TMJ's Criticism of Anwar: Does the Data Actually Support the Claim?

 

TMJ's Criticism of Anwar: Do the Facts Back It Up, or Is This Just Political Noise?

TMJ took aim at Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim with a statement that quickly made its rounds across social media. Strip away the long sentence and the political packaging, and the message was actually quite simple.

First, Anwar is allegedly not giving enough federal allocation to Johor.

Second, development projects in Johor are supposedly being delayed under the federal government.

Now, those are serious accusations. And when serious accusations are made, I think we owe it to ourselves—and to the public—to examine whether the evidence actually supports them.

Because as we all know, empty barrels make the most noise.

Let's start with the money.

If you spend enough time on social media, you might get the impression that Johor has been abandoned by Putrajaya. You might even think the state is surviving on scraps while other states receive special treatment.

But when I looked at the numbers, the story became a lot more complicated.

During the administrations led by Perikatan Nasional and Barisan Nasional, Johor reportedly received around RM10.2 billion in federal allocations.

Since Anwar Ibrahim became Prime Minister, that figure has increased to approximately RM14.6 billion.

That is not a small increase. That is roughly 43 percent more than what Johor received previously.

Now, I'm not a mathematician, but I know the difference between less and more.

In fact, what surprised me most was that Johor's allocation exceeds that of several states often regarded as Pakatan Harapan strongholds. Selangor reportedly received RM12.2 billion. Penang received RM7.8 billion. Negeri Sembilan received RM6 billion.

This is where I think TMJ needs to do a little homework.

Not because criticism is unwelcome. Criticise all you want. Challenge the Prime Minister. Question every policy. Hold every politician accountable. We should encourage that.

But if you're going to make a public argument, especially one that will dominate headlines and social media discussions, the least you can do is bring the receipts.

Then there is the second accusation: development projects are being delayed.

Again, I think we should look at reality instead of rhetoric.

Take the RTS Link between Johor Bahru and Singapore.

For years, Malaysians heard promises about this project. Governments came and went. Announcements were made. Deadlines shifted. At one point, many people genuinely wondered whether the project would ever become reality.

Yet today, the project is approaching completion and moving closer to operations.

From a journalist's perspective, that doesn't look like a project being abandoned. It looks like a project finally crossing the finish line after years of uncertainty.

Then there is the Pasir Gudang-Kempas railway project.

This is perhaps the most interesting example because timelines don't lie.

The original completion period was reportedly around 24 months. Instead, the project was accelerated and completed in only six months.

Think about that for a moment.

In a country where Malaysians often joke that government projects move slower than traffic on the North-South Expressway during balik kampung season, completing a project faster than scheduled is not exactly evidence of deliberate delay.

As the Malays say, bagai melepaskan batuk di tangga is what happens when leaders merely go through the motions. But accelerating a project is the exact opposite of that.

Now, does this mean Anwar Ibrahim is beyond criticism?

Of course not.

No Prime Minister should ever be immune from scrutiny. In a ahealthy democracy, criticism is necessary. We should question leaders. We should challenge policies. We should demand accountability.

But criticism becomes meaningful only when it stands on a foundation of evidence.

Otherwise, we risk turning politics into a shouting contest where the loudest voice wins regardless of whether it is correct.

And history teaches us a dangerous lesson about that.

The late American senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

I think that quote is especially relevant here.

When I look at the available figures, I see higher allocations to Johor than before. When I look at major infrastructure projects, I see progress rather than paralysis. When I look at the evidence, I struggle to find support for the narrative that Johor is being neglected.

You don't have to support Anwar Ibrahim. You don't have to vote for him. You don't even have to like him.

But if we are going to criticise him, let's criticise him based on facts, not feelings.

We owe ourselves at least that much.

At the end of the day, politics should not be about who can shout the loudest. It should be about who can prove their case. As the Malays say, ukur baju di badan sendiri. Measure before you speak. Check before you accuse.

Because when the numbers show increased allocations and the projects show visible progress, perhaps the question is no longer whether Anwar has done enough for Johor.

Perhaps the question is whether some critics have done enough homework before making the accusation.

And that, my friends, is a conversation worth having