FACULTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE AND POLICY STUDIES

DIPLOMA IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (AM110)

MALAYSIAN POLITICS (PAD270)

TITLE:

DISCUSS FOUR (4) FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE VOTING BEHAVIOUR

PREPARED FOR:

SIR MUJIBU ABD MUIS

PREPARED BY:

NAME STUDENT ID
NUR SYASYA BILA BINTI ARIFFIN 2021107291
CHRISTINA JOEY @ WILLIE JIPIN 2021115849
SITI SYAZIRA HAZWA BINTI SUKRI 2021105923
NURIN NABIHAH BINTI NADZRENE 2021120847

SUBMISSION DATE:
10 JANUARY 2023
Contents
1.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................3
2.0 Factor that influencing voting behaviour.........................................................................................4
2.1 Social Class.................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Education.....................................................................................................................................6
2.3 Ethnicity......................................................................................................................................7
2.4 Religion.....................................................................................................................................12
2.4.1 Individual Effect.................................................................................................................12
2.4.2 Contextual Effect................................................................................................................13
3.0 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................13
4.0 References.....................................................................................................................................14
1.0 Introduction

The general public has numerous possibilities to participate in politics and elections or

referendums. Age, social status, the media, and current events are just a few examples of the

many variables that might affect how individuals vote. Voting behaviour is influenced by a

variety of factors rather than just one which social class, education, ethnicity and religion.

However, it might be claimed that a person's age is now the most important element in

influencing their voting decisions.

In other hand, the degree to which the various voting-related factors remain stable

throughout time varies. Evaluations of a candidate's merits and the effectiveness of the

government are clearly short-term influences that can significantly change from one election

to the next. Ideology and party identification are far more stable in the short term. From one

election to the next, voters rarely alter their party identification or ideological preferences,

and when they do, the modifications are typically minor. Issue orientations are in the middle.

Many fundamental policy issues such as defence spending, welfare programmes, and

abortion span multiple elections, with partisan differences remaining largely constant, despite

the fact that the specific issues that are important in presidential elections can change

significantly and so can how voters assess the presidential candidates on those issues.

Last but not least, the study of election behaviour is characterised by a number of

significant issues. One issue is attempting to explain the outcome of the election by tracing

the origins of each voter's voting habits. By comprehending the voting process and the

reasons behind the voters' decisions, we try to comprehend the election result. Voting pattern

variations through time are emphasised in voting studies, usually in an effort to understand

what the election outcomes can teach us about the course of politics. In this instance, our

attention is drawn to the dynamics of electoral behaviour, particularly in light of recent and
anticipated events. Although these two issues are not in conflict, they do highlight various

sets of study problems. These two issues serve as a suitable starting point for our discussion

of important elements of voting behaviour.

2.0 Factor that influencing voting behaviour

2.1 Social Class

Many factors influence people’s voting decisions. One of the factors is a social class.

Social class is a measure of a person's status or position in society. Although different

classifications use different criteria, social class typically considers an individual's income,

wealth, occupation, and education. The social class approach sees society as three strata, the

upper, middle, and lower classes. The Upper Class is small in number but controls many

sectors, particularly economics and politics. Aside from that, The Middle Class is a simple

class in terms of income and social standing, in the Malaysian context, this class exists but is

not yet influential, despite recent evidence of more effective development, and The Lower

Class is the largest class, consisting of commoners such as workers, farmers, lower-level

service workers, general workers, and so on.

According to some political analysts, social class is still the most important factor influencing

voting behaviour. There has been a consistent pattern of class-based voting over the years.

However, what appears to be obvious class politics is due to a knowledge gap. People from

different socioeconomic classes are assumed to have different economic interests, which

translate into different economic ideologies, which influence voting behaviour. The historical

differences in party policies help to explain the close relationship between social class and

voting behaviour. Conservatives have a history of favouring low taxes and reduced welfare

benefits. These policies appeal to people in higher socioeconomic classes who are less reliant

on the state.
People in different classes have different perspectives on fundamental political values.

Among the middle classes, there are two types of political orientation. The first type's

members have been active champions of various societal issues related to social democracy,

human rights, and the environment, demonstrate greater awareness and concern for

universalistic norms that shape a cross-cutting ethnic tie, and thus provide an alternative

discourse to the ethnic-centric perspective frequently associated with Malaysian society.

