Debunking the Histrionics: Why Anwar’s Myanmar engagement does not legitimise the junta — Phar Kim Beng

MAY 19 — The recent Malaysiakini article titled “Ex-minister, UN experts: Anwar must now drive Asean’s Myanmar shift” is a prime example of well-meaning commentary lapsing into histrionics. While the intentions of the UN experts and former foreign minister Saifuddin Abdullah may be commendable, their criticism of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s recent engagements with Myanmar lacks both geopolitical nuance and diplomatic logic.

Their central claim—that Anwar risks conferring legitimacy on Myanmar’s junta by meeting with its leader, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing—is not only weak but based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how legitimacy operates in international relations. The idea that a short, humanitarian-focused meeting automatically translates into recognition or political validation is intellectually disingenuous and diplomatically naïve.

Meeting a dictator does not confer legitimacy

Let us first dismantle the central assumption of the article: that engaging with Min Aung Hlaing somehow lends him credibility or legitimacy. That is categorically false.

A junta, by its very nature, is illegitimate in democratic terms. It seizes power by force, not consent. Its existence violates the foundational principles of constitutionalism, rule of law, and representative governance. No amount of bilateral meetings or photo-ops can suddenly elevate a military regime to the status of a legitimate government. If diplomacy alone could perform such a feat, then we must believe that Kim Jong Un became a democrat after his three meetings with Donald Trump—an absurd proposition.

The international community has long maintained relations with regimes it does not recognize as legitimate. The United Nations’ humanitarian arms routinely engage with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Assad regime in Syria, or North Korea’s leadership—not out of approval, but out of necessity. Malaysia’s meeting in Bangkok with the junta leader occurred in the context of a humanitarian crisis, specifically following a deadly earthquake in Myanmar. That context cannot be ignored.

Anwar’s engagement was humanitarian, not political

It is disingenuous for critics to conflate humanitarian diplomacy with political endorsement. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was not in Naypyidaw shaking hands for a trade deal. He was in Bangkok participating in a regional meeting convened to address the earthquake that had left thousands dead and many more displaced. In that context, Malaysia pledged RM10 million for humanitarian assistance, a move consistent with both international law and ASEAN’s own frameworks for disaster relief.

To suggest that this humanitarian outreach was a coded signal of political approval is not only false—it is morally questionable. Are we now to hold the lives of innocent civilians hostage to an impossible political purity test? Refusing to engage with the junta at all, even to save lives, would have been the real dereliction of moral responsibility.

Malaysia has been consistently balanced on Myanmar

More importantly, Anwar Ibrahim’s approach to Myanmar has been far more comprehensive and principled than the article gives credit for. His administration has quietly engaged with Myanmar’s shadow government, the National Unity Government (NUG), in addition to supporting regional efforts to uphold the Five-Point Consensus adopted by ASEAN in April 2021.

Anwar’s Malaysia has maintained the firm position that the junta should not be allowed political representation in high-level ASEAN meetings. Indeed, during Malaysia’s current ASEAN chairmanship, no senior representative of the junta has been invited to any ministerial-level meeting. The country’s position is thus crystal clear: humanitarianism does not equal recognition.

This balanced strategy—engaging both official and unofficial stakeholders—aligns with the long-standing Malaysian diplomatic ethos: quiet engagement, firm principles, and consistent multilateralism.

Saifuddin Abdullah’s critique rings hollow

The lead critic quoted in the article, former foreign minister Saifuddin Abdullah, appears to be engaging in political point-scoring rather than offering genuine foreign policy insight. During his tenure, Saifuddin made similar overtures toward the NUG but stopped short of any decisive policy change. The suggestion that Anwar is “backtracking” or lacks direction ignores the fact that Malaysia’s regional leadership under Anwar is arguably firmer and more pragmatic than during previous administrations.

It is important to recall that diplomacy is not theatre. It is not measured in hashtags, press releases, or loud condemnations. It is measured in results—lives saved, conflicts de-escalated, and influence preserved. By that metric, Anwar’s strategy, while less visible, is far more grounded in strategic rationality.

Asean is not a blunt instrument

The article also fails to appreciate the structural limitations of ASEAN itself. It is not a supranational body like the European Union. It does not possess enforcement power or a standing military. ASEAN works on the basis of consensus, non-interference, and dialogue. Any meaningful progress on Myanmar must therefore be delicately negotiated among ten very different member states.

Expecting Malaysia alone to impose a new direction on ASEAN without fracturing the group is both unrealistic and dangerous. Anwar’s cautious balancing act reflects the burden of leadership within ASEAN: too firm, and you lose the group; too soft, and you lose credibility. Walking that tightrope is not cowardice—it is statesmanship.

Conclusion: Pragmatism over posturing

The Malaysiakini article, while reporting on a legitimate policy debate, ultimately suffers from dramatization and a shallow understanding of diplomacy. It unfairly casts Anwar Ibrahim’s nuanced diplomacy as indecision or appeasement, when in fact it is consistent with Malaysia’s historical approach to international crises.

Humanitarian engagement with the junta does not equal political endorsement. Malaysia’s record speaks for itself: strong support for democracy, open channels with the NUG, and a refusal to allow the junta any formal platform in ASEAN. Critics who ignore these facts in favor of rhetorical flourish risk undermining Malaysia’s diplomatic leverage and distorting public understanding of a complex crisis.

In international affairs, symbolism matters—but not as much as substance. And on Myanmar, Anwar Ibrahim is prioritizing substance: saving lives, preserving Malaysia’s influence, and steering ASEAN forward—however slowly—toward a just resolution.

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