I was struck by Gopeng MP Tan Kar Hing’s recent criticism of the contradictions emerging in Malaysia following federal territories minister Hannah Yeoh’s announcement on Feb 1, 2026 of a study conducted into the possibility of electing a mayor for Kuala Lumpur.
Tan lamented that some opponents of the proposal have, in typical local political fashion, resorted to racial and religious arguments.
He firmly rejected the notion that voters should prioritise race or faith in selecting a mayor, arguing instead that leadership quality and sound policy must surely be the defining criteria.
I agree wholeheartedly.
In many mature democracies, voters in major cities evaluate candidates based on competence, experience, vision, and integrity — not skin colour, ethnicity or religious background.
In this instance, London and New York offer powerful lessons.
The case of New York
In November 2025, voters in New York elected Zohran Mamdani, a Democrat, as mayor. Indeed, this was a rare outcome, unpredicted by many around the world.
Born in Kampala, Uganda, and raised in the United States, Mamdani is a Muslim and the son of migrants, and was educated at Bowdoin College in Maine.
As we know, Muslims make up roughly less than 10 percent of New York City’s population — hardly a majority. Yet, voters did not fixate on religious demographics.
They assessed Mamdani’s education, experience, policy platform, and his performance during the Democratic primary process before entrusting him with leadership.
He assumed office in January 2026 as New York’s first Muslim mayor. The lesson is straightforward: New Yorkers voted for capability, not communal identity.
London led the way
Across the Atlantic, London provides an even longer-running example, leading the way for others to follow.
In 2016, Sadiq Khan, the son of Pakistani immigrants and a practising Muslim, was elected mayor of London.
He was re-elected in 2021 (after a pandemic delay) and again in 2024, securing three consecutive terms.
Muslims comprise less than 15 percent of London’s population. Yet voters backed him repeatedly, judging him on governance rather than his migrant background or religion.
Under his leadership, London strengthened its global standing as a business and tourism hub. Public transport initiatives under Transport for London expanded in capacity and modernised. Fiscal management improved.
His congestion charge policy, a bold measure to discourage private vehicles from entering central London, became an international model emulated by other major cities, including New York.
Sadiq Khan’s tenure also illustrates another key principle: resilience and independence.
As a Labour politician, he governed London while the United Kingdom was led nationally by the Conservative Party. Despite political differences with central government, city administration continued effectively.
In both London and New York, the electorate proved that race, religion and migrant origins are not barriers when competence is evident.
Islamophobia and racial rhetoric did not dominate the discourse. The debate centred on housing, transport, climate resilience, economic opportunity and urban liveability.
KL’s crossroads
Will Malaysia rise to that standard?
Should KL’s mayor be chosen based on ethnicity or faith, or on the ability to tackle:
- affordable housing shortages
- flash floods
- traffic congestion
- waste management failures
- overdevelopment
- inadequate public transport, and
- the unchecked grant of excessive plot ratios which have seen skyscrapers dominate the city skyline?
What is the value of high-rise towers in the heart of KL when drainage systems remain insufficient, and flash floods continue to paralyse the city?
What of long-delayed urban renewal projects, unresolved land issues, and abandoned developments that stand as monuments to mismanagement?
Running a global capital demands expertise, transparency, accountability and freedom from corruption.
It requires a leader capable of resisting undue political pressure and making difficult, and sometimes unpopular, decisions in the interest of city dwellers and the public.
Political maturity demands that we move beyond communal calculations.
Nearly half of Kuala Lumpur’s population today is Malay. Are Malay leaders suggesting that they cannot win in an open mayoral contest?
Are there no capable Malay candidates who could command the confidence of the majority based on merit?
Or is the real fear that voters, when given the choice, might prioritise competence over patronage?
If the prime minister’s repeated calls for clean, transparent governance are to mean anything, then the ultimate test is simple: trust the people to vote for the right mayor.
Let Kuala Lumpur’s residents decide. Let them judge based on vision, integrity and administrative skill, not race, not religion.
Gong Xi Fatt Chai and Ramadhan Kareem.
The author can be reached at: [email protected].
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.