Amendment to electoral roll will erode democratic rights
Not only will it not be possible for the electoral roll for the Likas by-election to be challenged in a court of law, but we will not be able to challenge all future registers of voters.
If such an amendment is passed, it will be left to the Elections Commission to decide who can vote and who cannot. Those of us who are qualified to vote may find our names missing from the register and will not have any recourse in a court of law. In contrast, the register may contain names of persons who are not qualified to vote.
Irregularities in the registration of voters have been recognised not only by the opposition parties but even within the government and the Elections Commission.
On Feb 1, 1995, the Prime Minister himself stated in a New Straits Times report that procedures governing the registration of voters needed to be reviewed to ensure fairness. At that time, it was discovered that 4,500 extra names had been added to the Kelantan state register. It was discovered that "the irresponsible act was the work of one person, but no action could be taken as the name in the forms was false". At the same time it was claimed that names of Umno members were missing from the electoral rolls.
To a question put to him, Dr Mahathir Mohamad "did not deny the possibility of an inside job since some officers may have their own political inclinations". The existence of phantom voters, that is, persons voting using identity cards of dead persons or using fake identity cards, has been a problem that is well known and various efforts have been made to reduce the extent of phantom votes.
In November last year, the outgoing chairperson of the Elections Commission reported that he had cleansed the electoral rolls of 570,000 names, of which 224,000 consisted of deceased voters (NST, Nov 12, 2000). In Sabah alone the Commission had struck off from the electoral rolls the names of more than 81,000 phantom voters after it went online with the National Registration Department (NST Nov 10, 2000).
It was only after considerable public concern was raised over the extent of phantom voters that the Elections Commission was forced to look into the problem. Without this pressure, there is no guarantee that the Elections Commission will make the effort to clean up the electoral rolls especially as the matter will now be outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
The argument advanced by Datuk Rais Yatim, minister in the Prime Minister's Department for the amendment was that it was necessary in order to preserve the image and credibility of the Elections Commission as an independent and neutral body.
In fact, the reverse is true. In the past although there has been some erosion in the independence of the Elections Commission, its credibility as a neutral body has not been seriously undermined. Although problems with regard to missing voters and phantom voters have occurred from time to time, the fact that the courts have provided a final court of appeal for those who have felt that the elections have not been fair has contributed to public confidence in the elections.
Glitches in the electoral roll have been accepted in good faith as genuine human errors and the outcome of the elections has been accepted by the majority of people, contributing in no small way to the political stability that the country has enjoyed.
Once the amendment is passed, however, there is a real danger that the credibility of the Elections Commission as a neutral body will be seriously undermined with serious consequences to our already frail democratic system.
Perhaps this may be the time to take stock of our electoral system as a means for legitimating power. Although the Federal Constitution provided for an independent chairperson of the Elections Commission who enjoyed security of tenure and some protection against political manipulation, over the years amendments to the Constitution have reduced the chairperson's powers and independence.
Commissioners who previously held office until they reached the age of 65 years now have their appointment subject to the approval of the legislature which, in a parliamentary system of government, means the government of the day. As there has not been any change in government at the federal level, this has meant that the appointment of the chairperson of the Elections Commission is made by the leaders of the party in power.
Over the years with the success of the ruling party in gaining the two-thirds majority necessary to amend the Constitution, it has been possible for the ruling party to amend the Constitution to reduce further the powers of the Elections Commission. Now it is not the Elections Commission which decides the number of seats in each state according to the population or how constituency boundaries are to be drawn, but Parliament.
Until now, however, disputes with regard to the accuracy and genuineness of the electoral rolls and the conduct of the elections have been left to the courts. With this amendment the powers of the courts to settle disputes of this nature will be taken away. In this context it can be viewed as yet another nail in the coffin of our democratic system.
For these reasons we need to take whatever action to resist the passing of this amendment. This is not purely a political or procedural matter. It is fundamental to our whole democratic system and the political stability that we have enjoyed.
If there is no trust in the democratic way we choose our leaders, there is a real danger that those who feel aggrieved will resort to non-constitutional means to register their protest. We have enough examples around us of how the erosion of public confidence in the political system can bring about violence and other forms of undesirable political behaviour.
