A Comparative Analysis of Corruption Between Muslim And Western Countries
Nuralia Jamila Ali1
1 PhD Candidate, University Kuala Lumpur Business School, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: nuralia.ali@s.unikl.edu.my Accepted: 15 February 2022 | Published: 1 March 2022
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ijarih.2022.4.1.1
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: This article is intended to discuss the issue of corruption in Muslim countries as compared to western countries. As well as bribery, corruption also covers nepotism and favouritism. Despite Islamic teachings that forbid corruption it is widespread in countries such as Iraq and Yemen. There are Muslim countries that have anti-corruption legislation, but there are still some that do not. The aim is to examine the factors of corruption in Muslim countries.
The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is the main indicator for global corruption. Out of 198 countries, many Muslim countries are found in the bottom 20. Malaysia is ranked 51, which is reasonably good. The issue of corruption with reference to the Quran is examined.
The example of corruption in the Ottoman Empire is looked at. The issue of why many Muslim countries are very corrupt is taken note of. There are political, cultural and legal factors at play. The type of political system practiced in various countries may be a factor. Many Muslim countries do not actually practice Islamic norms in relation to corruption. Compared to Muslim countries, many ‘Western’ countries rank well in the CPI. It may be the case that the more democratic the country the less likely it is to be highly corrupt as corrupt officials have more chances of being caught. Democratic ‘Western’ countries often have strict laws regarding funding for political parties. Democratic Muslim countries often do not, such as Malaysia. It must be pointed out that American companies operating in Iraq after the 2003 invasion also engaged in highly corrupt practices. The perception that ‘Western’ countries are less corrupt than Muslim countries often boils down to the fact that they have tougher laws and better enforcement. Muslim countries need to strengthen their governance and update and enforce anti-corruption laws.
Keywords: Corruption, CPI, Islamic Perspective, Politics, Bribery
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Religion has always played an important role in influencing individual attitudes and behaviour in the societal, cultural and political spheres. Religions such as Islam have a unique political advantage in comparison to their secular counterparts. It has been observed by political analysts that political parties that subscribe and promote Islamic ideologies have been perceived as more persuasive and legitimate by the average voter. According to Wickham (2002), Islamists in Egypt were more successful in recruiting followers because framing their political activities as Islamic da’wah (proselytising) endowed their efforts with “a cultural legitimacy it otherwise would have lacked.” A survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre has displayed that citizens of Muslim majority countries favoured the implementation of Shariah or Islamic law, with the percentage of not less than 64%, with some reaching 80%. (Bell, 2013).
Additionally, Islam gains its appeal by providing social services and public goods to society.
Consequently, this results in populations rewarding Islamic political candidates via electoral support. Nevertheless, the pressing issue now that needs to be addressed is the rise of corruption in Muslim countries. Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain and usually exists in the form of bribery. (Transparency International, 2021) Corruption also encompasses nepotism and favouritism of certain public officials. The consequence of corruption is that it hampers democracy, economic prosperity and perpetuates inequality and poverty.
It is important to acknowledge that despite the existence of Islamic teachings that prohibit corruption, corruption is particularly widespread in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. That is why laws have been enacted to prevent corruption in Muslim countries such as the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and the Anti-Corruption Establishment Act in Pakistan. On the other hand, countries such as Yemen and Afghanistan do not even have specific or detailed legislation to combat the issue of corruption in their respective countries.
This paper aims to examine what are the factors of corruption in Muslim countries.
Additionally, it will compare the level of corruption that exists between Muslim and non- Muslim countries and the factors that contribute to lower levels of corruption in Western countries.
The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) scores and ranks countries depending on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be by experts and business executives. The index incorporates 13 surveys and assessments of corruption which have been acquired by many reputable institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption globally.
(Transparency International, 2020)
There are 198 countries listed in the corruption perception index. Muslim majority countries such as Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, were ranked at the bottom 20 of the index. Although these countries to a certain extent enact Islamic law, they are still considered extremely corrupt. On the other hand, there is still hope that Muslim majority countries are doing well in the fight against corruption. In 2020, Malaysia, a majority Muslim country that practices a dual legal system, that is Civil law and Shariah law, ranked 51, which indicates that Malaysia is among the least corrupt Muslim countries. However, the Corruption Index in Malaysia has decreased to 51 points in 2020 from 53 points in 2019 (Transparency International, 2021). Indonesia ranked 81 on the index, which is considerably well in comparison with other Muslim countries.
Among the factors taken into consideration in determining the score of the Corruption Perceptions Index is freedom of expression, transparency in all political processes and strong democratic institutions. (Transparency International, 2017) It was further added that a poorer score on the index would indicate a need to strengthen and protect the space for civil society.
2. Literature Review
Corruption In Islam: The Prohibition Of Corruption And Historical Examples Of Corruption
Before this paper can assess what are the factors that contributed to corruption in Muslim countries, one first have to establish what is the stance of Islam on corruption. In Islam, the Glorious Quran strictly prohibits any form of corruption. The term fasad or corruption and other words that have similar meanings to the word fasad, have been mentioned in the Quran
nearly 50 times. For example, in Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 11, it was mentioned “And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."
Additionally, according to Al-Ashfani, the word salah which has the opposite meaning of fasad is also mentioned in the Quran nearly 150 times. What this indicates to the Muslim scholars is that the Quran promotes the values of transparency, integrity and prohibits all types of corruption and mischief. (Ahmed, 2018)
Fighting bribery (rashwah) and corruption (fasad) is an integral part of the teachings of the Quran and hadith. The Quran prohibits “devouring/misappropriation of the property of others”
in Surah An-Nisa, verse 49 and Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 188 which is a broad concept that subsumes such other offences as fraud, hoarding, theft, and gambling. The Quranic injunctions also condemn those who are in positions of power who spread corruption among people through nepotistic practices and oppressing others as in Surah Al-Qasas, verse 4 and Surah Al-Fajr, verse 10-12. (Kamali, 2013)
Moreoever, the Muslim scholar, Al-Bukhari dedicates an entire chapter to corruption, entitled
“What is allowed as regards backbiting wicked (corrupt) and suspicious people.” which shows that the prohibition of corruption has been extensively discussed amongst the Muslim scholars.
The Quran clearly indicates that an act of corruption breeds corruption, and has negative implications on society. Corruption in Islam is far-ranging. It encompasses not just bribery or rashwah, which refers to private gain from public office or seeking recompense for rendering duties ordinarily considered as non-compensatory, but also includes dishonesty, betrayal of trust, abuse of power, deceit in both private and public dealings, favouritism and nepotism.
(Kamali, 2013)
The rise of corruption in Islam began during the decline of the Ottoman empire after the 16th century. Some examples of corruption arose in the 18th century. During this time, the post of the ulama had lost its importance. Instead of this post being occupied by qualified individuals, this post had been dominated by people who offered bribes to public officials.
Additionally, in the 18th century, many high decreed public officers lived lavishly and even resembled the Sultan’s way of living. These public officers would occupy big residences and would hire hundreds of servants to perform domestic duties. Moreover, in order to consolidate their power, they would hire young and talented individuals and persuade them to marry with someone from their family. If the young person succeeded in grasping the attention of the high decreed officers, he would be assigned to an important position in the public office. Such was the practice of the corrupt officials in the past that led to the demise of the Ottoman empire.
(Carikici, 2009)
Moreover, another form of corruption that exists is in the form of favoritism. An example of this can be seen when the son of an ulama would be given the same salary as his father. This is because he would be considered an intellectual person just like his father, even though he was just a mere boy and not an accomplished ulama. This occurred with a man named Sir Saadettin.
He was the teacher of Murat III, the Sultan of the Ottoman empire, and later on became the Sultan’s son’s teacher. Due to the close relationship he had developed with the Sultan, he became the Muslim judge of Mecca. A few years later, Saadettin was assigned as the Muslim judge of Istanbul which caused rumors. This had raised suspicions by the public and a poet had even written a poem about this corruption.Corruption continued to plague the empire as incompetent people were put in positions of power. During the reign of Sultan Murat III, the
Sultan had immediately assigned his ignorant brother as a military judge and assigned another ignorant young as a Muslim judge to Salonika. (Carikici, 2009)
Factors Of Corruption In Muslim Countries
Taking into consideration the fact that many citizens in Muslim majority countries are in favour of Shariah law, and many Muslim majority countries have implemented Shariah law, the question that needs to be posed then is why are Muslim countries so corrupt?
These factors can be divided into a few categories, namely political, cultural and legal factors.
The political factor that contributes to corruption can be reflected in the type of system of governance. It has been widely acknowledged that some Muslim countries do not practice democracy. Some Muslim countries have adopted the monarchy system of governance. This factor contributes to corruption in Muslim countries as royal prerogative gives extensive and unaccountable power to the executive.
Studies have shown that democracy gradually helps to lower the level of corruption. However, this is not to say that all forms of democracy are inherently good to combat corruption. This depends on the type of democracy as well. For example, democratic systems that have more powerful presidents, such as in the United States, that do not have a clear separation of powers are more likely to become corrupt than the parliamentary system. This is because there is no clear check and balance towards the President. (Goldgeier & Saunders, 2018).
In a democracy, there exists competition between political candidates and political parties. This competition serves as a good way to combat corruption as any act of corruption would hurt the reputation of candidates. Furthermore, if any form of corruption were to exist in a democratic system, this would reduce the legitimacy of the democratically elected government. (Galasso
& Nannicini, 2011).
People are more likely to vote corrupt politicians out rather than allow them to consolidate power. This happened in Malaysia in 2018 in the historic election whereby the Malaysians had voted out the 60 year ruling reign of the Barisan Nasional government when the head of the party, former Prime Minister Datuk Sri Najib Razak, was charged to have been involved in the biggest corruption and money laundering scandal in the world, that is the embezzlement of 2.6 billion from the Malaysian state fund, 1Malaysia Development Berhad (IMDB). In 2020, the High Court found him guilty and sentenced him to 12 years in jail but he is appealing against the decision. The case against Najib Razak is seen as a test of Malaysia’s anti-corruption efforts taken by the new ruling government. (“Malaysia Election”, 2018) Therefore, from the case study of Malaysia, this shows that the system of governance is a contributing factor of corruption in Muslim countries. Earlier in 2013, Transparency International has conducted a public survey in Malaysia and found that a majority of the surveyed households perceived Malaysian political parties to be highly corrupt (Transparency International, 2013)
Furthermore, another factor that contributes to corruption in Muslim countries is the lack of legal legislation pertaining to corruption. It is well-known that public officials perform their duties in accordance with the set of laws and regulations in place. However, an absence of clear laws and procedures creates an environment for corruption to develop. It is important to note that although some Muslim countries such as Pakistan have tried their best to culminate efforts to combat corruption with formal legislation, countries such as Yemen is said to be heavily entrenched in corruption. (Rose-Ackerman, 2000).
In Yemen, there was little government transparency and accountability even before the outbreak of the war in 2015. This is because there existed network corruption and patronage under the Ali Abdullah Saleh regime in public institutions. Although there existed formal legislation to combat corruption such as the Law No. 30 of 2006 concerning the Financial Disclosure, these formal mechanisms were ineffective. There also existed disruption to legal commerce. This had increased the role of the black market and created further opportunities for graft. Public officials often sold food aid to black markets, which further aggravated the issue of food-security in Yemen. (Freedom House, 2018)
Additionally, other Muslim countries such as Iran, which ranked 148 out of 190 on the Corruption Perceptions Index, refuse to comply with international efforts to combat corruption.
It can be seen that Iran had been blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as of 2020 the failure to adopt the recommendations of FATF in their local legislation. Such refusal to adopt recommendations to combat money laundering and terrorism financing would create an environment for corruption to thrive in Muslim countries (FATF, 2021).
The next factor of corruption is related to culture. It has been found that a higher loyalty to the family has a correlation with higher levels of corruption in a country. This is because leaders prioritised their familial interests over the interests of their people. This is a form of nepotism that exists in many Muslim countries that is engrained in their culture. Strong familial values have a powerful influence in making a leader feel an intense sense of obligation to provide opportunities for their family. (Alshalan, 2017)
Moreover, another factor that contributes to corruption in Muslim countries is that Muslim countries have yet to effectively integrate Islamic principles with the complexities of a stable governance. It can be seen that the practice of Shariah depends on the role of the form of governance; whether monarchy, democratic, or despotic rule. According to a study entitled
‘How Islamic are Islamic countries?’ by Rehman, and Askari, it was found that Islamic countries performed poorly in adopting Islamic principles in their governance. It was found in the study that Muslim countries did not adhere to law and governance, human and political rights, as well as international standards. (Sardar, Serra, & Jordan, 2019).
Adding onto this, on an individual level, some leaders in Muslim countries often do not act in consistent with religious practices and teachings that actively advocate against corruption.
Some may involve themselves in corrupt practices for selfish gain, without thinking of the repercussions on the economy of the nation and the global perception of their country. (Rehman
& Askari, 2010).
