Malaysians for Free and Fair Elections (Mafrel) chairperson Abdul Malek Hussin fields questions on reform of the electoral process and answers allegations about his organisation's finances.

Malaysiakini: What are some of the positive steps that the Elections Commission (EC) has taken to tackle the problems with the election processes and system?

Abdul Malek Hussin: Mafrel welcomes and lauds the move (to amend the laws to clean up the electoral roll) as a step in the right direction, a good start. The idea of cleaning the electoral roll should be supported, but the EC should come up with the specifics. There are as yet no details on the draft amendments. We should suggest to the EC to hold a roundtable discussion with all parties in order to get their input.

We have yet to see the amendments to the Elections Regulation that (EC chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman) mentioned (last Wednesday). We need more specific details as to what exactly will be amended and the details.

However, the EC should move towards truly free and fair elections by also addressing the problems in connection with election campaigning, creating a level playing field. The election system and processes need further review.

We also want to raise the question of the impartiality of the implementation. How impartial will this be? Village heads are often delegated to confirm deceased voters, for example, but are often political appointees of certain parties. Who will monitor the impartiality of implementation? There needs to be some kind of monitoring.

In the context of the Sarawak elections (on May 20), the most positive step taken by the EC (Elections Commission) was to tackle the issue of secrecy of votes. It amended Regulation 19(3) of the Elections (Conduct of Election) Regulations, 1981 and also 7(1) of the Elections (Postal Voting) Regulations 2003. The measures will allay fears that the secrecy of the ballot has been compromised.

Another (positive) step is the introduction and distribution of the (eight-page) comprehensive Election Code of Conduct (pertaining to do's and don'ts on nomination day, polling day, the campaign period, counting and tallying of votes, and announcement of election results). The EC also introduced the User-friendly Voters' Registry Systems Application.

Overall, we didn't face any obstacles or obstruction from EC officials at any polling station (in our efforts) to observe or monitor voting on the ground. Domestic election observation conducted by Mafrel, I presume, has been accepted by EC, (even) if (we were) not officially recognised. Mafrel did not apply for accreditation to observe the Sarawak elections, unlike in Pengkalan Pasir (by-election in Kelantan in 2005), when we did apply (but) were rejected by the EC.

What are some of the successes of (Mafrel's Aug 6) workshop that you wish to highlight? Were you surprised about anything? The turnout of the workshop, perhaps?

We view positively the presence of parties of diverse political affiliations from the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition such as Umno, MCA, PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah, SAPP (Sabah Progressive Party) sitting together with the opposition parties, representatives from PAS and DAP. It should be viewed as a positive development.

Mafrel's idea was to initiate bipartisan political dialogue to address electoral issues and problems relating to the election system and processes.

The significance or importance of this was not only to engage political parties but also debate by engaging civil society organisations, public institutions, (read: government departments), and academicians in order to gather broad-based input. The stakeholders of democracy are not confined merely to political parties and their candidates and supporters, but also include the whole spectrum of society. Ultimately, (Mafrel seeks to engage) the general public, the voters, especially with a view to empowering them.

Were we surprised? Yes, we were. This is the first time that Mafrel conducted a bipartisan workshop to discuss the observation findings of the Sarawak elections. We were surprised that we received such an encouraging response. The spectrum of participation has yet to include other parties and organisations that earlier confirmed their attendance but could not attend due to last-minute hitches - such as BN component parties Gerakan, PBRS (Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah) and UPKO (United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation).

Despite positive response from political parties as stakeholders in an election, we were taken aback by the negative response of the public institutions or government departments that are directly related to the election system and processes.

The EC is not the only body responsible for the elections. Other institutions and departments like the police, National Registration Department (NRD), Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), Registrar of Societies and Information Department (are also involved).

In our research on the election rolls, (we found that) problems relating to irregularities and discrepancies were directly related to:

  • electors without addresses, which refer to untraceable electors;
  • the issue of un-recognised voters; and
  • the issue of dubious addresses... for some electors with addresses, addresses were verified as dubious or didn't fulfill the requirements in election laws and regulations.

Mafrel understands that the EC cannot be solely blamed for these discrepancies because according to our election laws and regulations with respect to registration of voters or applications for registration, the information is based on official records as specified in the identity card issued by the NRD. So improper address or dubious address or in extreme cases, no addresses at all, appear in the ICs (identity cards). It is unusual for Malaysians to be without a specific address for their residence. You can't blame the EC for these dubious addresses because this is an issue to be addressed by the NRD.

The law doesn't provide (for) the EC to simply erase or delete or update addresses without official application by electors themselves. EC will only update on the basis of electors' application, in renewing their voting/electoral constituencies, on the basis of their new address registered with the NRD, which is the body responsible for national registration of citizens.
NRD is not responsible for the registration of voters.

Despite that, surely there must be an integrated system to be introduced and applied to reconcile and update the data between the EC and NRD. That's the basic issue with regard to the election system. All voters must be registered, only qualified electors can vote on polling days, and their names must be in the records of the electoral roll prepared by the EC.

