Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

Recently, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim stated that "Taiwan is part of China" during an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera. His remarks on the Taiwan question  quickly sent ripples through international public opinion. 

Western media often view statements by Southeast Asian leaders through the binary lens of being either "pro-China" or "anti-US." But when Anwar's remarks are examined against the broader backdrop of current geopolitical competition and the regional security environment, it becomes clear that this was far more than a routine diplomatic statement - it was a counterattack in the battle for the right to shape the narrative.

Western public opinion often misinterprets Southeast Asian leaders' respect for China's core interests as political "siding with" or "submission" to China. This reflects a complete ignorance of the geopolitical realities shaping the survival of Southeast Asian countries.

From Malaysia's own geopolitical perspective, maintaining stable and mutually trusting relations with China is a path that no rational Malaysian leader could afford to abandon. Adhering to the one-China principle is, after all, a basic position upheld by the overwhelming majority of countries around the world.

In fact, maintaining such a clear position on the Taiwan question, grounded in international law and established principles, is precisely one of the most effective ways for Malaysia to preserve its strategic autonomy. Anwar understands very clearly that if Malaysia gives the West any hope of wavering on an issue concerning China's core interests, it will inevitably be drawn into the vortex of great-power confrontation. 

Insisting that "Taiwan is part of China" and the Taiwan question should be decided by the Chinese people represents the highest degree of strategic resolve, establishing a firewall against bloc confrontation for Malaysia in particular and ASEAN as a whole.

One reason Anwar's remarks have attracted such widespread attention is the implicit contrast they offer between the different approaches taken by Southeast Asian countries amid great-power competition.

Since President Ferdinand Marcos Jr came to power, the Philippines has served as a forward position in efforts to contain China. In pursuit of illusory security guarantees, the Philippines has repeatedly stirred tensions in the South China Sea. Rather than bringing genuine security, this approach has placed the Philippines on the front line of great-power competition, leaving it vulnerable to becoming a geopolitical casualty. It has also seriously undermined political trust with China, causing a large number of potential infrastructure investments and supply-chain cooperation projects to stall. These "putting the cart before the horse" policies directly undermine the long-term well-being of the Filipino people amid mounting downward pressure on the global economy.

More importantly, on Balabac Island, located only about a 20-minute flight from Malaysia's Banggi Island in Sabah, the Philippines has cooperated with an extra-regional power in building a large military base. This creates direct security pressure on neighboring countries, provoking legitimate security concerns in Malaysia and seriously eroding the foundation of mutual trust within ASEAN.

By contrast, under the strategic leadership of the Chinese and Malaysian governments, built on political trust and driven by pragmatic cooperation, Chinese enterprises' investments and partnerships in Malaysia have gradually expanded beyond traditional infrastructure and manufacturing into emerging fields such as green energy, digital economy and artificial intelligence. A multi-layered, full-industry-chain ecosystem of cooperation has taken shape. Many Chinese companies have also moved beyond simply "investing in and building factories" toward jointly developing industrial ecosystems, placing greater emphasis on technology transfer, coordination across production and supply chains, and long-term contributions to the society.

Malaysia's clear political position has not translated into confrontation. Instead, it has helped create a predictable business environment for foreign investment and delivered tangible benefits in terms of industries, employment and technology transfer, further strengthening Malaysia's position as a key hub in the restructuring of regional supply chains.

The difference between these two approaches is not a choice between being "pro-China" and "anti-China," but between "political clarity" and "willingness to become a pawn." Malaysia does not need to sacrifice its relationship with either side. It is simply refusing to adopt an ambiguous position on core sovereignty issues. 

The Philippines, by contrast, may appear to be trying to extract concessions from both sides, but in practice it is finding it increasingly difficult to balance the two.

History will prove that any attempt to seek absolute security by introducing military forces from outside the region will ultimately lead to the tragedy of a pawn becoming expendable. Only Asian wisdom,- grounded in respect for sovereignty, rejection of bloc confrontation, commitment to independence and self-reliance, and pursuit of pragmatic cooperation - offers the only correct path to lasting peace and stability in Southeast Asia and the broader Asia-Pacific region.

The author is deputy director of the China-ASEAN Research Institute at Guangxi University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn