Here’s a bold statement: Malaysia’s recent trade deal with the U.S. has sparked intense debates about sovereignty, constitutionality, and national interests. But here’s where it gets controversial—Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim revealed that the government consulted the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to ensure the agreement aligns with the Federal Constitution and domestic laws. Why does this matter? Because it’s a move that some see as a safeguard, while others question its implications for Malaysia’s autonomy. Let’s break it down.
On November 4, 2025, Anwar clarified in the Dewan Rakyat that the AGC’s input was sought to ensure the reciprocal trade agreement, known as ART, doesn’t violate the “spirit of the Federal Constitution and domestic laws.” He emphasized, “The AGC’s statement was based on a detailed review of the deal—it’s not political.” This came in response to Takiyuddin Hassan (PN-Kota Bharu), who inquired whether the Cabinet would share the AGC’s views. Interestingly, Anwar added that the Cabinet even revised its decisions based on the AGC’s feedback, showcasing a commitment to legal scrutiny.
And this is the part most people miss—the AGC reassured the public that Malaysia retains the right to terminate the agreement at any time with written notice to the U.S., without needing U.S. approval. This, according to the AGC, safeguards Malaysia’s sovereignty and protects national interests. The agreement also mandates good-faith consultations between both nations before any action is taken, ensuring fairness in its implementation.
Now, let’s address the elephant in the room: Deputy Investment, Trade, and Industry Minister Liew Chin Tong’s remarks that Malaysia was “forced” to negotiate with the U.S. Anwar defended Liew, explaining that the comment reflected the unequal footing between the two nations. Anwar himself admitted to voicing dissatisfaction with U.S. President Donald Trump over the 19% reciprocal tariff on Malaysian goods, arguing it should have been lower. While Liew’s phrasing may have been blunt, Anwar acknowledged, “It was said in the right spirit, given the context.”
Here’s the controversial question: Does engaging in such trade agreements make Malaysia a “puppet” of the U.S.? Anwar dismissed this notion, stating Malaysia has always adopted a “give and take” approach in all its free trade agreements (FTAs). He pointed out, “If that were true, we wouldn’t have signed the upgraded ASEAN-China FTA on October 28.”
So, what’s your take? Does this trade deal strengthen Malaysia’s position on the global stage, or does it raise legitimate concerns about sovereignty? Let’s keep the conversation going—share your thoughts in the comments below!
