Prime Minister Anwar’s recent remarks on the Taiwan issue in an interview with international media have drawn strong reactions from Taiwan.
When I shared that interview earlier, I wrote this line:
“PMX is stating a fact in accordance with international norm.”
Given the ongoing international discussion, I believe it is necessary to elaborate my full position.
First, Malaysia adheres to the One‑China Policy. This is our country’s long‑standing foreign policy, not something newly introduced by the Anwar administration.
Malaysia recognises the Government of the People’s Republic of China and does not support Taiwan independence.
Therefore, I see no issue with the Prime Minister reaffirming Malaysia’s existing One‑China Policy.
That said, after reading the full interview, I believe another point raised by Anwar deserves serious global reflection:
Why do international rules so often operate under double standards when applied to different countries?
Anwar touched on historical context.
He also mentioned the involvement of the United States Seventh Fleet.
Whether or not we fully agree with his reading of Taiwan‑related history, one fact cannot be avoided:
The cross‑Strait question today cannot be fully understood in isolation from the Chinese Civil War, Cold‑War dynamics, and the long‑term US military involvement across the Taiwan Strait.
Naturally, the United States has its own strategic interests.
China has its own national interests.
The people of Taiwan also have their own interests and perspectives.
The core question is this:
Should international rules be applied based on principles, or according to which country holds greater power?
If the international community regards national sovereignty and territorial integrity as fundamental principles, those principles must be applied consistently.
When dealing with territorial disputes, secession and self‑determination across different nations, we ought not to selectively emphasise different principles simply because the parties involved change.
I would take this logic one step further.
Principles are not real principles only when they work in one’s favour.
Malaysia itself has sovereign claims, maritime rights and national interests in the South China Sea.
When our territorial waters, exclusive economic zone, oil and gas resources are at stake, we must likewise uphold international law and Malaysia’s legitimate rights.
If we urge Washington to exercise restraint in the Taiwan Strait, we must equally call on Beijing to exercise restraint.
If we oppose any‑one‑sided change to the status quo by any state, this principle must apply to all countries, not only those we dislike.
That is what genuine international rules look like.
Regarding Taiwan, several distinct questions ought to be separated.
The One‑China Policy is Malaysia’s foreign policy.
This does not mean, however, that all historical, legal, political and sovereignty disputes surrounding Taiwan have become undisputed facts across the international community.
Beijing holds its position.
Taiwan holds its position.
Different states also adopt varying diplomatic formulations when articulating their One‑China stances.
Accordingly, the phrase “international norm” I used earlier refers to Malaysia’s adherence to the One‑China Policy and the global reality that most countries maintain formal diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China.
If my words are interpreted to mean:
“All disputes over the Taiwan question have reached a fully unanimous legal conclusion within the international community.”
I must clarify: that was not my intended meaning.
I do not think it is shameful for political figures to acknowledge that their statements can be more precise.
I also hold that the Taiwan question cannot be directly equated with any hypothetical attempt by a Malaysian state to secede from the Federation.
Taiwan carries its own unique historical background: the Chinese Civil War, decades‑long cross‑Strait separate governance, the Cold War, United States involvement, and the de‑facto governance built up over many years.
Analogies can help the public grasp complex issues.
Yet analogies cannot replace history, nor can they replace international law.
More critically, we must exercise extreme caution when discussing the prospect of war.
Understanding Beijing’s position on national reunification is one thing.
Treating war as an acceptable, self‑evident solution is quite another.
Should war break out across the Taiwan Strait, the human and economic costs will by no means be borne only by mainland China and Taiwan.
East Asia, Southeast Asia, global supply chains, the semiconductor sector, financial markets and international trade will all suffer shocks.
Malaysia will not be spared.
What Malaysia ought therefore to advocate is not war, but peace.
Not provocation, but dialogue.
Not forcing Malaysia to pick a patron among Beijing, Washington and Taipei, but safeguarding Malaysia’s own strategic autonomy.
China is a highly important partner for Malaysia.
We should keep advancing Malaysia‑China relations across trade, investment, technology, education, tourism and regional cooperation.
That said, being friendly with China does not oblige us to treat Taiwan as an enemy.
Malaysia and Taiwan also share long‑standing ties in trade, investment, education, tourism, technology and people‑to‑people exchanges.
These ties likewise serve Malaysia’s national interests.
I therefore believe Malaysia can perfectly uphold all of the following positions at once:
‑ Adhere to the One‑China Policy;
‑ Further deepen Malaysia‑China relations;
‑ Maintain normal, mutually‑beneficial unofficial ties with Taiwan;
‑ Oppose war in the Taiwan Strait;
‑ And defend Malaysia’s sovereignty and lawful rights in the South China Sea.
These stances are not inherently contradictory.
I have always argued that small‑ and middle‑sized countries depend especially heavily on international rules.
Great powers possess military might, economic leverage, sanctions tools and global influence.
If international relations degenerate into a world where might makes right,
it is not only Taiwan that will suffer.
One day Malaysia could find itself in that position too.
Hence we should uphold one straightforward principle:
One world, one standard.
We ought not excuse misconduct from states we favour.
Nor should we apply a separate set of rules against states we dislike.
This is why I maintain:
Malaysia should be a friend of China without becoming an enemy of Taiwan.
Likewise,
Malaysia can work with the United States without becoming America’s proxy.
We need not be anti‑America.
We need not be anti‑China.
And there is no reason to be anti‑Taiwan.
We only need to be resolutely pro‑Malaysia.
That is the foreign policy befitting an independent nation.
Friend to all.
Proxy to none.
Malaysia first.
Great powers pursue great‑power interests.
Malaysia pursues Malaysian interests.
Respect all nations, but place your own country first.
This is not taking sides.
This is national strategic autonomy. – August 20, 2026
Ronnie Liu is the newly appointed Information Chief of Parti Bangsa Malaysia