Not again! Patronage as usual

Kua Kia Soong

Malaysia was promised reform.

When the Madani government came to power, many voters expected a clean break from the old Barisan Nasional politics of patronage, backroom deals and reward systems that have long undermined public trust.

Yet recent evidence suggests that political appointments to government-linked companies and statutory bodies remain deeply embedded in the system.

The controversy surrounding the Johor state assembly member for Skudai, Marina Ibrahim, should concern ordinary people – not because of one individual politician, but because it exposes how deeply normalised political patronage has become.

Recent reports revealed a viral letter allegedly rejecting an offer that included both a proposed seat transfer and a leadership post at a statutory body.

Marina declined to confirm the letter’s authenticity.

But Johor DAP chairperson Teo Nie Ching later publicly acknowledged that she had intended to propose Marina for the chair of a statutory body should electoral outcomes prove unfavourable.

The proposal, Teo said, was meant as recognition for service and as assurance that the party would continue to support Marina regardless of electoral uncertainty.

This disclosure is troubling – not because Marina Ibrahim is necessarily unqualified nor because political leaders should be excluded from public institutions nor because only one party is involved.

It is troubling because it shows how public institutions risk being treated as extensions of party management.

For decades, the people have criticised BN-era patronage politics.

Reformasi promised something different.

Yet the underlying culture remains stubbornly persistent. Public positions continue to appear intertwined with coalition management, electoral calculations and internal party negotiations.

Research by Ideas tallied about 238 political appointments under the “Madani” (trustworthy) administration up to late 2025, spanning federal statutory bodies and government-linked firms.

Earlier studies suggested appointments were concentrated among parties with the greatest access to executive power.

These numbers matter less than what they reveal: that appointment systems remain heavily political rather than institutionally independent.

The Marina controversy matters because it reveals several structural problems.

Statutory bodies serve public purposes

Statutory bodies exist for public purposes, not political compensation. Chairpersons and board members oversee public funds, policy implementation, regulation, education, transport, health systems and economic planning.

These posts should not become fallback arrangements for electoral disappointments.

Even competent appointees lose legitimacy when selection processes lack transparency. People cannot tell merit-based appointments apart from political rewards when the criteria remain hidden.

Patronage also weakens democratic competition. Parties in power gain access not only to state resources but also to positions that reinforce networks, loyalty and political influence.

Long overdue reforms

Mature democracies separate political leadership from institutional governance. Malaysia needs reforms urgently.

An independent public appointments commission: This commission should handle major appointments through transparent selection procedures, with published criteria and conflict-of-interest checks.

Parliamentary confirmation hearings: Appointments to major statutory bodies and strategic government-linked firms should require parliamentary committee scrutiny and public hearings.

Full transparency: Qualifications, remuneration, political affiliations and reasons for selection should be publicly disclosed.

Restrictions on active politiicans: Sitting MPs, state assembly members, ministers, deputy ministers and active party officeholders should face strict limits on paid board appointments.

Fixed-term performan reviews: Appointments should be tied to measurable outcomes rather than political relationships.

Annual public appointments report: The government should publish comprehensive appointments data for public review.

Anti-patronage legislation: Malaysia needs legal standards for conflicts of interest, nepotism and appointment transparency.

The bigger picture

The issue is larger than the DAP, larger than Marina and larger than the Madani government.

The question people should ask is straightforward: do statutory bodies belong to the public – or do they serve the machinery of party politics?

Until appointment systems become transparent, merit-based and accountable, promises of political reform will keep colliding with old habits of patronage.

Dr Kua Kia Soong is a former MP and director of human rights group Suaram.

...