When institutions lose their compass: Malaysia's governance reckoning

Malaysia's most consequential institutions were built with clear mandates and governance frameworks to protect them. Yet, in a remarkably short time, many appear to have drifted from their founding purpose, writes Mohamed Tarmizi Ismail.

Of late, Malaysia has witnessed an unceasing stream of news concerning eminent institutions.

That should trouble us. Institutions established for specific purposes and with noble intent should have guardrails to protect those purposes, not mechanisms that allow them to drift.

The issue is not whether Malaysia lacks institutional architecture, but whether those entrusted with it still accept the discipline that gives it meaning – clarity of purpose, independence of judgement and accountability to the public interest.

How, then, can institutions built with clear purposes, ownership and governance structures lose their way?

Governance should begin with a clear mission, defined objectives and structures that make them enforceable. Where safeguards are absent, ignored or weakened, annual audits and governance reviews should flag the drift before it becomes institutional damage.

What is striking is that ownership has not changed since these institutions were established. In a corporate setting, the governing body is expected to understand its remit and objectives while aligning stakeholder and shareholder interests with it. Where that alignment holds, an institution should fulfil the mandate for which it was created.

Yet, case after case suggests that institutions have drifted from their founding mandates. Naming them is not the point – the pattern is. It is rarely a single dramatic failure. More often, institutional discipline gives way gradually to political convenience – each step defensible on its own, but indefensible in aggregate.

That discipline deserves a name. Institutional discipline is the habit of referring every decision back to an institution’s founding purpose, legal mandate and public duty, especially when political pressure makes doing so inconvenient.

There is, however, one qualification. Not every departure from an institution’s original design constitutes drift. Institutions must adapt as economies, technologies and public needs change. A mandate frozen in its founding decade would serve no one.

The distinction lies in how change is made: openly, justified against the founding purpose and subjected to scrutiny – or quietly, for convenience, and explained only afterwards.

So where does the challenge lie – in deliberate amnesia, unintended consequences or intentional design? The distinction matters less than it might appear. Each path leads to the same destination: an institution that still carries its name and mandate, but no longer steers by either.

As my late father, Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, once said: do not blame the institution – it has no life of its own. It is the people entrusted with its stewardship who must manage it with duty and care.

That requires integrity to run unbroken from the top – from ownership and the statesmanship that sets the tone, through the governance entrusted to the board, to the leadership it oversees through management. Every link must serve the ultimate beneficiaries: the rakyat.

Each link depends on the one above it, and a single break can bring down the entire chain. That chain of integrity must be safeguarded and never compromised. It was done well in this country’s early years, and it remains achievable today. What is required is not ingenuity, but resolve.

Is there a glimmer of hope? Absolutely.

It begins with the will to do what was right in the first place: restore purpose, renew stewardship, reinforce statesmanship, strengthen governance, safeguard leadership and hold every institution to its founding mandate.

The question is not whether this is possible. It is whether we still have the discipline to do it.

The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent that of Twentytwo13.