Is There More Than Meets the Eye?

The IJM–Sunway Puzzle and a Corporate Intrigue Unfolding

Every so often, Corporate Malaysia produces a story that refuses to sit neatly within the usual boundaries of market logic. The proposed Sunway–IJM transaction appears to be one such case. 

On the surface, it is framed as a conventional consolidation move in construction and infrastructure. Beneath it, however, lies a convergence of political anxiety, market anomalies, whispered investigations, and institutional silence that raises an uncomfortable question: 

Is there more here than meets the eye?

The issue was reignited after UMNO’s recent General Assembly when UMNO Youth Chief Dr Akmal Saleh publicly voiced concerns over IJM. While his remarks were quickly interpreted through a racial or political lens—particularly anxieties over Sunway’s Chinese ownership and IJM’s strategic highway concessions—the substance of the concern deserves a more sober examination. 

Strip away the rhetoric, and what remains is not about ethnicity, but control, valuation, and accountability over national infrastructure assets.

This concern did not emerge in a vacuum. 

As early as August 2025, social media was already circulating rumours that IJM UK-linked entities were under scrutiny by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) over alleged money laundering activities tied to the British property market. 

These claims were never formally confirmed, yet they persisted—fuelled by puzzling corporate behaviour. Among the most cited anomalies was IJM’s decision to invest approximately £50 million for a 50% stake in IJM UK, despite the latter reportedly accumulating losses exceeding £80 million between 2022 and 2023.

No allegation has been proven. But in corporate governance, implausibility itself becomes a red flag. Investors are trained to ask why rational capital would chase structurally loss-making assets—unless the transaction serves objectives beyond profit maximisation. 

When such questions intersect with foreign jurisdictions, luxury property developments, and multi-billion-pound infrastructure projects, curiosity inevitably turns to concern.

These suspicions gained renewed oxygen when reports emerged that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had paid a visit to IJM’s offices. Again, no conclusions have been announced. 

A visit does not equal guilt. But markets are forward-looking, and silence in the face of accumulating smoke rarely reassures.

Against this backdrop came the proposed Sunway acquisition—particularly the structure of payment, which raised eyebrows even among seasoned market watchers. The deal envisages partial settlement via newly issued Sunway shares. 

Ordinarily, this would not be controversial. What makes it unusual is the sharp appreciation of Sunway’s share price, seemingly disconnected from fundamentals. There has been no dramatic shift in earnings outlook, nor is the property and construction sector experiencing a cyclical boom that would justify such exuberance.

This disconnect invites uncomfortable questions. If shares are overvalued, then issuing new shares effectively allows the acquirer to purchase assets cheaply—selling paper strength for real assets. In such a scenario, who bears the dilution? Who absorbs the loss? 

And crucially, were local institutional shareholders and MOF-linked entities fully alert to the implications of such a structure?

These are not conspiracy theories. They are textbook corporate governance questions—ones routinely asked in mature capital markets.

Yet what is perhaps most perplexing is the apparent institutional calm. Despite long-standing whispers that IJM is not quite what it appears to be, despite persistent talk of a powerful “godfather” figure behind its corporate leadership, and despite mounting public unease, officialdom appears unperturbed. 

The Ministry of Finance, despite being both regulator and shareholder via institutional arms, has adopted a posture of studied non-intervention.

It is widely believed that the Prime Minister, who also serves as Finance Minister, is personally uncomfortable with the proposed acquisition. Yet he has chosen not to interfere, citing respect for market mechanisms. 

This principled stance is admirable—but it also assumes that markets are functioning transparently and symmetrically. When information asymmetry, insider advantage, or regulatory blind spots exist, non-intervention can itself become a form of complicity, however unintended.

Adding to the intrigue are suggestions—again unconfirmed—that something larger is unfolding behind the scenes. The absence of clear announcements, the sealing of previously vocal mouths following legal threats, and the careful choreography of public silence all point to unresolved tensions rather than closure.

What makes this episode especially sensitive is IJM’s role as a holder of multiple privatised highway concessions. Infrastructure is not just an asset class; it is a public trust embedded in private balance sheets. 

Any transfer of control, particularly one clouded by valuation questions or governance concerns, must withstand the highest standards of scrutiny.

At its core, this is not about UMNO versus PH, nor Malay versus Chinese capital. It is about whether Malaysia’s corporate ecosystem has become so accustomed to opacity that even glaring anomalies are normalised. 

It is about whether institutions tasked with safeguarding public interest have grown overly deferential to market theatrics. 

And it is about whether political actors speak up only when factional incentives align, rather than when structural risks emerge.

Dr Akmal’s outburst may have been imperfect in tone, but it has reopened a necessary conversation. The real danger is not overreaction—it is premature closure. 

Until investigations conclude, valuations are transparently justified, and institutional stakeholders explain their positions, the IJM–Sunway saga will remain what it currently is: a corporate intrigue, thick with unanswered questions.

And in matters involving national assets, unanswered questions are a luxury Malaysia can ill afford.