, respect for parliamentary authority under Article 69, and adherence to collective responsibility under Article 43(3). Constitutional governance and rule of law cannot be selective. It cannot be invoked against citizens while being relaxed for himself. If constitutional procedures are side-lined at the highest office, then no speech about restraint can restore public confidence.
Malaysia does not need manufactured religious tension. It does not need diversionary politics. It needs leadership anchored in constitutional discipline, institutional respect, and moral courage.
Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy
President/chair
Malaysian Advancement Party
Hindraf
12.2.2026