SEPTEMBER 10 — For many Malaysians watching PAS’s 72nd Muktamar unfold in Kelantan over the past week, one question keeps returning: what happens to this country if PAS and its allies actually reach Putrajaya?

My answer, based on what I have heard from the main stage, is that I am not convinced. The rhetoric coming out of that gathering does not sound like a party preparing to govern a multi-ethnic, multi-religious democracy. It sounds like a party focused on one prize, federal power with everything else treated as secondary.

What worries me

PAS leaders describe Malay-Muslim unity as the road to Putrajaya, and PAS Youth speakers at this year’s Muktamar have argued that the political weight of the Malay-Muslim majority needs to be defended and consolidated. That framing leaves little room for the idea that non-Malays are partners in nation-building rather than a constituency to be managed.

It is true that PAS recently upgraded its non-Muslim wing to full party status, giving associate members voting rights within that wing — a real, if limited, gesture. But the party’s top leadership remains constitutionally restricted to Muslims, and the core positions on the economy, education, and religion are still set by its Islamic scholars’ council (the ulama leadership), not by a broader national consensus.

Non-Malays, and plenty of Malays too, are being asked to trust a governing structure they have no real path into.

Then there is the deeper question: are we looking at the early architecture of an Islamic state where syariah law is positioned above the Federal Constitution?

This is not a fringe fear. Kelantan’s Deputy Menteri Besar has publicly called for the federal government to review Article 4(4) of the Constitution, the very provision that protects the supremacy of federal law over conflicting state Islamic enactments after the Federal Court struck down 16 provisions of Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code in 2024 for exceeding state powers.

Kelantan responded not by scaling back, but by re-drafting the offences so they would survive constitutional challenge, and passed the new version unanimously in 2026. That is a legitimate, fact-based reason for concern, even without exaggeration.

I will be direct about one thing I cannot verify: claims that PAS intends to end girls’ education are not something the party has proposed on record, and repeating that claim as fact would be unfair. The honest concern is narrower but still serious — moral policing, restrictions on women’s autonomy, and the gradual expansion of syariah criminal jurisdiction into everyday life.

Those are documented patterns in PAS-run states; a ban on girls’ schooling is not.

The economics of it

Malaysia’s financial markets and investor confidence run on predictability. A federal government seen as prioritising religious authority over constitutional certainty, or moving to restrict gambling, alcohol, and entertainment nationally, would unsettle exactly the kind of foreign and domestic investment that funds jobs.

Sustained capital flight and business closures do not resolve quickly — and prolonged joblessness is what actually produces the instability everyone claims to want to avoid.

Does PAS’s own record support its promise of good governance?

This is the fairest test, and it is fact-checkable.

Kelantan has been governed continuously by PAS since 1990, roughly 35 years and sits last on the national development index despite that continuity and the state’s natural resources.

Terengganu and Kedah, both currently PAS-led (via Perikatan Nasional), also sit in the “high” rather than “very high” category, well behind Penang, Selangor, and Sarawak, which are run by Pakatan Harapan, Pakatan Harapan, and Gabungan Parti Sarawak respectively.

That gap is measurable, not rhetorical, and it is a legitimate question to put to PAS: if governance under your model is superior, why hasn’t it shown up in the numbers after three and a half decades?

It’s also worth noting, in fairness, that Kedah’s and Terengganu’s PAS-led state governments have been actively courting foreign investment, Kedah pitching Chinese investment in the Kulim airport, Terengganu courting South Korean and Singaporean investment in hydrogen and port infrastructure which suggests a more pragmatic, less rhetorical governing style at the state level than the Muktamar stage speeches project.

Whether that pragmatism would survive contact with full federal power, especially on syariah and social policy, is the real unknown.

A word on propaganda

There’s a well-known idea that repeating a lie often enough makes people believe it. It’s frequently attributed to Joseph Goebbels, though historians note the attribution is disputed and the underlying concept actually traces to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which accused others of using the “big lie” tactic.

Misattribution aside, the underlying warning is fair: repetition is a powerful political tool, and Malaysians on all sides of this debate should be wary of narratives, including ones critical of DAP or any other party, that gain traction through repetition rather than evidence.

What I’d rather see

I support ideas like Melaka’s proposal currently under study, not yet enacted to raise the state’s basic wage from RM1,700 to somewhere between RM2,500 and RM2,800, aimed at giving young Malaysians a reason to build their careers at home rather than migrating for better pay.

That is the kind of concrete, economically grounded policy debate Malaysia needs: how to move up the value chain, reduce (not abolish) dependence on foreign labour, and prepare the workforce for the disruption AI and automation are already bringing.

It is also the kind of debate that gets crowded out when national politics is dominated by identity and religious framing instead of productivity, education, and investment.

Where this leaves us

UMNO’s leadership faces a real choice about whether an alliance with PAS serves the country UMNO itself was instrumental in building over the past 69 years, or whether it trades away that legacy for a shot at Putrajaya.

Malaysians across every community will have to decide, at the ballot box, how much risk they’re willing to accept on the strength of stage rhetoric versus a state-level track record that, on the numbers, has not yet delivered.

That is not a call to panic. It is a call to look at the Human Development Index, the investment data, and the actual constitutional disputes already in the courts and to vote on that basis rather than on slogans from either side.

In summary

So, can Malaysians trust PAS?

On the evidence available today, the answer is: not yet, and not without real assurances.

The party’s own state-level record shows three and a half decades of governance that has not lifted Kelantan, Kedah, or Terengganu out of the bottom tier of national development, even as it presses for constitutional changes that would expand syariah authority at the federal level.

None of this requires exaggeration or fear-mongering to make the case, the Human Development Index numbers, the Article 4(4) dispute, and the re-legislated Kelantan syariah code speak for themselves.

Malaysia’s peace and prosperity were built on power-sharing, religious tolerance, and economic openness; any party asking to lead this country, PAS included, should have to show in policy detail, not stage rhetoric how it intends to preserve rather than dismantle that foundation.

Until it does, healthy skepticism is not bigotry; it’s due diligence.

* This is the personal opinion of the writers or publication and does not necessarily represent the views ofMalay Mail.