Another example (of the role of other government departments) applies to the enforcement of the EC's Election Code of Conduct, which outlines various issues such as addressing corrupt practices, abuse of government machinery, unfair media reporting, and so on and so forth.

Under the prevailing laws and regulations, the EC is powerless to enforce. The enforcement is within the jurisdiction or responsibility of various government agencies. For example, corrupt practices should be addressed by the police and the ACA. They should be responsible for monitoring any abuse of government machinery and facilities during elections.

With regard to unfair reporting, Mafrel poses the question: who should be responsible for enforcement? From our observation and experience with previous elections, we can't rely on the Information Department under the information ministry to monitor and enforce because the department itself is directly involved and is being used as propaganda tool by certain political parties. How do we address such issues?

What about the other government branches or institutions -Parliament, judiciary, police force, ACA, etc?

It is Mafrel's policy to constructively engage with all relevant government or public institutions to inculcate awareness for free and fair election. One of the steps taken was to invite them to the dialogue. Of course, I should note that the police have responded positively, but I have no idea why they backed out at the last minute. This also goes for the Information Department and Suhakam (Human Rights Commission of Malaysia). We got information that Suhakam would attend. The other two government departments had officially confirmed (that) senior officials (would come).

From the workshop, we discussed and suggested recommendations to address problems issues of the election system and process through bipartisan dialogue. These recommendations will be forwarded to not only to stakeholders such as political parties, civil society organisations, but specifically to the EC and related government institutions. We will make an extra effort to present the workshop's findings and recommendations. Mafrel will write to them.

We are hopeful that we will be get positive response. We have plans to disseminate the findings and recommendations to state governments and the authorities within their jurisdiction, especially local authorities.

What about Parliament?

The idea or vision of free and fair elections necessitates broad overview and review which would include amendments to existing laws and regulations. We have to write to convince lawmakers, especially from the ruling coalition, to convince them of the necessity to conduct free and fair elections in Malaysia. You have to do a lot of presentations and meetings and briefings.

On the basis of current political system, based on Westminster democracy, the most compelling issue is the principle of equal suffrage, simply one person, one vote. This relates to the quality and fairness in electoral constituency delineation exercise (ECDE). In that respect, we need to review the laws, and even constitutional prerequisits to provide for the EC to conduct such exercises.
We have seen disproportionate and imbalance with previous exercises. For example, we have a constituency of more than 100,000 in Seputeh in Kuala Lumpur and the constituency of Lenggong (Perak) with less than 30,000. Would it mean that the voting quotient or power of Lenggong voters is three times greater than those in Seputeh? The Lenggong MP would need only a majority of 15,000 for a seat in Parliament, whereas the Seputeh MP would need an electoral strength of at least thrice that.

Is this fair? Does this comply with the principle of equal suffrage? There must be a national ratio or quotient. In the first delineation exercise to map our country's electoral constituencies, it was suggested the national quotient should be more or less 15 percent of the national quotient with regard to the number of electors or voters.. No parliamentary constituency should have more or less than 15 percent of the national quotient. The constitution doesn't provide for such a quotient or ratio.

We have to understand that populations increase, resulting in an increase of registered electors, especially in urban constituencies. Surely, there must be a review to ensure equal suffrage.

So far, there have been accusations and allegations, especially from the opposition, that the previous ECDE was manipulated to the advantage of the incumbent or ruling coalition. For example, in the EC's last (delineation exercise) in 2002, PAS had strong objections about the lack of additional parliamentary constituencies in Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah.

DAP objected as to why urban constituencies with huge numbers of voters were not provided with additional seats. According to the opposition, there was an unusual increase in the number of parliamentary seats in Sarawak despite the insignificant increase of the number of electors compared to the peninsula.

What do you think are some of the priorities for the EC, aspects that it really needs to address before the next election?

Pre-election, you have the ECDE, voter registration to facilitate registration of voters and political parties...you have political campaigning. There should be amendments to enforce balance and access to media, electoral expenses, enforcement by the EC or related agencies, voter education.

On polling day, EC should address corrupt practices and administrative inadequacies. We need for Parliament to enact a comprehensive law such as in the line of emerging democracies in the region - like Thailand and Indonesia - to ensure free and fair election. (There were) amendments to their constitution and elections laws.

Mafrel suggests a Free and Fair Elections Act be enacted to provide and ensure elections are conducted in compliance with universal standards and international protocols. (There must be ) A comprehensive Free and Fair Election Act. (The problems of election processes and system) cannot be addressed by compartmentalisation. You need a comprehensive approach to address free and fair elections.

We have seen such laws enacted in the Philippines in the post-Marcos era, the presidential decree in Indonesia, and constitutional provisions in Thailand. These countries undertook to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which Malaysia has yet or failed to ratify after 40 years. These countries provided not only independent, non-partisan domestic election observation, but also international observation and monitoring by organisations and governments.

There is also a need to intensify voter education and inculcate high professionalism among election officials.

What do you mean by voter education?

The most important thing in elections is the empowerment of the voters and (awareness of) their rights. Elections in this country merely debate issues. But not much emphasis has been given to educate or inform the voters of their constitutional rights, such as their right to complain of any electoral irregularities, violations or offences.

