Photo: PNTL 2026
Fundasaun Mahein (FM) has consistently argued that Timor-Leste’s long-term peace, stability and development depend on the professionalism and integrity of its security institutions. Recent incidents indicate that politicisation, weak meritocracy and declining professional standards continue to pose systemic risks to the institutional integrity of the security sector.
Specific incidents include alleged smuggling at the Indonesian border involving security officials, accusations that security personnel facilitated illegal activities involving foreigners, and ongoing trials of senior officials for corruption. At the same time, FM observes that ongoing political interference in command structures risks fragmenting the security sector along factional lines. These practices undermine the rule of law, institutional development and public trust in the security sector, while also exposing the country to external manipulation through transnational criminal networks.
FM believes that these are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a broader structural problem: the insufficient development of a professional, merit-based and politically neutral state security apparatus. This article analyses some of the current challenges facing Timor-Leste’s security sector, and outlines some of the reforms which FM believes are necessary to promote institutional strengthening and accountability.
Since independence, Timor-Leste has made significant progress in building its state institutions and consolidating peace. However, FM has repeatedly emphasised that peace and democracy depend not only on the existence of institutions but on how they function in practice. Professionalism, meritocracy and rule of law – particularly adherence to formal rules and regulations – are essential for ensuring that the security sector serves the public interest rather than political or private agendas.
Several recent incidents highlight the growing risks within the security sector in Timor-Leste. First, there have been reports of smuggling activities involving security officials operating along the Indonesian border. These reflect longstanding concerns that the Government lacks the capacity to adequately police its land border and ensure that officials do not take advantage of the weak enforcement environment for personal gain.
Second, recent revelations regarding the penetration of Timor-Leste by suspected “criminal foreign direct investment” have raised serious concerns both within Timor-Leste and internationally. The allegations involve alleged collusion between Timorese officials and transnational organised crime groups, which aimed to conduct cyber-fraud operations under the guise of investments in casino developments. FM has been extremely troubled by reports that that security officials have provided personal escorts to foreign nationals associated with criminality when they arrived in Timor-Leste by private jet, as well as the allegation – supported by video evidence – that one of these foreign nationals was allowed to fire a service weapon at a police shooting range.
Another ongoing issue is that several high-ranking security officials are currently facing trial for corruption and misconduct. Together, these facts suggest that elements of the security sector are vulnerable to corrupt influences, whether by domestic political interests or transnational networks.
Alongside these operational concerns, politicisation within the security sector remains a serious and growing problem. A major recent example is the reappointment of the PNTL Commander beyond the expected retirement period, apparently as a result of political intervention. This has generated significant dissatisfaction within the police ranks, and also raises concerns that institutional rules and regulations are not being applied consistently, especially when it comes to individuals with political connections.
FM observes that PNTL’s command structure is shaped less by formal rank or legal frameworks than personalised and politicised relationships. In practice, some lower-ranking officers appear to exercise greater influence than their superiors due to political backing or connections. This situation risks creating informal power structures that operate in parallel to official hierarchies. Over time, such arrangements can lead to factionalism within the security forces, which poses a serious threat to institutional cohesion and overall stability within the security sector.
In FM’s view, the combined effects of politicisation and weak rule of law are contributing to a decline in professionalism and meritocracy. Many capable and dedicated officers are demotivated as promotions and decision making seem to be influenced by political considerations rather than individual performance or qualifications. This undermines morale and discourages adherence to formal procedures; indirectly it can even promote corruption and criminality by closing avenues for legitimate advancement within the security forces.
At the leadership level, FM is concerned that, with some notable exceptions, academic and professional credentials are not consistently prioritised. Political patronage and personal networks appear to play an outsized role in appointments to command positions. While we acknowledge that the legacy of the resistance and the importance of veterans will shape Timor-Leste’s state institutions, political connections cannot substitute for the technical and strategic competencies required to lead modern security agencies.
These challenges within the security sector should also be understood within the broader context of national development. Timor-Leste is still in the process of building a modern state apparatus. In this context, it is common to encounter arguments that the country must be flexible in its approach to rules and institutions. Indeed, FM has argued that laws and institutions must be properly adapted to the Timorese context, prioritising a “best fit” rather than “best practice” approach.
