Malaysia’s fight against corruption is often framed as a matter of enforcement: catch the offenders, prosecute the guilty, recover the money. But anyone who has watched scandal after scandal unfold knows enforcement alone is not enough. If we want to stop corruption, we must reduce the opportunities for it to take root in the first place. One of the most direct ways to do that is to pass a Political Financing Act.
A Political Financing Act targets a corrosive form of corruption: the quiet exchange of money for influence. Elections are expensive- campaign machinery, advertising, logistics, and mobilisation all require substantial funds. Parties therefore seek donations, and the biggest donors are often wealthy individuals, business tycoons, and corporations. The danger is not only outright bribery, but the creation of dependency: once a politician gains power, they may feel pressured to reward donors through favourable contracts, regulatory exemptions, land deals, licences, or policy decisions-choices made for the benefit of financiers rather than the public who elected them. Transparent, enforceable rules on political funding help break this cycle by exposing who pays, how much they pay, and what they might expect in return.
The clearest sign that this reform is not only necessary but politically feasible came recently from within Barisan Nasional itself. At UMNO’s general assembly, UMNO Women’s chief Datuk Seri Dr Noraini Ahmad urged UMNO to take the lead in ensuring a Political Financing Act is realised without delay. In her words:
“UMNO must be a pioneer to ensure a Political Financing Act is established as soon as possible. With this Act:
– Every sen that comes in will be clearly recorded
– Every contribution will be disclosed transparently
– Every donor’s identity will be known
– There will be no more room for slander and accusations!”
This is a remarkably straightforward statement of what good political finance regulation should accomplish: recording, transparency, disclosure, and accountability. It is an institutional safeguard- one that can prevent illicit money from quietly shaping public decisions long before any wrongdoing becomes visible.
If we need a concrete example of why this matters, we only have to look to Sabah. Last year, Malaysia was again confronted by allegations of money being offered or discussed in exchange for state decisions, brought to public attention through a series of videos and related claims that spurred investigation and national concern. As with many corruption controversies, public debate quickly became polarised: who is telling the truth, who is politically motivated, who edited what, who knew whom. But beneath the noise sits a more basic problem: a system that allows opaque flows of money to mingle with power, with too few enforceable rules.
A Political Financing Act will not magically make bad actors virtuous. But it can make wrongdoing harder to hide and easier to prove. It can establish legal duties for parties and candidates to keep proper accounts, disclose funding sources, and submit to independent audits. It can create meaningful penalties for hiding donors, using proxies, or funneling money through intermediaries. It can also help separate legitimate political participation-ordinary Malaysians supporting causes they believe in-from the dangerous reality of policy being quietly “purchased” through undisclosed funding.
One of the most common excuses Malaysians hear whenever promised reforms stall is: “We can’t enact reforms because this is a unity government; it’s not a Pakatan Harapan administration.” Commentators and civil society groups have repeatedly noted that coalition politics has slowed or diluted key reform commitments.
But that argument is now increasingly moot on political financing. UMNO is the strongest party within BN, and its Women’s chief has publicly called for precisely this reform. If UMNO leaders can speak this clearly about political funding transparency, then what exactly is stopping the government from acting?
If the government truly believes in institutional reform, it should table and pass a Political Financing Act that includes, at minimum:
- Mandatory disclosure of donations above a reasonable threshold, including donor identity, amount, and date.
- Clear prohibitions on anonymous large donations, foreign funding (where appropriate), and the use of proxies or shell entities to disguise donors.
- Spending and reporting rules during election periods, so contests are not distorted by untraceable money.
- Independent oversight and auditing, with an empowered body able to investigate, compel records, and penalise noncompliance.
- Real penalties- not symbolic fines that can be treated as a cost of doing business.
Malaysia has learned, painfully, that corruption thrives when money moves in the shadows. And when scandals erupt, the public is left with distrust, cynicism, and endless political point-scoring. A Political Financing Act is not about protecting any one party from “fitnah”; it is about protecting the public’s right to know who funds political power-and ensuring that government decisions serve voters, not undisclosed financiers.
Datuk Seri Noraini Ahmad has put the principle plainly: record every sen, disclose every contribution, and know every donor. If that is truly the standard Malaysia should uphold, then Parliament should act accordingly- now, not later.
Ideally, it would be better if political campaigns are run from public funding rather than private donations. This would completely eliminate the problem of rich donors influencing politicians. But a Political Financing Act that gives us transparency on who is paying for politicians’ campaigns is a good first step.
Prof. Darren Ong
Chairperson,
Parti Sosialis Malaysia (Dengkil branch)