Global lessons when military power faces scrutiny

 

THE decision to place Army chief General Tan Sri Muhammad Hafizuddeain Jantan on leave  pending investigations into allegations against him is far more than a routine administrative manoeuvre.

It represents a moment of institutional reckoning that reaches into the foundations of governance, accountability, and civil–military relations.

At stake is not merely whether misconduct occurred but whether the state is prepared to subject even its most powerful and traditionally insulated institutions to the same standards of scrutiny that apply elsewhere.

This question is not uniquely Malaysian; it echoes a global struggle over how democracies reconcile military authority with the rule of law.

For decades, Malaysia’s armed forces have occupied a distinctive place in public perception. They are widely regarded as disciplined, professional, and largely untouched by the scandals that have undermined trust in political and corporate elites.

This reputation has reinforced public confidence and legitimised the military’s role as a stabilising institution. However, such exceptional standing can also foster a belief that the armed forces exist beyond the reach of ordinary governance norms.

The current investigation challenges that belief by drawing a clear line between respect for an institution and exemption from accountability.

Placing a serving Army chief on leave during an investigation should be understood as a governance safeguard rather than a presumption of guilt. Temporarily removing a senior figure protects the integrity of the investigative process, prevents potential interference, and preserves institutional credibility.

In many systems committed to the rule of law, such measures are standard practice. What makes this case significant is not the mechanism itself, but the level at which it is applied—the highest tier of military command, where scrutiny has historically been rare and politically sensitive.

The deeper significance lies in what this decision signals about evolving institutional norms. Historically, senior officials in powerful organisations often benefited from deference that translated into informal protection.

Investigations were delayed, quietly narrowed, or allowed to fade without resolution, reinforcing perceptions that accountability was selective.

By contrast, placing top military leadership under scrutiny suggests a growing recognition that institutional credibility depends on consistency rather than hierarchy. This shift mirrors broader global trends where public tolerance for opaque authority has steadily diminished.

International experience provides important context. Across the world, states have grappled with how to hold military leaders accountable without undermining operational effectiveness or morale.

In the United States, senior officers have faced investigation and prosecution for corruption linked to defence contracting and procurement fraud.

These cases exposed how vast budgets, technical complexity, and close relationships between the military and private contractors create fertile ground for abuse if oversight is weak. Crucially, accountability measures did not weaken the armed forces; they reinforced civilian control and restored public confidence in defence governance.

Latin America presents similar lessons. In Brazil, senior military officers have faced legal action for corruption related to infrastructure and defence projects. These cases challenged the long-standing perception of the military as a moral counterweight to civilian politics.

While controversial, they underscored the principle that professionalism does not preclude accountability. In fact, shielding the military from scrutiny was shown to undermine its legitimacy over time, particularly in societies with painful histories of military intervention in politics.

What unites these global examples is a shared structural reality: defence institutions operate in high-risk environments for corruption. Procurement processes are complex, financial stakes are immense, and decision-making authority is often concentrated among a small circle of officials.

Secrecy, justified by national security concerns, limits external scrutiny and reduces transparency. These conditions do not imply inevitable misconduct, but they demand stronger safeguards than in less sensitive sectors.

Accountability, therefore, is not an optional intrusion but an essential component of effective defence governance.

(Image: Kementerian Pertahanan)

Malaysia has not been immune to these structural challenges. Past defence-related controversies, including failed or delayed procurement projects, have exposed weaknesses in oversight without fully resolving questions of responsibility.

In some cases, inquiries focused on technical failures rather than command accountability, reinforcing perceptions that enforcement stopped short of senior leadership.

The present investigation disrupts that pattern and raises expectations that accountability will no longer be confined to the periphery of military institutions.

The implications extend beyond legal outcomes into the broader realm of civil-military relations. In healthy democracies, armed forces derive legitimacy not only from operational competence but from their subordination to constitutional authority and civilian oversight.

Accountability strengthens this relationship by affirming that the military serves the state and the public, not itself.

Conversely, shielding the armed forces from scrutiny risks fostering insularity, entitlement, and eventual erosion of legitimacy – dynamics that history shows can be destabilising.

Yet symbolism alone is insufficient. The true significance of this moment will depend on process and follow-through. A thorough, independent, and transparently concluded investigation would reinforce confidence and signal institutional maturity.

A stalled or quietly abandoned process would do the opposite, confirming fears that accountability remains conditional. Around the world, failed military accountability efforts have often done more damage than none at all, deepening cynicism and weakening trust.

Equally important is what happens if irregularities are substantiated. Focusing solely on individual culpability risks obscuring deeper structural weaknesses.

Global experience shows that lasting impact comes from coupling accountability with reform: strengthening procurement rules, clarifying lines of authority, enhancing internal controls, and embedding civilian oversight mechanisms that respect security needs without sacrificing transparency.

Ultimately, this moment offers Malaysia an opportunity to align itself with global best practices in civil-military accountability. When scrutiny reaches the highest levels of military power, it does not weaken the state.

It strengthens authority by rooting it in legitimacy and deepening public trust. It also affirms that no institution, however revered, stands beyond the rule of law. 

R Paneir Selvam is the principal consultant of Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd (ARRESCON), a think tank specialising in strategic national and geopolitical matters.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.

- Focus Malaysia.

Rules matter: The case for firm action on littering

 

RECENTLY, Housing and Local Government Minister Nga Kor Ming expressed dismay on his social media about littering on the streets of Bukit Bintang.

He also shared images of the city centre after the Christmas revelry, where rubbish lined walkways and corners in what should be one of Kuala Lumpur’s most presentable streets.

As someone who’s been actively doing community work in Bukit Bintang, I am not unfamiliar with the eyesore. This is why I fully support the Nga’s reminder that come 2026, the government will be enforcing littering laws more firmly.

Cleanliness is not just a cosmetic issue. It is part of the city’s user experience, just like safety, lighting, walkability and public order. When people step into a city centre, they form an impression within minutes.

Overflowing bins, pavements strewn with food wrappers, and food waste lining the roadside, even for short periods such as after a New Year’s countdown, leave the area feeling unpleasant.

Littering also has a real cost—one that residents and businesses pay twice. First, through assessment rates and taxes that fund daily clean-ups.

Second, through lost spending when people shun the place, tourists take fewer photos and shoppers cut their visits short. A messy street is bad for business, especially as we welcome Visit Malaysia Year 2026.

There is also a bigger picture. Less litter on the streets usually means we recycle more. It supports sustainability goals and reduces waste finding its way into drains and rivers.

Cities that are serious about the environment start with basic discipline. You cannot talk about climate goals while ignoring rubbish at your doorstep.

Strict enforcement of littering laws can certainly help. Many Malaysians often look up to Singapore for its cleanliness and civic behaviour. That is partly achieved through strict enforcement, which is something we should emulate.

But enforcement alone will not solve everything. This is also about mindset. We cannot demand First World facilities while keeping a Third World attitude. It is time we stop treating public space as someone else’s problem. That mindset must change. Public space belongs to everyone and we all have a duty to protect it.

Local authorities like the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) have a role to play too. People are more likely to litter when bins are hard to find or already full. Hotspots need more bins at strategic locations, on top of strict enforcement, including using technologies like Artificial Intelligence.

Clean-up strategies can also be smarter. Anyone who lives or works in Bukit Bintang knows the pattern. After New Year countdowns, weekends or big events, rubbish piles up fast. Cleaning resources should match these peaks. Sufficient crew should be deployed immediately after crowds disperse.

Foreign visitors must also be part of the equation. Multilingual and tourist-friendly signages, especially on penalties for littering, help. Visitors usually follow rules when they understand them.

(Image: The Star)

Nga was right to remind visitors that they, like Malaysians, are subject to fines of up to RM2,000 and 12 hours of community work if caught littering from 2026.

From personal experience, litter management in Bukit Bintang is a daily battle. I am sure this is not confined to only Bukit Bintang.

I have seen cleaners hard at work, only for the same spots to be littered again shortly after. It is frustrating but also shows how unfair it is if we don’t do something about it.

That is why firm enforcement matters. It sends a strong message that bad behaviour has consequences.

As the “heart” of the nation’s capital, Bukit Bintang can lead the way. In many respects, the area is Malaysia’s “face” to the world, one where many visitors would often visit. If discipline, enforcement and shared responsibility can take root in one of the country’s busiest districts, there is no reason why it cannot happen anywhere else.

Clean streets are not about image alone. They reflect who we are as a society. Keeping our streets clean is how we show that our values are not just talked about, but lived. 

Ben Fong Kok Seng is the chairperson of the Bukit Bintang Parliamentary Zone Residents’ Representative Council.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.

- Focus Malaysia.

Top 4 political developments that will shape Malaysia in 2026

 

BY far the most consequential political development anticipated in 2026 is the series of state elections expected in Johor, Melaka and Sarawak.

In the last Johor and Malacca state elections, UMNO secured convincing victories under the leadership and shadow of Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

However, that political reality no longer exists—Najib is now incarcerated and following repeated and decisive defeats in court, it is increasingly clear that he is likely to spend the remainder of his life behind bars.

With their once-winning general removed from the battlefield, UMNO now faces an existential question: will the party be galvanised by Najib’s downfall and fight to reclaim his legacy, or will it be so demoralised that it collapses under the weight of his absence?

Sarawak: The election that matters most

(Image: The Borneo Post/Chimon Upon)

The outcome of the Sarawak state election will speak volumes—not only about the future of the Pakatan Harapan (PH)-led government but also about the long-term cohesion of the Malaysian federation itself.

After suffering a heavy defeat in Sabah, Putrajaya simply cannot afford to lose Sarawak. Yet the uncomfortable truth is this: Putrajaya does not appear to have a realistic chance of winning there.

Sabah’s recent political revolt was driven by the “Sabah First” ideology—an idea originally inspired by Sarawak’s own “Sarawak First” doctrine. If the imitator was able to inflict such a decisive defeat on the federal government, it is difficult to imagine the original being any less brutal.

Should Putrajaya lose Sarawak by a margin equal to or worse than its loss in Sabah, that defeat is likely to generate political momentum that carries through to the next general election, projected for 2027, potentially precipitating the collapse of the PH-led government.

The probability of the Madani government fracturing

Almost every major component of the unity government has, at one point or another, threatened to walk away but will any of them actually do so?

Following its poor showing in the Sabah election, a visibly panicked DAP issued an ultimatum: recognise the UEC, or DAP would leave the unity government within six months.

However, public response to the ultimatum was tepid at best. After Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced a cabinet reshuffle—and after the government firmly rejected the idea of recognising the UEC—DAP has since grown noticeably quiet.

Whether DAP will honour its ultimatum or quietly pretend it never happened remains an open question—one that may only be answered by mid-2026.

DAP’s tensions with UMNO extend beyond policy. UMNO leaders have expressed anger over the way certain DAP politicians—most notably Puchong MP Yeo Bee Yin—appeared to celebrate Najib’s court verdict.

Najib’s subsequent conviction in the 1MDB case, which added another 15 years in prison and billions in fines, further inflamed UMNO’s grassroots, reigniting calls for the party to exit the unity government in protest.

On a smaller but still relevant front, MIC—which has openly discussed leaving Barisan Nasional (BN) and the unity government for months—appears increasingly likely either to exit or be forced out in early 2026.

MCA, another minor coalition partner, may also finally be compelled to decide whether it wishes to remain within the unity framework.

Whether these threats are genuine or mere political posturing remains unclear. But if a sufficient number of parties do leave, the critical question becomes unavoidable: Can the unity government survive if everyone threatens to leave—and some actually do?

A change of guard in the Opposition

Perikatan Nasional (PN) has long struggled to sustain a coalition that runs against the natural order of politics. Why is it against the order of nature?

Because PN is led by its weaker partner.

Bersatu, which insists on leading PN, is weaker than PAS by nearly every meaningful metric: party machinery, grassroots reach, ideological clarity, leadership depth, membership size, and overall public support.

Yet Bersatu remains unwilling either to improve itself sufficiently to justify leadership or to humble itself and accept PAS as the coalition’s natural leader.

This unresolved contradiction has strained Bersatu-PAS relations for years. The latest manifestation of that strain surfaced in the Perlis Menteri Besar dispute, where Bersatu attempted to wrest the MB post from PAS, its own coalition partner.

Rather than strengthening itself by confronting its political opponents, Bersatu chose to cannibalise its ally. That act has almost certainly pushed the relationship to the brink of irreparable damage.

The coalition still holds—for now—because neither party has a viable alternative. But politics is fluid, and circumstances inevitably change. When they do, it is difficult to see how Bersatu and PAS can continue pretending that this betrayal never occurred.

Will Zahid still lead UMNO?

UMNO’s party election in March 2026 will answer one of the most pressing questions in Malaysian politics: will Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi remain UMNO president?

Zahid is deeply unpopular within the party. It was his decision to call the November 2022 general election that transformed what could have been a manageable outcome into a devastating defeat.

Prior to that election, UMNO had momentum, winning both Melaka and Johor while Najib’s imprisonment had stirred sympathy and mobilisation among the grassroots.

But Zahid squandered that momentum. Despite UMNO’s collapse, he emerged not weakened but elevated, securing the position of deputy prime minister while also receiving discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) decisions on 47 corruption-related charges.

This stands in stark contrast to Najib, the party’s more popular figure, who has faced relentless legal defeats.

Since UMNO’s last internal election in 2023, Zahid’s leadership has taken the party from bad to worse. He retains power largely because he enjoys the support of Anwar, and because he has systematically neutralised potential challengers such as Khairy Jamaluddin and Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein.

Whether Zahid can continue clinging to the UMNO presidency—despite the party’s deteriorating condition—will be one of the most closely watched political dramas of 2026.

If 2026 has a defining theme, it is this: Survival, fragmentation, and reckoning.

State elections, coalition fractures, opposition realignments, and leadership battles will converge to determine not just who governs but whether Malaysia’s current political architecture can endure at all. 

Nehru Sathiamoorthy is a roving tutor who loves politics, philosophy and psychology.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT. 

- Focus Malaysia.