Treading water: While the perception of corruption in Malaysia is not deteriorating sharply, it is not improving either, says Raymon. — AZMAN GHANI/The Star
RAYMON Ram has built his career around exposing and addressing the realities of fraud and corruption in Malaysia.
The Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) president is a familiar figure in conversations about integrity and governance, but his work is grounded in the practical side of investigations and reform.
Beyond TI-M, Raymon is Graymatter Forensic Advisory managing principal and serves with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime as an Anti-Corruption Expert (Research). These roles reflect the breadth of his involvement – from corporate cases to international policy frameworks.
He is candid about the difficulties of the work.
“I feel frustrated. Not because these cases are unexpected, but because they continue to expose the same systemic weaknesses and the ongoing erosion of public trust,” he says.
Yet Raymon insists there is room for optimism.
“At the same time, there is hope, accompanied by a strong sense of responsibility to continue pushing for improvement, as each case serves as a reminder that reform is necessary, and that sustained, structural change can make corruption harder, riskier and less normal over time.”
The following is Sunday Star’s conversation with Raymon.
> Malaysia’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) score stayed at 50 out of 100 in 2024, ranking the country 57th globally. Why do you think the score has not improved, and what does this say about our fight against corruption?
Malaysia’s CPI score remaining at 50 for another year signals stagnation in impact rather than absence of policy.
While anti-corruption frameworks and commitments exist, implementation has been largely procedural and uneven, failing to generate the enforcement outcomes needed to shift public and international perceptions.
There are two main reasons for this. First, weak reform execution [widening say-do gap] and lack of outcome focus. Malaysia has introduced multiple anti-corruption strategies, but continuity has been disrupted by changes in government, and progress has often been measured by actions taken rather than results achieved.
Key reforms – including political financing regulation, freedom of information, police oversight, an independent ombudsman, and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission [MACC] structural reforms – have been delayed, diluted or inconsistently enforced.
Recurring Auditor-General findings on procurement failures and wastage, coupled with limited accountability, reinforce the perception that systemic weaknesses remain unaddressed.
Second, uneven enforcement and perceived impunity. As a perceptions-based index, the CPI is shaped by consistency in enforcement. The public sees some cases moving swiftly, while others involving politically connected individuals face delays, DNAA (Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal) outcomes, or reduced consequences.
Regardless of legal explanations, this feeds the belief that justice is not applied equally. At the same time, everyday corruption persists, with businesses continuing to report bribery risks and cases involving enforcement officers exposing institutional vulnerabilities.
In short, Malaysia is treading water. We are not deteriorating sharply, but we are not improving either. This is particularly worrying given the ambition to reach the top 25 countries by 2033, which would require nearly a 20-point increase in the CPI score. Remaining at 50 shows that Malaysia is well off track unless implementation becomes outcome-driven and enforcement more consistent.
> Between 2018 and 2023, Malaysia lost an estimated RM277bil to corruption and economic crime. How do we stop such massive losses, and what reforms are most urgent to plug these leaks?
Losing RM277bil in just five years is a national emergency. That amounts to approximately RM55bil lost every year – resources that should have gone to public services, development, and economic resilience. Stopping these losses requires systemic reform backed by firm and consistent enforcement.
First, public procurement reform must be enforced. Malay-sia passed the Government Procurement Act last year, a major and long-overdue reform. However, passing the law is only the beginning. Open and competitive tendering must be the default, transparency obligations must apply across ministries, statutory bodies, and government- linked companies [GLCs], and exemptions must be strictly limited. Without robust enforcement, procurement abuse will continue, as illustrated by scandals such as the Littoral Combat Ship project.
Second, beneficial ownership transparency must work in practice. Amendments to the Companies Act require companies to disclose their beneficial owners, but enforcement and data accessibility remain weak. Shell companies and proxy arrangements are still used to hide illicit enrichment. Beneficial ownership information must be accurate, verified and usable by enforcement and oversight bodies if it is to be an effective anti-corruption tool.