3. Methodology
This is qualitative-based research using a content analysis approach. Data for this study were collected from the review of literature such as: academic journals, websites and books in understanding and analysing the concepts, definitions, characteristics, basics on corruption among muslim and western countries.
4. Discussion And Conclusion
Transparency International Report 2019 has put many Western countries to be ranked well on the Corruption Perceptions Index. As a matter-of-fact, 14 out of 20 countries in the top 25 of the Index are Western countries. These Western countries include Denmark (1), Finland (3),
the United Kingdom (12) and the United States (23). Furthermore, the Report mentioned that these countries ranked higher on the Corruption Perceptions Index due to having strong democratic systems and freedom of media.
In addition, the 2019 Democracy Index Report compiled by the Economist Intelligence stated that Finland and Denmark have ranked 5th and 7th respectively on the Index. In this Index, countries are ranked according to the strength of the political culture, civil liberties and pluralism of each country. Malaysia ranked 43rd on the list, which is considerably good. On the other hand, countries such as Libya and Saudi Arabia ranked 156 and 159 respectively, which is extremely poor. (Democracy Index, 2020).
It is important to note that the level of democracy is used to determine and assess whether a country is likely to be corrupt. A country that has weak democratic systems such as Saudi Arabia, is more likely to be perceived to be corrupt under the Corruption Perceptions Index.
Additionally, Transparency International further added that Western countries ranked higher on the Index due to stronger enforcement of campaign finance law and regulations. It was further added that countries where campaign finance regulations are comprehensive and systematically enforced have an average score of 70 on the CPI. On the other hand, countries where such regulations either do not exist or are poorly enforced score an average of just 34 and 35 respectively. (Transparency International, 2019)
For example, in Germany, the country has provided public funding to political parties since 1958. Therefore, political parties are not tainted by any private funding which might influence the way they vote, the policy that they pass or any executive decisions made. (Webb, Farrell &
Holliday, 2002) It is important to note that Germany has enforced campaign financing laws since 1990s meanwhile many other Muslim majority countries as Yemen, Afghanistan and Malaysia have yet to adopt such laws. This shows a lack of political will on the part of these countries in the efforts to combat corruption.
From the report above, it can be seen that the factor that contributes to lower levels of corruption in Western countries is that they have more transparent and comprehensive financial regulations that many Muslim countries do not adopt or have. These regulations may be effective in proving that public officials do not commit corruption on paper, consequently not showing up on the Corruption Perceptions Index. However, if you scrutinise the acts of public officials in Western countries, you may come to a different conclusion.
It is important to look at the case study of the United States. Post- 9/11, there were at least 71 companies obtaining contracts to supply weapons for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Of the 71 companies, the top 10 companies such as Bechtel and Haliburton, had former US officials in the Pentagon that sat as board of directors of those companies or were top executives. This was legal under the ‘Revolving Door’ Policy. In summary, the ‘Revolving Door’ policy allows many legislators and regulators to become lobbyists and consultants for the industries they previously regulated. Additionally, private industry heads or lobbyists may receive government appointments that relate to their former private posts. Many of these former public officials make triple, quadruple, sometimes even ten times the amount they would usually make in public office. (Draca, 2014)
The primary recipient of the ‘Revolving Door’ policy is the former Vice President Dick Cheny’s company, Halliburton. At the time, Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton had
profited from the mess in Iraq at the expense of American troops and taxpayers. Dick Cheney had continued to receive compensation from his former company while they were still engaged in massive overcharging and wasteful practices under this no-bid contract to provide food, housing, fuel and other logistical support for troops in the Middle East. That contract has so far been worth about $5 billion. The former Vice President claims that he did not have any financial interests vested in Halliburton. (Rosenbaum, 2004)
Dick Cheny later on disclosed his financial statements from 2001 up until 2003 which showed that since he became the vice president-elect, he had received a total of 1,9997,525 USD from Halliburton, a deferred bonus of 1,461,398 and the rest in deferred salary. Furthermore, he held the options to buy Hallibutron stock. People who opposed Dick Cheney conceded that there is no concrete evidence that he has pulled any strings on Halliburton's behalf. However, they criticised his refusal to provide any account of communications between him and his staff pertaining to Halliburton’s actions or concluded contracts. (Rosenbaum, 2004)
What can be inferred from this case study is that in many Western countries, the bar for corruption is much higher. There needs to be proof of communication between parties and concrete evidence that the Vice President had abused his power in office by providing contracts to his former company. A mere conflict of interest is not enough to infer that a politician has been engaged in corrupt practices.
