Election Commission chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, who has about 30 years of experience in organising elections under his belt - tells malaysiakini why his commission is impotent in bringing reforms to the system in this first of a three-part series.

Malaysiakini: This coming general election will be your first as EC chairperson. Will there be any changes?

Abdul Rashid: I found a lot of people misunderstood EC. We do try to create changes. We have adopted - from the British - a simple (voting) system because 65 percent of Malaysians (then) were illiterate.

The British thought, 'we'd give you a simple system' - which means that people go to the booth, vote for the candidate they want, and the winner will be determined on the basis who past the post first, even with one vote. So, there were candidates (in the past) who had won by one vote, seven votes...

This (first-past-the-post) system - if you talk about electoral democracy - is not a fair system because it does not allow the smaller parties the chance to win. This is because the smaller parties have no resources, no money, no manpower.

So, because of that (the lack of resources), they (small parties) were not really able to explain (their policies). And of course, the mainstream newspapers have no appetite for them and that is why they will not be able to tell the people their ideologies.

Parti Rakyat (Malaysia, PRM) for example, they have very good programmes, but their programmes are not accepted by people. (Their programmes are) socialist in nature. Dr Syed Husin Ali (PRM president) - his programmes are beautiful but he hasn't got the resources. No money. Well, a lot of people give money to political parties, but they only give to those who can provide returns. That is a fact [laughs]. I think that is an acceptable practice everywhere in the world.

So is EC thinking about changing to a fairer voting system?

There is the proportionate system, where you get the number of seats proportionate to the number of votes you obtain. That is more fair. This is nearly adopted by all European countries, except the British - they are still like us. After 300 years of democracy, they continued with that simple system. The British, I find, are difficult to change. They still use the old ballot box, the old perforator, the same ones we are still using, until today.

Recently I went to UK, I asked them, 'Do you think of anything new that can be considered as a substitute?' They said, 'No, no, no. This is still very good and we will not change it.'

You talk about electronic voting, people say, 'you are behind time', but we are not [laughs]. Because our former master is still using it (the old system). I think they will continue with the current system because the electronic system is expensive. But here, we are talking about it already. But we really have to convince political parties and the whole population (to accept electronic voting).

But will EC consider recommending to the government to bring in the proportionate system to promote a fairer electoral environment?

I don't know whether our recommendation will be considered or not. Actually (our duty) is not to recommend. There must be a dictation from outside. People must agitate. It is for the people to ask.

Political parties don't seem to mind very much (about first-past-the-post system). I don't see much request for any change. Most political parties prefer this system - probably they want to have a taste of it when they are in power, but they never seemed to be getting into power [laughs].

But this simple system has brought us a lot of good. We have got to admit that we need a very stable government. And with that system, a party got to - at any one time - gain the majority to form a stable government, provided that the government is a responsible government.

Still, if you talk in terms of legitimacy, this government is very legitimate, in the sense that people have been able to exercise their right to vote - whether they know or not what they are doing in the polling booth, is another story.

I have my doubts in the beginning when I saw old folks or uneducated lots going to vote. They were merely following instructions, meaning that they did not know why they voted for the candidate. Maybe because somebody say this candidate is good, that he attends kenduri, visit the dead. Or maybe they know this party is good and it must be voted in.

But the country has changed, the rate of literacy is now probably 99 percent - people are at least able to read and write. There is a need to change... Earlier, it is understood that we need a stable government and that the simple (first-past-the-post) system help us gain that.

So the commission would prefer to wait for the political parties to demand for changes?

We would like the request to come from outside instead of coming from within the EC. It is not really our constitutional responsibilities.

Outside does not necessarily means political parties?

No. the people, NGOs. (If) they come up with good arguments, the government must give some thoughts. I like it very much if people are educated, they know what they are doing, they know why they vote a certain party, they know what they are going to face, they know what is in store for them.

That is an important state... that people know what they are doing. They don't just vote by emotions, like the 1999 election, for example. That, we don't want.

Why do you say that the last general election was based on emotions?

There was a lot of emotions! It was the time he (jailed ex-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim) was just charged (for corruption and sodomy). It was the reformasi time... it worked up people's feelings.

Some people don't even know why they are throwing stones in the street. That, I know (because) I asked some people who had been doing that. I asked why did you throw stones (and they replied) 'Oh, we don't want Anwar to be victimised.'

(There was) a lot of talk of wrongdoings, which made people angry... real emotions. In the kampung (villages), the old folks shed tears for Anwar - they claimed that he was victimised.

But these involved mostly Malay voters?

Yes, it involved mainly the Malays.

The Chinese appeared to support BN...

The Chinese... because of education. They know what needs to be considered when exercising their voting rights. We would like to have the whole country having this kind of attitude. I like talking to them (Chinese voters), I go down to talk to them... They are very secretive (about their votes), which means they do their calculation first [laughs].

Do you think that the coming elections, the voting pattern will now be different for the Malays?

The emotions are still there. It's not that I don't support Anwar Ibrahim... that is not an issue, but when you go to the polls, you must be mindful of the issues. You must understand the issues at stake and not based (your vote) on anger. It is time we teach Malaysia to understand issues. I think you got that avenue in malaysiakini. You can bring up issues, make them really understand.

People don't discuss much about policies relating to the economy, defence, education... How many Chinese can be admitted into universities is not an issue. The quality of education is the real issue! We may have 400 universities here... but (the question is) what kind of graduates are we producing.

