A POLITICAL party aiming to be in power and in control of the administration of a country is like a new company selling goods to the public.
The party releases to the public its manifesto containing its policy and aims before an election is held in order to persuade the voters to vote for it or its candidates.
The company advertises its wares and hopes that people would buy its goods while it makes profits out of the sales.
Each party or company must claim that their respective stuff is good: in the case of the party, its manifesto, if implemented, is good for the governance of a country; for the company, the pudding is good for the health of the body.
Whether or not that policy is good for the people or that pudding is good for the body remains to be seen. After all, it is said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Likewise, the proof of the pledges on the paper manifesto is in their actual implementation on the ground.
At election time, the voters have an important role, albeit once in few years, to play in a parliamentary democracy like ours. For the discerning voters, the manifesto is a public declaration of intent only. What the voters may not realise is that behind every manifesto there is an agenda, sometimes personal in nature. Hence, the importance of choosing a good party with a good leader for a good government cannot be overemphasised.
For the voter, the character of the leaders of a party aiming to form a government is important. Choose a bunch of bad leaders for five years, and for that long, the voters will have to bear the consequences of poor administration of their country.
There is a good reason why elections are held periodically and regularly. In our case, it’s once in four or five years. This gives the voters the chance to choose new leaders or retain the old reps or the incumbents. The choice is theirs, rightly or wrongly.
This system also allows for a sustainable government of a country in that it is open to capable young politicians to try their hands at administering a country.
If a manifesto promises change in the government, the voter must be able to decide what change means to him or her and the family. If it’s a change for the better, go for that change. Just be watchful so that the change will not likely lead to a situation of ‘out of the frying pan into the fire’.
For the past week, political parties in the country have published their election manifestos. These documents make interesting reading; it’s in the nature of advertisements that they must be worded to make them interesting reading or pleasant to the ear.
The manifestos issued by the parties contain promises and assurances to do this and that and the other if they come to power. Those already in power want to seek a fresh mandate from the voters to continue to rule the country, promising to continue with the present policies, and assuming that they are still popular. What if they have not been effective or have been a burden to the poor people?
Registered and non-registered voters
For the registered voters, this is the time to exercise their power to vote in their representatives to the federal parliament and the state assemblies. As usual, voters in Sarawak only choose their federal legislators, unlike voters in the other states.
It is sad to note that some four million Malaysians are not registered voters even though they are eligible by law, and therefore have the right to vote.
This present system, unfortunately, allows a person who has just reached voting age to say ‘don’t want’ and walk away. I have not read anything about addressing this problem of ‘voter inertia’ in the manifestos of parties so far released.
My observation is that there is no real interest in the reform to the electoral system. Have you read this in any of the manifestos issued by the political parties? I haven’t. And that’s not the only thing – no one appears to be interested in restoring local government elections in Sarawak. Talk about restoring state rights!
It is possible that those who will be in power will address this issue and other problems even though this particular matter is not listed in the manifesto. They may also turn to say that since it is not in their manifesto, they are not bound to address the issue. That’s what I’m afraid of.
Come to that, how many manifestos of past years have been fully carried out and implemented to the last little detail? Can one of our journalist friends compile a table of ‘promises past’ and ‘promises fulfilled’?
Of course, manifestos alone do not win elections. The way constituencies have been drawn up by the Election Commission in favour of certain parties or certain racial groups has
affected the results of elections in the past. One party secured the most votes but could not form a government because the system is such that only the number of constituencies won is counted not the popular votes. Gerrymandering has caused losses and victories even before an election.
Then there is the power of money and goodies, called ‘bribes’ in plain English. How many voters carefully study and compare manifestos, and how many just run to wherever the bounty is being dished out?
Issues concerning bread and butter, education, housing, health, and so on and so forth are normal, elections or no elections. What voters want to hear is how each contending party plans to deal with all these. Unfortunately, in a written manifesto, not many details can be provided. The devil is in the details. To help find out more about details, I have a suggestion.
So here’s Uncle Di’s ‘Manifesto’:
Someone or organisation, should organise a public meeting of leaders of all parties, to explain in detail the thrusts of their respective manifesto. Members of the media and the public are allowed to ask questions about each item of the manifesto for further elucidation.
Allow public discussion of major scandals that have allegedly tarnished the good name of Malaysia on the international scene (and at home, might I add).
Public rallies and ceramah are good, but there is little chance for any member of the audience to ask questions or seek clarification during those meetings. They tend to be one-way streets of speechifying, so let’s have more general discussion with not only the media but with those members of the public who are apolitical but wish to know details of the manifestos.
It is not a political debate where there is a verdict, which declares who loses and who wins the debate. In this public discussion, I propose there will be no verdict declared publicly.
The voters in the audience may benefit from the discussion but the other members of the audience may consist of apolitical people from the business community. They may be enlightened by the further elaborations by all the contesting parties in the forthcoming elections.
For what it is worth, this is my proposal; take it or leave it.
Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].