The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism recently issued a press statement on political appointments in the country. The following is its full statement:
On 22 October 2024, through a supplementary question in Parliament, Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Abdul Karim proposed that only professionals should be appointed to GLC positions, excluding those with political backgrounds. In response, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim reaffirmed the government stance that politicians can be appointed to such positions through a merit-based process. The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) strongly disagrees with this position and calls for an end to the appointment of politicians to government-linked companies (GLCs) and government-linked investment companies (GLICs).
The justification made by the Prime Minister is that all appointments to key positions in GLCs undergo a stringent vetting process, adding that the checks involve the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN), Bank Negara Malaysia, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (SPRM), and the Royal Malaysia Police.
However, such checks do not address the main issue of political appointments; namely, the issue of political influence and patronage. Political appointments to GLCs have long been criticised as a way to reward political allegiance and maintain loyalty. Even if vetting processes ensure that a political appointee is qualified for the position, the question of political influence remains. If, as Anwar says, there is no discrimination between a politician and a non-politician, why does the government appear so desperate to defend the positions of politicians in GLCs? Through a merit based system, is it really that difficult to find another equally qualified individual for the position?
According to Anwar, political appointments are not made to financial institutions and other agencies related to finance. If the above vetting process is sufficient, why are politicians not allowed to be appointed to these institutions? This aspect alone clearly admits the inherent risk of abuse of power when appointing politicians to significant corporate positions.
The recent appointment of Nooryana Najwa Najib to the board of directors of the Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (Matrade) further calls into question the legitimacy of the supposed vetting process. Nooryana is politically connected not only as the daughter of convicted former Prime Minister Najib Razak, but also through her position as an executive committee member of UMNO’s women’s youth wing, Puteri UMNO.
As the national trade promotion agency under the Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (MITI), her appointed position in Matrade bears extremely significant responsibilities. Without making judgement calls on Nooryana’s character and skills, would she have been able to secure this appointment were it not for her familial relations to a former prime minister? If not directly correlated, how relevant were her party connections that allowed her to be considered for this role? Would any other 36-year-old of Nooryana’s qualifications, experience, and skillset — but without her political connections — have been able to secure this appointment? These questions already cast doubt on this infallible merit-based appointment system that supposedly transcends the influence of political connections.
It is crucial to note that Nooryana was sued for RM10.3 million in unpaid taxes by LHDN in 2020 — the suit was ultimately withdrawn by LHDN in 2022. Anwar also made mention of a test of character and that individuals selected would have “clean records” — would Nooryana’s history of being served a lawsuit by LHDN factor into a test of scrutiny? Does the substance of the initial lawsuit against her still hold weight in whether she is considered for the role of director? Does it matter that the suit was withdrawn by LHDN themselves? Nooryana is far from the only appointee where unravelling these questions will prove to be a task many will consider best left untouched.
Even if questions of political patronage are set aside, the primary role of an elected representative is to make laws. Thus, an inherent conflict arises when an individual elected to represent the interests of a constituency — or more broadly, the interests of Malaysians — is also tasked with representing the interests of a major corporation. With the financial and material incentive clearly favouring the furthering of private interests, there is a great deal of risk involved in assuming that all political appointees, who simultaneously maintain their roles as elected representatives, will always be able to still make decisions that put their constituents first.
Moreover, it is crucial to note that even the perception of conflict of interest is detrimental for good governance — this is relevant in instances where political appointees are not actively holding public office, but have clear political ties and allegiances that cannot reasonably be extricated from their role as leaders in GLCs. Standards of accountability to the public for GLCs are necessarily higher as they are a direct recipient of public funds and are themselves business enterprises set up to bring benefit to the public. Thus, it is reasonable and necessary to question the decision-making of an appointee who has acted in the interests of a political party or coalition throughout their entire career.
Above all, the practice of political appointments — and the government’s defence of this — creates the expectation of being granted appointments for every individual who enters into politics. Hence, even prior to appointment, individuals will be incentivised to make political decisions in the hope that they are seen as suitable candidates for GLC positions and their lucrative benefits. Thus, this practice undermines our entire democratic process from within.
The Madani Government’s Position
Worryingly, the government appears intent to continue the practice of political appointments. Shortly after his election victory in 2022, Anwar terminated all politically appointed chairmen and board members of GLCs, statutory bodies and state-invested funds with immediate effect. Many heralded the move as a bold new step toward eradicating political patronage in Malaysia.
However, this perception was short-lived. A few days after the announcement, Anwar clarified he was not totally opposed to the idea of political appointments, and that the terminations were effected to enable performance evaluations and ensure appointments were made in accordance with government guidelines. Subsequently, through the Federal Government Order 2023, Anwar appointed 61 politicians from his ruling coalition — 19 MPs and 42 other politicians — to boardroom positions in government departments, agencies and GLCs.
The National Anti-Corruption Plan 2019-2023 had also stated clear strategies to regulate the practice of political appointments. Much to the dismay of civil society, this target was completely absent from the recently launched National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2024-2028.
The current number of political appointments is alarming, and the statements made by Anwar only portend an increase in appointments, with its harms disguised beneath a coat “meritocracy”. Recognising that the risks associated with political appointments far outweigh any positive effects they could bring, C4 Center calls for the immediate cessation and termination of all political appointments under the Madani administration. It is time we break free from this endless pattern of abuse within the GLC system and chart a path towards cleaner and more equitable politics.
–WE