Malaysia prides itself in having an electoral process that supposedly puts a government of the people in power, thus making Malaysia a democracy. Yet serious irregularities and weaknesses have appeared from time to time that cast doubts on that process.

Take for example the recurring problem of phantom voters brought about typically by "double registration", that is cases where IC numbers appear more than once in the electoral rolls. In 1990 itself, around 240,000 entries had to be eliminated prior to the elections and in spite of that there were still allegations supposedly backed by evidence that the electoral rolls used in the 1990 general elections were defective (see Aliran Monthly 10(10) 1990 vis-a-vis the Parliamentary constituencies of Sepang and Sungei Siput).

Recently, another 25,000 double and even triple registration of IC numbers have reportedly been discovered in the electoral rolls released by the Elections Commission (SPR) (see Harakah, May 10, 1999). This casts serious doubts on the ability of the Elections Commission to ensure that the electoral rolls are fit for use in the next general elections which is speculated to be just around the corner.

What is more, having regard to the unsatisfactory state of the electoral rolls and how the Commission, in the past, seemed to work hand in glove with the Prime Minister on poling dates, there is perhaps a need to look into the possible relationship between the Executive and the Election Commission. Take for example the Prime Minister's confidence that the 1990 elections would be fixed for an early date even before the Election Commission had announced its decision; or the decision of the Election Commission to fix nomination and poling dates so soon after Parliament was dissolved without having regard to the unsatisfactory state of the electoral rolls. These raise suspicion of undue influence.

There are also other reasons that may require putting the Election Commission under close scrutiny. It is questionable as to why the Election Commission has in the past decided not to make public the findings on its investigations concerning election fraud. There was inaction on the part of the Election Commission with respect to abuses in the past as well.

As in the past, there are also allegations that State facilities and funds are being used by the ruling government to conduct campaigns ahead of the formal election campaign period. At State functions, for example, government leaders would make speeches that blur the distinction between the Barisan Nasional as a political organisation and the Federal Government so as to exhort the public to vote for "the government" in the next general elections.

Similarly, there is reason to be wary that in its desperation to hold on to every ounce of power, the Barisan government would further abuse its position as the caretaker government once Parliament is dissolved as had happened in the past. As reported by the Election Watch of 1990, "Government facilities were freely used for campaigning purposes. This ranged from the Executive jet used to fly the Deputy Prime Minister to Sabah on a mission to minimise damage to the incumbents by the pullout of PBS from the Barisan Nasional, to vans of the Jabatan Penerangan... used by UMNO workers in Kampar, Perak. In various areas around Cameron Highlands, pictures of the Prime Minister and the Menteri Besar which had been posted had the words ‘Dikeluarkan oleh Jabatan Penerangan Malaysia' printed at the bottom right hand corner" (as quoted in Aliran Monthly cited above).

And borrowing again the words of the Election Watch of 1990, this problem is further confounded by the fact that the mainstream media "carry verbatim what the government leaders say whenever they appear in public but give the view of the opposition scant attention, if any. The consequence is lop-sided reporting. Government leaders are idolised by the media and, if the opposition is focused at all, it is to demonstrate their weaknesses."

Furthermore, while government leaders are free to lambast at State-held functions and public forums opposition figures and anyone else vocal enough to oppose the ruling government, others are more often than not denied that same privilege of responding in kind. Police permits are denied often on the grounds that opposition rallies or demonstrations would lead to riots or public disturbances. It were as though most forums of that sort would lead to the exploitation of communal feelings and religious sensitivities, or that every anti-government demonstration were necessarily violent. This unfairly curtails the ability of the opposition or other interested parties to counter government propaganda ahead of the general elections.

Interestingly enough, when communal feelings and religious sensitivities are enraged by government leaders, the police authorities do not seem interested in being as protective of public order. Take for example, Dr. Mahathir's assertion that among the requests of the Party Bersatu Sabah (PBS) which he could not accede to was the setting up of a television station in Sabah that would be used to spread Christianity. The PBS claimed that the alleged reason for having the state television channel was false and that the allegation was made with the intention of creating ill-will and racial hostility among the peoples of Malaysia.

Now, whether or not such allegations by either side were true or false were not as important as how this controversy over ethnic and religious sensitivities had been further exploited. Take for example the repeated emphasis by the mainstream media of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, then leader of the opposition alliance, wearing a Kadazan head-gear that bore a cross. "Ku Li Junjung Salib" read the May 19, 1990 headlines of Berita Harian. Despite the fact that the head-gear had nothing to do with religious beliefs - the sigah often bears motifs symbolising nature and it so happened that what was supposed to be a tapioca shoot on Razaleigh's sigah had the striking resemblance of a Christian crucifix - the message that was actively being put across was that Malay rights was in danger because Islam was under attack from the opposition quarters, namely Christians and their "collaborators". And as a corollary of that, another May 13 incident was bound to occur.

