Local Polls in Putrajaya: The Perfect Pilot Project?

A debate over local elections has resurfaced in Malaysia. The issue has a storied political history, but there are good reasons for reintroducing them in Kuala Lumpur and more particularly Putrajaya.

At present, there are 149 local authorities and a small number of additional statutory authorities in Malaysia that span urban as well as rural areas. They are responsible for matters such as town planning, land development, maintenance of basic infrastructure, sanitation, and food safety. Their leaders, termed mayors or presidents, are appointed by their respective state governments.

Local elections have simmered as an issue in Malaysia for more than seventy years. Introduced in Malaya in the 1950s by the British in the run-up to independence, they were the first of a phased introduction of polls to promote political participation and select the country’s eventual leaders. Indeed, it was the 1952 Kuala Lumpur municipal elections that led to the partnership between the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA). This demonstrated the electoral prowess of multi-ethnic political groupings, leading to the establishment of the Alliance which contested and won the first national election in 1955.

Due to its status as the national capital, local polls were phased out in Kuala Lumpur in 1960 in favour of an appointed commissioner and board. Shortly after, several local governments were taken over by their respective state governments due to alleged corruption and malpractice. In 1965 local elections were suspended across the country, ostensibly due to the Konfrontasi with Indonesia. The Local Government Act of 1976 effectively eliminated them by placing the appointment of local councillors under state governments. The issue of reinstating local elections has persisted since this time, with civil society organisations consistently calling for them.

Kuala Lumpur is a special case. While the city is represented at the federal level by its 11 MPs, it does not have or belong to a state government. This is because KL was carved out of Selangor in 1974. At present, local matters in the city are overseen by the mayor, who is appointed by the prime minister in consultation with the monarch.

The issue of reinstating local elections in Kuala Lumpur resurfaced again recently. First, the popular mayor of KL, Maimunah Sharif, was moved to another position after a mere 15 months on the job. Maimunah was credited with impressive fiscal management, increased transparency in urban planning, and implementing a new procurement system. The abruptness of this decision accentuated the lack of input from the city’s residents in the choice of its leaders.

Subsequently, a group of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) MPs submitted a backbencher’s bill to amend the 1960 Federal Capital Act to restore the election of local council members, or councillors. To this end, the International Islamic University of Malaysia is carrying out a feasibility study on reinstating local elections, which will be released in March. Furthermore, Hannah Yeoh, the newly-appointed federal territories minister announced her office is studying the establishment of mayoral elections in Kuala Lumpur.

Compared to its larger sibling Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya offers a number of important attributes to be the site for rolling out local elections. With 109,000 digitally-savvy and articulate residents that are largely civil servants, its demographics make it a good location for local polls.

The mere mention of the study drew broadsides from within and without the Madani administration. These criticisms can be grouped in several buckets. First, local elections are perceived to favour non-Malays, who are more likely to live in urban areas. According to Takiyuddin Hassan, the secretary-general of Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), “certain cities are dominated by certain communities, leading to racial polarization”. Second, local elections are allegedly not politically popular among Malays, according to feedback from the “majority” as well as records of parliamentary debates from the 1960s. And, according to UMNO Supreme Council member Puad Zarkashi, the polls are liable to be hijacked by organised crime networks.

These criticisms are rather dated. While it is true that the population of Kuala Lumpur was overwhelmingly Chinese in the 1970s, this is no longer the case. According to the latest data, Malays along with other Bumiputera comprise 47.7 per cent of the city’s residents, making them the largest group if not the majority. In terms of acceptability, a recent survey shows 51 per cent of Malays support some form of local government elections, and Malay politicians such as Khairy Jamaluddin and Nik Nazmi have called for them. Last, people in non-elected positions can also succumb to pecuniary interests. At present, the former Chief of the Defence Force and the former Chief of the Army are facing charges of criminal breach of trust and money laundering, respectively.

Yet, separate from the merits of holding local government elections per se, it is worth asking if Kuala Lumpur is the best site for them to be rolled out the first time. There are several reasons that Putrajaya emerges as a potentially better choice. Malaysia’s administrative capital is similarly disenfranchised as it was also carved out of Selangor and has no elective local or state level representative. Its most senior local-level leader is also an appointed civil servant (in this case, the President of Putrajaya Corporation). 

Compared to its larger siblings, Putrajaya offers a number of important positives. With a mere 109,000 residents, it provides a very manageable size for a first election. Furthermore, its smaller population fits the rationale for local governments in the first place, namely having elected officials that are closer to residents and have detailed local knowledge.

Even in the event that the sprawling Kuala Lumpur conurbation is beset by copious cohorts of criminals, this can hardly be the case for Putrajaya. While residents enjoy its rarified air, low population density, and copious public parks and waterways, they bemoan its lack of vibrancy. Indeed, according to the 2020 census more than 9,000 of its 38,000 houses lie vacant.

But, perhaps most importantly, its demographics are incontrovertible. Bumiputera comprise 97.9 per cent of the population. By choosing this as the first location for local elections, the Madani Government can make the argument that this is not about satisfying its (largely non-Malay) voter base, but rather about accountability and choice. In contrast to the Madani administration’s clean sweep of KL’s 11 MPs, Putrajaya’s sole MP is a Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia member. Last, the city is almost entirely comprised of civil servants, making them a well-informed, digitally connected and assertive constituency for any aspiring local leader. Can there be any better testbed for a new form of government than this?

2026/67