Malaysia’s ASEAN Chairmanship Sparks Glitter, but Yields Little Concessions in Myanmar and Border Crises

Hadisur Rahman, JadeTimes Staff

H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Asia

---

Image Credit: X Screengrab

In February, speaking at the ASEAN Future Forum, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim set a bold vision for an ASEAN that can “shine” as it navigates great-power rivalries while tackling the bloc’s most pressing crises. By year’s end, that optimism had become a paradox: a display of high-profile diplomacy and theatrical leadership, tempered by a sequence of dashed expectations and stubborn regional flashpoints that reveal the limits of Jakarta-style mediation within a shifting geopolitical landscape.

Anwar’s year as ASEAN chair elevated Malaysia’s image on the international stage. The Malaysian capital played host to summitry that featured a rare convergence of global powers, with Anwar positioning himself as a mediator capable of bridging gaps between Washington and Beijing. The Kuala Lumpur Accord, signed late in the year in front of a visibly pleased international audience, became emblematic of Anwar’s approach: spectacular diplomatic theater paired with carefully choreographed outcomes. Yet for Thailand, the hoped-for lifeline that might have accompanied Malaysia’s chairmanship proved elusive.

Thailand entered the year eager for regional leverage: progress on Myanmar and Thailand’s restive southern border provinces would mark a tangible return on ASEAN’s shared leadership. Instead, the region’s fault lines persisted. Myanmar’s years-long civil conflict intensified, despite ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus, and the country’s junta continued to resist substantive engagement. The border provinces of Thailand, long beset by insurgent activity, remained volatile, underscoring the recurring theme of unmet expectations from ASEAN-mediated processes.

In Bangkok, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul faced his own political gauntlet as Thailand’s elections loomed in 2026. The challenge was twofold: to secure a credible path to leadership while maintaining legitimacy at home in a climate of economic unease and public impatience. The arrangement that emerged a confidence-and-supply agreement with the largest political party placed the onus on Anutin to translate public support into a durable governing coalition. But observers cautioned that Thai political sentiment preferred vivid, decisive action over prudent restraint, a dynamic that complicated the government’s ability to chart a steady course through regional tensions.

Malaysia’s approach to Myanmar drew sharp scrutiny. Despite leveraging its ASEAN chairmanship to push for renewed dialogue, the region slipped back into abasement rather than breakthrough. By October, Anwar’s administration found itself negotiating in a landscape where the Myanmar military’s elections promised little reform, and where ASEAN’s credibility appeared tethered to a fragile ceasefire that could unravel at any moment. Human rights groups urged a more assertive push for recognition of pro-democracy forces, but real progress remained elusive.

Beyond Myanmar, tensions between Thailand and Cambodia escalated, including several deadly clashes and significant displacement. Anwar’s diplomatic strategies did yield some notable moments, such as a high-profile July 28 meeting in Kuala Lumpur that brought together China and the United States in a rare unified diplomatic moment. Yet by late October, the much-anticipated Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord, while symbolically powerful, underscored the complexity of translating talk into lasting regional peace.