MGG Pillai Commentary View

<< Previous || Next >>

Why free and fair elections is not possible

WHEN THE PRIME MINISTER, DATO' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, filed his nomination papers in his Kepala Batas parliamentary constituency, his PAS opponent, Mr Abdul Khalid Rasid, raised a preliminary objection: Pak Lah did not file his election statement of accounts, as the law requires, after the 1999 general election. Pak Lah insisted he had, but when challenged, could not produce it. The returning officer, who would gladly had disqualified the candidate if the situation was reversed, decided discretion was the better of valour. His future was at stake. He passed the buck. He said at first only the Election Commission could, then decided he would, and rejected the objection. How could the Prime Minister be disqualified? He would not make such a stupid mistake, would he? The DAP leader, Mr Lim Kit Siang, could, which is why he was charged for a similar election offence years ago. But the Prime Minister? Certainly not! In 1999, the then Prime Minister, the now Tun Mahathir Mohamed, found at the last minute that his nomination papers were wrongly entered and could have been disqualified. But it was found out in time. He sacked a political secretary for this gaffe.

It is instances like this that throw doubt on how fair and free Malaysian elections are. What happened in Kepala Batas is neither rare nor unusual. The National Front (BN) has done it all the time. In the 1970s, it was rampant. The EC stood by and watched, not helpless but by looking the other way, as the then Sabah strong man, Tun Mustapha Datu Harun, rode rough shod over the Opposition, buying or forcing them to withdraw from the election for a clean sweep. Those who persisted were physically assaulted, or their families threatened. One was tied with a dog chain under his own house so he could not file his nomination papers. Variations of this is seen in every election in Sabah since. The election rules are rewritten to make it difficult to challenge the BN. Elections, for instance, must be held between nine days and 60 days of dissolution of parliament and the state assemblies. The EC decides it should within the minimum allowed.

All sorts of reasons are toted out: the awful waste of funds, how a longer election period would upset security, reducing the time allowed for nominations whilst allowing the candidates to withdraw within three days of nomination. This means the campaign is only for five days. Why should a candidate be allowed one hour to be a candidate and three days to decide if he wants to go through? Who is the EC to say the security would be a problem? Its job is the conduct the elections fairly and freely. Let the security agencies come out with a clear statement that security is a problem. If it does, then the charade of thousands of supporters following a candidate to the nomination centre should also be banned. Why is the polling restricted to one day in Sabah and Sarawak, where the only means of getting in and out of polling stations is the helicopter? Organising it is such a hassle that once more than a week was allowed for polling, staggered. I have met voters who had had to walk for hours to get to a polling station. Somehow one does get the feeling that all is not well in the ulu. Especially when a high turnout is revealed.

So why does the EC insist on short campaigns? So the BN can romp home free. All its excuses are for no reason than that. The EC is more anxious in 2004 because the BN snaps from within. The deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak, rushed to Perlis in front of a BN revolt: many constituency operation rooms are abandoned, one or two burnt, in a state where PAS could, until nomination day, dent the solid BN majority. Now the state could fall. The superficial BN unity the mainstream press talks of is not matched by what happens in the ground. The two-thirds majority is safe, but it comes at a heavy price. Pak Lah's iron control of BN is not there. He had to rush to Johore before nomination, and after calling on the Sultan, change his candidate for mentri besar. In Batu Pahat, several BN operation rooms were abandoned or burnt because the sitting MP is not a candidate. In Malacca, the chief minister Pak Lah wanted dropped stands, with a better than ordinary chance of remaining in his post, despite a financial scandal surrounding him and in which the ACA takes a keener than usual interest.

In short, in every state, the BN faces internal convulsions amidst a superficial calm. It has realised it is in shambles. So it uses every trick in the book to justify the unjustifiable. The BN is strong and unbeatable. Why? Because the PAS candidate in Kota Tinggi saw the light and withdrew, whilst praising the foreign minister, Dato' Seri Abdul Hamid Albar, the BN candidate. Because of the seven parliamentary and a dozen and more state constituencies returned uncontested. It knows its representatives did not, with few honorable exceptions, service their constituents. How does it resolve it? A computerised projection called Key Performance Index will decide if an elected representative is doing his work. If they fail, they would be cautioned, then sacked if they do not improve. In other words, how an elected representative is judged on how he fares on a score card, not how he does his work. But Pak Lah is sold on it. The KPI would demand "credible, transparent and responsible behaviour" from MPs and state assemblymen; after the elections a list is given to them on which they would be matched.

After 50 years in power, the BN has discovered something new. The elected representative, says Pak Lah, "must be 'people-centred'" and go to them "to understand their problems and act fast to resolve them". When did the BN discover this? A realisation that came with the KPI or some rubbish ill thought out. There is a much better way, but that is not so state-of-the-art: foot slogging in the constituency, week in and week out, addressing the problems and resolving them so that the people respect the man and walk with him to the ends of the world. But in the current state of BN politics, he would be the first to be thrown out for he then becomes a threat to those in office. For when push comes to shove, the BN elected representative is arrogance personified. Look at Dato' Seri Najib in Pekan a few days ago: This constituency is his by right, and obliquely insists no one else could represent the constituency as well as he can.

In this onslaught, how do the Opposition parties fare? Pretty well. The Star says in its self-serving advertisement for the BN that its greatest threat is PAS, and by extension the DAP for once being linked with it. By this token, should the MCA, which controls the Star, be so tarred because once it worked closely with PAS in the 1970s? In 1999, the BN election advertisements in the mainstream papers lost it many votes. This time around it is subtler, but not by much. The New Straits Times goes for advertisements which puts Pak Lah as the red-tape destroyer, and for a seamless administration. The DAP shot itself in the foot by staying out of the Barisan Alternatif, and because of the three-cornered fights it is in, could lose ground. But if it does not revamp itself after, it faces the same dilemma as UMNO. The Barisan Alternatif, on the other hand, is focussed, has a political agenda that aims for control not in 2004 but in 2009. But one thing missing is what all political parties stand for: All of them issued their manifestos after nomination, and voters almost certainly would learn of what it contains only long after the polls are over. The EC restricts the campaign so thoroughly that one does get the impression that general elections are held to keep it in office. But how good is that for demoracy and for free and fair elections?

[I wrote this for my column in Harakah for its second issue for the month, out today, 17 March]

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@streamyx.com