The plan to increase the deposits for election candidates, as far as my simple mind tells me, has only one purpose i.e. to ensure as many candidates from the ruling party as possible are returned unopposed.

Just as a Sarawak farmer and a fisherman from Terengganu will find it difficult to own a condominium and a Porsche, these Malaysian citizens will find that contesting an election is now impossible because they cannot afford it.

That simple analogy bares one fact unaffordable. It wants to put that democratic right of a citizen to be an elected peoples representative beyond the reach of the poor and have-nots.

So only the rich (including the corrupted rich), who can afford just about anything available in this country, can offer themselves as candidates and in the process become leaders of the people and nation.

Opposition fire

Sometime ago, Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Dr Rais Yatim announced plans to increase the electoral deposits to ensure that only those who are serious will contest.

Under the proposal, the deposit for parliamentary candidates will be doubled to RM10,000 and that for state seats to RM5,000 from RM3,000.

According to Rais, increasing the electoral deposit is one of the proposals considered in order to make the electoral process smoother and cleaner. Not surprisingly, the proposal came under immediate fire from the opposition.

Opposition leader Fadzil Noor described the suggestion as undemocratic and unjust.

Such a proposal, if accepted, will only seek to profit Barisan Nasional as it is a rich party. At present, the deposits are already very high.

The opposition parties and candidates will not be able to afford any further increase, said Fadzil who is PAS president and Pendang MP.

DAP secretary-general Kerk Kim Hock said the move to increase deposits would be a deterrent to opposition parties, who would find it hard to raise the sum. This will be a great disadvantage to the opposition, he added.

In recent days, the plan came up for public debate again. As usual, BN people supported the move echoing Rais statement that the higher deposits would discourage the not serious candidates from entering the fray.

Short memory

I was both disappointed and amused when a Sarawak MP from a rural constituency remarked that raising the deposits would ensure that those contesting for fun will feel the pinch. He even suggested that the deposit be raised from RM5,000 to RM50,000.

Apparently, the MP has very short memory of where he came from. He has probably forgotten that his father in the longhouse has never seen RM50,000 in his lifetime. He has also forgotten that his parents probably had not even used RM50,000 to raise him and his eight siblings.

I think the MP started shooting without thinking because in his two electoral contests, he had never been returned unopposed and he was disappointed, perhaps even angry.

In Sarawak, MPs from the ruling party vying for rural seats stand a fair chance of winning without contest. Those who manage this feat consider themselves popular and powerful since they had been accepted as leaders by their own community.

I can only conclude that the MP concerned suggested such a hefty increase in deposits because to him, that seems to be the only way to ensure that he wins his next election unopposed.What an absurd thought!

Money = serious

Rais stressed on the word serious. Now, is a serious candidate anyone who can afford to put up twice as much, i.e. RM10,000 and RM5,000 for a parliamentary and state assembly seat respectively?

Does it matter if he is a loan shark, con man or a cheat? As long as he has the money for an electoral deposit, then he is considered a serious candidate. Is this what we are talking about here?

On the subject of money, Ive calculated that any party which wants to field candidates in all 192 parliamentary seats in the country will need RM1.92 million for deposits alone.

And in Sarawak, any party which intends to vie in all the 62 state seats will have to fork out RM310,000. I can safely say that is beyond any political party other than the ruling one.

But I am not joining the opposition parties to oppose the plan just because of the monetary issue alone.

I oppose it more for the principle it contravenes, i.e. the right of a citizen to stand for election.

Right to stand

When a citizen comes of age to vote in a democratic country, why should he or she be denied the right to stand for election?

The Election Commission cannot simply deny that right just because the candidate does not have the RM10,000 or RM5,000 for deposit.

And whether the candidate is serious or not is not for the commission to judge but for the electorate at large. Allow the normal process to continue; let fellow citizens reject the candidate if he or she is really contesting for frivolous reasons.

I find it interesting that Rais mentioned the 65 independent candidates who contested in last Septembers Sarawak state polls. I would not worry even if 650 independents contested and lost their deposits considering there are 800,000 eligible voters in Sarawak.

If there are so many people who are unhappy with a system that they are prepared to lose their deposits and show their displeasure in public, it is a sign that democracy is alive and well. Why must an additional financial burden be imposed to prevent the growth of a healthier and livelier democracy?

After all, what are elections all about? It is about exercising ones democratic right to choose and reject leaders of ones choice. It is about upholding a national constitution, the very fabric on which a nation is founded. It is also about the reflection of real life in a community. And no organisation or person, no matter how powerful he is, should restrict, unacceptably, that constitutional right to free elections.

Benefit of the doubt

While I strongly object to the higher deposit plan as a deterrent for not serious contenders, I would humbly suggest that candidates who lost their deposits be barred from contesting in one subsequent general election.

That means that the candidate will only get the chance to contest again after 10 years.

Over that period, he or she would probably have retired had he or she not been serious in the first place.

And if he or she decided to contest again after 10 years, then there is every possibility that he or she will be a very serious candidate indeed.

We should give our politicians the benefit of the doubt sometimes, shouldnt we?

Our conscience, if not our system, dictates that we should even if he is just a farmer from Sarawak or a fisherman from Terengganu.

By the way, that Sarawak MP who suggested a RM50,000 deposit was challenged by a lorry driver during the 1999 general election and only managed to retain his seat by the skin of his teeth.

Francis Siah is a former Sarawak newspaper editor and is now a columnist for several publications. He is also the former secretary-general of the State Reform Party of Sarawak (Star).