Malaysians have the right to root for PAS, but what has a Hadi-led PAS actually done? — Phar Kim Beng

JULY 23 — Malaysians have every right to support PAS.

That right must be defended as firmly as the right of other Malaysians to support UMNO, PKR, DAP, Amanah, Bersatu, GPS, GRS or any other legally constituted political party. Democracy does not require citizens to agree with one another. It requires them to respect one another’s right to choose.

But democratic support cannot be separated from democratic accountability.

The real question, therefore, is not whether Malaysians are entitled to root for PAS. They clearly are. The more important question is this: what has a PAS led by Tan Sri Abdul Hadi Awang actually accomplished for Malaysia?

This question should not be dismissed as hostility towards Islam, the Malays or conservative politics. It is precisely because PAS has become one of the most influential political forces in the country that its record deserves close examination.

For many years, Hadi has placed Malay-Muslim unity at the centre of his political message. Yet Malaysia is not a failed state in which Muslims lack political influence. Islam is the religion of the federation. Malays form the largest demographic group. Malay Muslims occupy a commanding position across the civil service, public institutions, the security establishment and the political system.

Why, then, must Malay-Muslim unity be invoked so persistently as though the community is permanently besieged?

Unity can be a noble objective. But unity can also become a political instrument. When it is defined primarily through electoral pacts among elites, it risks becoming less about the ordinary Muslim and more about the distribution of power among party leaders.

The ordinary Malay voter does not live by slogans alone. He or she needs affordable food, better wages, reliable water supplies, quality education, functioning hospitals, decent housing and opportunities for children. The same applies to Chinese, Indian, Orang Asli, Sabah and Sarawak families.

A political party that claims to speak in the name of Islam must therefore be judged by whether its administration improves human welfare.

PAS has governed Kelantan for decades. It has also held power in Terengganu and Kedah. Its supporters often point to personal modesty, religious commitment and a reputation for avoiding extravagance. These are not insignificant qualities.

But moral symbolism cannot replace administrative performance.

The relevant questions are whether PAS-led governments have successfully diversified their economies, attracted sustainable investment, created high-value employment and stemmed the migration of young people seeking opportunities elsewhere.

Have they improved basic infrastructure? Have they demonstrated that religious governance produces superior administrative outcomes? Have they built economic models that other Malaysian states are eager to emulate?

If the answer remains uncertain after decades in office, then voters are entitled to ask whether PAS has relied too heavily on moral rhetoric and too little on measurable delivery.

There is also the matter of political consistency.

PAS has worked with an extraordinary range of partners over the years. It cooperated with Semangat 46, later joined forces with PKR and DAP, entered Pakatan Rakyat, moved closer to UMNO through the language of Muslim unity, and then aligned itself with Bersatu in Perikatan Nasional.

Politics does require compromise. No serious observer expects parties to remain frozen forever. Yet repeated shifts in alliances raise legitimate questions.

Were these partnerships based on durable principles, or were principles repeatedly adjusted to suit the pathway to power?

PAS supporters may argue that the party has simply adapted to changing circumstances. Its critics will say that PAS has become highly skilled at entering alliances, extracting electoral advantages and then redefining its enemies when the arrangement no longer serves its interests.

This pattern matters because PAS frequently presents itself as a party of exceptional moral clarity.

A party that claims a higher ethical foundation must accept a higher standard of scrutiny. It cannot condemn opportunism in others while treating its own tactical manoeuvres as divinely sanctioned pragmatism.

A Hadi-led PAS must also confront its effect on Malaysia’s plural society.

Malaysia cannot be governed successfully through permanent suspicion between communities. Sabah and Sarawak, in particular, have long rejected the notion that the federation should be reshaped around the political theology of any single party.

Many non-Muslims do not oppose Islam. Nor do they reject Malay political leadership. Their anxiety arises from the possibility that an increasingly dominant PAS may narrow the space for cultural, religious and constitutional pluralism.

Hadi and his colleagues may believe such fears are exaggerated. But leadership requires more than insisting that others have misunderstood one’s intentions. It requires creating confidence.

Has PAS under Hadi made Malaysians of different religions feel safer within the federation? Has it reassured Christians in Sabah and Sarawak, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and moderate Muslims that their citizenship will remain equal and secure?

Or has its rhetoric too often deepened the fear that political competition is becoming a struggle between the religiously righteous and everyone else?

PAS cannot demand trust while dismissing every concern as prejudice or hostility.

The party must also explain what its national economic programme actually is.

Religious commitment is not an economic strategy. Malaysia must compete for investment, advanced technology, skilled employment and regional relevance. It must manage artificial intelligence, energy transition, food security, ageing, inequality and the pressure facing small and medium enterprises.

What distinctive and credible solutions has a Hadi-led PAS offered to these problems?

Criticising corruption is necessary. Opposing moral decadence may appeal to conservative voters. But governing a complex trading nation requires technical depth, policy competence and the ability to work across ethnic, religious and regional lines.

Malaysia does not merely need leaders who can describe what is forbidden. It needs leaders who can explain what will be built.

Malaysians are free to root for PAS. They are also free to admire its discipline, grassroots machinery and ability to maintain loyalty over generations.

But support should never become immunity from scrutiny.

The same standards applied to Pakatan Harapan and Barisan Nasional must be applied to PAS. Has it kept its promises? Has it governed effectively? Has it improved livelihoods? Has it strengthened the federation? Has it reduced corruption without introducing a more divisive political culture?

These are not anti-PAS questions. They are democratic questions.

PAS has every right to seek power. Malaysians have every right to give it power.

But before doing so, they have an equally important responsibility to ask what a Hadi-led PAS has actually delivered beyond speeches, alliances and the repeated invocation of Malay-Muslim unity.

In a democracy, faith in a party cannot substitute for evidence of performance.

• Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and a director at the Institute of International and Asean Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia.

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