There's a good deal of domestic political strife going on at the moment in Malaysia, most of it coming in the form of a movement to "oust Anwar," targeted against Pakatan Rakyat leader Anwar Ibrahim.
I've mentioned in the past my opinion that Anwar's views get a far friendlier airing in the Western press than they deserve, perhaps because of his (legitimate) victimhood in the past as the target of political and legal smears. Yet such a victim status shouldn't make the Wall Street Journal editorial page ignore his intonations about "the Jewish lobby" and support for the Israel-bashing International Institute of Islamic Thought. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the right decision, in my view, to just call Anwar during her recent Malaysia visit after a planned sit-down meeting raised a few eyebrows. But regardless of any external critiques, Anwar's role as the head of the opposition (Pakatan Rakyat consists of a coalition of three parties, the PKR, DAP and PAS) has not been an item of significant disagreement in the past.
You can read this piece by Lim Sue Goan to see several reasons why this has changed. Internal battles and fractures have emerged within his constituency - Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, who's called for Anwar and Azmin Ali to step down, is now bent on challenging him for leadership of the PKR, and the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition won two by-elections last week.
In response, Anwar has promised to field younger candidates in the elections anticipated early next year, in an attempt to bolster the pro-reform branding of his coalition. This may work as a play to younger voters, but, on the whole, it seems a weak response to "the biggest crisis the party has faced since its inception in 1999." In any parliamentary system, this kind of upheaval is not what you want to see in the lead up to an election where voters must have confidence in your leadership abilities.
