Electoral Reform PSC report passed in such a hurry

The report forwarded by the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on Electoral Reforms was passed in such a hurry on 3 April 2012 recently.

The report was earlier tabled by the PSC chairman and Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) deputy president Datuk Seri Dr Maximus Ongkili which consist of 22 recommendations.

However, members of parliament especially from the opposition Pakatan Rakyat bench were not given sufficient time to review, debate and make amendments to all the 22 recommendations as the BN parliament speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia has decided to quickly invoke the standing order to put the PSC report to vote despite continuous plea from the Pakatan members of parliament to have more time for review, debates and propose some amendments to the report.

Just what kind of parliamentary session is this? If these members of parliament were not given the most sufficient time to review, debate or to suggest any changes to the PSC report, it is just like there is no PSC at all. What the PSC had carried out from October 2011 last year until 28 March recently was a waste as the report was not even put to real scrutiny as required.

That means the PSC on Electoral Reforms as promised by the BN government has been fulfilled but in a half-hearted way and we could consider this as some sort of showcase in order to cheat our people again.

From the 22 recommendations, we saw much of the public demands were not really met. The below recommendations which requires further review and scrutiny:

1. The parliament to be dissolved only after its fourth year in session - this is definitely unwanted as in parliament, anything may happen. Members of parliament may pose a non-confident vote against the government and the government may in event lose their majority should any of its backbenchers were to decide to switch their support to another party. Therefore, there should not be a law that restrict the dissolution of the parliament when it convene only less than four years. As such, it should be given the flexibility based on the political situation;
2. Longer campaigning period prior to the date of general election to be at least 10 days - adding from the previous 7 days to an additional 3 days does not make any sense at all. This is still not enough. The people's demand is to have at least 21 days which fair enough for both parties to voice out their plans to the voters. Besides providing political parties more time to campaign, the voters must also be given sufficient time to review, study and to decide which political party would be their best choice prior to the voting day. So, why prevent voters from making wise decisions?
3. Political parties should advise voters who had shifted their address to change their address in their NRIC before changing their voting stations with the elections commission (EC) - this should not be the way as we feel that political parties should not be burdened with such responsibilities. Instead the EC should carry out this responsibility in order to ensure that our voters knew what should be done in event of any changes. There are a lots of avenues that the EC could use, like television, newspapers, via online campaign as well as public road show nationwide. So, during non-election times, what are these EC officers actually doing behind their desks? They should be tasked to this responsibilities to create more awareness among the people which regards to voting rights, registration and a lot more;
4. A service commission should be set up for EC to appoint its own officers - this isn't sufficient. The EC should be put under the direct jurisdiction of and to be made answerable to the parliament via a PSC on Electoral Appointments.

Some critical areas which has not been studied by the PSC are as follows:

1. The case of Project IC in Sabah of which illegal immigrants are reported to have been given "citizenship" and granted the right to vote in order to maintain a political party in the state government;
2. The establishment of a caretaker government in aftermath of the parliament dissolution did not clearly state how a fair and neutral caretaker government would be appointed and on whether it should be by the former members of parliament themselves, the last political party to have the majority or by some other parties outside the political arena;
3. Allowing the EC to have the powers to cross out any voters' name from the electoral rolls or moving them to other voting stations if there are public complaints - this would eventually subject to abuse if there are no careful study on how this method should be carried out;
4. As at today, the EC is still under the jurisdiction of the prime minister's department - as such, will the EC be seen as a neutral body in managing elections by the public? No, the public perception on this would be the manipulation of the EC by the government, as in reality, there are not independent source to really signify that EC is free from any political influence and do not receive instructions from the government of the day;
5. Delineation of constituencies - this should be carried out by a special commission which is to be appointed by the parliament and to be occasionally monitored by a PSC on Constituencies' Delineation Process so that all such process are carried out professionally, geographically and in a just manner, free from any powerful political interference.

As such, having the Bersih 3.0 on its way by this month end is not our people's, the opposition parties nor any NGOs' fault because the BN government had systematically refused the PSC on Electoral Reforms' roles to be widen to include all interest groups as well as to thoroughly supervise the reforms in the EC itself.

Therefore, we have to choice but to proceed with Bersih 3.0 nationwide come this 28 April 2012.