Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s latest claim of a grand “Zionist plot” to overthrow his government is not just unbelievable — it is a political hallucination.

His administration is being rocked by serious allegations of corruption, abuse of power and disturbing claims of a corporate mafia influencing government institutions. Malaysians are now expected to believe that shadowy “Zionist groups”, foreign bankers, international NGOs and media organisations are secretly plotting to topple him.

This is not leadership. This is a diversion.

Instead of directly addressing the growing scandals involving the MACC investigations and the allegations surrounding corporate interests within his administration, Anwar appears to be highlighting the idea of an external enemy. By referencing Zionists supposedly conspiring with Malaysians to overthrow his government, he may be seeking to draw attention from the issues confronting his administration.

This political tactic is painfully familiar. It mirrors the playbook of U.S. President Donald Trump, who repeatedly resorted to dramatic conspiracy narratives whenever scandals threatened his presidency. When the Epstein scandal began casting a shadow over his involvement in sexual allegations, Trump started a war with Iran — a classic strategy to dominate headlines and bury domestic controversy.

Anwar now appears to have mastered the same art of political distraction from Trump. A few weeks ago, he riled up a group of vigilantes on the issue of Hindu temples and falsely termed these temples “haram”, spooking the Malays. His rhetoric and unnecessary angry speeches riled up the Malay Muslim community so much so that a new group of vigilantes who appear to have taken the law into their own hands have arisen. Then he also warns the Malays against me, insinuating that I have questioned the constitution, and accused the police of murdering Hindus in custody.

Malaysians must realise Anwar will resort to everything, including creating a racial clash among Malaysians, to survive politically.

When corruption allegations surface, blame foreign conspirators.

When institutions are questioned, they invoke national security.

When public confidence wavers, frighten the rakyat with imaginary external enemies.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       The real danger here is not some imaginary Zionist plot. The real danger is a government that may be using national security rhetoric as a shield to deflect scrutiny from serious governance failures and allegations of corruption.

Malaysia deserves a Prime Minister who confronts problems honestly, not one who conjures foreign conspiracies and creates racial/religious tension whenever his government is under pressure.

If Anwar Ibrahim believes Malaysians will abandon their concerns about corruption and abuse of power simply because he shouts “Zionist plot,” “illegal temples,” then he has gravely underestimated the intelligence of the Malaysian people.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy
7.3.2026

Malaysians must be aware of Anwar Ibrahim’s rhetoric has inflamed religious sensitivities and disharmony by raising feelings of anger and hatred among a segment of the community.

The pig farming industry has existed in Malaysia since before Merdeka. For decades—even through 60 years of BN rule—it did not become a national flashpoint. Yet now, at a moment when Anwar’s leadership is under strain, mysterious forces appear to be stirring hostility toward this long-standing industry.

Similarly, the temples have existed up to 150 years before Merdeka during the colonial period. Historical records would clearly show there was an intention to settle the labour class of the Indians in the various states in Malaya to clear thick jungles, man rubber plantations, build roads, railways and government buildings. One of the ways devised to ensure these people remained in Malaya is to ensure an environment similar to their villages in South India was created. 

Post Merdeka these large parcels of land were sold to private developers leaving thousands of these temples stranded on privately owned land.

Matters are made worse when the respective state governments refused to address those issues and grant land to companies and private owners without resolving the existence of these temples. Some of these lands are granted for purposes of building suraus and masjids that has caused uneasy and racial disharmony between these 2 religions. The matter could have been handled diligently by the respective MB’s

Anwar Ibrahim cannot claim ignorance of these long-standing realities. He speaks about rule of law yet justice requires the law to settle land issues that existed before the introduction of Torrens system and the National Land Code in 1965. He inherited a long standing problem but instead of finding a solution to the issue, he riles up Malaysians against one another to portray himself as the saviour of injustice and rule of law. 

I do not deny there are issues where certain Hindu individuals have built temples knowing they are wrong to do so. Action must be taken but to lump every other Hindu temple as illegal- a phrase amplified by his irresponsible and reckless statement has caused so much of disunity among Malaysians. Some Malay brothers have taken his false statements and directions as a signal to take the law into their own hands. Strangely he chooses to call on “his friends” not to act on their own and respect the law. 

*Malaysians must not be misled by Anwars dangerous political game. There is a serious threat to his position as the PM with legal challenges on his legality to serve as PM pending in the courts, his unconstitutional act of signing a Trade Agreement with Trump bypassing the Yang Dipertuan Agong, the Malay Rulers and Parliament, his secretive dealing on territorial issues with Indonesia on the AMBALAT and the latest ceding of 5207 hectars of land, his mishandling of the Azam Baki issue are all posing heat to his leadership. Hence, he is using the old trick in the book. Sow division among races and religions to distract the public from unresolved controversies to remain in power.*

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy
14.2.26

Your party has consistently presented itself as a defender of constitutional supremacy, human rights, multiracial coexistence, and principled governance. Many Malaysians, particularly those who reject racial politics and seek a mature democracy, have trusted DAP for its opposition to the manipulation of race and religion for political gain.

Today, that trust faces significant challenges.

Malaysia is experiencing a rapid escalation of race- and religion-focused narratives on issues that are primarily administrative and historical, churned by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. These include the status of Hindu temples, regulatory matters related to pig farming, and the long-standing UEC issue. These are not new challenges. Additionally, there are efforts to create anxiety and tension among both Malays and non-Malays by mysterious hands to ensure Anwar Ibrahim remains in power.

These issues stem from structural policy failures accumulated over decades. They are now being reframed by Anwar in emotionally charged language, which risks deepening communal mistrust.

Your supporters, especially those who value equal protection under the law and peaceful coexistence, are asking whether DAP will continue on this political path or advocate for a return to principled and restrained governance.