Despite their validity, FM cautions against using these points to justify departures from the core principles of meritocracy and rule-based governance. Relativistic arguments that present Timor-Leste as a unique or exceptional case risk normalising practices that ultimately weaken institutions and undermine the rule of law. Moreover, in discussions about the complex relationship between development, security and fragility, there is sometimes an implicit assumption that to accelerate development, there must be some tolerance of corruption. In reality, weak rule of law harms economic growth by disincentivising investment, ultimately undermining the very prospects for equitable development it is meant to support.
Equally concerning is the potential for external actors, including transnational criminal networks, to exploit institutional weaknesses. The combination of weak oversight, politicisation and economic opportunity creates an environment in which illicit activities can take root. As FM and many others have warned, transnational crime poses an existential threat not only to Timor-Leste’s internal stability but also to its international reputation. These two dimensions are inseparable: a country dependent on international partnerships, trade, investment and regional cooperation cannot afford to be perceived as vulnerable to criminal infiltration, corruption or impunity.
This risk is especially serious when criminal networks are able to penetrate or influence the state security apparatus itself, turning institutions designed to enforce the law into instruments that can enable and profit from illicit activity. Therefore, the fundamental question that arises is: what happens when the police are no longer seen as guardians of the state and public interest, but instead become aligned with private, political or even criminal interests?
As a full member of ASEAN, there are significant expectations regarding Timor-Leste’s governance, rule of law and institutional capacity. ASEAN member states place significant emphasis on stability, predictability and the ability of institutions to manage transnational challenges, including organised crime and cybersecurity threats. A security sector perceived as politicised, internally fragmented or vulnerable to infiltration by criminal networks will undermine Timor-Leste’s credibility within the bloc, especially as Timor-Leste’s leaders have relied on their own self-image as a democratic country committed to human rights and the rule of law. It may also limit Timor-Leste’s ability to engage effectively in regional and bilateral cooperation frameworks, such as the recently agreed partnership between Timor-Leste and Australia.
Recommendations
FM proposes a series of reforms aimed at strengthening professionalism, meritocracy and institutional integrity within the security sector.
- Establish and enforce clear, transparent criteria for recruitment, promotion and appointments, based on individual qualifications, performance and integrity. Implement measures to improve working conditions, recognise performance and ensure that capable officers are rewarded. These measures are essential for rebuilding trust within the ranks.
- Legal frameworks governing recruitment, appointment, promotion, retirement and discipline within the security institutions must be strictly enforced to maintain institutional credibility and avoid political interference. Oversight mechanisms in the National Parliament, Human Rights Ombudsman and other relevant state bodies must ensure compliance with existing law and regulations.
- Strengthen internal affairs units and disciplinary processes to detect and address misconduct, including corruption and involvement in illicit activities.
- Develop and enforce codes of conduct and implement systematic training programs emphasising integrity, ethics, impartiality and service to the public.
- Invest heavily in advanced training programmes for police, military and intelligence officers, including leadership development, strategic analysis and technical specialisations. International partnerships can provide essential capacity building targeting key areas.
- Increase monitoring and control of border operations and sectors vulnerable to illicit finance and organised crime, including by reforming immigration procedures and ensuring that proposed investments are properly scrutinised for potential illegality.
Conclusion
The challenges facing Timor-Leste’s security sector are serious but not insurmountable. The issues FM has identified in this article – politicisation, weak meritocracy and inadequate professionalism – are interconnected and reflect broader historical processes of state formation, conflict and socio-economic development. Addressing them requires political will, institutional reform and a genuine commitment to building capacity over the long term.
FM repeats that a professional, merit-based and accountable security sector is not a luxury but a necessity. It is fundamental to maintaining peace and stability, supporting sustainable and equitable development and ensuring that Timor-Leste can fulfil its role as a responsible member of the regional and international community.
FM believes that these critical issues within the security sector must be urgently addressed to prevent the erosion of integrity within – and public trust of – these key state institutions. If our leaders fail to act, FM fears that Timor-Leste could face deepening corruption, institutional fragility, penetration by criminal networks, growing popular dissatisfaction and internal instability, all of which will harm the country’s long-term prosperity and stability. Conversely, meaningful security sector reform can strengthen the foundations of the state and secure a more stable and prosperous future for all Timorese people. We therefore urge political leaders and high-ranking security officials to take immediate action to stamp out illegitimate practices and nurture a culture of respect for the rule of law within the security institutions.