In Western countries, if a public official merely discloses his financial statements and is transparent with his transactions, it is sufficient to render him scot free of any corruption. This is because financial regulations in Western countries such as the United States have “legalised”
this form of corruption under the ‘Revolving Door’ Policy in spite of the fact that this would give rise to potential abuse of power and corrupt practices.
However, if one contrasts this with many Muslim countries, the bar for corruption is lower.
This is because Muslim countries have not developed such complex regulations such as the
‘Revolving Door’ Policy. In Muslim countries such a Malaysia, if a public official receiving deferred salary, deferred bonus and held the options to buy a stock for his/her former company, one would not be allowed to enter into a contract with the company as it is a clear conflict of interest. If such a thing were to occur, public officials would be charged for their corrupt practices under Section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACC Act). Section 23 of the MACC Act 2009 states that an officer or public body commits the offence of using office or position for gratification if he uses his office or position for any gratification, whether for himself, his relative or associate, commits an offence. This is because there is too close of a relationship between the company and the public official that it gives room for corruption to prosper.
To reiterate, the perception of corruption towards Muslim majority countries is higher due to the lack of campaign finance laws or the lack of legislation pertaining to political funding. In Malaysia there does not exist a Political Funding Act. In October 2019, the then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department said the government would table the Political Funding Bill which would focus on the regulatory aspect of political contributions, which is fundamental in efforts to eliminate corruption and create a corruption free eco-system among future generation s based on the principles of transparency, accountability and integrity (Bernama, 2021).
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is confident the proposed Political Funding Act could serve as a guide for the agency to differentiate between political funds and
contributions to parties/politicians for corruption purposes. MACC Chief Commissioner, Datuk Seri Azam Baki said the country had no specific law on political funding but the Governance, Integrity and Anti-Corruption Centre (GIACC) was drafting a law on it to be tabled to the Special Committee on Corruption. “The GIACC has completed the draft of the law on political funding which I am also involved in the discussions on, certain scopes have been set, among other, the need for political parties to report and declare funds they received from any party. Also the setting up of a regulator or comptroller to regulate political funds to any quarters in a political party in the country. It was time for politicians to concur on the implementation of the law. Like whether there is a need to control political funds for elections, like in the United States which allows political funding by declaring the funders. Politicians should support enforcement of the law to prove they were clean and free of corruption or power abuse while at the same time proving to the people on transparent leadership and integrity. It was difficult for the MACC to differentiate between political funds and bribery, but investigation would have to be conducted when it received a report on a politician receiving funds and classify it as a corruption case” (“Political Funding Act”, 2021)
Political fundings are important as it helps in funding the political party and party candidates during general elections. Since political candidates require money for political funding and money for supporting their respective constituency, the amount of money that is needed to fund these two integral things is rather massive.
To illustrate the vast amount of money needed in politics, one can take a look at the deposit required for political candidates to join in Malaysian elections. Deposit required to contest for a parliamentary seat is RM10,000 while RM5,000 for a state seat. (Kesavapany & Swee-Hock, 2006) Malaysian election law set election spending limits at RM200,000 for each parliamentary candidate and RM100,000 for each state legislature candidate. Senior politicians are also required to help younger or newer candidates with their funding as well, which means that these politicians have to have a vast amount of money for funding. Therefore, this means that politicians have to meet with businessmen on an individual basis to seek funding from them.
This is where the gray area lies. Although there are no deals being made during the acceptance of money, the politician that is receiving the money for the purpose of political campaigning will feel indebted to the political funders. Logically, to give back to the political funders, politicians who are policy makers are likely to propose policies in favour and for the interests of their political funders. Since there is no open declaration of who donates to a specific politician, it is hard to tell whether this donation falls under the banner of corruption or whether it is simply an act of political donation.
If one compares this scenario in the US, such donations are openly known to other political candidates. As political donations are transparent, it would not fall under the category of corruption. In Malaysia, such a counter-balance mechanism does not exist, hence it may or may not be categorised as corrupt practices. However, this lack of counter balance mechanism for the transparency of political donations gives the perception of corruption. Therefore, it plays a huge role in lowering Malaysia’s ranking specifically in regards to the Corruption Perceptions Index.”
From the analysis above, Western countries are perceived as less corrupt on the Corruption Perceptions Index as they have created complex laws to circumvent their corrupt practices. It can be observed that although the acts of politicians are not defined legally as corruption, such legislation has given opportunities for Western countries to be engaged in institutional
corruption. This goes undetected by the Corruption Perceptions Index and has contributed to their high ranking on the reported Index.