At the same time, serious constitutional questions are circulating in public discourse. Concerns have been raised regarding the Anwar’s  conduct, parliamentary oversight, and the constitutional handling of the Anwar-Trump agreement. The unilateral signing of the agreement with U.S. President Donald has drawn criticism for proceeding without full adherence to Article 69, which required parliamentary debate and approval of an act of parliament before the said agreement could be signed.

Many agree that actions of such magnitude risk diminishing parliamentary authority, weakening collective responsibility, and concentrating power in ways inconsistent with the spirit of constitutional democracy in the hands of Anwar Ibrahim. More significantly, questions have been raised as to whether the consultative and constitutional roles of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Malay Rulers — particularly in matters touching sovereignty and national interest — were accorded the respect and centrality they deserve.

In a constitutional monarchy, the Royal Institution is not ornamental. It is a constitutional pillar — the guardian of balance, the custodian of sovereignty, and the ultimate symbol of national legitimacy. If executive conduct is perceived to marginalise or bypass that role, the damage is not merely political. It strikes at the architecture of governance itself.

This is not a partisan matter. It is a constitutional one.

Does DAP stand firmly for parliamentary supremacy and the sanctity of the Royal Institution in practice — or only in rhetoric?

DAP’s traditional supporters do not endorse racial brinkmanship, selective application of the rule of law, or governance that increases division while claiming reform. They supported a coalition government based on promises of principled leadership and a departure from fear-based politics.

The true test of reform is not how one behaves in opposition — it is how one governs when in power. When sovereignty, parliamentary authority, and royal prerogatives are matters of public concern, principled leadership requires clarity, not quiet acquiescence.

Will DAP defend constitutional discipline even when it is politically inconvenient?
Will it insist that executive power remain subject to Parliament and respectful of the Royal Institution?
Will it reject the escalation of race- and religion-centred narratives as instruments of political survival?

Your supporters did not vote for racial politics in a different form being introduced by Anwar. They voted for integrity in governance, equality before the law, and fidelity to the Constitution.

History will not remember who defended coalition unity.

It will remember who defended the Constitution, national sovereignty, and the dignity of the Royal Institution when they were under strain.

And it will remember who remained silent.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy
President/Chair

Malaysian Advancement Party

Hindraf

16.2.26

Isu yang dibangkitkan oleh Ahli Parlimen Machang berkaitankehilangan 5,207 hektar tanah dalam jajaran baharu sempadanMalaysia–Indonesia menyentuh perkara yang sangat sensitif: kedaulatan negara dan integriti wilayah. Sekali lagi Anwar membelakangkan kuasa Yang Dipertuan Agong, Raja-Raja Melayudan Kuasa Parlimen sepertimana dikehendaki di bawah Perkara 69 Perlembagaan persekutuan. Ini adalah isu Perdana Menteri MENYERAHKAN WILAYAH secara unilateral. Sama juga denganisu AMBALAT. Perlembagaan mewajibkan Parlimen meluluskansuatu rang undang-undang bagi menyerahkan wilayah Malaysia.

TERMA YANG DIGUNAKAN OLEH ANWAR SEBELUM INI ADALAH “NO MAN’S LAND”. INI SUATU PENIPUAN. PETA WILAYAH DAN SEMPADAN MALAYSIA DAN INDONESIA WUJUD. TIDAK DITANDAKAN PUN SEBAGAI NO MANS’S LAND.

Ini percubaan Anwar memperbodohkan rakyat.

Apabila usul tergempar di bawah Peraturan Mesyuarat 18(1) dan 18(2) ditolak oleh Speaker atas alasan ia telah dijelaskan sebelum ini, isu yang timbul bukan sekadar soal penjelasan di Dewan, tetapi keperluanmemenuhi peruntukan Perlembagaan Perkara 69. Dalam konteksdemokrasi berparlimen, perkara melibatkan sempadan negara lazimnyadianggap sebagai isu berkepentingan awam tertinggi yang wajardibahaskan secara terbuka dan menyeluruh dan kemudiannya diluluskanmelalui suatu rang undang-undang.

Tindakan Anwar Ibrahim yang gagal berbuat demikianmenunjukkan ciri-ciri kepimpinan dictator.

Ketika isu kedaulatan negara melibatkan 5,207 hektar tanah,  Ambalatdan Perjanjian Trump Anwar tidak dibenarkan untuk dibahaskan secaraterbuka di Parlimen, Anwar Ibrahim sebaliknya membenarkan naratifkaum dan agama mendominasi ruang awam.

Soalnya mudah: apakah ini kebetulan, atau satu percaturan politik untukmengalihkan perhatian daripada persoalan yang lebih besar dan lebihmendesak — iaitu soal kedaulatan, ketelusan rundingan antarabangsa, dan komitmen sebenar terhadap demokrasi berparlimen? Jika kerajaanbenar-benar yakin dengan keputusannya, mengapa takut untukmembahaskannya secara terbuka?

Anwar Ibrahim selama ini mengangkat slogan Reformasi dan Madanisebagai simbol keadilan, ketelusan dan pentadbiran berintegriti. Namunapa maknanya demokrasi berparlimen jika usul sah ahli-ahli Parlimenyang menyentuh sempadan negara dan perjanjian berat sebelah denganTrump ditolak daripada perbahasan dan keperluan meluluskan suatu rang undang-undang bagi tujuan membenarkan tindakan badan eksekutif tidakdipatuhi?

Apa maknanya kerajaan berteraskan keadilan jika isu kedaulatan tidakdibuka untuk semak dan imbang oleh Parlimen  dan perkenan dan nasihat DYMM Yang Dipertuan Agung dan Majlis Raja-Raja diketepikan?

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy

Presiden

Parti Kemajuan Malaysia

13.2.2026