Global Lessons When Military Power Faces Scrutiny

---

 
THE decision to place Army chief General Tan Sri Muhammad Hafizuddeain Jantan on leave  pending investigations into allegations against him is far more than a routine administrative manoeuvre.
It represents a moment of institutional reckoning that reaches into the foundations of governance, accountability, and civil–military relations.
At stake is not merely whether misconduct occurred but whether the state is prepared to subject even its most powerful and traditionally insulated institutions to the same standards of scrutiny that apply elsewhere.
This question is not uniquely Malaysian; it echoes a global struggle over how democracies reconcile military authority with the rule of law.
For decades, Malaysia’s armed forces have occupied a distinctive place in public perception. They are widely regarded as disciplined, professional, and largely untouched by the scandals that have undermined trust in political and corporate elites.
This reputation has reinforced public confidence and legitimised the military’s role as a stabilising institution. However, such exceptional standing can also foster a belief that the armed forces exist beyond the reach of ordinary governance norms.
The current investigation challenges that belief by drawing a clear line between respect for an institution and exemption from accountability.
Placing a serving Army chief on leave during an investigation should be understood as a governance safeguard rather than a presumption of guilt. Temporarily removing a senior figure protects the integrity of the investigative process, prevents potential interference, and preserves institutional credibility.

In many systems committed to the rule of law, such measures are standard practice. What makes this case significant is not the mechanism itself, but the level at which it is applied—the highest tier of military command, where scrutiny has historically been rare and politically sensitive.
The deeper significance lies in what this decision signals about evolving institutional norms. Historically, senior officials in powerful organisations often benefited from deference that translated into informal protection.
Investigations were delayed, quietly narrowed, or allowed to fade without resolution, reinforcing perceptions that accountability was selective.
By contrast, placing top military leadership under scrutiny suggests a growing recognition that institutional credibility depends on consistency rather than hierarchy. This shift mirrors broader global trends where public tolerance for opaque authority has steadily diminished.
International experience provides important context. Across the world, states have grappled with how to hold military leaders accountable without undermining operational effectiveness or morale.
In the United States, senior officers have faced investigation and prosecution for corruption linked to defence contracting and procurement fraud.
These cases exposed how vast budgets, technical complexity, and close relationships between the military and private contractors create fertile ground for abuse if oversight is weak. Crucially, accountability measures did not weaken the armed forces; they reinforced civilian control and restored public confidence in defence governance.
Latin America presents similar lessons. In Brazil, senior military officers have faced legal action for corruption related to infrastructure and defence projects. These cases challenged the long-standing perception of the military as a moral counterweight to civilian politics.
While controversial, they underscored the principle that professionalism does not preclude accountability. In fact, shielding the military from scrutiny was shown to undermine its legitimacy over time, particularly in societies with painful histories of military intervention in politics.
What unites these global examples is a shared structural reality: defence institutions operate in high-risk environments for corruption. Procurement processes are complex, financial stakes are immense, and decision-making authority is often concentrated among a small circle of officials.
Secrecy, justified by national security concerns, limits external scrutiny and reduces transparency. These conditions do not imply inevitable misconduct, but they demand stronger safeguards than in less sensitive sectors.
Accountability, therefore, is not an optional intrusion but an essential component of effective defence governance.
(Image: Kementerian Pertahanan)Malaysia has not been immune to these structural challenges. Past defence-related controversies, including failed or delayed procurement projects, have exposed weaknesses in oversight without fully resolving questions of responsibility.
In some cases, inquiries focused on technical failures rather than command accountability, reinforcing perceptions that enforcement stopped short of senior leadership.
The present investigation disrupts that pattern and raises expectations that accountability will no longer be confined to the periphery of military institutions.
The implications extend beyond legal outcomes into the broader realm of civil-military relations. In healthy democracies, armed forces derive legitimacy not only from operational competence but from their subordination to constitutional authority and civilian oversight.
Accountability strengthens this relationship by affirming that the military serves the state and the public, not itself.
Conversely, shielding the armed forces from scrutiny risks fostering insularity, entitlement, and eventual erosion of legitimacy – dynamics that history shows can be destabilising.
Yet symbolism alone is insufficient. The true significance of this moment will depend on process and follow-through. A thorough, independent, and transparently concluded investigation would reinforce confidence and signal institutional maturity.
A stalled or quietly abandoned process would do the opposite, confirming fears that accountability remains conditional. Around the world, failed military accountability efforts have often done more damage than none at all, deepening cynicism and weakening trust.
Equally important is what happens if irregularities are substantiated. Focusing solely on individual culpability risks obscuring deeper structural weaknesses.
Global experience shows that lasting impact comes from coupling accountability with reform: strengthening procurement rules, clarifying lines of authority, enhancing internal controls, and embedding civilian oversight mechanisms that respect security needs without sacrificing transparency.
Ultimately, this moment offers Malaysia an opportunity to align itself with global best practices in civil-military accountability. When scrutiny reaches the highest levels of military power, it does not weaken the state.
It strengthens authority by rooting it in legitimacy and deepening public trust. It also affirms that no institution, however revered, stands beyond the rule of law. 
R Paneir Selvam is the principal consultant of Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd (ARRESCON), a think tank specialising in strategic national and geopolitical matters.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.
- Focus Malaysia.

---