In conclusion, from the analysis above, Muslim countries have a lot to develop in terms of law to deal with the issue of corruption. The fact that there exists low or no political will to combat corruption in Muslim countries gives a bad perception which reduces the ranking of Muslim countries naturally on the Corruption Perceptions Index. Moving forward, Muslim countries should aggressively update their laws, strengthen their democratic systems of governance and put in effort in the betterment of freedom of media. Additionally, nepotism and kleptocracy should be strongly avoided particularly by politicians in Muslim countries, they need to come closer to the teachings of Islam and to promote and upgrade a good image and reputation of Islam and Muslims in the eyes of their Western counterparts.1
References
Ahmed, F. B. J. (2018). Corruption According to the Main Sources of Islam. Intellectual Discourse, 26(1), 91-110.
Alshalan, A. (2017). Corrupt Practices in Saudi Arabia: An Analysis of the Legal Provisions and the Influence of Social Factors. Digital Repository @ Maurer Law School.
Bell, J. (2012). The world's Muslims: Religion, politics and society.
Çarikçi, Đ., Özkul, H., Sait, A., Aygen, O., Uzunbacak, D., & Hüseyin, H. (2009). Favoritism and Nepotism in The Ottoman Empire. In International Symposium on Sustainable Development, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, June (pp. 9-10).
Democracy Index (2020). In sickness and in health. A report by The Economist Intelligence Unit.
Draca, M. (2014). Institutional corruption? The revolving door in American and British politics. SMF-CAGE Global Perspectives Series, 1.
FATF (2021) FATF nations, Full member nations, Observer nations, Call for action nations (Blacklisted nations), Other monitored jurisdictions (greylisted nations), FATF.
Available at < https://www.fatf-gafi.org/countries/> (Accessed 24 August 2020)
Freedom House, 2018 Freedom in the World 2018 - Yemen., available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/5a9ea68e26.html [accessed 4 November 2021]
Galasso, V., & Nannicini, T. (2011). Competing on good politicians. American political science review, 105(1), 79-99,
Goldgeier, J., & Saunders, E. N. (2018). The unconstrained presidency: checks and balances eroded long before Trump. Foreign Aff., 97, 144.
Kamali, M. H. (2013). Bribery and Corruption from a Shariah Perspective. ICR Journal, 4(2), 295-297.
Kesavapany, K., & Swee-Hock, S. (Eds.). (2006). Malaysia: Recent trends and challenges.
ISEAS Publishing.
Malaysia election: Opposition scores historic victory (2018, May 10). BBC.
Political Funding Act: Guide for MACC to differentiate political funds and corruption, says Azam. (2021, October 2) The Edge Market.
Rehman, S. S., & Askari, H. (2010). How Islamic are Islamic Countries?. Global Economy Journal, 10(2), 1850198.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (2000). Corruption: Causes, consequences and cures. Asia-Pacific Development Journal, 7(2).
1 The writer wishes to acknowledge Dr. Norhashimah Mohd Yasin for her valuable insights towards writing this article.
Rosenbaum, D. E. (2004). A closer look at Cheney and Halliburton. New York Times.
Available at <https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-cheney-and- halliburton.html> (Accessed, August 13, 2021)
Sardar, Z., Serra, J., & Jordan, S. (2019). Muslim Societies in Postnormal Times: Foresights for Trends, Emerging Issues and Scenarios. International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).
Transparency International (2017). Explanation of How Individual Country Scores of the Corruption Perceptions Index Are Calculated. Available at
<https://www.transparency.org/en/press/explanation-of-how-individual-country-scores- of-the-corruption-perceptions> (Accessed, August 13, 2020)
Transparency International (2019). Corruption Perception Index 2019 Report. Available at
<https://www.transparency.org/files/content/pages/2019_CPI_Report_EN.pdf>
(Accessed, August 13, 2021)
Transparency International (2020). Corruption Perceptions Index. Available at
<https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi> (Accessed, August 17, 2021)
Transparency International (2021). What Is Corruption? Available at
<https://www.transparency.org/en/what-is-corruption> Accessed (August 8, 2021) Webb, P., Farrell, D., & Holliday, I. (Eds.). (2002). Political parties in advanced industrial
democracies. Oxford University Press.
Wickham, C. R. (2002). Mobilizing Islam: Religion, activism, and political change in Egypt.
Columbia University Press.
