Dr Muhammad Mohan: The perception that political funding is less problematic if it's used for party activities rather than personal gain is quite common. To us, it’s like this: regardless of what you use it for, the source of the funding has to be transparent. — AZHAR MAHFOF/The Star
GOOD governance and combating corruption have become the main orders of the day in the country since Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim took the helm.
The prime minister has long been an outspoken advocate on these issues, so it is not surprising that they are now one of the main pillars of his administration.
And it appears that his fight against corruption and for good governance is starting to bear results; for the first time since 2019, the country’s annual Corruption Perception Index (CPI) score has gone up to 50 in 2023, ranking 57th out of 180 countries.
To further bolster this momentum, the government has since announced that they aim to reach the top 25 ranking in the CPI within the next decade.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is also set to receive an increased allocation of RM360mil under Budget 2025, up from RM338mil this year, to beef up the anti-graft agency and strengthen the country’s fight against corruption.
How else can Malaysia sustain its momentum in improving its CPI score? And what are some of the most challenging obstacles the country faces in changing public perception of corruption in the country?
Sunday Star speaks to Muhammad Mohan, the president of the Malaysian chapter of Transparency International (TI-Malaysia), the organisation that publishes the CPI.
> What are Malaysia's most significant challenges in fighting corruption?
There are several challenges. One is the nexus between politics and business.
In Malaysia, you see, the politicians and the business interests are intertwined and this leads to a culture of money politics. So it makes it very difficult to combat corruption because there is always political interference in enforcement.
For example, during the elections, people need funds and we do not have a political funding act so it is not regulated. So the parties will look for funds and this money is going to come from the business community.
The parties will say, “Can you help us?” so some will provide transport, food, money for flags and so on.
All this is not free. When the party gets into power, then it is payback time.
These guys are going to say, “Boss, I’ve already helped you. Can you give us some projects?”
This is where the political interference comes and this is what we call state capture.
It means that businesses have so much influence on the government that they can actually change the laws or delay the enforcement of the laws.
The other thing is leadership and political will.
When you want to fight against corruption, you need a strong political will. But for you to have political will, first we need to have political stability.
The last five years were wasted because of political instability. So, first, we need political stability, followed by strong leadership that has the political will to push for reforms.
Today, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim appears to be doing that.
Another thing is public trust and awareness. You see, one of the reasons for a very negative public perception of fighting corruption in Malaysia is because of the high-profile 1MDB case.
That has had a big impact on public trust because cases like that involved the top leadership who abused their power for personal gain.
Then, it is the legal and institutional framework.
Under the legislative changes, there are a series of amendments that we are asking the government to make.
For example, the amendments to the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2010.
We have an act which has been enforced since 2010 but the act has a lot of flaws which require amendments. It does not give enough protection to the whistleblowers, especially civil servants. So how do we expect civil servants to come forward and report wrongdoings in the public sector?
I have been involved in this for the last five years. Workshop after workshop, consultation after consultation.
Until today, the amendments have not gone for the first reading (in Parliament).
It is very frustrating.
So, addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, including strengthening institutions, ensuring political accountability, and fostering a culture of transparency and integrity.
> How effective are the current anti-corruption measures in Malaysia? What do you think the public perception is?
It’s still early. I was just in a meeting with government servants last week.
And for the first time, government servants are talking about pushing for legislative changes because they want to tell the prime minister “Datuk Seri, this is your legacy. You are the first prime minister who came and raised our salary and pushed for all these legislative changes.”
Before Anwar came, the last four, five prime ministers, we didn’t even hear the word governance.
Now we hear “governance, governance” every day. So now when they wake up, it’s governance they think about.
So that is a good sign because it shows that slowly it is sinking into people’s minds.
You are not going to see results overnight. This is something the public must understand.
So even if next year, the CPI were to go down, we’ve got to be patient because the efforts he is putting in is not seen yet.
It will only be seen in one or two years.
CPI is not only measuring corruption, it is also measuring integrity, transparency, governance, democracy, government efficiency and bureaucracy.
The prime minister understands this.
Plus Anwar is the first prime minister who took the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) very seriously and set an ambitious target for Malaysia to be in the top 25 in rank globally.
Transparency International-Malaysia has in the past five years recommended the Chief Secretary to the Government take the lead in championing the National Anti-Corruption Plan (NACP) implementation. But it was not taken seriously until recently, Anwar made a commitment and the new Chief Secretary to the Government took the lead and a task force was formed.
> Malaysia improved in the Corruption Perception Index last year, after a steady decline since 2019. What are some of the factors that contributed to Malaysia's improvement?
