JUNE 14 — As we present the results of our statistical analysis on public opinion in Malaysia regarding trust in government and media, we’d like to discuss the current situation of public opinion research in Malaysia and what we hope to achieve.

Traditionally, measuring public approval of the government in Malaysia has always been focused on elections. Having transitioned from a decades-long authoritarian regime through electoral means, elections have become the de facto method for gauging democratic engagement in the country, by virtue of there being little else.

This has led to an analytical framework built around each election to determine how Malaysians from various ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds and age will vote. This analytical approach is possible based on how each polling centre is formulated that allows for divisions based on ethnicity and age to be used to measure support for different political parties.

Post-election analyses typically materialise to explore voting patterns across various ethnic and age groups, based on the ethnic composition and stream distribution of each centre. In some cases, analyses would explore socioeconomic differences, comparing voting behaviours in urban centres versus rural areas.

However, this overreliance on elections as a measure of the political climate results in every election, including small by-elections, being treated as a litmus test for public approval of the government (regardless of whether the seat would affect the government). This is especially frustrating in local by-elections where the campaign can often be dominated by state or federal narratives which overshadow or sideline issues faced by the local community.

This situation persists primarily due to the lack of regular public opinion research from independent sources in Malaysia. Public opinion research is an important component for any democratic state, providing independent assessments of the political climate and acting as a barometer for public sentiment on various political issues.

In mature democracies, governments would have their own mechanisms to collect and present public opinion (town halls, petitions, etc.) but in general, such research is often conducted by civil society organisations or think tanks like the Pew Centre, Ipsos, and the Brookings Institution. When conducted properly, these are incredibly powerful tools for both citizens and the state to gain feedback on government performance based on evidence-supported views of public opinion that are grounded in reality.

In Malaysia, the history of public opinion surveys is weak, especially those published for public consumption. While the government does collect public opinion, this information is often for internal use and rarely shared with the public. While there are a handful of state-operated and independent think tanks that do conduct public opinion research, however, their reports which are made public often lack more in-depth analysis or remain internal.

For a plural society like Malaysia, a single percentage figure representing the opinions of all Malaysians (or Malaysians by race) on specific issues is insufficient to explore societal nuances or differences. Therefore, our research employed a robust statistical analysis method applied to public opinion survey results, so as to examine how differences in demographics influence public views on political issues.

Indeed, we recognise the challenge in presenting complex research in an accessible manner as it is often seen as impenetrable; only for academia rather than public facing research due to its complexity and steep learning curve. However, making this research accessible is essential for improving public discourse and accurately representing the voice of the rakyat. Politicians and political players frequently wax lyrical about the rakyat being opposed to or supporting whatever issue to their benefit, often without any citation of evidence (or citing evidence that is never made public and thus cannot be verified or refuted). Improving the quality and depth of public opinion research can recentre political discourse around evidence-based research. This would be a positive move overall.

The current Madani government frequently faces criticisms for not expanding beyond traditional ethnic based welfare policies, despite Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim advocacy for a needs-based approach. By understanding intersectional differences between ethnic groups through in-depth analytical approaches, we are hopeful that this can lead to more holistic social policies that can address the needs of marginalised and minorities in Malaysian society.

*This is the personal opinion of the writers or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.