I hate to see my officers nowadays, young ones, they can't even write properly. I asked them, 'how did you get your degree?' That reflects quality. That is a big issue.

Even when we want to bring up issues, we are hampered by the government - there is the Official Secrets Act...

Yes... that is true. What is our defence policy? I don't know! I am the chairman of the EC... a very important man in this country [laughs], but I don't know what the policy is. You want to buy a submarine, why? They cost billions of ringgit. Are you going to fight China or what? Are you going to fight some other countries? Are we having problems?

The education policy keeps on changing... I don't know what is happening to our policy. There is no substance. I am complaining because I need to know, because I need to explain it to the people.

Like, agriculture... are we going back to (the original) agriculture policy? As I see it, we are neither here nor there. This is like bomba (fireman). Not enough rice, (they tell to) plant more padi. Not enough vegetables, they tell you to plant more. When there is an overload of vegetables, then they tell you to stop planting. I mean, what is this?

They appointed a corporate figure to be the agriculture minister, who talks about corporate agriculture. Can the farmers in Cameron Highlands understand him? Their only concern is to sell their vegetables. If they cannot do that, they would have to throw them away...

Coming back to the election system..

Yes, we have the (British) system... We are happy because whatever it is, we have got a responsible government. Put aside abuses. Of course, there is plenty of that. You can write 20, 30, 40 books on many kinds of abuse. That is bound to happen when you have power. Power leads to abuse and corruption. But in spite of all these, we managed our country very well.

One important fact is that we have a well-trained civil service. Although that civil service can be improved with motivation and improvement of attitude, etc. But our standards badly dropped after we changed our system from English to Malay. Today, I don't have a single officer who can be sent overseas. I have been scratching my head thinking of candidates to send for overseas programmes, no one... they can't even understand what they read, let alone speak (English).

So lately, I told the relevant people and they said they are looking into it. I told them there must be something done quickly - make them go for night classes, make them follow programmes, make them talk on stage. Back in the old days, I used to help my friends from Thailand and Indonesia whose English were not so good. Sometimes I spoke on their behalf. But now, they speak Oxford-Cambridge English. I think we are lagging behind. It's time that we change.

How can the commission improve the procedure in monitoring election expenditure?

In terms of law, we are restrained from doing a lot of things. This is the commission which has been established by the nation not to be a fully independent commission .

But isn't the EC meant to be an independent body?

No, never ever. You look at the constitution, what does it say? That there shall be a commission that enjoys the public confidence. It does not say 'an independent commission'.

But to enjoy public confidence, you need to be independent.

Not necessarily so. It means that we have to do our job but the basic guidelines are that we must conduct a free and fair election. (This does) not necessarily mean you are independent. How could you be independent? There is no one EC in this world that is truly independent.

You can never escape from the government of the day from being involved in elections. Whether the EC is seen to be independent - fair and free - depends on one important fact: how tolerant is the ruling party? In most Western countries, the party in power is tolerant. They take criticism openly. Here, we have not come to that level.

So you do get pressure from the government?

Not necessarily pressure. You just cannot implement anything without having to be interfered (by the government). For example, during election campaigns, you want to see all political parties to move freely. All candidates must be given that freedom. Can that really happen?

There is a ban on public rallies too...

Well, now it (public rally) is going to be lifted for the coming election. The ban on public rally is now no more, but it is going to be controlled - not by us but other authorities because of the existence of other laws. Other laws come into play during elections. These laws are the over-riding factor.

The police will identify the places and permits. You just cannot go to any nooks and corners and conduct the rally. This is for security, or so they say - I have no choice but agree to it [laughs] Okay, if the police say it's about security - and I don't know anything about security - I have to agree.

Because we (EC) are not responsible for control. Our job is very simple - we try to make sure the allocations for permits must be fairly done. For this, we have to use our ways to talk to the police. I'm not saying that the police have not been fair but sometimes they do get carried away. Instructions from the top never go down to the ground.

So it's alright for political parties to organise open rallies?

Yes it is. Since I came in three years (ago), I try to make changes. Last time, I was the (EC) secretary, I cannot push. We took minutes (of meetings). As soon as I came in as chairman, I put in a lot of proposals, because as years go by, people are more educated, they want more changes.

But people are 'walloping' us because they don't understand our stand. But I cannot go around the world (and say) that we are not an independent commission - they will kick my backside for that [laughs]. But I have to do this (push for changes), to put on a brave heart.

Nevertheless, the EC does have the power to make recommendations to the government?

Yes, we make recommendations. We put our proposals to the AG (attorney-general), (it goes) to cabinet, then to parliament. It will get stuck somewhere along the way. So how can we can propose a draft here and send it to parliament. I think the system will not allow that.

But I also cannot go to the world and say that I proposed these and get rejected. By doing so, I will be fighting the government which I should not be doing. Not that I am afraid to get knocked off - I don't ask for this job, I was invited to do this job, not because they like my face, but maybe because I have the experience.

It is good for the country to have people like me. But I cannot explain about this big handicap. We push to make sure that the ground is level a bit, not tilting. Level-playing field is always good, but I think there can be no ground that is equally leveled.


Tomorrow: Caretaker government's abuse of resources

ABDUL RASHID ABDUL RAHMAN was interviewed at his Putrajaya office on Sept 4 by malaysiakini journalists Arfa'eza A Aziz, Nash Rahman, James Wong, Francis Siah and Steven Gan.