Third, financial oversight must carry real consequences. Expan-ded powers for the Auditor-General and fiscal responsibility reforms are positive steps, but audit findings must lead to recovery, corrective action, and prosecution where warranted. Repeated findings without consequences undermine deterrence and public confidence.
Fourth, the GLC and SOE [state-owned enterprises] sectors must be properly scrutinised. GLCs manage vast public assets yet remain vulnerable to political appointments, weak governance, and opaque decision-making. Their procurement, investments and board appointments must be transparent, merit-based and subject to parliamentary scrutiny to prevent further leakage of public funds.
Fifth, corporate accountability must be enforced. Corporate liability under Section 17A of the MACC Act must be applied far more assertively, including against companies involved in bribery, false invoicing, and corrupt procurement practices. Without holding corporations accountable, corruption risks will continue to be externalised onto the public.
Sixth, MACC reforms must be prioritised. The MACC must be institutionally strengthened and insulated from political influence, with clearer accountability to Parliament, transparent leadership appointment processes, adequate resources and enhanced capacity to investigate complex financial crimes.
Finally, transparency and oversight reforms must not stall. A Political Financing Act, a Freedom of Information Act, and a fully operational independent ombudsman are essential to prevent corruption before it occurs and to address systemic governance failures.
> Public trust has been shaken by scandals such as the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) crisis in 2025 and recent arrest of a former army chief. How do high-profile scandals affect reputation, and what steps should institutions take to rebuild public trust?
High-profile scandals cause serious damage to both Malaysia’s international reputation and public trust at home. The FAM case, for example, which resulted in FIFA sanctions over falsified documentation, became global news and reinforced the perception that rules can be bent and accountability avoided here. This goes beyond sports – it reflects on the country’s overall integrity.
In today’s interconnected world, a scandal in any sector can quickly shape how Malaysia is viewed internationally. Domes-tically, such scandals deepen public cynicism, especially when they mirror broader concerns about opaque decision-making and weak accountability in institutions.
Defensive responses, denial, or attempts to downplay wrongdoing only make matters worse, as they signal that leaders are more concerned with protecting reputations than addressing misconduct. This erodes confidence not just in the institution involved, but in governance more broadly.
Rebuilding trust requires decisive and visible action, not statements. First, there must be full transparency. Findings of investigations must be made public, and institutions must openly acknowledge what went wrong.
Second, there must be real accountability. Individuals responsible must face consequences regardless of rank or position. No scapegoating, no vague assurances and no quiet resolutions.
Third, institutions must fix the systemic weaknesses that allowed the scandal to occur. This means reviewing and reforming flawed processes, strengthening controls and introducing independent oversight where necessary.
These reforms must be communicated clearly so the public can see that change is taking place. And leadership behaviour is critical. Defensiveness is not accountability.
Malaysians expect leaders to accept responsibility, admit mistakes, and demonstrate commitment to reform. Where failures involve poor governance or maladministration rather than purely criminal conduct, an independent ombudsman plays an important role in investigating complaints and restoring confidence.
Ultimately, trust is rebuilt through action, not words. When the public sees transparency, accountability and real reform following a scandal, confidence can begin to return. Integrity must be practiced deliberately, visibly and without exception if institutions are to regain public trust.
> How does Malaysia compare with its neighbours in tackling corruption, and what lessons can we learn from countries that are doing better?
With a CPI score of 50 in 2024, we sit above the regional average and performed better than several South-East Asian neighbours, such as Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Laos. This reflects that Malaysia has some institutional foundations in place, including an anti-corruption agency, an active civil society, and a relatively free media.
However, Malaysia also lags significantly behind the region’s top performers. Countries such as Singapore, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Bhutan consistently score much higher.
Singapore’s score of over 80 demonstrates what sustained commitment and zero tolerance can achieve. This comparison is sobering: Malaysia is not a regional leader in corruption control.
The lesson from better-performing countries is clear: political will must translate into consistent action. Countries that control corruption effectively have independent institutions, impartial enforcement, strong transparency laws and long-term policy continuity.
