Reform, retaliation and the rot within: What the Rafizi case really tells us

The timeline began in October 2023, following a Brazil-Asean event called Semiconductors: Unveiling Global South Synergies.

Brazil and Malaysia were exploring joint development of integrated circuit (IC) design – or risk being left behind by Vietnam’s emerging semiconductor manufacturing prowess.

In April 2024, at the KL Summit, Malaysia held talks with Arm Holdings president CK Tseng.

The national semiconductor strategy, unveiled by May 2024, aimed to move Malaysia up the value chain – from testing and assembling circuit boards to research and development in high-end chip design.

In March 2025, Malaysia agreed to pay Arm Holdings RM1.1bn ($250m) over 10 years for seven high-end chip design blueprints. It was the first time Arm had partnered with a national government rather than a private company. Arm also agreed to open its first Southeast Asian office in Kuala Lumpur.

One detail worth noting: the official signatory was the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority – under Tengku Zafrul Aziz’s Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (Miti), not Rafizi Ramli’s Ministry of Economy.

Much of the commentary has focused on a compliance dispute, rather than analysing the contradictions within Malaysia’s ethnocapitalist ruling bloc – as seen in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption (MACC)–Rafizi episode.

Political fallout

The political fallout of 2026 began after Rafizi publicly called for MACC chief Azam Baki’s suspension. This followed a Bloomberg report on Azam’s alleged shareholding violations.

Shortly after, three Malay NGOs filed complaints with the MACC targeting Rafizi – over the Arm deal and the national energy transition roadmap – citing alleged figures of around RM3.6bn.

While the MACC investigates whether the Arm agreement received proper approvals from Miti and the Ministry of Finance, Rafizi threatened to sue the government for character assassination if he is not formally charged in court. He said he would “drag everyone – Tengku Zafrul (former investment, trade and industry minister), Anwar Ibrahim, Amir Hamzah (second finance minister)… everyone, to court” (The Edge). The MACC maintains focus on procedure (official statements).

Ethnocapitalism and fractional struggle

Any analysis of Malaysia’s political economy must reckon with ethnocapitalism – a system in which capital accumulation is mediated through ethnicised patronage networks, government-linked companies and politically embedded financial elites.

The MACC probe, viewed beyond the typical public lens, may be better understood as a struggle between fractions within the ruling class itself. It is not a confrontation between capital and labour – but a conflict over the direction of accumulation.

Within this formation, at least three fractions of capital can be discerned:

• reformist-technocratic managers advocating governance rationalisation (Rafizi and his team)
• government-linked companies–financial capital aligned with entrenched bureaucratic circuits (Umno remnants)
• party-linked patronage networks embedded in ethno-political clientelism – a hybrid of reformist technocrats and entrenched government-linked companies

The technocratic reformist camp places transparency and industrial improvement at the centre of national strategy. They see the Arm-related agreement as tied to semiconductor positioning and strategic industrial policy. In this reading, the stakes extend beyond administrative procedure. At their core, they concern who controls access to technological rents and global supply-chain integration.

On the other side sits the state’s deep involvement in the market through government-linked companies. These were historically intended to redistribute wealth and reduce ethnic inequalities under the New Economic Policy (NEP). Their present function, however, increasingly resembles that of a “new comprador class” – the state mediates between global monopoly-finance capital and domestic ethnocapital. In practice, contracts linked to government-linked companies often deepen ethnocapitalist entrenchment, stifle class mobility and reproduce inequality. This plays out not only along class lines but also through racialised patronage networks, as was evident under Umno-dominated governance in previous years.

The hybrid of reformist technocrats and entrenched government-linked companies is clearly visible in the control of data-centre hubs, real estate investment trusts’ property ownership and the continuance of wealth-worshipping (Fadiah Nazri 2024; CS Loh 2024).

As Nicos Poulantzas wrote in State, Power, Socialism: “The state is the material condensation of a relationship of forces among classes and class fractions.”

Passive revolution and reformist friction

Gramsci’s concept of “passive revolution” helps illuminate this episode. It describes reform from above – modernisation without mass transformation.

Malaysia’s recent governance discourse stresses transparency, efficiency and institutional strengthening. Yet these reforms are still seen to operate within the same structural architecture of ethnocapital accumulation.

Put simply: any reform that threatens entrenched circuits of rent will generate backlash. Anti-corruption processes may then become the arena where reformist impulses collide with established patronage structures.

If Rafizi’s claim of political retaliation gains traction, it would suggest that reformist modernisation has encountered resistance from within the state itself.

If the investigation proceeds formally and transparently – as the MACC claims – it may instead reinforce institutional authority.

Either way, the episode exposes the tension between technocratic rationalisation and embedded patronage capital.

Crisis of legitimacy

Media amplification has turned what began as a bureaucratic review into wider political drama.

Gramsci observed that crises emerge when the old order struggles to maintain authority: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born.”

If reform appears compromised, public consent weakens. If anti-corruption enforcement looks selective, cynicism deepens. The risk is not only reputational – it concerns the stability of hegemony itself.

Bob Jessop’s strategic-relational approach reminds us that institutions tend to privilege certain strategies over others. An anti-corruption apparatus may function neutrally in theory. In practice, it operates within a structured field of power.

Recomposition or containment?

The real question here is not guilt or innocence. It is whether this episode shifts the balance among ruling-class fractions.

If quietly resolved, the system will have demonstrated adaptive resilience.

If it escalates, we may be witnessing a deeper friction within Malaysia’s ethnocapitalist formation – a struggle over leadership, legitimacy and the future direction of accumulation.

In that sense, the MACC–Rafizi episode is less about compliance and more about hegemony itself – who commands it, how it is maintained, and whether reform can proceed without destabilising the very structures it seeks to modernise.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: