Malaysia-Turkiye engagements: PM Anwar’s official visit and a strategic recalibration

Indeed, for someone whose every utterance is checked with an eagle eye to be pounced on like a predator would to its prey, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has to tread on eggshells in his choice of words. Thus, writing on the visitors’ book at Anitkabir in Ankara was akin to walking the treacherous tightrope between Scylla and Charybdis: “Mustafa Kemal Atatürk gave form to a people’s faith in themselves and in each other. From this arose a great nation, secure in its sovereignty and sustained by the indomitable will of its people.” And that was enough to get the naysayers and detractors to pour scorn on such a tribute, setting the distraction grapevine on overdrive.

But we have bigger fish to fry and the bonds of friendship between the peoples of Malaysia and Türkiye cannot be held hostage by the small mindedness and malignity of those hell-bent on hate and negativity. These are ties that are bound deeply and profoundly personal too.

It was almost 18 years ago today that Anwar, then de facto opposition leader, after having led the March 2008 electoral tsunami, had to take refuge at the Turkish embassy in Kuala Lumpur, triggered by reliable intelligence of an assassination plot.

Sinister machinations were afoot to forestall the political transformation that had been unleashed with the revivification of Anwar’s Reformasi movement, after his release from a five-year incarceration on trumped-up charges, but I digress. The point is that the relationship between PM Anwar and President Erdoğan has its roots going back decades and has withstood the test of time. In an interview with TRT World, Anwar spoke movingly of his trials and tribulations, and expressed deep gratitude for how President Erdoğan had stood by him “in true friendship.”

Certainly not taking this personal friendship and rapport for granted, Anwar has taken pains to make the most of such a rare and invaluable currency in international diplomacy to forge even deeper and more enduring bilateral cooperation.

The three-day official visit to Türkiye couldn’t have been timelier or more strategic, and underscores a paradigm shift. To be sure, he did not go to Ankara as a passing sojourner, for this was the third visit to Türkiye since assuming the office of Prime Minister. Undoubtedly, Anwar’s long-standing engagement and friendship with Erdoğan is a key factor. But crucial as they are, personal relationships are not the be-all and end-all in the realm of international diplomacy. At play is a clear-eyed recalibration of national interest. As Anwar put it, Malaysia-Türkiye engagements manifest “a strategic judgement about the kind of world we now inhabit, and about the choices that countries like ours must make to preserve autonomy, stability and growth.”

It is a paradigm shift, one that not only elevates diplomatic ties to a more strategic level, which would entail enhanced cooperation across the board, but also underscores a more definitive geopolitical positioning in the global arena. To be sure, it is not a shift away from Malaysia’s foreign policy of active non-alignment, as was made clear by Anwar’s articulation of balanced relations with the United States and China, while deepening ties with Türkiye. Nevertheless, what could be discerned is a palpable reordering of strategic priorities alongside governance guardrails.

This is exemplified in the inaugural Malaysia–Türkiye High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council (HLSCC), underlining the key word “strategic” and signifying the transition from mere cooperation (seen as being contingent on the vagaries of leadership status) to one that is more secure and predictable. Naturally, it demands long-term commitment across a broad spectrum of interests not the least being the core sectors in trade, defence and security, and technology.

In light of this, it wouldn’t be frivolous to ask what Malaysia could offer to Türkiye, and what Türkiye could offer to Malaysia, predicating this question on the basis that we share broad perspectives and possess complementary capacities.

Without attempting to cover the entire terrain, in terms of trade and investment, Malaysia offers strategic access to Türkiye not just to its domestic market but also as a gateway to other ASEAN economies. While that could be a clichéd motif, flogged to near meaninglessness, suffice it to say that Türkiye could export more goods and services while its economy could benefit from investment opportunities particularly in infrastructure, energy, and technology sectors.

Although not spoken of, even as Türkiye remains a NATO member, by enhancing ties with Malaysia, it could garner brownie points on the geopolitical influence score card in Southeast Asia, thereby fortifying its geopolitical positioning in the region. The kicker here would be a boost for Türkiye’s already burgeoning defence exports to Malaysia, including done deals on technology transfer and joint production, not to mention contracts for military hardware, and other collaborations. In short, a defence partnership primed to grow even more robust.

Türkiye could work hand in hand with Malaysia on a vast array of joint collaborative efforts on cross cutting issues of global import, not the least being SDG, climate change initiatives, and a myriad of other pressing global concerns.

What then could Türkiye offer to Malaysia that would count as geopolitically impactful? It might well be a voice in the wilderness that posits a strategic middle-power convergence of the two countries, separated more than 8,000 km from each other. But on deeper reflection, as the global order becomes increasingly fragmented, there is no distance that cannot be bridged. This is prescriptive as much as it is formative. Both, being emerging economies, share more commonalities than differences, with diversified industrial bases, including vibrant manufacturing and service sectors, not to mention Muslim-majority nations, and vociferous – in a good way – OIC members. It stands to reason to explore the possibility of Malaysia looking up to Türkiye, not as some patronising big brother, but as a strategic safeguard on the European side of the Bosphorus.

On trade and investments, Malaysia could leverage on Türkiye and avail of the multiplier effects in engaging emerging markets, and Muslim-majority states, for its myriad products in the halal sector as well as the Islamic capital market, effectively a gateway to venture beyond ASEAN and East Asia.

From the prism of bilateral trade, there is an ambitious target of USD10 billion for 2026, a major surge from the USD4.92 billion recorded for Jan–Nov 2025, leveraging on the integrals, high-value sectors such as semi-conductors, AI, data centres, energy, advanced E&E, agri-commodities, halal foods, and rare earths from Malaysia. On Türkiye’s side, there is advanced defence manufacturing, automotive and construction, R&D, higher education, and industrial design.

The HLSSC, defence procurements and other agreements mean that we already have the mechanisms in place to explore further avenues towards doubling the trade volume goal. Hence, although a formidable challenge to take on, the USD10 billion target is not a pipe dream.

As a testament to the expanding role of Track Two diplomacy and its impact on strategic policy narratives and public discourse, a Memorandum of Understanding was inked between the Institute of Strategic and International Studies of Malaysia and Türkiye’s premier think tank SETA (Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı). This partnership will advance strategic research collaboration on international, economic and social policy, foster exchange of researchers and experts and strengthen policy research networking. Going forward, ISIS (Malaysia) will organise the first major ISIS-SETA collaborative event in Kuala Lumpur this year.

Anwar’s much vaunted public lecture titled “Power Shift: Strategic Choices for Malaysia and Türkiye,” drew a packed audience where he posited that both countries are aligned on many questions of consequence. In addition to the commonalities enumerated earlier, both have insisted that “human rights lose meaning when applied selectively, and that justice must rest on law rather than the convenience of the strong.”

Lamenting the slow death of the “voice of conscience” in international relations and the increasing hypocrisy of the global discourse on justice, Anwar stressed that no nation “has the right to trample on the sovereignty of another” nor has it the licence to act with impunity beyond its borders.

---

Datuk Prof Dr Mohd Faiz Abdullah is the Chairman at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia