The  warning by Minister Gobind Singh Deo that police inaction in cases involving religion could threaten national stability should be taken seriously by every Malaysian who values peace and harmony in our multi-racial society.

Yet the conduct of the Home Minister, Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, raises serious and disturbing questions about whether the government itself truly believes in the principles it publicly proclaims.

It is deeply alarming that the Home Minister — the very person responsible for overseeing the police and internal security — has reportedly met with a well-known hate preacher who has been the subject of hundreds of police reports over the years for inflammatory and statements that have repeatedly stirred hostility between Malaysia’s religious and ethnic communities. This individual has long built a reputation for spreading divisive rhetoric and provoking tensions among Malaysians of different faiths, and has been emboldened by the recent “endorsement” by Saifuddin.

For years, Malaysians have been told that provocative statements touching on race and religion will be dealt with firmly under the law. Even the Sultan Perak last year reminded authorities and Malaysians on the need to maintain peaceful co-existence. Yet when it comes to certain individuals, the law appears to move at a glacial pace — if at all.

The question Malaysians are entitled to ask is simple: why does someone with such a long record of incitement and hate speech appear to enjoy protection from prosecutionand a Madani Minister?

The Home Minister’s meeting with such a figure sends an extremely troubling message to the public. Instead of demonstrating zero tolerance toward those who sow hatred and division, the government appears willing to grant them legitimacy and access at the highest levels of authority.

These contradictions expose a glaring hypocrisy within the so-called “Madani” government. While Gobind rightly warn about the dangers of religious extremism and inflammatory rhetoric, the Home Minister, Saifuddin NasutionIsmail, appears willing to meet and legitimise a figure widely known for spreading division and hostility among Malaysia’s communities.

In light of this troubling episode, the leadership of the DAP must demand an immediate explanation from the Home Minister. If the government is truly committed to unity and the rule of law, it cannot appear to extend legitimacy or protection to individuals accused of promoting hatred and division.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy

President

Malaysian Advancement Party

12.3.2026

The debate surrounding the future of Azam Baki as head of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has dominated public discussion. But Malaysians must confront a far more uncomfortable truth.

The real issue is not Azam Baki. The real issue is Anwar the controller of system that produced him.

Replacing one individual while preserving a flawed structure of appointment is not reform. It is merely the illusion of reform.

Even if Azam Baki leaves tomorrow, the structure that allowed the controversy to arise will remain untouched. His successor will still be appointed through the same process — a process where the Anwar Ibrahim’s PKR despite only having 31 seats and is enthroned the position as PM, advises (which must be accepted) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on who should lead the nation’s most powerful anti-corruption body.

In practical terms, this means that the leadership of the MACC ultimately depends on the decision of the Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim and he is free to appoint anyone who is willing to take “instructions” from him”.

This arrangement should alarm every fair-minded Malaysian.

An anti-corruption agency cannot genuinely act as a watchdog if its leadership is effectively determined by the political authority it may one day need to investigate. A watchdog chosen by the powerful PM will never bite the hand that appoints it.

For years Malaysians have been promised reformasi, transparency, and accountability. These ideals were supposed to transform the nation’s institutions and place them beyond political manipulation. Yet today the country finds itself confronting the same structural weaknesses that have plagued governance for decades.

Instead of meaningful institutional reform, public discourse is increasingly diverted into narratives of conspiracies and external plots. Claims of shadowy forces attempting to destabilise the government circulate widely, often drawing ridicule across social media. These distractions do nothing to address the real issue confronting the nation — the urgent need to strengthen institutional independence.

At the heart of the problem lies a structural flaw embedded within Malaysia’s constitutional framework. The Constitution grants sweeping appointment powers to the Prime Minister across many key institutions that are supposed to operate independently of political influence.

Perhaps such powers seemed reasonable during the early years of independence. When the Constitution was framed, leaders such as Tunku Abdul Rahman were widely trusted to wield authority responsibly for the benefit of a young nation.

But democracies do not survive on trust alone. They survive on checks, balances, and institutions that are stronger than any individual leader.

Today Malaysia faces a political reality very different from that of the early post-independence era. The Prime Minister wields extensive authority over appointments to critical institutions even though his own party lacks actual parliamentary mandate with only 31 seats in Parliament. Yet from this position flows enormous influence over the leadership of agencies meant to uphold the rule of law.

Such concentration of power invites suspicion, weakens institutional credibility, and fuels public cynicism.

This is why the debate must move beyond personalities. Removing Azam Baki without reforming the system that enabled the controversy will simply ensure that the same cycle repeats itself with another name.

Malaysia does not need cosmetic changes.

Malaysia needs structural reform.

Appointments to key institutions such as the MACC must be subjected to transparent procedures, parliamentary oversight, and genuine safeguards against political interference. The fight against corruption cannot depend on the goodwill of political leaders. It must be anchored in institutions that are independent, credible, and accountable to the people.

Ultimately, this is not merely a question of governance. It is a test of Malaysia’s democratic maturity.

Malaysians must decide whether they will continue tolerating institutions shaped by political power, or whether they will insist on a system where no Prime Minister can control the very agencies meant to hold power accountable. Democracies do not reform themselves — citizens force reform upon them.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy