Why resignations became Malaysia’s default reform

Across sport, politics and business, stepping down is treated as closure. But exits without reform only reset the cycle for the next failure.

In Malaysia, institutional failure follows a familiar script: pressure builds, a leader steps aside.

Headlines declare accountability. The story moves on.

But the systems that caused the damage often remain untouched.

This is the harder truth. Leaving office rarely fixes the structures that enabled failure.

Yet across sport, politics, public institutions and corporate boards, we have come to accept a simple equation: someone has gone, therefore the problem is solved.

It is not.

The recent collapse at the Football Association of Malaysia fits the pattern.

The entire executive committee stepped aside after falsified documents surfaced in the naturalisation process. Fifa imposed sanctions and the AFC launched a review.

The collective exit signalled cooperation. It did not explain how the failure occurred, or how it will be prevented from happening again.

Stepping aside can be an act of responsibility. It can also act as a pressure valve. Public anger cools. Attention shifts.

Unless rules, checks and roles change, the same weaknesses persist. Influence does not vanish. It simply relocates.

Malaysia carries a long cultural habit of ceremonial departures — gestures that protect institutions and reputations while deeper flaws remain unexamined.

Football mirrors the habit

Malaysian football did not unravel because of a single decision.

Weak oversight, blurred authority and poor compliance allowed problems to grow. A walkout alone will not repair those gaps.

State associations, club boards and informal networks remain intact. These spaces can absorb influence and preserve old practices.

That is why exits must be followed by firm safeguards: transparent audits, clear compliance rules and limits on overlapping roles.

Without them, reform becomes theatre.

Politics: exits without repair

The same reflex appears in politics. Calls for leaders to step aside surface after every major controversy. Often, someone does.

Then the spotlight shifts to the next crisis.

The 2016 Citizens’ Declaration demanded Najib Razak’s departure amid the 1MDB scandal. What followed was political realignment, not institutional repair.

More recently, Shamsul Iskandar Akin left his post as political secretary to the prime minister amid bribery allegations. Yet such exits rarely answer deeper questions about safeguards against abuse of power.

In other democracies, ministers step aside to allow scrutiny to proceed. Here, departures often close the conversation instead of widening it.

This extends beyond national politics. Public agencies have seen senior figures leave under a cloud, while tender systems, audit controls and enforcement mechanisms remain unchanged.

The next failure is treated as a surprise.

Boards shuffle, problems persist

Corporate Malaysia offers similar lessons. When senior executives depart amid controversy, boards reshuffle. New names appear. Media interest fades.

But governance practices — audit independence, incentive structures, board accountability — rarely change.

That protects reputations, not institutions.

This is not limited to a few bloated corporations. It reflects a broader culture that prefers exit over organisational repair.

Once a leader goes, the narrative shifts from systems to personalities. The board stays, incentives remain, and the public moves on.

What others do differently

Compare this with some international responses. After the 2015 Fifa corruption crisis, departures at the top were tied to structural reform.

Independent audit and compliance bodies gained real authority. Executive power was constrained and oversight mechanisms were redesigned.

The reforms were imperfect, but they altered how decisions were monitored.

That is the difference. In Malaysia, exits often close a chapter. Elsewhere, they open a rewrite.

Entire committees can leave, but without clear separation of accountability, transparent compliance frameworks and independent audits, the conditions that enabled misconduct linger.

A walkout alone does not stop influence from resurfacing elsewhere.

Why this keeps happening

Why do we default to exits?

Partly because our culture values continuity and face. Public confrontation is uncomfortable. Rule changes threaten entrenched interests.

A leader stepping aside offers a neat ending: someone paid a price, so the matter is settled.

Media and civil society often reinforce this. Coverage focuses on who left, less on what must change in law, process or structure.

Image management wins. Institutional repair loses.

The big test

Breaking this cycle requires a shift in focus.

The key question is not only who left office, but who will fix the frameworks that allowed failure.

In football, that means independent audits, transparent appeals and clear separation of governance roles.

In politics, it means enforceable transparency laws, conflict-of-interest safeguards and truly independent investigators.

In business, it means boards that prioritise accountability over patronage.

Leaving office should mark the start of scrutiny, not its end.

Malaysia still has a chance to learn this lesson. But the question remains the same across sport, politics and corporate life: when did stepping aside replace fixing systems?

Until that is answered honestly, exit will remain an escape hatch, not a path to reform. - FMT

Celebration at the start: some members of the FAM executive committee mark their appointment. Months later, the entire leadership stepped aside as governance failures came under scrutiny. (Facebook pic)

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