Individual Corruption

According to a Merdeka Center for Opinion Research Peninsula Malaysia Voter Opinion Poll July 2008, the public is very concerned about the fairness and independence of the Attorney General and the judiciary, and satisfaction with the courts is low. Corruption is assumed to be one of the main reasons behind this popular dissatisfaction with the courts.

According to Freedom House 2011, public frustration over several incidents including the lack of judicial integrity was sparked off in 2007, based on allegations of the executive's influence over the judiciary. Long delays and opaqueness in trials of high-level politicians have fed perceptions of judicial bias. On the other hand, according to Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010, a majority of the surveyed households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 stated that they had not paid a bribe.

Business Corruption

According to Transparency International's Bribe Payers Index 2008, the judiciary is perceived by surveyed business executives to be one of the most corrupt institutions in Malaysia. Furthermore, business executives surveyed by the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 identify the judicial system as being influenced by members of government, citizens and companies enough to constitute a competitive disadvantage. Likewise, they identify the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge government actions and/or regulations as constituting a competitive disadvantage.

Political Corruption

Many observers have expressed concerns over political interference in judicial matters. Freedom House 2011 reports that a judicial crisis broke out in August 2007 involving alleged politicisation of the judiciary. In addition, according to several sources, including the US Department of State 2010 and Freedom House 2011, there are reports of arbitrary or politically motivated verdicts, selective prosecution, and preferential treatment of lawyers and litigants in the legal system. In recent years, there have been numerous publicised examples of dubious judicial practices and political interference in court matters:

- In September 2007, Anwar Ibrahim, the former Deputy Prime Minister, released a tape with evidence of corrupt dealings between a well-connected lawyer, a minister and a businessman involving the brokering of appointments with various judges, fixed high-profile cases and the arrangement of the promotion of judges. The tape provoked public outrage and concern within the judiciary. An independent Royal Commission of Inquiry has subsequently been established and is continuing to investigate judicial corruption, and the so-called 'business-politician-judges nexus'.

- In mid-2008, the Royal Commission of Inquiry released its findings and determined that several high-ranking political figures had been involved in manipulating judicial appointments and improperly influenced the promotion of judges. Later, the Attorney General announced that his office would investigate the allegations. However, in June 2008 all the cases were closed due to a lack of evidence.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
- It takes 30 procedures and 585 days at a cost of 27.5% of the claim to enforce a commercial contract through the courts.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give the Malaysian judiciary's level of independence from influences of government, citizens, or companies a score of 4.3 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and the efficiency of the legal framework to challenge government actions and/or regulations a score of 4.6 and 4.4 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- Nearly 11% of households surveyed consider the judiciary to be 'extremely corrupt'.

- 92.9% of the surveyed households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 reported that they had not paid a bribe in any form, while the rest stated that they did not know if anyone in their household paid a bribe to the judiciary.

- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 3.0 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008:
- Business executives give the judiciary a score of 3.2 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').