Deregistration ‘threat’ that wasn’t

Had the DAP immediately called an EGM to seek ratification of the results by the delegates or called for a new vote, the matter would have probably ended there.

COMMENT

By Gobind Rudra

The Registrar of Societies couldn’t have timed it better if he had deliberately sought to create public sympathy for the DAP and provide the party with an emotional stick with which to beat up the Barisan Nasional.

Sure enough, his letter to the DAP withholding recognition of the party’s central executive committee provided the impetus for high drama, a crisis, and grandstanding by the DAP and Pakatan Rakyat, with accompanying news headlines heightening the siege mentality (well-founded in the past) by which the party has thrived for all these years.

Cast aside the emotion, and start at the beginning: the DAP dug a hole for itself when it announced a “spreadsheet error” in tabulating the Dec 15 party election results.

The central committee changed the order of votes, and announced a slightly different line-up from that reported at the party convention, allowing Zairil Khir Johari into the CEC, three weeks after the convention.

Had the DAP immediately called an extraordinary general meeting to seek ratification of the results by the delegates or called for a new vote, the matter would have probably ended there and not landed on the Registrar’s desk.

Instead, the central leadership dealt with the problem internally, no doubt in a businesslike manner through audits, before submitting the amended results to the Registrar. By doing so, they provided him a reason to question the results.

If there is any doubt about the CEC election results, it follows that the same doubt applies to the status of the central committee, which came into existence as a result of that election.

The Registrar’s letter to the party on Wednesday records that logic. When he said that he could not give recognition to the central committee, did the Registrar have any other option? A doubtful election means the CEC itself is also doubtful.

The Registrar has given the DAP 30 days to answer his queries about the election results and another matter of 700 or so members not being given proper notice of the party convention.

That keeps the DAP still in business: the Registrar has not declared the elections null and void, or the central committee null and void. Any decision about the legality of the elections would only come after the party has replied.

Stand by for some extra election eve drama, then. The latest date for the DAP to reply is May 17 — three days before polling day.

Hysteria and grand theatre

Whether intentionally or otherwise, the Registrar’s letter certainly laid the ground for grand theatre, allowing the DAP and Pakatan Rakyat to voice their deeply-held suspicions about the Home Ministry and the Election Commission.

“Despicable”, “BN sabotage”, “worse than repressive Singapore”, “how can we trust their word (referring to the Election Commission) and other similar insults were thrown about at the DAP’s press conference.

Headlines played up the DAP’s plight, with emotional references to Lim Guan Eng’s anger and Lim Kit Siang’s tears.

But the crux of the DAP’s argument rests solely on their interpretation that the CEC has no more power, that the secretary-general cannot issue letters of authority to election candidates, and that the DAP could not use its Rocket symbol.

Raja Petra Kamarudin had been the first to broach this topic, when he broke the news about the Registrar’s letter, with images of the letter, and asking: Will DAP have to contest the general election under the banner of PAS after all?

But no one seems to have asked whether the Registrar had actually declared the CEC null and void. (Perhaps it was more convenient that way: why spoil a dramatic crisis?)

But what did the Registrar say?

Reading the letter, it’s clear he said nothing about a powerless CEC, nor did he even imply that the CEC could no longer function.

It was Raja Petra who first suggested that perhaps the DAP could not use its own party symbol. The DAP followed suit, hammering home that point based on its own interpretation of “non-recognition”.

The Registrar said nothing about the CEC’s powers, and merely asked for a proper list of office-bearers or an explanation of how the election dispute had been resolved.

The DAP has a month to do so. Obviously the DAP is still in business, until the Registrar makes a decision on their reply.

Whether or not there was any Barisan Nasional “sabotage” as alleged, the crisis appears to have been well-manufactured.

DAP is quibbling over a word, but it is in the nature of bureaucrats to be nit-pickers and it is well within the Registrar’s right to point out the logic of a disputed election, even if by doing so he challenges Lim Guan Eng’s decision on the composition of the CEC.

Playing the victim game

Personal hurt feelings aside, the hue-and-cry of a manufactured crisis is good political theatre to create public sympathy: there they go again, those evil Barisan Nasional politicians and those evil civil servants under the evil Home Minister are screwing the DAP again.

That tale was recounted all over the Internet yesterday and will probably bounce around for weeks.

A more realistic interpretation of the letter might be that the Registrar, following procedures, is adopting the inexorable logic that a disputed election creates a disputed central committee.

He is thus unlikely to the DAP’s demand that he withdraw his letter. The DAP’s threat to use PAS or PKR banners is a political decision of its own making, not one that would normally concern the Registrar of Societies: it would be between the DAP and the Election Commission.

But the Registrar’s letter could have been better timed, of course.

Or was it actually perfectly timed, from Pakatan Rakyat’s point of view? “Less than 48 hours before nominations!” as Lim Guan Eng repeatedly said. Cue anger and tears. Cue a demonstration of coalition unity, of “esprit d’corps”. Cue Raja Petra’s suggestion that the DAP could contest under the PAS banner, thereby forcing non-Muslim voters to view PAS favourably, and dispelling lingering notions among Muslims of the DAP as anti-Islamic unbelievers. Cue PAS and PKR secretaries-general offering to sign letters of authority for DAP candidates.

All parties would do well to have such contingency plans in any case. But the sudden burst of cameraderie, coming in the midst of seat squabbling, seems all too convenient.

Deregistration ‘threat’ that wasn’t

Other misplaced outrage arose from suggestions that the Registrar had threatened to deregister the DAP.

But what the Registrar’s letter stated was a reminder that the party must provide explanations to the satisfaction of the Registrar, failing which he was empowered to deregister the party.

Anyone with dealings with officialdom will recognise that such reminders are common and not out of the ordinary. It is a reminder to regard the matter seriously, and if not, of what the consequences would be under the law. Other societies have similarly received such reminders.

Is that a threat? From a bureaucrat’s point of view, it’s just routine.

From a politician’s point of view — even if it wasn’t a real threat, why not interpret it to be a threat?

The general public will buy the screaming headlines and not read the fine print. The politician can’t lose. The bureaucrat is usually reluctant to complain. To his credit, Lim Guan Eng dispelled any notion of deregistration.

A failing in democratic practice

Ultimately, it all boils down to the fact that the DAP did not do the full democratic thing of going back to the delegates.

Instead, the central leadership decided on the results, three weeks after the election, in a back-room decision, not one made on the open floor of the convention in the presence of delegates.

By questioning the Dec 15 results, the Registrar has thus indirectly provided a reminder of the basis of all democratic practice: it is the people (or, in the DAP’s case, its members) who should have the final say.

Gobind Rudra was once a newspaper editor.