301 To 95: Political Appointees, Then And Now
Written by Priya Kaur Sachdev a Junior Associate at the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS). Lekhaashini Gunasager, and Vighnesh Muraly are interns at IDEAS.
In Malaysia, the power to appoint leaders to key government-linked positions has long been a tool of political influence. During Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s administration, political appointments reached an unprecedented 301. Fast forward to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s administration, the number has dropped significantly to 95 political appointees. With a strong emphasis on integrity, responsibility, and professionalism, Anwar’s approach signals a departure from past practices.
According to IDEAS’ Pantau Kuasa, a platform that tracks political appointments, these positions are held by individuals with direct political backgrounds—including current and former MPs, ADUNs, senators, ministers, and political party leaders. This raises the issue of whether these roles are truly based on merit or remain political rewards. While the numbers have changed, is Malaysia truly committed to good governance, or has political influence simply taken a more refined form?
Blurring the Lines Between Governance and Oversight
The story of political appointments in Malaysia is not new. While the New Economic Policy (NEP) promoted economic equity and increased Bumiputera participation in key sectors, it also led some firms to retain tightly held ownership structures, limiting broader collaboration. Over time, appointments prioritized policy goals over corporate leadership, fulfilling concerns over nepotism and cronyism. Many appointments became symbolic rather than functional, raising governance and transparency issues. Once deeply rooted under Barisan Nasional, the practice has persisted across successive administrations, including Pakatan Harapan (2018), Perikatan Nasional (2020), and Barisan Nasional (2021).
With no legal restrictions, Members of Parliament (MPs), ADUN, or political party leaders continue to hold positions in GLCs and FSBs, allowing governments to use these roles for political support. Having sitting MPs and their political affiliates helm the Board of Directors (BOD) of key government institutions ultimately blurred the lines between oversight and execution, potentially compromising legislative independence. While political appointees can offer strategic benefits by aligning firms with public-sector objectives, these are clearest when they have relevant background or technocratic expertise.
However, politically connected board members may prioritise party interest over organisational goals, increasing the risks of conflict of interest, abuse of power, and corruption. Malaysia’s lack of a clear framework defining the criteria, parameters, and procedures for such appointments compounds these risks. Despite repeated pledges to reform, successive governments have continued to leverage political appointments to consolidate power. his challenge was particularly evident during ex-Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Razak’s second administration, where political appointments peaked at 301 appointees across FSBs and GLCs. Many were based on party loyalty or Barisan Nasional, lacking transparency on qualifications, leading to inefficiencies and overlaps as some individuals held multiple roles or remained in positions for extended periods. For instance, Zahidi Zainul Abidin held five roles under Najib’s government, raising questions about governance and resource allocation. In contrast, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s administration has avoided such overlaps, with no multiple appointments, promoting greater efficiency. Anwar’s administration has taken steps to significantly reduce political appointees to 95 in 2024, compared to 273 under ex-Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Ismail Sabri Yaakob and 186 under ex-Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Muhyiddin Yassin.
Anwar has defended these appointments, emphasizing that all appointees are professionals vetted by authorities like the Inland Revenue Board, Bank Negara Malaysia, and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. Despite that, controversies persist, such as Datin Nooryana Najwa’s recent MATRADE board appointment, drawing public scrutiny and underscoring the need for a transparent appointment mechanism.
Looking Ahead: Reforming Malaysia’s Political Appointment System Through International Best Practices
The OECD guidelines recommend a robust nomination framework with clear criteria for transparency and consistency. While Malaysia’s GLCs have made strides towards meeting these standards, FSBs continue to lag behind, with less scrutiny in their appointment process.
To strengthen governance and restore public trust, Malaysia needs a structured independent framework for public appointments. Adopting a system similar to the UK’, where a Commissioner oversees a merit-based process with support from Advisory Panels would help ensure appointments are based on expertise rather than political connections. A Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) could enhance this independence by recommending key appointments.
Enhancing transparency is equally crucial, in the UK, public appointments are openly advertised, with job specifications and selection panel compositions made available. This would ensure accountability, with legislative reforms establishing clear, non-political appointment criteria.
To further limit political influence, Malaysia should consider how New Zealand has barred politicians from serving on regulatory bodies, GLCs, and other key institutions, ensuring they serve the public interest.
While these measures provide a blueprint for reform, implementation remains a true test of commitment. Political appointees have declined under Anwar’s administration, but stronger efforts are required to push for systemic change and greater transparency. IDEAS’ Pantau Kuasa bolsters this effort by tracking appointees and driving accountability. Ultimately, true governance reform goes beyond numbers—it requires a clear framework, merit-based selection, and a commitment to minimizing political influence in key institutions.
This article first appeared on businesstoday.com on March 5, 2025.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of IDEAS Malaysia. All opinions are the author’s own.
