The ‘Madani’ promise: Ticking boxes but missing the point

Ahmad Ibrahim

When the “unity government” rode to power on a wave of reformist fervour, the mandate was clear: to rescue Malaysia from institutional decay and grand corruption, and to rebuild a nation on the principles of justice, good governance and economic dignity – the very essence of “Madani”.

Today, a sobering assessment is taking hold. While the government can point to tangible, even commendable, deliverables – from targeted subsidy rationalisation to a more predictable foreign policy – a growing chorus argues these are largely transactional adjustments, not the deep, systemic transformation that was promised.

The critique is potent: the engine of the state is being polished, not rebuilt.

Undeniable progress

There is undeniable progress. The bold, independent pursuit of high-profile corruption cases, regardless of political affiliation, marks a stark departure from the past.

Together, the Public Finance and Fiscal Responsibility Act 2023 (in force since 1 January 2024), the Government Procurement Act 2025 (coming into force in early 2026), and the ongoing – if painfully slow – efforts to finalise a political financing bill are widely seen as foundational to a new governance architecture.

Economically, the focus on attracting quality foreign direct investment in tech and green energy is a strategic pivot.

These are not mere transactions; they are necessary repairs to a battered system.

Yet the shadow over this progress is the persistent inertia within Malaysia’s non-performing and politically compromised institutions. This is where the “transactional vs transformational” critique finds its strongest footing.

Reforming an institution is not about changing its leadership alone. It is about dismantling perverse incentives, rewriting obsolete rules and instilling a new, fearless culture.

The civil service problem

Take the civil service. Long used as an instrument of political patronage and ethnic management, its transformation into a streamlined, meritocratic and performance-driven engine is fundamental to any national reform.

While there is talk of digitalisation and efficiency, the entrenched systems of promotion, the culture of risk-averse bureaucracy and its sheer, bloated size remain largely unaddressed.

A transformational approach would involve a painful, comprehensive restructuring – a political third rail few dare to touch.

Similarly, the reform of government-linked companies and investment arms remains incremental. While governance reporting has improved, their fundamental role in the ecosystem – crowding out private enterprise, serving as a repository for political appointments, carrying massive debt – requires a radical reimagining.

Are they to be truly commercialised, or merely better-managed vehicles of state policy? The answer remains ambiguous.

The deeper reform gap

Perhaps the most telling example is the education and judiciary systems. To transform a nation, you must transform how its children think and how justice is perceived.

While budgets are increased, the curriculum’s insularity, the emphasis on rote learning and the stark quality gap between schools perpetuate the very inequalities Madani seeks to erase.

The judiciary, though more respected now, operates within a framework of laws that still contain draconian and illiberal elements. Repealing or radically amending these – rather than simply promising not to abuse them – is the hallmark of transformational change.

Why the gap between intention and outcome? The answer lies in the politics of a fragile unity government.

Transactional reform can be doled out as benefits to constituencies – aid packages, wage increases, project approvals. It wins short-term gratitude.

Transformational reform, however, disrupts powerful, entrenched interests: the party warlords whose power bases depend on patronage, the bureaucracy resistant to accountability and the ethnic champions who profit from a divided society.

This kind of reform requires spending political capital, not conserving it. For a government surviving on a delicate parliamentary majority, every radical move risks the stability of the coalition itself.

This is the central dilemma of the Madani administration. It is led by a lifelong reformist navigating the confines of realpolitik.

The fear is that in prioritising stability and incremental wins, the window for deep, disruptive change – the kind that alters a nation’s trajectory – may close. Corruption cases will be fought in court, but the ecosystem that breeds corruption might be left intact.

The call, therefore, is not to deny the progress made, but to challenge the government to match its transactional competence with transformational courage.

The electorate’s patience is sustained by the belief that these first steps are a prelude to a longer, more arduous journey. The people must see that the clean-up is not just of those who broke the system, but of the system itself.

The Madani promise will ultimately be judged not by the bad apples it jails, but by the rotten barrels it dares to rebuild. The time for cautious polish is over. The nation awaits the architect.

Professor Dato’ Ahmad Ibrahim is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University. He is also an adjunct professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, University of Malaya.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: