This article was first published on Fulcrum, the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute platform, on 20 August 2025 here.
A new Act to improve government efficiency in Malaysia would help streamline the bureaucracy and reduce regulatory burdens. It could be improved, however, by adding some parliamentary oversight.
Since taking office in November 2022, Malaysia’s MADANI government has rolled out at least 12 official national master plans and policy frameworks. Under the 13th Malaysia Plan, it aims to deliver 95 per cent of government services fully online by 2030, positioning Malaysia as a “high-income digital economy powered by artificial intelligence (AI)”.
Yet, the implementation of such plans remains a perennial question. Monitoring and evaluation of these targets are rarely done or reported. To address this, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is banking on the Government Service Efficiency Commitment Act 2025. This was passed earlier this year to “enhance the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the government service” by streamlining the bureaucracy, reducing regulatory burden and introducing service performance ratings.
The Public Service Department, which will lead reforms with the Ministry of Economy and the Malaysia Productivity Corporation (MPC), aims to transform work culture and strengthen public-private sector collaboration. These efforts also align with the new Chief Secretary (CS) Tan Sri Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar’s plans to revamp the civil service.
The Act enshrines principles of service efficiency, governance responsibility, structural reform and regulatory effectiveness. Significantly, it embeds governance, integrity, and transparency — language rarely adopted by the civil service — against a backdrop where 43 per cent of those detained by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in 2024 were civil servants.
Under the Act, Government entities are required to reduce the regulatory burden by at least 25 per cent every three years, as well as review the procedures under their regulatory instruments. Then Economy Minister Rafizi Ramli had said in August 2024 that the intention was for the legislation to reduce bureaucracy and simplify procedures for businesses. However, which entities will be required to do so and how exactly “regulatory burden” is defined or measured is not stated within the Act.
Notably, the Act provides wide powers to the CS to design rating methods for service delivery, issue directives and require heads of government entities to prepare and submit periodic service performance reports, and “any other information as may be directed”.
This is a significant development. While the CS already oversees the administration of ministries and their agencies, this law extends reporting to statutory bodies, state government entities and even local governments, which are not currently under the CS’ purview. If the reporting line for state government entities and local governments bypasses state governments, this potentially further centralises authority within federal hands. Clarification on how the provisions relate to individual statutory bodies’ Acts is also required.
The CS may at his discretion request reports “from time to time”, without a standardised rating procedure or schedule across all government entities. Ministers may appoint qualified persons to examine and assess these reports, the findings of which are submitted to the CS. However, without an independent verification process, self-reporting risks becoming both highly subjective and perfunctory. Since better ratings can lead to greater federal recognition and funding, the stakes for these assessments are high.
Accountability gaps still remain. Ministers are not obliged to table performance reports in Parliament; the Act only says they “may” do so. A “Government Service Efficiency Commitment Report” on overall performance is to be prepared every three years. At the very least, a redacted version of this report should also be published online and tabled in Parliament for public access.
The Act provides a broad framework to improve service performance in Malaysia, but detailed governance mechanisms are needed to truly transform the public service’s work culture.
The third element of the Act that is striking is that service performance reports can be submitted voluntarily by any state government entity to the CS. This is consequential to federal-state fiscal relations in the country, given that these reports – and ratings contained therein – can be used as criteria to determine federal financial allocations to the state entity.
Apart from federal-to-state grants based on population, road coverage, revenue growth and ecological indicators, other forms of federal government transfers to state governments have no formula. In the past, the politicisation of development funds took place, favouring states aligned with the ruling government. While some performance requirements already exist for some federal-state transfers, the new Act links performance to financial rewards in a more direct and concrete way.
The Act provides a broad framework to improve service performance in Malaysia, but detailed governance mechanisms are needed to truly transform the public service’s work culture. This could drive a culture shift in the country’s public service, if implemented transparently and fairly. However, without sufficient checks and balances, it risks consolidating power in the hands of the federal executive through the CS, whom the government of the day appoints.
One way of improving the Act’s governance is to introduce parliamentary scrutiny on top of existing executive oversight. Lower House Standing Orders were recently amended to enhance executive accountability to Parliament, by elevating the status of Special Select Committees to Standing Select Committees. This made them permanent. That said, however, important public institutions like the MACC do not fall under the purview of any permanent select committees. A new select committee could be set up to oversee government service efficiency, where the Government Service Efficiency Commitment Report could be reviewed.
Finally, federal and state-level government-linked investment companies and government-linked companies (GLICs and GLCs) could be included under the Act, while a separate State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) Governance Act should also be enacted. These moves would strengthen transparency and accountability, ensuring the government fulfils its promise of delivering a more efficient and responsive public service. They would also help the government to implement policies and plans more effectively.