Opposition supporters cheer and wave party flags in Seberang Jaya, Penang, on May 4, 2013.
On May 6 Malaysia re-elected its ruling coalition government, the National Front, to another five-year term after vociferous campaigning and debate on the issue of corruption. This three-part series looks at whether the election’s attention on corruption will produce results. The first part illustrates the economic impact of corruption. The second part, below, describes the discussion of corruption during the election. The final installment analyzes the election results and the likelihood of any major impact on the patterns of corruption in Malaysia.
During the months leading up to the election, various media groups dubbed this year’s political race as Malaysia’s “closest election ever.” More than 13 million voters were registered to vote, a record number for the country. The unusual characteristics of this year’s election brought international attention to Malaysia.
In the election, there are two main competitors: Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat (PR). The current coalition, BN, has ruled since Malaysia’s independence more than 50 years ago. Prime Minister Najib Razak leads the group. However, PR, known mainly as “the opposition” led by Anwar Ibrahim, has obtained greater support in recent years.
One of the central issues of the election was corruption. A January poll by the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research showed 51 percent of Malaysian voters identified fighting corruption as a top priority of the federal government — more than double the proportion identifying any other issue.
In his campaign for BN, Najib publicly pledged to fight corruption if the party retained power. In the last month of the election he pledged to create specialist graft courts and provide greater public disclosure of government contracts.
The opposition coalition also campaigned for anti-corruption policies and social reform, but more effectively capitalized on public discontent. Ibrahim publicly declared that graft and excessive government spending waste approximately RM20 billion (US $6.5 billion or 2.2 percent of GDP) each year. They also vowed in their party manifesto to bring down living costs and boost government efficiency.
PR’s record on fighting corruption, however, is not pristine. When he was deputy prime minister (second only to the prime minister) in the late 1990s, Ibrahim was charged with corruption, though he claimed the prosecution was politically motivated. He was forced to resign his position after a “bizarre” trial and served six years in jail. Nevertheless, many opposition supporters were willing to take the risk, given the pervasiveness of corruption and its impact, as documented in the first part of this series.
As the election approached, Prime Minister Najib showed concern about rising support for the opposition party. Ironically for a campaign highlighting graft and excessive spending, he approved a number of public handouts in hopes of increasing public support. While financial stimuli around election time are not rare among developed or developing economies, they usually cloak themselves in a garb of legitimacy such as targeting the poorest of the poor facing rising prices.
Najib instead targeted measures that would be highly visible and immediately felt. He declared that the government would give away 10,000 individual permits to taxi drivers and benefits for 40,000 staff members of the government’s seven statutory bodies. During the announcement of these handouts, Najib was quoted asking, “I have fulfilled my promises to you, so when the time comes, can you fulfill your promise?”
A month before the election, Najib announced bonuses for 40,000 employees of Petronas, the national oil company consistently ranked as one of the most profitable companies in the world. Najib reasoned his gift as a reward to the employees’ contributions to “nation-building.” The bonuses amounted to RM 1,000 (US $320) for each employee, totaling up to RM 40 million (US $12 million). In the public’s eye, it was clear that Najib was concerned about his position for this election and wanted to buy the public’s votes.
Various media outlets, such as the Free Malaysia Today, took to the Internet to denounce Najib’s poor choices and leadership. Unfortunately, his engagement in money politics sets a disappointing example for other political leaders. In the end BN lost the popular vote, but still won because of a distorted electoral system favoring the party. Allegations of non-national voting and multiple voting remain rampant in the media even after the election. To regain public confidence, BN needs to match actions to words in their fight against corruption. In the final part, we will analyze what this result means for the future of corruption and anti-corruption efforts for Malaysia in the future.
Olivia Low is a Rice University rising senior who this spring completed the Baker Institute’s first-ever undergraduate course on public policy. Russell Green is the Will Clayton Fellow in International Economics at the Baker Institute.