PETALING JAYA: Experts have divided opinions on having concurrent state and general elections.
While some vote for cost efficiency, voter turnout and political stability, others are panning towards democratic representation and local accountability.
Political analyst Dr G. Manimaran said the proposal to hold future state and general elections simultaneously should be seriously considered because it is cost-effective and would save voters’ time.
“It is better to have joint and concurrent elections for Parliament and all states, not just Melaka and Johor.
ALSO READ: MPs urge all-in-one elections
“The previous six state elections in Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Penang, Selangor and Negri Sembilan alone cost almost RM500mil,” he said when contacted yesterday.
However, he stressed that the timing would depend on the respective political parties and coalitions, as each has its own strategic calculations and assessment of the right moment to call polls.
Universiti Malaya socio-political analyst Prof Datuk Dr Awang Azman Awang Pawi said that realistically, state elections in Melaka and Johor would only be held concurrently with the general election if there is strong pressure from major parties, particularly DAP, and with the consent of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
“Without top-level political agreement, such alignment is unlikely. A joint election offers advantages such as cost efficiency, higher voter turnout and medium-term political stability.
“However, it risks overshadowing state-specific issues and making outcomes overly dependent on national sentiment,” he said.
Holding elections separately, he added, allows voters to assess state governments more independently and gives parties greater tactical flexibility.
“The drawback is higher costs and prolonged political uncertainty. Ultimately, the decision is less technical and more about political calculus and consensus at the federal leadership level,” Awang Azman argued.
Prof James Chin of the University of Tasmania’s Asia Institute said that while synchronising elections may seem logical due to the close links between certain states and federal constituencies, it could have unintended consequences for democratic representation.
“It makes sense for Melaka, Johor and the federal elections to be held concurrently because they are closely linked. But in my personal opinion, it is a really bad idea.
“We should hold them separately to allow voters to choose freely,” he said.
Chin noted that voter behaviour tends to follow predictable patterns, with research showing that constituents who support a particular party at the federal level often vote for the same party at the state level.
This trend is one reason political parties favour concurrent polls.
“People often vote in similar patterns. If they choose a party federally, they are likely to support the same party at the state level. But when elections are held separately, voters may split their choices, backing one party federally and another at the state level, as was common in Penang years ago,” he said.
He also dismissed arguments that concurrent elections are preferable solely for cost savings or to reduce voter fatigue, stressing that financial considerations should not outweigh the seriousness of the electoral process.
“Malaysia already has a relatively long five-year interval between elections, compared to the three-to four-year terms common in many countries. We have a long gap, so cost should not be an issue.
“Electing the leadership of the country and the state is a serious matter,” he said, adding that voters should be given the full opportunity to make their choices.