It is obvious in the second type. Because of their own economic well-being, the middle

classes frequently support the status quo in politics. Middle-class lifestyles, which are linked

to economic development and prosperity, can sometimes predispose these groups to support

authoritarian and undemocratic governments. According to Johan Saravananmuttu, middle-

class groups have played a distinct role in Malaysian politics. However, Abdul Rahman

Embong and Francis Loh attempt to explain these middle-class political behaviours by

focusing on the distinctive lifestyles and consumerism observed among these groups rather

than their class position as a determinant in their electoral choices. As a result, voters would

prefer candidates and political parties that prioritise development and material gains over

other considerations.

Other than that, another issue is that some people vote for reasons other than the alignment of

their political values with the policies of the parties. This could be their (class) identity, the

networks they belong to, or the socialisation they receive from their families, schools, and

neighbourhoods. Not to mention that some people may vote based on their perceptions of

who the parties represent. Is this party representative of "my kind of people"? These

perceptions may be influenced not only by policy representation, but also by the party's

personnel, rhetoric, media coverage, and group appeals. These can also be long-lasting,

persisting even after the original political conflict that gave rise to the perception has passed,
resulting in frozen party alignments. There is still a lot of exciting research to be done before

we can account for all class differences in politics.

2.2 Education
The second factor that influence in voting behaviour is education. Voter's education so

far has not yet become something serious for the government or political parties to

implement, especially for novice voters who have just voted for the first time. Even though

these people are voters who have enough potential and significance to elect the country's

government. This is because education can influence the individual to participate in voting,

because education has given and provided citizen skills in evaluating and choosing who to

vote for during the voting date and cognitive resources that reduce the cost of participation in

politics and foster a sense of civic responsibility and political effectiveness in the individual.

According to some of articles say that education is the latest influence because some

countries like Malaysia itself have just lowered the age from 21 years old to 18 years old to

participate in voting. Therefore, it may still be new in this voting behaviour because some of

the educated individuals come from those who are younger because they are still in their

studies. This may cause people with education to have different ideologies and interests

according to the level of education which will also affect the voting behaviour of the

individual.

Next, the main influence in education voting behaviour is the difference in choosing a party

can be seen according to the level of education and knowledge of the individual who votes.

This is because people with higher education are more interested in choosing a party that has

a simple but reasonable manifesto for the party to implement during the period of the party's

government and keep their promises. While for individuals with a lower educational

background they will be attracted and choose the words and party manifestos that promise
promises that have a higher value but are unreasonable and difficult for them to implement

during the period of their government and the promises expressed cannot be fulfilled by the

party.

Finally, education can also influence a person's voting behaviour in a serious situation and

do not take it for granted because the future of the country rests in the hands of the voters.

This is because most voters will only follow other people's votes because they feel this is

something unimportant because they do not have a high level of awareness and education in

politics. Therefore, education in voting behaviour plays an important role because it can lead

to different decisions in politics.

2.3 Ethnicity

Although there are other factors that influence voting behaviour besides ethnicity, this

study is focused on how consistently ethnicity influences voting behaviour. This dissertation

asserts that because ethnicity is ingrained in the nation's political structures, it consistently

plays a significant role in determining voting behaviour. One of the most ethnically diverse

nations in the area, Malaysia is home to a variety of native and immigrant communities. The

Malays make up the majority of the population on the peninsula. Along with the numerous

indigenous native groups of East Malaysia and the Small Orang Asli communities on the

peninsula collectively make up the bumiputera, a term for indigenous peoples who are

entitled to certain constitutionally protected rights. Many Chinese and Indian immigrants

arrived in Malaya during the British colonial era; nowadays, their offspring make up a sizable

percentage of the population. Bumiputera have increased from a barely majority at

independence to almost two-thirds of the population due to faster population growth.

Malaysia is a monarchical federation of thirteen states and three federal territories split

between the West Malaysia peninsular, which comprises eleven states, and the two East

Malaysian states of Sabah (formerly British North Borneo) and Sarawak on the island of

Borneo. West Malaysia, then known as Malaya, gained its independence from the British in

1957, and in 1963 joined with Singapore and the Borneo states to create the Malaysian

Federation. The country attained its current borders in 1965 after the speedy departure of

Singapore from the federation.

Malaysia is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the region, home to a range of

indigenous and migrant groups. On the peninsular, the majority ethnic group is the Malays.

Together with the many native indigenous groups of East Malaysia and the small Orang Asli

communities on the peninsular, these groups together constitute the bumiputera– a

designation for native groups that enjoy certain constitutionally protected privileges. During

the British colonial period, many Chinese and Indian migrants came to Malaya and their

descendants form a large minority population. Faster population growth among the

bumiputera have seen them increase from a bare majority at independence to around two-

thirds of the population (see Table 1.)

