Unmasking corruption in Malaysia and Sabah

WE live in an era where reports of corruption surface almost instantly when we scroll through social media or turn on the television. In Malaysia, cases involving enforcement officers, civil servants and senior political figures appear with striking frequency, often amplified by platforms such as Facebook, TikTok and X.

At the same time, agencies like the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (SPRM) are regularly in the spotlight for investigations and arrests. This constant visibility creates a powerful impression that corruption is pervasive, raising an important question: is corruption actually increasing or are Malaysians simply more aware of it owing to greater transparency and digital exposure?

This question is reflected in Malaysia’s performance in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), where the country ranked 54th out of 182 countries in 2025, improving from 57th previously. As a regional benchmark, Singapore ranks 3rd out of 182 countries globally. While Malaysia ranks outside the worst-performing countries globally, this mid-range position highlights ongoing concerns about governance, accountability and institutional trust despite modest progress.

Understanding this issue requires first clarifying what corruption entails. It is commonly defined as the abuse of entrusted power for personal gain, encompassing not only bribery and embezzlement but also favouritism, abuse of authority and the manipulation of influence. For example, when a government officer approves a project because the applicant is politically connected rather than qualified, the decision reflects corruption even without direct financial exchange. The “gain” involved may take non-monetary forms; it may include career advancement, social standing or reciprocal favours. Over time, such practices weaken institutions, distort fairness and erode public trust in governance.

One of the visible forms is petty corruption, which occurs in everyday interactions between citizens and public officials. Although often dismissed as minor, its cumulative effects are significant. A common example is a driver offering RM50 to a traffic officer to avoid a summons rather than paying the official fine. Similarly, individuals may pay small unofficial fees, commonly known as “duit kopi,” to expedite processes such as renewing licences or securing building approvals. In parts of rural Sabah, there have been complaints that informal payments are sometimes expected to prioritise access to basic services such as electricity connections. While each act appears trivial, repeated exposure normalises the idea that rules can be bypassed through payment. What begins as a convenience gradually becomes an expectation embedded in daily life.

In contrast, grand corruption involves large-scale misuse of public resources at the highest level of power. The 1MDB scandal remains one of the significant examples in Malaysia’s history. Established as a sovereign wealth fund for national development, it later became associated with allegations of billions of ringgit being misappropriated through complex international transactions. Funds were reportedly channelled into luxury properties, high-end art and even film production. The scale of the scandal demonstrated the way corruption at the top can produce long-term consequences, including increased national debt, reputational damage and declining public confidence in institutions. Similar risks arise in large infrastructure projects, where inflated costs may conceal kickbacks, leaving taxpayers to bear the burden over time.

Political corruption is closely linked, occurring when authority is used primarily to maintain power rather than serve the public. This practice can involve awarding contracts to politically connected companies instead of those offering the best value or using government resources during election campaigns. In Sabah, shifting political alliances have sometimes resulted in positions or incentives being offered to secure loyalty, reinforcing a system where power is negotiated rather than earned through merit. Even when such practices fall within legal grey areas, their ethical implications are profound as they weaken democratic institutions and reduce public confidence in governance.

Less visible but equally damaging is bureaucratic corruption, which operates within administrative systems. This form occurs when officials exploit discretionary authority to manipulate processes for personal gain. For instance, developers may face unexplained delays in obtaining project approvals unless unofficial payments are made to “facilitate” progress. Enforcement officers may selectively apply regulations, penalising some businesses while overlooking others in exchange for benefits. The Sabah Water Department scandal illustrates the consequences vividly: funds intended for rural water infrastructure were allegedly diverted, with large sums of cash reportedly discovered during investigations. As a result, communities that depended on these projects continued to lack access to clean and reliable water despite significant public expenditure.

Corruption extends into the private sector through corporate involvement as well. Businesses may engage in unethical practices to secure contracts or competitive advantages, often in collaboration with public officials. A construction firm, for example, might inflate project costs to accommodate kickbacks shared among involved parties. In the plantation sector, companies have been accused of bypassing environmental regulations through illicit payments, enabling expansion into protected areas. In Sabah, where natural resources such as timber and land are economically significant, concerns have long been raised about logging concessions granted under questionable conditions. These practices not only waste public funds but also contribute to environmental degradation, including deforestation and loss of biodiversity.

