As Malaysia approaches high-income status and the long-held goal of negara maju, the nation faces a crucial challenge – translating economic growth into a mature, resilient democracy.
This requires a structural overhaul that reinforces institutions, upholds the Constitution, and ensures governance benefits all citizens equally.
Democracy cannot be measured by elections alone. While free and regular elections are essential, they serve only as a gateway to democratic governance.
A mature democracy is defined by the strength of its institutions, the separation of powers, and the willingness of those in power to be constrained by law. Without these safeguards, electoral victories risk becoming instruments of dominance rather than mandates for accountable governance.
The Westminster model adopted by Malaysia has, in practice, placed Parliament in a subordinate position to the executive rather than as an equal partner in governance. The Prime Minister’s Office exercises disproportionate influence over national policy, while Parliament is often reduced to a rubber stamp, validating executive decisions with limited scrutiny.
The Dewan Rakyat, which houses both the executive and backbenchers, naturally dominates legislative discourse. With the ruling coalition commanding a strong majority, opposition MPs are structurally disadvantaged.
This imbalance limits meaningful debate and oversight, diminishing the opposition’s capacity to represent their constituents effectively and weakening Parliament’s role as an institution of accountability.
The Dewan Rakyat comprises 222 Members of Parliament elected to represent more than 34 million citizens. In principle, Parliament is divided into government and opposition – the government governs, while the opposition provides oversight.
In practice, however, these roles are not fulfilled to their fullest extent. Without meaningful institutional power and access to resources, opposition MPs are often unable to scrutinise policy effectively or represent their constituents meaningfully.
This structural imbalance weakens Parliament as a whole. It shifts accountability away from institutions towards public outrage and media pressure – an unsustainable substitute for effective democratic governance.
Resource and representation
It has long been convention that not all MPs receive access to the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). For decades, constituency-level resources have been allocated selectively, often along political lines.
The only notable exception occurred during Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s brief tenure as prime minister. Even then, it was a reactive measure driven by post-pandemic recovery needs that made bipartisan cooperation a necessity.
Treating fair fund distribution as an exception rather than a norm diminishes the very purpose of a wakil rakyat. An elected representative who lacks access to basic development resources is effectively incapacitated.
The denial of fair distribution sends a clear subtext to the rakyat – punishment. It implies voters are penalised for choosing the “wrong” party. A mature democracy should never punish voters for exercising their right to elect a representative.
After all, voters in Terengganu – or any opposition-held constituency – are Malaysians before, during and after an election. Access to the Constituency Development Fund is therefore not a privilege for MPs, but a right of the people they represent.
Codifying the ministries
A recurring point of contention during Cabinet formation is the sheer size of the administration. Despite its relatively modest population, Malaysia frequently maintains one of the largest executive branches globally relative to the size of its Parliament.
India’s Lok Sabha, for example, has 543 members, yet its Council of Ministers is constitutionally capped and typically operates with around 80 members. In contrast, Malaysia has at times seen administrations balloon to nearly 70 ministers and deputy ministers. With only 222 MPs in the Dewan Rakyat, almost one in three government MPs often holds an executive position.
This bloat is rarely driven by administrative necessity. Cabinet positions are often used as political currency to secure loyalty from coalition partners.
Moving forward, core ministries covering essential services should be permanently codified in the Constitution. This would prevent ministries from being renamed, merged or dissolved without the consent of Parliament and the King.
Such safeguards are necessary because the hidden costs of constant rebranding are often overlooked. Each name change incurs millions in expenditure – from stationery and signage to digital systems and uniforms.
The 2023 Cabinet reshuffle, which split the Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability Ministry into two entities, is a case in point. While these changes may appear administrative, the duplication of organisational structures and the leasing of new premises drain public funds that could be better spent elsewhere.
Similarly, constant ministry rebranding is often unnecessary. The shift from the Human Resources Ministry’s previous acronym, MHR, to KESUMA reflects a waste of resources and institutional memory. Past examples include the pendidikan–pelajaran cycle, where the ministry oscillated between Kementerian Pendidikan and Pelajaran with no clear benefit.
The Constitution should also cap Cabinet size at a fixed ratio relative to the Dewan Rakyat. Political office must not be traded for temporary loyalty.
A new deal for democracy
Malaysia’s transition towards a high-income nation must be matched by high-value governance. A first-world economy cannot function sustainably within a third-world political structure.
A mature democracy goes beyond elections. It is one where executive power is not abused, Parliament stands firm as a check and balance, and public funding is allocated based on need rather than political allegiance. It is a system where the Cabinet is formed to serve the rakyat, not to appease political warlords.
Structural reforms – from enacting a Constituency Development Fund Act to codifying ministries – are not legal technicalities. They are foundations of political stability.
Failure to institutionalise these reforms risks trapping Malaysia in a cycle of fragile coalitions and partisan retribution.
Success, however, would deliver a nation that is not merely wealthy, but rich in democratic integrity.
Irham Zulkernain hails from Kelantan and is a student of Applied English Language Studies at Universiti Poly-Tech Malaysia.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of Twentytwo13.