Table 1: Ethnic distribution of Malaysia, 1964 and 2003

1964 2000

Bumiputera 50.1% 65.0%

Chinese 36.8% 26.1%

Indian 11.2% 7.6%

Others 1.9% 1.3%

Sources: Means, 1970, p.12; Malaysia, 2004, 93

Since gaining independence, Malaysia, which has a constitution that upholds democracy, has

maintained parliamentary rule through multiparty elections with the exception of the nineteen

months that followed the start of violent ethnic unrest in May 1969, during which time the

National Operations Council took the place of parliament. The Alliance, a coalition of

ethnically oriented parties, easily won the pre-independence legislative council elections, and

went on to win every other election with the two-thirds majority required for constitutional

revisions. Following the 1969 riots, the Alliance, which had originally included the United

Malays National Organization (UMNO), the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), and the

Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), was enlarged and given the new name Barisan Nasional in

1974. The coalition has changed over time, with a number of smaller "mosquito" parties

flitting in and out and the main Islamic opposition Parti Islam seMalaysia (PAS - Pan-

Malaysian Islamic Party) leaving in 1978, but the UMNO-MCA-MIC triumvirate remains at

the centre, with UMNO the undisputed first among equals. One result of the Alliance/BN

regime's continued rule has been a gradual degradation of democratic procedures and a

blurring of the lines between party (or coalition) and state. When Malaya gained its

independence, its federal electoral system was largely modelled on the Westminster system,

with an appointed upper house and an elected lower house based on single-member first-past-

the-post seats. Parliaments may be dissolved earlier than the maximum five-year term. Except

in East Malaysia, where the Chief Ministers retain the authority to dissolve their individual

legislatures at their own discretion, legislative assemblies headed by a Chief Minister or

Mentri Besar are elected concurrently with the federal parliament. Appointed representatives

are in charge of running the federal territories. In 1974, the first federal territory was

established when Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia's capital, was split from Selangor state. When

Sabah state gave the federal government the island of Labuan in 1984 so it could be

developed as a duty-free and offshore banking zone, the second federal territory was
established. For the 2004 elections, Putrajaya, the new administrative capital and originally a

part of Selangor, was designated a federal territory. In 1976, positions on the local district and

municipal councils were appointed rather than elected. These developments will be covered

in more detail below.

The Alliance/BN government has long benefited from the first-past-the-post system, which

has allowed it to keep a two-thirds parliamentary majority even when its share of the popular

vote dropped to just above half (see Table 2). Considering that the nation's initial general

election in 1959, the despite receiving an average of 57.6% of the vote in each election,

Alliance/BN has consistently held 80.8% of the seats in parliament. It is a well-known fact

that first-past-the-post electoral systems have a magnifying impact on legislative majorities.

The extent to which small constituencies also permit simpler boundary manipulation to suit

particular ethnic groups is where it is particularly pertinent in Malaysia.

Table 2: Distortion Effect of First Past the Post Voting in Malaysia

1959 1964 1969 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1995 1999 2004

Alliance/ 51.8 58.4 48.4 60.7 57.2 60.5 57.3 53.4 65.1 56.5 63.8
BN share of
vote (%)
Alliance/BN 71.2 85.8 58.4 87.7 85.1 85.7 83.6 70.6 84.4 76.2 90.4
seats won
(%)
Difference 19.4 27.2 10.0 27.0 27.9 25.2 26.3 17.2 19.3 19.7 26.6

Ethnic considerations were incorporated into the political system of independent Malaya

from the beginning. The Constitution Commission, which was tasked in 1956 with

recommending changes to the new country's constitution to the British and Malay monarchs,

was specifically tasked with "the safe-guarding of the special position of the Malays and the

legitimate interests of other communities" (Colonial Office, 1957), in addition to securing the
position of the Malay monarchs. Onn Jaafar, the founder of UMNO, criticised the

Commission for being relatively ambivalent about the enshrinement of Malay "special

privileges," saying that it had "sold [the Malays] down the river" (Onn Jaafar, quoted in von

Vorys, 1975, p.132). The Alliance-dominated Malayan Legislative Council increased Malay

"special rights" by making changes to the plans, most notably by formally establishing Malay

as the national language and Islam as the official religion.

In actuality, this arrangement offered the Malay community, which was predominately rural

at the time of independence, a voting edge. Due to Singapore's enormous underrepresentation

in elections, which was dominated by Chinese immigrants, ethnic weighting was a problem

when Malaysia was formed. This was justified by the fact that Singapore had more internal

authority than the Malayan states because it had its own Prime Minister. But the bumiputera-

dominated East Malaysian states, which also had more internal authority than the Malayan

states, were given more seats than their proportion of the population deserved, a condition

that still exists, if with a minor improvement, today (see Table 3). One of the main factors

leading to the break between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, and ultimately to Singapore's

ejection from the federation, was disagreements over its place in the election system.

