The 2008 Malaysian Elections: An End to Ethnic Politics?

Abstract

Malaysia's twelfth general elections, held on March 8, 2008, dealt a stunning blow to the incumbent Barisan Nasional regime. For the first time since 1969, the coalition did not receive its customary two-thirds majority in the lower house of parliament. Moreover, the opposition was able to form governments in five out of eleven peninsular Malaysian states. This article uses electoral, economic, and demographic data to test a number of potential explanations for these outcomes. Evidence indicates that the regime's decreased majority is the consequence of non-Malay voters' rejecting the incumbent regime in favor of secular opposition parties.

Factors that promote the adoption of a high-density and mixed-use development: examining a potential urban village based on urban design principles

“…Their attribution of cultural landscapes for the city concurs with Pepinsky's [15] findings that in spite of Malaysia's medium-to high-levels of ethno-geographic crosscutting, such as that found in Petaling Jaya, there is persistent fragmentation of population groups based on socioeconomic profiling.…”

Resisting the Fall: The Single Dominant Party, Policies and Elections in Malaysia

“…In the 2008 election, BN's popular vote fell by a considerable 14 percentage points to 51.2% -its support in the peninsula was a mere 49.8% -with the coalition securing a majority in parliament only because it won 55 of the 57 parliamentary seats in Sabah and Sarawak (Pepinsky 2009). UMNO won a meagre 79 parliamentary seats, down from 109.…”

Die politischen Systeme Südostasiens

“…Wachstumskoalitionen degenerierten zu Verteilungskoalitionen, welche die wirtschaftspolitischen Entscheidungsspielräume staatlicher Agenturen immer weiter einschränkten und die Anfälligkeit der Wirtschaftssysteme für externe Schocks erhöhten (Haggard 2000;MacIntyre 2003;Pepinsky 2008). Trotz der beschriebenen Unterschiede bestehen auch Anknüpfungspunkte und Komplementaritäten, zum Beispiel zwischen dem gesellschaftsorientierten Institutionalismus und dem strukturalistischen Ansatz.…”