Poll date: Unfair advantage for BN
Muhammad YusofPublished: Sep 10, 2007 2:05 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
Last week, the military government of Thailand announced that they will return power to the people through an election that will be held in December. Therefore, the political parties in Thailand have at least three months to gear up toward an important election after the coup d'tat against Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai government.
While we do not deny the bad side of the undemocratic move of the military government, we should admit that their early setting of a date for the election is very much better than what in all probability will be a sudden election in Malaysia.
Giving wide prerogative powers to the prime minster to decide (more or less) on an election date is part of the ugly side of the Westminster system. According to the system, Parliament will be automatically dissolved after five years from the date of its first meeting, but it can be dissolved at any time before the expiry date by the wish of the government.
In the Malaysian context, the right to dissolve the Parliament cum the right to call a snap election is vested with the Yang Di Pertuan Agong who acts upon the advice of the prime minister.
After 50 years of Merdeka, it is the right time to revise this unfair practice introduced during the British colonial rule. Parliament should amend the Article 55 of the Federal Constitution to include a limitation that Parliament shall not be dissolved earlier than three months before its expiry date.
Alternatively, the constitution may set a fixed period of time for periodic elections, such as between the month of May and July of every five years so that all the political players and voters will know the exact date of elections without waiting for an 'inspiration' from the prime minister.
To be sure, the current 'sudden election' system is not only undemocratic but also a waste of time, money and energy. The system must be discontinued for at least three reasons.
First, it gives an unfair opportunity to the ruling party to call for snap elections when its leaders feel that they have gained support from the voters. While the ruling party may project its campaign strategy based on their well-planned time frame, the opposition is caught off-guard and robbed of the chance to plan its deployment of resources and manpower.
Secondly, the system encourages political players to spend their money, time and energy unnecessarily. For instance, the current term of Parliament is supposed to end on May 17, 2009 but some opposition leaders had predicted that it would be held in July this year, almost two years earlier than the expiry date.
Party members worked hard to prepare for the said election but all for naught. Opposition political leaders have to continue making wild guess, not for their enjoyment, but to keep the party members and workers alert for an election. This is not a surprise as our Parliament could have its term cut as short as three years, five months and 11 days as happened for the 1974 general election.
Finally, this 'sudden election' system intensifies the political tension and increases the politicking culture among government servants, the opposition and all people. At the same time, it may reduce the chances of consolidation and cooperation between ruling and opposition parties.
The government should feel ashamed that other countries (including new ones) have managed to predetermine their general election dates two to three years in advance. For example, the Comoros government has announced that it is going to have elections in May 2010 together with Austria (April 2010), Fiji (2010), preceded by Romania (November 2009), Ukraine (October 2009), Afghanistan (September 2009), Saint Kitts and Navis (September 2009), Serbia (June 2009), Algeria (April 2009) and El Salvador (March 2009).
To make our elections free and fair, the government must seriously consider amending the constitution to end this practice of 'snap elections'. Personal and political interests must be set aside in upholding the paramount principle of national interest in having a more efficient, equitable and transparent electoral process. The 'rakyat' is waiting for the change.
While we do not deny the bad side of the undemocratic move of the military government, we should admit that their early setting of a date for the election is very much better than what in all probability will be a sudden election in Malaysia.
Giving wide prerogative powers to the prime minster to decide (more or less) on an election date is part of the ugly side of the Westminster system. According to the system, Parliament will be automatically dissolved after five years from the date of its first meeting, but it can be dissolved at any time before the expiry date by the wish of the government.
In the Malaysian context, the right to dissolve the Parliament cum the right to call a snap election is vested with the Yang Di Pertuan Agong who acts upon the advice of the prime minister.
After 50 years of Merdeka, it is the right time to revise this unfair practice introduced during the British colonial rule. Parliament should amend the Article 55 of the Federal Constitution to include a limitation that Parliament shall not be dissolved earlier than three months before its expiry date.
Alternatively, the constitution may set a fixed period of time for periodic elections, such as between the month of May and July of every five years so that all the political players and voters will know the exact date of elections without waiting for an 'inspiration' from the prime minister.
To be sure, the current 'sudden election' system is not only undemocratic but also a waste of time, money and energy. The system must be discontinued for at least three reasons.
First, it gives an unfair opportunity to the ruling party to call for snap elections when its leaders feel that they have gained support from the voters. While the ruling party may project its campaign strategy based on their well-planned time frame, the opposition is caught off-guard and robbed of the chance to plan its deployment of resources and manpower.
Secondly, the system encourages political players to spend their money, time and energy unnecessarily. For instance, the current term of Parliament is supposed to end on May 17, 2009 but some opposition leaders had predicted that it would be held in July this year, almost two years earlier than the expiry date.
Party members worked hard to prepare for the said election but all for naught. Opposition political leaders have to continue making wild guess, not for their enjoyment, but to keep the party members and workers alert for an election. This is not a surprise as our Parliament could have its term cut as short as three years, five months and 11 days as happened for the 1974 general election.
Finally, this 'sudden election' system intensifies the political tension and increases the politicking culture among government servants, the opposition and all people. At the same time, it may reduce the chances of consolidation and cooperation between ruling and opposition parties.
The government should feel ashamed that other countries (including new ones) have managed to predetermine their general election dates two to three years in advance. For example, the Comoros government has announced that it is going to have elections in May 2010 together with Austria (April 2010), Fiji (2010), preceded by Romania (November 2009), Ukraine (October 2009), Afghanistan (September 2009), Saint Kitts and Navis (September 2009), Serbia (June 2009), Algeria (April 2009) and El Salvador (March 2009).
To make our elections free and fair, the government must seriously consider amending the constitution to end this practice of 'snap elections'. Personal and political interests must be set aside in upholding the paramount principle of national interest in having a more efficient, equitable and transparent electoral process. The 'rakyat' is waiting for the change.
View Comments0