In this country, the norm (in lodging complaints) is by competing parties or their agents. Voters are not educated or have not been effectively educated, to reject electoral corruption in their constitutional rights, or to lodge complaints against such practice.

Also, electors are not educated so as to make a truly informed choice. Of course, we have shortcoming in the administration of the EC for not disseminating (information on) amendments to voters during elections.

Will you be meeting the EC with Mafrel's findings and the recommendations of the workshop?

We have to properly compile the findings and recommendations to be forwarded to the EC and related agencies. We hope to sort it out within the next three weeks.

Do you think the EC is open to reform of the elections system and processes generally - and to Mafrel's findings and recommendations specifically?

I'm hopeful on the basis of positive changes as made during the Sarawak elections. In our opinion, EC is more likely to be receptive to reform of the election system and processes. The fact that they have officially assured Mafrel that they are ready to receive the recommendations of the workshop augurs well.

If EC is not receptive, what concrete steps will Mafrel take to tackle problems with the election system and processes?

We will discuss and address and plan for alternatives when we have a response from the EC. Perhaps we may consider to (take up) issues for free and fair elections to the executive. We may also consider to press our case to the international community. We hope it doesn't come to that.

Do you think there is a need for Mafrel to double its efforts in proving to the EC and other authorities that it is truly neutral? So that it is not merely dismissed as just 'another opposition group?'

It has been our policy to be non-partisan and independent. The recent workshop proves our serious efforts to be seen as independent and non-partisan.

Will Mafrel have the resources to observe the next general election?

We are learning from our regional and Asean counterparts on how to conduct nationwide election observation. We have gained a lot of experience from our participation in various elections. For example, in the Philippines, the main election observation body, the National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel), deployed more than 200,000 volunteers to monitor the counting and tabulation process, known as Operation Quick Count, during the last Marcos elections and did so again in the last presidential election in 2004.

We've observed from that experience how Namfrel has developed extensive network of civil society organisations to recruit, train, and deploy volunteers volunteers. They even obtained the premises of churches in all provinces and universities as election observation or operations centres. They managed to solicit financial and material donations from the public. (Thus,) we have a practical example of how to gather domestic resources...we are working on similar lines .

That's how we observed the Pengkalan Pasir by-election...by enjoining NGOs in Kelantan such as JIM (Jamaah Islah Malaysia) and I-Grad (Majlis Sizwazah dan Intelektual Kelantan, Council of Kelantanese Intellectuals and Students). For the Sarawak election, we engaged Brimas (Borneo Resources Institute), JIM, Sibu Friendship Society, and a couple of other NGOs, to support Mafrel election observation effort in Sarawak.

The provided us with their premises as training centres, activists as volunteers and observers, and at short notice, since we are not in the position to know when the state assembly would be dissolved. That only proves that there was great enthusiasm among civil society organisations to support non-partisan and independent election observation.

There are allegations by Mafrel volunteers that its finances and funding are not transparent or subject to scrutiny. During the Sarawak elections in particular, there were claims that some Mafrel funds had gone 'missing'. What is your response to these claims and allegations and how do you manage your funds?

It is merely hearsay. We have our management board to professionally manage and administer the activities and finances of Mafrel. Who is saying this? This is the first time I've heard of such libelous claims. We are not facing any missing funds, we are facing a shortage of funds to finance the election observation. We have to come up (with money) from our own pockets.

I can't address such an issue unless I have specifics. The fact is, our funding is (from) private (sources). We don't have even a singe sen of public funding. We have plans to solicit public funding for our election observation. I believe that we deserve taxpayers' money in a transparent manner in this kind of activity, election observation, that benefits the national and society at large. Don't you think so?

There are claims that Mafrel receives funding from the (US Congress-established) National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Although it claims to promote democracy, some claim that NED and the International Republican Institute (IRI), through which Mafrel is funded, interferes in the internal politics, elections of countries in order to promote a democracy that benefits US interests.

Activities of Mafrel are wide-ranging, from massive effort like a comprehensive plan for election observation, capacity building, training, organising workshops and conferences. Organising events requires funding. Some of these were shelved due to shortage of funds. Some were implemented with the support and resources provided to Mafrel by local civil society organisations.

Some activities were partly, though not substantially, funded through international organisations. We have solicited support from European countries and the US. We have not received positive response generally from these organisations. It seems that Western countries do not view Malaysia and its democratic system as deserving of priority compared to other authoritarian Third World countries and because the policy of not recognising the compelling issues that relate to the problems of democracy and election system and processes in Malaysia, compared to neighbouring coutnries such as Burma, Indonesia and East Timor.

IRI (contributes) for specific activities such as electoral rolls verification programmes on a limited scale. We do not have funding and finances for our administration. Funding varies according to (for example) the scale of research. We are volunteers. We don't even have salaries and wages for our management and administrative team.

Funding has been misunderstood as providing full-scale finance to run an organisation, which Mafrel, unfortunately, has to endure on its own. Do we have to boast that we use our own money? No, we don't. We are here to serve society on the basis of our strong commitment to dsemocracy, human rights, political freedom and civil liberties.