What a lot of people don’t realise is that the CPI is based on lagging data because it is picked up from secondary data.
In other words, Transparency International (TI) doesn’t do the survey themselves, they pick up the results from different people and then they compile the data, scale it and then come up with the score.
Some of these surveys are not done every year, so when TI picks up the data, if they don’t see the data from this year, they pick up the previous year’s data.
Of course, there are bound to be inaccuracies but what other ways to measure? So we accept that.
The real reason Malaysia went up last year is the conviction of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
That gave the impression to the people that in Malaysia, number one, the judiciary is independent.
Secondly, it gave the impression that the MACC is able to convict anybody, whoever they are.
We also see an increase in public awareness and transparency, partly due to the efforts of MACC's education programmes, civil society organisations' advocacy programmes and to some extent, investigative journalism.
Now the concern we have is for this year, where the results will come out in January next year.
WIth respect to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his team who are trying to do a lot in championing governance, don’t forget that in September last year, our deputy prime minister was given a DNAA (dismissal not amounting to acquittal).
And then there was the news that Najib was going to be given a discount (for his sentence).
Those two factors were not considered in last year’s data, so I am deeply worried about what will happen if that comes into the picture, where instead of the curve going up, it starts coming down.
But I think if this momentum from the current government continues and if they really mean reforms, then in the long run, I hope that it will pick up.
> The government has also set a target to be within the top 25 countries in the CPI ranking in the coming decade. How can Malaysia achieve this target?
To achieve the goal of being among the top 25 countries in the CPI ranking, the first thing we need to do is to strengthen enforcement.
Malaysia has all possible laws you can find but I think enforcement is very key for all enforcement agencies.
The MACC in particular, we need to continue to strengthen its capabilities and also independence.
The other thing to improve the CPI is improving public fund management. One of the things we are recommending is to implement stringent measures to manage public funds in a transparent and efficient manner.
This involves regular audits, transparent procurement processes, and strict adherence to financial regulations.
The most important thing is – and I’m referring to mostly civil servants – when any public officials fail in their fiduciary duties, they must be accountable.
Unfortunately, the culture of accountability is not there in our country.
I’m not talking about corruption here because the MACC Act will take its own course.
Here I’m talking about wastage. Who is accountable for this? Definitely, it is someone leading in the department.
Where is the accountability? I’ve rarely heard of the government sacking anybody because of failing in fiduciary duties.
Unlike in the private sector where if you make a small mistake, I can forgive you, but you make a blunder like this, for example, paying for RM4mil software that cannot be used, you better answer for it.
Just transferring the official or holding their promotion will not change anything.
> Money laundering is intrinsically linked with corruption but it is not one of the measured criteria in the CPI. Why is this so and do you think it should be included?
Personally, I feel it should be included because money laundering cannot happen without corruption.
I would think that including it in the CPI would give us a comprehensive picture but there is another thought to this.
On the flip side, money laundering has a lot to do with financial crime. So it is being handled by another framework and using different indices to measure financial crime.
In the case of CPI, it is a measure of corruption in the public sector. So if you put money laundering in there, it sort of distorts the situation because money laundering rarely involves money in the government.
It happens a lot outside of the government, like in the private sector.
So the moment you put money laundering as one of the measures of CPI, it does not give the real picture of corruption in the public sector.
This is the reason why money laundering is not one of the criteria for the CPI.
> Those who work in fighting corruption often see political funding as one of the major ways corruption can take place, but many among the public tend to think that if the money received was not for personal use, but rather channeled back into the party, it is not a crime. How would you respond to such views?
That's a very insightful question.
The perception that political funding is less problematic if it's used for party activities rather than personal gain is quite common.
To us, it’s like this: regardless of what you use it for, the source of the funding has to be transparent.
If you don’t declare the source of funding then that is already poor governance.
About the perception that it’s less problematic if the money is used for the party rather than for personal gain, you see, within the legal framework in many countries, there is a system on how to channel money.
For example, in Germany, ordinary people like you and me can donate to political candidates but there is a limit.
Your donation will come with a receipt and is tax-deductible. So it is very structured.
The misuse of funds, even for party purposes, can also erode public trust in political institutions.
The 1MDB case highlighted how large sums of money can be misappropriated under the guise of political funding, leading to significant public outcry and loss of confidence in the government.
From an ethical point of view, all funds, whether for personal or party use, must be obtained and used in a manner that is above board. This ensures that political decisions are made in the public interest, not influenced by hidden financial backers.
At the end of the day, we need accountability.
When the public is aware of and acknowledges corrupt practices, it can lead to greater accountability and transparency in governance.
