Never before has a direct familial pairing dominated Malaysia Athletics (MA).

Yesterday, president Karim Ibrahim personally selected and announced his new council, including his daughter, Nurhayati, as the inaugural secretary-general.

Just weeks earlier, Karim had insisted he would exclude her so as to avoid any notion of nepotism.

Instead, he has now consolidated two of the association’s most powerful roles within his own household.

The optics are unmistakable: a bold father‑daughter axis at the helm that has stirred governance concerns at MA.

Critics warn this move smacks of nepotism and poses an inherent conflict of interest.

They say placing kin at the top undermines meritocratic selection and fair oversight.

MA oversees everything from funding and coach appointments to athlete selection and development programmes.

Governance codes for sports bodies typically demand recusal from decisions affecting kin.

By bypassing an open, merit‑based selection process in favour of a family member, Karim has been accused of using his position to benefit his daughter rather than the organisation.

As both president and direct supervisor, the father has a personal stake in his daughter’s role and performance.

That dual relationship makes it difficult — or impossible — for him to act impartially in evaluation or disciplinary matters.

In nearly all governance codes and best practice charters for sports bodies, these practices are explicitly discouraged or prohibited.

Proponents counter that Nurhayati’s previous role as MA general manager gives her familiarity with ongoing projects and strategic plans.

They argue that continuity will sustain momentum on key initiatives.

However, Nurhayati’s concurrent presidency of the Selangor Athletics Association adds another layer of complexity.

That dual role could help or hurt.

On one hand, it might speed up coordination between state and national programmes.

On the other, it could give Selangor’s programmes, athletes and officials unfair advantages.

Rival state associations have voiced fears of a tilted playing field, warning that their own plans may be inadvertently sidelined.

Historically, Malaysian sport has never seen kinfolk share its highest offices.

In other sports, leadership has rotated among technocrats, former athletes and administrators, never along bloodlines.

For athletics, this move risks reviving past mismanagement and secretive decisions that once stalled funding and hurt athlete morale.

Governance experts warn that perceived conflicts of interest erode trust fast.

Athletes may question the fairness of team selections; sponsors could hesitate to invest; fans might lose faith in MA’s stewardship.

If MA wants to safeguard its credibility, it must demonstrate that decisions hinge on merit, not lineage.

Although continuity can help keep projects on track, concentrating executive power in one family inevitably breeds scepticism, no matter the competence of the individuals involved.

The coming months will test the MA leadership’s ability to allay suspicions and demonstrate that merit, not lineage, drives decisions.

Ultimately, the vitality of Malaysian athletics depends on trust.

Trust that champions are chosen for talent, not ties; that administrators serve the sport, not themselves; and that every young runner, jumper, or thrower has an equal shot at glory.

Restoring that belief demands more than assurances; it requires demonstrable, institution‑wide reforms that place talent and integrity above all else.

Only then can MA emerge from this controversy with its commitment to fair play — and its next generation of stars —truly unshadowed by the spectre of nepotism.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.