Beyond individual incidents lies systemic corruption, which becomes embedded within institutions over time. In such contexts, corruption is no longer an exception but part of the way the system functions. Issues surrounding land allocation illustrate this challenge, with allegations that approvals are sometimes granted without clear criteria or sufficient oversight. Indigenous communities in Sabah have reported displacement from ancestral lands owing to development projects approved under opaque conditions. When accountability mechanisms are weak and transparency is limited, these patterns can persist for years, making reform particularly difficult. The result is often unequal distribution of resources, where benefits are concentrated among a small group while broader communities are marginalised.

Corruption operates at multiple levels, beginning with individual choices. Every act of bribery involves both the giver and the receiver, reinforcing the same system. A driver who offers a bribe to avoid a fine and an officer who accepts it are equally contributing to the problem. Similarly, a business owner who offers incentives to bypass regulations perpetuates unethical practices. Addressing corruption at this level requires more than enforcement; it demands a shift in societal attitudes, where integrity is prioritised over convenience and short-term gain.

Institutions play a critical role in either enabling or preventing corruption. Weak internal controls, limited transparency and inadequate oversight create opportunities for misconduct. In response, Malaysia has introduced reforms such as integrity units within government agencies, stronger audit mechanisms and the digitalisation of services, including online licensing and e-procurement systems. These measures reduce direct human interaction and limit discretionary abuse. For instance, online business registration has reduced reliance on intermediaries, improving transparency. However, the effectiveness of such reforms depends on consistent implementation across all regions, particularly in rural areas where monitoring may be less robust.

At a deeper level, systemic corruption reflects structural challenges within political and economic systems. It arises from entrenched practices that have become normalised. Although Malaysia ranks outside the most corrupt countries globally, vulnerabilities remain in sectors involving large financial flows or significant regulatory discretion. Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive reforms that strengthen institutional independence, enhance transparency and ensure effective checks and balances.

The rise of social media has significantly changed the way corruption is exposed and discussed. On one hand, it enables rapid dissemination of information, allowing citizens to highlight issues that might otherwise remain hidden. Videos of alleged bribery incidents, for example, can quickly gain public attention and prompt investigations. On the other hand, this immediacy also carries risks, including the spread of unverified allegations and the potential for reputational damage without due process. A single viral post can shape public perception before facts are confirmed, making it essential to balance transparency with accuracy and fairness.

The effects of corruption are tangible and immediate. When funds intended for infrastructure are misused, communities bear the consequences directly. In rural Sabah, delays in water supply projects force families to rely on rivers or rainwater for daily needs. Poorly constructed roads, resulting from substandard materials, increase maintenance costs and pose safety risks. In healthcare, misallocated resources can lead to outdated equipment and inadequate facilities, affecting the quality of care available to patients.

At the national level, large-scale corruption places significant strain on public finances. Losses from mismanagement or fraud reduce funds available for essential services such as education and healthcare. Governments may be forced to reallocate budgets, increase borrowing or delay development projects, placing additional strain on public finances. As a result, economic growth can suffer, since perceptions of weak governance discourage foreign investment and increase the cost of doing business. In regions already facing development challenges, such as parts of Sabah, these effects can deepen existing inequalities and limit opportunities for growth.

Perhaps most concerning is the gradual normalisation of corruption. When small acts become routine, they shape societal expectations. People begin to assume that progress depends on connections or informal payments while integrity becomes secondary. This erosion of values makes it increasingly difficult to address larger forms of corruption as the foundation for ethical behaviour has already been weakened.

Addressing corruption therefore requires a comprehensive and sustained approach. Strong legal frameworks and independent enforcement agencies are essential but they must be supported by transparent systems and accountable institutions. While digitalisation can reduce opportunities for abuse, its effectiveness depends on the presence of strong oversight mechanisms. Education, in turn, plays a crucial role in cultivating a culture of integrity, with schools, communities and leaders reinforcing ethical values.

Public participation is equally important. Citizens who refuse to engage in corrupt practices and who report wrongdoing contribute to a culture of accountability. Whistleblower protections can encourage individuals to come forward without fear of retaliation. Ultimately, however, meaningful change depends on leadership. Those in positions of authority must not only enforce anti-corruption measures but also demonstrate integrity in their own conduct.

Corruption in Malaysia and Sabah is complex and multifaceted, ranging from everyday transactions to large-scale scandals and deeply embedded systemic issues. While increased visibility may suggest a growing problem, it also reflects greater awareness and improved detection. The challenge ahead lies not only in exposing corruption but in addressing its root causes. Achieving this requires collective effort, grounded in integrity, supported by strong institutions and sustained by public commitment, so that society moves towards a future defined by trust, fairness and effective governance.

Dr Richard A. Gontusan is a Human Resource Skills Training and Investment Consultant. His views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of The Borneo Post.