Dr. Mahathir himself had publicly said that there was a danger that Muslims would no longer form the backbone of the government if the opposition was voted to power. And in the meanwhile, UMNO party supporters reportedly disseminated copies of a letter purportedly from the Pope to the leader of the PBS congratulating him for his efforts to spread Christianity and wishing him well in his attempts to destroy Islam. The Arch Bishop Emeritus of the Catholic Church lodged a police report stating that the letter purportedly from the Vatican was a fake. Predictably, this was not given any coverage in the main dailies, much like how the fact that the Kadazan headgear had nothing to do with Christianity was not given any coverage.

As the Election Watch 1990 lamented, "The leaders of UMNO demonstrated in their campaign that they were willing to exploit ethnic and religious sensitivities to the full in order to swing the votes of the Malay majority so as to maintain the Barisan Nasional's overwhelming power in Parliament. Their strategy shows that they were concerned more with retaining absolute control over the national legislative chamber than with ensuring that communal feelings were kept under control; narrow political interests was considered more important than the fostering of unity among the various communities." This they did with the aid of the mainstream media that was ever so willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the Barisan government.

And now that the call for "Reformasi" poses a challenge far worse than that posed by opposition parties in the 1990s elections - that is to say alternative political parties that have embraced the call for reformasi have the potential of not only reducing the Barisan Nasional's two thirds majority in Parliament but, as some would argue, to also topple the Barisan government completely - it is not inconceivable that the mainstream media would be exploited to the hilt for spreading more Barisan propaganda. Coupled with the clampdown on freedom of assembly, the result would be the making of an already flawed electoral process prevalent in Malaysia even more flawed.

The proposed Election Watch of 1999/2000 must therefore make it its business to look into such matters. Primarily, the ruling government must not be allowed to continue blurring with impunity the distinction between party politics and official government business. Government resources are not Barisan resources and hence any abuse must be made public. This includes the abuse of instruments of State like the Malaysian Radio and Television (RTM) under the Information Ministry, the Federal Police as well as the Elections Commission.

Of course, a more insidious mode of directly influencing the outcome of an election is the buying of votes. No doubt that it would be difficult to verify reports of such activities if only because those who have accepted bribes in return for the votes are themselves a party to a crime. Nonetheless, Election Watch 1999/2000 should still be on the lookout for irregularities such as the way in which certain candidates conduct their campaigns that far exceeds the limits for election expenses. There must also be a concerted effort to encourage eye-witnesses to come forward to testify against those who give and receive such bribes.

The proposed Election Watch of 1999/2000 must also be on the lookout for incidents of intimidation. This can include anything from harassment to assault, to outright obstruction of electioneering campaigns. They must be recorded, investigated and exposed. This could include what some would construe as veiled threats from the Prime Minister himself who once, during an interview with newsmen just prior to the 1990 carried over the television, warned that "the lesson from 1969 was that if the government did not have the two-thirds control of Parliament, there could be trouble." It has also been alleged that, with respect to the recent Sabah elections, the ruling government threatened, albeit indirectly, that if the people of Sabah do not vote for it, then no development funds would be allocated to them.

This ties into the question of secrecy in polling. The people must feel safe that their casting of votes would not result in any sort of repercussions. Hence anything that takes away the anonymity of a voter must be questioned and challenged. It can be the method of counting that actually gives a rough breakdown of which area in a incumbent's constituency voted in favour or against him or her. It can be the lack of secrecy in postal voting such as the allegation that during the 1990 General Elections, police personnel in Kuala Terengganu were supposedly instructed to mark their choices and return the postal ballot papers to their superiors which puts a tremendous amount of pressure on subordinates to vote according to the wishes of their commanding officers.

In short, for a General Elections to be free and fair there must exist the following conditions:

1. A set of electoral rolls that are fit for use; 2. An independent and competent Election Commission. 3. No abuse of position by the government before and after Parliament is dissolved; 4. Equitable access to the media by all candidates and parties; 5. Freedom of assembly that augments the free flow of information; 6. No vote buying and intimidation; 7. Secrecy in casting ballots

In order to determine whether or not the coming General Elections is free and fair, an Election Watch needs to be established to conduct monitoring activities in three phases:

1. Pre-election campaign period (including the period after Parliament is dissolved); 2. Election campaign period; and 3. General elections (or polling) period.

There should also be no question as to the independence of the Election Watch 1999/2000 and for that reason no political organisation can be directly involved in its activities. It should be manned by representatives of non-governmental organisations and noted personalities who have had experience in the formation or manning of Election Watches as well as other independent public figures.

It would be the duty of the Election Watch to mobilise an army of watchers from among Malaysians for election monitoring and voter awareness or education programs, to record and analyse any irregularities and complaints pertaining to the General Election and finally compile a report that would expound upon the state of the General Elections of 1999/2000.