Anwar’s Taiwan remarks test Malaysia’s non-aligned foreign policy
Kuala Lumpur’s recent comments on Beijing and Taipei have prompted debate over whether the nation is shifting away from its traditional stance of not picking sides between major powers.
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s comments describing Taiwan as “part of China” have sparked a review of the country’s traditional policy of non-alignment. In an interview with Al Jazeera, Anwar stated that he saw Taiwan “as part of China, period”, adding that this was “accepted by all”. The remarks have raised questions about whether Kuala Lumpur is leaning towards Beijing in its foreign policy calculations.
The comments drew immediate reactions from both capitals. A Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman praised the remarks, stressing that Taiwan is “an inalienable part of China’s territory”. Conversely, Taiwan’s government condemned the statements, warning that “one-sided support for China could negatively impact Taiwanese businesses’ confidence in investing in Malaysia”. This is a significant concern given that Taiwan is a major investor in Malaysia’s crucial semiconductor industry.
When questioned by local media, Anwar appeared to soften his stance. He emphasised that while Malaysia respected China’s position, it favoured a peaceful resolution to tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Analysts remain divided on whether this signals a strategic realignment or a realist approach to territorial integrity. Chee Meng Tan, an assistant professor at the University of Nottingham Malaysia, noted that Malaysia’s recognition of Taiwan as part of China dates back to a 1974 communiqué.
Tan argued that the new element was Anwar’s suggestion that he would use force if a Malaysian state attempted to break away, a stance not explicitly required by the “one China” policy. Tan suggested the comments may be an attempt to appease Beijing ahead of Anwar’s upcoming trip to China in September. Meanwhile, Daniel Loebell, a PhD student at Northwestern University, viewed the position as a realist understanding of territorial integrity, noting that Anwar sees the People’s Republic of China’s use of force as a matter of internal state borders.
Anwar’s foreign policy posture is further complicated by his recent call to bolster defences in the Bornean state of Sabah. He cited the development of US-backed military facilities in the neighbouring Philippines as justification for increased spending. The Philippine government is upgrading facilities on the island of Balabac, which was recently added to the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the United States.
This move is linked to the longstanding dispute over Sabah, which the Philippines has claimed since 1963. Manila reaffirmed this claim in February this year, and Malaysia lodged a formal protest with the United Nations in July. Tan described Anwar’s comments on the Balabac military buildup as a “protect-my-border” reflex rather than a pro-China gesture.
Despite these developments, Malaysia maintains strong defence ties with Western powers through the Five Powers Defence Arrangements (FPDA). This multilateral framework includes Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, and commits members to consult in the event of an armed attack. Loebell noted that Malaysia’s diverse economic relations, including significant US investment, have kept it from deeply aligning with any single major power.