In Singapore, corruption is high-risk and low-reward because no one is seen as untouchable. Malaysia must strengthen the independence and credibility of its enforcement institutions, including the MACC, to send the same signal.
Another key lesson is institutional continuity and transparency. High-performing countries have freedom of information laws, clear political financing rules, strong conflict of interest safeguards, and transparent public spending systems. Many also rely on digital governance, open budgets, and e-procurement to reduce discretion and increase oversight.
> At the end of last year, TI-M stressed the need to “reinforce the spirit of integrity” and sustain reforms. What reforms risk being reversed and how can Malaysia ensure continuity in anti-corruption policies across different governments?
Malaysia’s greatest risk is reform reversal driven by political change. Anti-corruption efforts in this country have too often been stop-start, with each new administration introducing fresh plans while allowing existing reforms to stall or weaken. This lack of continuity undermines credibility and public confidence.
The reforms most at risk include political financing regulation, freedom of information legislation, enforcement of procurement reforms, MACC institutional reforms, the establishment of an independent ombudsman, and governance of GLCs. We have seen this pattern repeatedly: major reform frameworks are announced, but momentum fades once political priorities shift.
Without sustained commitment, even well-designed reforms lose impact. To ensure continuity, anti-corruption reforms must be institutionalised, not personalised. Reforms must be codified.
First, embed reforms firmly in law and governance structures. Key reforms must be legislated and structurally anchored so they cannot be easily reversed. This includes strengthening the independence, accountability, and governance framework of the MACC, ensuring transparent leadership appointments, clear reporting lines to Parliament, and adequate resources to investigate complex financial crimes.
Once embedded in law, reforms become part of the system rather than the agenda of any single government.
Second, anti-corruption must be treated as a non-partisan national commitment. Integrity cannot rise or fall with election cycles. National strategies such as the National Anti-Corruption Strategy must be implemented, reviewed and strengthened, not discarded and replaced.
Third, independent oversight and continuous monitoring are essential. Parliament, civil society, the media and an independent ombudsman must play an ongoing role in tracking reform implementation and calling out backsliding.
Regular public reporting on reform progress creates pressure for consistency and prevents quiet reversals.
> Critics say enforcement is uneven. Do you believe Malaysia’s enforcement agencies are strong enough, and what changes would make them more effective and independent?
When some cases move swiftly while others stall or end in DNAAs, the public questions whether enforcement is truly impartial. This is why MACC reforms are essential.
First, the MACC must be institutionally strengthened and insulated from political pressure. This includes clearer accountability to Parliament, transparent and bipartisan leadership appointment processes, security of tenure for senior officers, and sufficient resources to operate independently.
An anti-corruption agency cannot be effective if it is perceived to be vulnerable to political interference.
Second, enforcement must be consistent and visibly impartial. The law must be applied equally, regardless of status or position. Where decisions are made not to prosecute, clear and transparent explanations must be provided to prevent speculation and erosion of trust. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.
Third, investigative capacity must keep pace with modern corruption. Corruption today involves complex financial structures, shell companies, false invoicing, and layered transactions. The MACC must be equipped with strong financial forensic expertise, data analytics and inter-agency cooperation to investigate sophisticated economic crimes effectively.
Fourth, whistleblower and officer protection must be robust. Enforcement agencies are only as strong as the willingness of people to come forward. Whistleblowers, witnesses, and MACC officers must be protected from retaliation, both legally and institutionally. Without this protection, critical information will remain hidden.
Fifth, an independent ombudsman is necessary to address complaints of maladministration, abuse of power, or enforcement failures that fall outside criminal thresholds.
This provides an additional layer of accountability and strengthens public confidence in the system as a whole.
> In a nutshell, what does the government need to do now in combating corruption?
For me, again, the widening 'say-do' gap has to go down now. You have to bridge the gap of what you say and what's being implemented. And if there are policies, plans or strategies in place, ensure that they are implemented in accordance with what has been mentioned, instead of being treated like ‘checklists’.
