Malaysia Country Profile

Judicial System

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 2009, public frustration with 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.

Business Corruption

According to the US Department of State 2008, the Malaysian courts are slow and bureaucratic, which works against timely and efficient settlement of commercial disputes and encourages corruption and bribery. Business leaders surveyed by the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 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 2009 reports that a judicial crisis broke out in August 2007, based on allegations that politicians were using their influence to secure promotion of compliant judges. In addition, according to several sources, including the US Department of State 2008 and Freedom House 2009, 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:

- The 1998 sodomy and corruption trial and subsequent conviction of now opposition leader and former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Anwar Ibrahim, raised concerns regarding the independence of the judiciary. The sodomy conviction was later overturned by the High Court in 2004 and Ibrahim was released thereafter. With hindsight, observers see the case as having been politically motivated and the court to have been influenced by political actors in its judgement.

- In September 2007, Ibrahim 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, but no progress in the investigations has been reported so far.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2010:
- 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 2009-2010:
- Business executives give the Malaysian judiciary's level of independence from influences of government, citizens, or companies a score of 4.2 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 4.4 and 4.2 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009:
- 14% of households surveyed consider the judiciary to be 'extremely corrupt'.

- 11% of households who had contact with the judiciary in 2008 report to have paid a bribe.

- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 3.1 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').