Table 3: Relative electoral strength of East Malaysia, 1974-2004

1974 1984 1994 2004

Per cent of electorate 14.7 15.0 16.8 16.5

Per cent of seats 26.0 25.5 25.0 24.9

Over-weightage 1.77 1.70 1.49 1.50

Source: calculated from Lim (2002a: 118) and The Star Online (2004)
2.4 Religion

The last factor that influences voting behaviour is religion. In this part the theoretical

approaches of religious voting are linked with the socio-structural influence of the

environment. First, I will briefly review the well-established theory regarding the individual

effects. In a second step the focus lies on the insufficiently examined contextual effect and

the interaction with individual impacts.

2.4.1 Individual Effect

As many scholars have already theorized and tested the individual religious effect, it shall

be sufficient to present the main arguments and results before discussing the contextual level.

Formerly, political topics directly related to specific religious concerns and strong tensions

between Catholics and Protestants have been responsible for the religious impact. Today

there are other reasons why religion still plays a significant role in values and a wide array of

general political and social beliefs, which in turn are connected to party choice. A second

explanation highlights the background of a person to determine its political standpoint. The

church has lost its significance in directly influencing the voting decision. Nowadays

internalized value systems, the identifications with Christian Democratic parties are

responsible for the continuing effect of religion. The latter fact is also mentioned by

Broughton and ten Napel, who argue that historical link rival and influence the present

behaviour of the voter by producing cross-pressures.

2.4.2 Contextual Effect

When defining a contextual effect, one very important point is the consideration of it as

exogenous to the individual. Huckfeldt and Sprague define a contextual effect to be operating when

the behaviour depends on some external factor after all individual level determinants have been

considered. Something not intrinsic to the individual is responsible for systematic variations across
contexts. Disregarding the problem of possible self-selection into a certain social environment, the

context lies beyond the reach of the individual control.

Although a context is not necessarily to be defined in geographical terms, most studies follow this

example. In the literature normally characteristics of local geographical areas, ranging from

neighbourhoods up to whole countries, are used to explain individual political behaviour. For the

Swiss case the cantons serve as the contextual level.

For religion, the contextual effect in general and the social interaction seems to play an especially

important role. The individual (non-)religiousness is of little relevance for the political behaviour

when regarded isolated from their environment. It is, however, very decisive how the individual

religiousness is ratified by the social environment. Stark and Bainbridge suppose that “religion is

empowered to produce conformity to the norms only as it is sustained through interaction and

accepted by the majority as a valid basis for action.” These norms may be politically interpreted as a

form of model or rule to vote for certain parties, traditionally Christian Democratic ones. A similar

idea is shown in Olson. She argues that the political influence of religious adherence is rather a by-

product of being active in this social milieu and receiving indirect but regular political messages

through social interaction.

3.0 Conclusion

To summarise, many factors influence voting behaviour, including social class,

education, ethnic background, and religion. These factors influence people's voting decisions.

Furthermore, when people vote, what is most important to them often drives how they vote,

regardless of societal factors. Individuals compare party manifestos, policies, and party

records to determine which party or candidate to vote for. As we can see, the factors

influencing the decision to choose are diverse and are not solely determined by one factor.
4.0 References

1. Noor, M., Abdullah, A., & Mahadee, M. (2016). Voting Behaviour in Malaysia:

Locating the Sociological Determinants of Ethnicity, Middle Classes and

Development Gains. World Applied Sciences Journal, 34(6), 805–812.

https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2016.34.6.15674

2. Brown, G. K. (2005). Playing the (non)ethnic card: The electoral system and ethnic

voting patterns in Malaysia. Ethnopolitics, 4(4), 429–445.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17449050500348675

3. ‌Khoo, & Loh, F. (2014). Democracy in Malaysia. Routledge.

4. The Impact of Religion on Voting Behaviour - Andreas C.

Goldberg-https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/spsr.1206

5. ‌Pandian, S. (2014). University students and voting behaviour in general elections:

Perceptions on Malaysian political parties' leadership. Asian Social Science, 10(18),

225. https://www.researchgate.net/

6. Nizah, M. A. M. (2017). Prevalent Determinants of Voting Behaviour in Malaysia.

Abstracts & Proceedings of ADVED, 661-670.