This recognition is important because public awareness can pressure politicians and parties to adhere to ethical standards and avoid corrupt practices.
Recognising corruption can also lead to demands for more transparent political funding processes, reducing the influence of illicit money.
TI-Malaysia's new book The Sin of Corruption: A Religious Perspective looks at corruption from the perspective of six major religions in Malaysia.
> To this day, Malaysia does not have a political financing legislation. Do you think it is time for one? What reforms would you suggest to ensure transparency and accountability in political funding?
First of all, it is timely and for your information, TI-Malaysia has been pushing for this legislation for the past 15 years.
The absence of such laws has been linked to corruption and a lack of transparency in political funding.
If you have a political financing act, just like other countries, there will be a legal framework so everybody knows, okay, come this election, how will MPs fund it and who can fund it and so on.
The second thing is by having this legal framework, you will create an independent oversight body such as an office of the controller of political donations.
In other words, this body will receive your audited accounts, how much you received, and how much you spent, you are compelled to provide this audited report to the oversight body.
The other thing we have asked for is, if you have this act, to ban foreign funding to political parties.
This would help prevent undue foreign influence on domestic politics.
There must also be limits for cash donations. Today with technology, you should do wire transfers to political parties, not to individuals.
The dangers when you have cash involved because you cannot trace (where it goes to).
On second thought, I would say better to ban it because, with a QR code today, you can instantly transfer.
Another thing is we need mandatory disclosure of donations.
Now there is no act so nobody wants to disclose.
The other thing our civil societies recommended is public funding for political parties. In other words, the state will fund election campaigning based on a formula.
For example, if you ran in an election previously but lost your deposit, then of course you don’t qualify (for public funding).
Introducing a system of public funding for political parties could reduce their reliance on private donations and level the playing field.
These reforms could significantly enhance the transparency and accountability of political funding in Malaysia, helping to curb corruption and build public trust in the political system
> Recently, there has been a lot of talk about "safe houses" for politicians. What do you think of this practice and how does it contribute to the perception of corruption among the public?
The use of "safe houses" by politicians to stash money, expensive items, or sensitive documents has indeed been a topic of significant discussion recently.
This practice can severely damage public trust and contribute to the negative perception of corruption for several reasons including lack of transparency, misuse of power, erosion of trust and inequality.
When politicians use safehouses to hide assets, it suggests they have something to conceal, which undermines transparency and accountability.
It also indicates a misuse of power and resources, as these assets are often acquired through questionable means.
The public's trust in political figures and institutions then erodes when they believe their leaders are engaging in corrupt practices.
Such safe houses also highlight the disparity between the political elite and ordinary citizens, fostering a sense of injustice and inequality.
Overall, the existence and use of safehouses by politicians can significantly tarnish their image and contribute to a broader perception of systemic corruption within the political system.
> Some are also saying that it appears that as Malaysia grows more religious, we are becoming more corrupt. Do you agree with the perception that we have this paradox in the country? Why?
There was a research journal paper titled: "Religion, Religiosity and Corruption" written by Omer Geocekus & Tufan Ekici published in 2020 where their findings showed the more religious a society, the higher the corruption, regardless of religious affiliation.
The results are, however, based on perceptions of people from different religions and different countries so more research is required to validate this correlation.
But the perception that increased religiosity correlates with higher corruption levels can be influenced by various factors, including media reports, personal experiences, and societal changes.
Religiosity often emphasises moral and ethical behaviour, which should theoretically reduce corruption. However, if religious institutions or leaders become entangled in political or economic power, it can lead to misuse of authority.
And corruption can thrive in environments where there is a lack of transparency, accountability, and strong institutions, regardless of the level of religiosity.
So some possible reasons for this perception might be the visibility of corruption, political dynamics and the influence of the media.
As Malaysia becomes more religious, any instances of corruption involving religious personality might be more noticeable and criticised, leading to a perception of increased corruption.
Also, if religious groups gain political power, their actions and any associated corruption might be more scrutinized.
Media coverage can also shape public perception, highlighting cases of corruption linked to religious figures or institutions.
As we can see, the relationship between religiosity and corruption is complex and influenced by many factors, including governance such as monitoring and accountability, economic conditions, and social norms.
TI-Malaysia recently published a book called The Sin of Corruption: A Religious Perspective.
The book covers six major religions in Malaysia that are Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism. It was researched and written by the respective religious scholars and researchers.
The findings in this book are that all religions share a common belief that corruption is a sin, a transgression against the Divine Will, and a violation of the basic principles of justice and fairness.
