MGG Pillai Commentary View

<< Previous || Next >>

Elections As Is, Was, Must Be

The Elections Commission is a pale shadow of what it once was. Once it chairman could defy the Prime Minister. The first Prime Minister, Tengku Abdul Rahman, irritated at the independence the then EC chairman, Dato' Dr Megat Khas, displayed, insisted he obey. Dr Megat Khas sent in his letter of resignation with his refusal. The Tengku appointed him, he said, because he would exercise his mind fairly where it mattered and not do what the government of the day wanted. The Tengku backed down. But the EC declined in the years since when members are chosen as after-retirement jobs for self-serving civil servants. None would dare defy the Prime Minister of the day, and need their sinecures. Members are chosen for their absolute loyalty to the government of the day, theirs to find exquisite reasons why unacceptable conditions which hobble the opposition are in fect what makes this country democratic. A lifetime in the civil service immures them from regarding the Opposition as renegades and rascals.

We are told, after the Pendang and Anak Bukit bye-elections, how they proved Malaysia's firm commitment to democracy. That this is repeated after every bye-election is proof enough it is not. Elections, though it helps, alone does not make a country democratic. Especially, if the elected leaders, after the elections, hold the people to ransom.

Over the years, when the National Front's hold was unchallenged, it could do what it wanted, the opposition weak, fragmented, diffused and defused to object. As the Opposition grew in strength, but not enough to challenge the BN might and control, the EC went about its merry task, ignoring Opposition requests for a meeting or its complaints or requests. The BN is in power for 47 years, and believes it has the God-given right to continue for another 47. And provides the wherewithal for it.

Today, any changes to the EC procedures and laws are announced by the de facto minister of law, Dato' Seri Rais Yatim, often to the bafflement of the EC itself. The government decides how it should function, and the EC there only to obey orders. As pressure on it grows from the revitalised opposition parties, th EC hides its impotence with statements of intent. In the Pendang and Anak Bukit bye-elections, the EC describes the campaigning to be "crude and callous", that it should not happen after 47 years of elections.

The EC chairman, Dato' Wan Kadir Wan Omar, is disappointed, both government and opposition parties should "learn from past elections and abide by campaign ethics." As fatuous a statement as could from a man responsible for the conduct of elections. "We have had 10 general elections and more than 350 bye-elections and yet such things are still happening." That it does shows how impotent he and his EC has become. He makes statements to assuage his own conscience he is not. He cannot act, so he makes statements. He who has no experience in the conduct of elections before his appointment now wants political parties to abide by past practice.

But the past practice is shredded out of existence in the new laws. The EC was once independent; today, it is a branch of the government and beholden to who is in power. So what practices does he talk of? When he condones restrictions to restrict the opposition from challenging the government in the polls, how could he expect the opposition to abide by rules for situations that are no more extent. If the rights are restricted, the obligations must also. There is a cause and effect in these matters. When there is not, the problems begin.

The EC did not object nor get the views of opposition parties when the government decided to quadruple the deposit candidates must put up before they could contest. Spurious reasons, all meant to make it difficult for the opposition and others unaligned with the government to contest, are given, and the EC does not raise a whimper. There must be solid reasons other than making it all but impossible for the opposition to contest when making rules and regulations. What this implies is that only well-funded parties and individuals could contest elections. It is as democratic a rule as the expensive primaries a candidate must suffer through so he could be a man of the people. Only those with unlimited funds, like poor billionaires, or with efficient fund-raising organisations, are eligible. Or as is proposed in Pakistan, only graduates could contest in elections. Or, as in Malaysia and Singapore, the campaign period is reduced to a minimum, nine days in Singapore a fortnight in Malaysia, so the Opposition is hobbled before it starts.

Public rallies are banned, allegedly for security reasons. But this disappears whenever the Prime Minister or a National Front component party decides upon a public rally. When the opposition wants one, if it cannot be denied, public avenues are suddenly not available for the pettiest of reasons. The Elections Commission restricts public debate. Only those with money could engage in it. The man with a decided view but with little money should forever be denied the right to expound it in the legislature, not because he lost an election but because he could not afford the electoral deposit.

The EC reluctance to allow public debate is one part of a widespread officially-inspired move to restrict debate. The sudden Malay anger at what happened to the now-jailed former deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, is a consequence of this deliberate policy to restrict debate. When a man cannot say his piece in public without a police permit -- getting it is often an obstacle course of obtuse difficulties -- the stage is set for a frightening show of dissent when least expected. When the government believes, in Goebbels-speak, what it says is what is, when it is not, fissures appear in the link between it and the people.

This is seen in Malaysia with a vengeance. The government is frustrated it cannot get the people's support no matter what it does for them. The people like to be consulted. Here they are not. So, any who would attempts finds they get the support. Despite the absolute hold UMNO has on the country, many of its leaders -- cabinet ministers, state chief ministers, MPs and state assemblymen -- dare not return to their constituencies except in large groups, preferably in the entourage of the visiting Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister.

So, it is not surprising that the Prime Minister, after every general or bye-election, praises the police, the armed forces, and other security agencies for keeping the polls secure and quiet. Why does the government harp on its inability to keep the peace -- for that is what it is if it insists 33 years after the event, Malaysia is still a demonstration away from anarchy and racial riot -- unless it is a form of threat and danger? Peace comes at a price. If the government is not prepared to pay the price -- which is reasoned debate of issues of the day -- then it has all the more reason to be frightened of chaos, threat and instability. This would not happen overnight, but a gradual descent into the darkness.

But the Elections law changes of recent years is to prevent these worthies from being questioned too intrusively. Public rallies are disallowed because these worthies could not save their lives if they had to debate in public on a public platform and without written speeches. But the human mind finds ways out of difficulties. As more than ample evidence of that was seen in Kedah in the past week. The danger for the government, and the EC, is that despite the restrictions, it survives to the fright of those in power. That stage is not reached yet. But if more restrictions are in the offing, the surer that would come. The Elections Commission must take the greater part of the blame for it.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my