Dude, where is my third vote?

We must restore local government elections for the sake of democracy, good governance, rule of law, accountability and transparency. – Lim Guan Eng, speaking to Perak DAP leaders in February 2005.

It was an auspicious start to 2009, when residents of Gunung Rapat New Village, Perak, went to the ballot box to elect their ideal candidate for the post of village chief. The small yet hugely significant election, proposed and sponsored by PKR state assemblymen Chang Lih Kang and Chan Ming Kai, indicates that the true spirit of democracy is still alive despite the controversy that the move had generated among some Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers.

The DAP leaders in Perak had made it clear that any attempt to introduce local elections at this stage was premature.

While mechanism and procedures are now in place for the Malay kampongs to elect penghulu (village chiefs) and district officers in the state, as promised by Mentri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin following Pakatan’s surprise electoral victory in March last year, immediate expansion of local elections to the 134 or so new villages, resided largely by Chinese, was however met with strong resistance from the DAP.

Bizarre, isn’t it?

Ngeh Koo Ham, Perak DAP chief and senior exco, justified the procrastination by arguing that, while the Malay villages had had the tradition of a penghulu system, the new villages were somewhat new to having a village chief. Hence, time was needed to identify the right candidates and for the villagers to get to know them.

Bizarre, isn’t it? After all, when the general election was called in late February last year, both the DAP and PKR hastily put together a bunch of candidates to contest, some being totally unknown to local electorates. Many of them won handsomely against Barisan Nasional and now serve their respective constituencies faithfully.

So why must this “one-state-two-system” be maintained in Perak as far as local election is concerned?

With thirty per cent turnout, the Gunung Rapat village election could arguably be said to be a letdown. Still, one must study closely the factors behind the lackluster participation and do the utmost to promote greater awareness of the issue, not to pour cold water over it. It was therefore most disappointing when Ngeh openly dismissed the test case as “unrepresentative” given that as much as two-thirds of the residents did not bother to vote.

Ngeh’s preferred modus operandi is to appoint, for now, candidates that are well received by the people as village chiefs, and elections will be gradually introduced two years down the line. But how would Ngeh come to the conclusion that choosing a village chief by appointment, which is almost always susceptible to cronyism and petty politics, is more “representative” and “democratic” than a symbolic election is beyond me.

In a pseudo-democracy such as Malaysia, politics is shrouded in secrecy while vote rigging and bribery are rampant. Gerrymandering and ill-intentioned legislations to muzzle the press and the media only aggravate the problem. In view of this, what truly matters is whether or not the electoral process embodies cleanliness, fairness and transparency; voter turnout is secondary.

What was the big deal when only one third of the Gunung Rapat residents turned out to vote? One must look at the substance not the form. Never forget, this was the first time that a new village was given the opportunity to elect their preferred leader through the ballot box. As a historical product born out of the conflict between the British colonialists and the Malayan communists in the late 1940s, new villages have never been empowered to speak for themselves throughout its 60 years of existence.

Mere mock exercises

Ngeh seems to be fond of data and statistics, but he may do well to remember that Saddam Hussein, while alive, once held a presidential election. No other candidates were allowed, or brave enough, to enter the fray, and Saddam claimed “victory” with a turnout of 100%.

Similarly, the Myanmar military junta conducted a constitutional referendum with a view to creating “discipline-flourishing democracy”. In a climate of fear and intimidation, the eventual turnout of 98% was only a sure outcome. The ruling generals patted each other on the back for a “job well done”.

But who will take both mock exercises seriously?

And there are examples closer to home. In fact, very close indeed.

Hiew King Chew, the DAP candidate, won Sabah’s Kota Kinabalu parliamentary seat against three other contestants with a paltry majority of 106. If spoiled ballots were taken into account, Hiew only has the backing of some 34% voters in the constituency. Would one then ridicule the DAP parliamentarian as “unrepresentative”?

More tellingly, Jenice Lee was voted in as No.2 of the DAP Socialist Youth in an election that only saw a low turnout of 35% in December last year. Perhaps Ngeh would care to tell the public the election of the first woman deputy chief of the youth wing was rather “unrepresentative”!

Where there is a will, there is a way. Ngeh’s lack of political will and apprehension over an immediate restoration of local elections are most probably rooted in his deep sense of insecurity.

His real fears are two: first, introducing free-for-all contests at the local level could open the way for other parties, especially the MCA, Gerakan and PKR, to make inroads into the DAP’s “traditional territories” and, secondly, it would also result in DAP dissidents who are ill at ease with the Ngeh dynasty (Ngeh’s cousin Nga Kor Ming is also Perak DAP secretary) to build up their powerbase through local elections. That Hee Yit Foong, a DAP state leader, openly defied Ngeh by being present at the Gunung Rapat village election to witness the historic voting was revealing.

Restoring local elections has always been a core policy of the DAP. In January 2005, the DAP leadership set up a National Committee for the Restoration of Local Government Elections, making it the thrust of its campaign. There was even a catchy slogan to it: It’s time to bring back the “third vote”. Simple and clear.

But where is my third vote now that Pakatan Rakyat has been in power for nearly a year in the five states?