Johor’s move to introduce appointed state assemblymen could undermine democratic principles by granting unelected representatives legislative powers, according to a new policy paper by research organisation REFSA.
In its report titled Johor’s Appointed State Assemblymen and the Democratic Problem of Unelected Legislative Power, REFSA argued that while expertise and broader representation are legitimate policy goals, these should not come at the expense of electoral legitimacy.
The paper noted that supporters of the Johor initiative have pointed to similar mechanisms in states such as Pahang, Sabah and Terengganu, arguing that appointed assemblymen are not unprecedented. However, REFSA said precedent alone does not resolve the constitutional and democratic concerns surrounding unelected lawmakers exercising voting powers.
The report highlighted Pahang as the closest comparison, where five appointed assemblymen were sworn in during 2024, including representatives from several political parties. It argued that this demonstrated the risk of appointed seats evolving into political allocations rather than appointments based on technical expertise.
REFSA also examined Terengganu’s model, which allows for the appointment of non-Muslim or female assembly members to address representation gaps, describing it as more targeted than Johor’s proposal. Sabah’s nominated assemblymen system, meanwhile, was said to arise from the state’s unique constitutional and historical context, making it unsuitable as a direct model for Johor.
Instead of granting voting rights to appointed representatives, the think tank recommended strengthening legislative committees, expanding public consultation, improving research support for elected assemblymen and inviting experts to provide testimony on proposed laws and policies. It also suggested pursuing electoral redelineation to address representation imbalances rather than relying on appointments.
Should Johor proceed with the proposal, REFSA called for strict safeguards. These include barring appointed assemblymen from voting on confidence motions, supply bills and constitutional amendments, requiring cross-party approval for appointments, publicly disclosing candidates’ qualifications, political affiliations and potential conflicts of interest, and prohibiting them from receiving constituency allocations.
The report concluded that expertise should complement, rather than replace, democratic representation. It maintained that elected representatives must remain the primary source of legislative authority, with reforms focusing on stronger advisory mechanisms and better electoral representation instead of expanding the powers of unelected appointees.
