REBUKE WITHOUT ACTION: THE MADANI GOVERNMENT IS LOSING DIRECTION

REBUKE WITHOUT ACTION: THE MADANI GOVERNMENT IS LOSING DIRECTION

By: Khairul Faizi Ahmad Kamil

The statement by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in the Dewan Rakyat that he had “sternly reprimanded” his political secretary over the letter of support involving a hospital project last year opens yet another significant episode in the ongoing discourse on integrity and institutional reform within the current administration.

On the surface, the Prime Minister’s insistence that he does not allow any form of support letter beyond the phrase “please review” appears consistent with the reformist principles he champions. Yet behind this statement lies a far more important question: Is a stern verbal reprimand sufficient when the issue involves the integrity of public procurement?

Support Letters: An Old Culture That Still Lives On

The culture of issuing “support letters” is not new in Malaysian politics. It has long been a symbol of power networks, where an individual’s position is often used as a gateway to influence government procurement decisions. While not necessarily criminal, such letters create a perception that certain parties are being given unfair advantages.

In this case, the allegation by the Member of Parliament for Pasir Mas that out of six contractors listed in the support letter, only two possessed proper qualifications while the rest lacked CIDB records or were under disciplinary scrutiny raises serious questions about the selection process.

More critically, the project in question is not a trivial one. It involves the construction of a hospital, a public healthcare facility that requires highly qualified companies due to its direct impact on safety and national reputation.

The Issue Is Not Just the Letter. It Is the System and Integrity.

There are at least three fundamental questions that cannot be resolved through reprimand alone:

1. The Position and Power of a Political Secretary

A political secretary is the closest aide to the Prime Minister. They have access to all affairs, information and channels of power.

When such an individual issues a support letter for a government project, the implications are serious:

it carries an “aura of authority,” as if representing the Prime Minister himself,

it may influence ministry officials,

it opens the door to perceptions of favoritism and interference.

In such a context, a verbal reprimand appears disproportionate to the gravity of the act.

2. Inconsistency in Standards of Accountability

For civil servants, any form of support letter that violates procurement procedures often results in:

• transfer or reassignment,
• internal investigation,
• disciplinary action.

Yet in this case, the political appointee involved received only a “stern reprimand.”

This raises the question: Are the same standards applied to all? Or do two sets of rules exist; one for civil servants and another for political operatives?

3. Public Perception and the Contradiction of Reform Rhetoric

The Anwar administration frequently highlights integrity, “no more interference,” and the rejection of support-letter culture. Therefore, this issue is not merely administrative, it is a direct contradiction between proclaimed principles and actual actions.

The public evaluates not through statements alone but through consistent actions.

What Should Have Happened?

In any healthy democratic system, breaches of integrity involving senior political staff are usually accompanied by:

1. A Transparent and Documented Internal Investigation

This is necessary to determine the scope, intent and severity of the act.

A reprimand without formal investigation offers no justice neither to the officer involved nor to the public.

2. New, Stricter Guidelines

A mandatory SOP for all political secretaries and special officers should include:

• a strict prohibition against issuing support letters for contractors,
• only “please review” letters allowed,
• automatic consequences for violating these rules.

3. A Review of All Past Support Letters

If one such letter surfaced, there may well be others. A comprehensive audit should be considered to strengthen the government’s integrity.

4. Referral to the MACC if Any Abuse of Power Is Suspected

Even without explicit evidence of corruption, any action that influences procurement decisions warrants review by an independent body.

Why This Matters

Integrity crises do not begin with grand corruption.

They begin when a system tolerates small deviations from proper conduct.

Even minor breaches can normalize abuse of power over time.

The Madani government claims to champion reform, transparency and integrity.

But reform is not delivered through speeches, it is demonstrated through consistent and morally courageous decisions, even when politically inconvenient.

Conclusion: Reprimand Alone Is Not Enough

It must be understood that this issue is raised not to attack PMX, not to score political points, and not to vilify individuals.

This is fundamentally about public trust in institutions and the fading promise of reform.

A mere stern reprimand is inadequate especially when the individual involved is someone extremely close to the Prime Minister and the issue pertains to potential influence over public procurement.

Malaysians deserve to see actions that are more concrete, transparent and decisive.

The Madani government increasingly suffers from the perception that its reform agenda is little more than rhetoric, lacking the courage to apply the same standards to everyone.

KFAK