The Election Commission recently announced that the election deposits for subsequent elections would be increased from RM3,000 to RM5,000 for a state seat and from RM5,000 to RM10,000 for a parliamentary seat. The reason stated was to discourage so-called non-serious candidates from taking part.
But there seems to be little relevant debate on this issue other than comparing the election deposit against the monthly allowance of the MP or the state assembly representative.
For example:
The onus is on the Election Commission to highlight to the public their answers to some of the questions above.
Until then, the interested public should voice their concerns that this move constitutes part and parcel of a general strategy to discourage participative democracy.
Even so, the grounds for raising election deposits in Malaysia are weak based on a number of factors.
Independent candidates
Independent candidates are the likeliest candidates to participate in general elections to obtain their five minutes of fame. Unlike the opposition candidates who have to be selected by the various party mechanisms and who have built up a history of party contributions and sacrifices, independents have no such barriers to entry in running for a particular seat. This is confirmed by analysing the results from the 1990 to the 1999 general elections.
Over 90 percent of independent state candidates have failed to retain their election deposits over the past three elections (not including Sabah and Sarawak).
Between 50 percent and 80 percent of independent parliamentary candidates failed to retain their deposits during the same period (all states in Malaysia).
But the issue of independent candidates is not something new. It has been in existence ever since the incipience of elections in Malaysia.
What would be concrete backing for the raising to the election deposit is to see a trend of an increasing number of independent candidates taking part in the general elections as well as the poor performance of these candidates.
The facts do not show such a trend happening. In fact, the trend shows strongly that the number of independent candidates is on the decrease.
The percentage of independent state candidates has fallen from 6.4 in 1990 to 3.2 in 1999 (not including Sabah and Sarawak). The absolute number has fallen from 48 to 13 for the same time period.
The percentage of independent parliamentary candidates has fallen from 14.2 in 1990 to just 6.2 in 1999 (all states). The absolute number has fallen from 57 to 28 for the same time period.
So even if independent candidates are likely to be non-serious ones, there is no evidence that this issue is one that threatens to get out of hand. Hence, there does not seem to be an urgent need to raise the election deposit to dissuade such candidates from taking part since secular tendencies are already carrying out this task well.
The Sabah/Sarawak factor
Indeed, even if independent candidates are of concern then the Election Commission should focus more on candidates coming from Sabah and Sarawak because these two states have traditionally provided approximately 70 percent (if not more) of the total number of independent candidates in parliamentary elections.
Of the total number of independent candidates for parliamentary seats, those from Sabah and Sarawak make up 77 percent, 67 percent and 75 percent for the 1990, 1995 and 1999 elections respectively.
To dissuade non-serious independent candidates from taking part in the parliamentary elections in Sabah and Sarawak by raising election deposits for the whole of Malaysia seems like an overkill, and to use a blunt instrument such as the election deposit does not make much sense.
It would be akin to loosening monetary policy and decreasing interest rates for the whole of Malaysia just because Sabah and Sarawak are in economic dire straits.
But independent candidates in Sabah and Sarawak, especially those in the latter, have traditionally performed relatively credibly at general elections compared with independents in Peninsular Malaysia. Factors such as the lack of credible alternative or opposition in these two states especially in the rural areas have contributed to this phenomenon. As such, many independent candidates have managed to retain their election deposits and indeed in 1990, four such candidates managed to win parliamentary seats in Sarawak. (They later joined BN component parties)
The percentage of independent parliamentary candidates in Sarawak who retained their deposits is 57, 58 and 33 for the 1990, 1995 and 1999 elections respectively.
An analysis of the percentage of candidates losing their deposit over the past 10 years shows a rather mixed result but does not give strong enough proof that the level of non-serious candidates has risen significantly thereby necessitating an increase in the election deposit. The figures show the natural ebb and tide of the political fortunes of both opposition and coalition parties.
For state seats (not including Sabah and Sarawak), 7.4 percent, 12.5 percent, 3.2 percent candidates in the 1990, 1995 and 1999 elections respectively failed to retain their deposit.
For parliamentary seats (all states), 9.2 percent, 15.7 percent and 10.3 percent of candidates in the 1990, 1995 and 1999 elections respectively failed to retain their deposit.
Examples of other countries
Another way of examining the validity of this increase is to compare the election deposits that other countries impose on their election candidates. The two measures that can be used are:
Out of a survey of eight countries (Malaysia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Canada, Thailand, India, Australia and New Zealand), the results are as follows:
By the first measure, Malaysia ranks second (parliament) and fourth (state) behind India (first for parliament and third for state).
If the Election Commission proposal is implemented, Malaysia would rank first (parliament) and third (state).
By the second measure Malaysia ranks second (parliament) and third (state) behind Singapore.
If the elections commission proposal is implemented, Malaysia would still rank second (parliament) and third (state) but would increase the difference between itself and fourth place UK (parliament).
The graph below illustrates these comparisons showing Malaysias ranking before and after the recent announcements.
It is surprising that the election deposits in Malaysia are higher than that in the UK, Australia and New Zealand three far more developed and prosperous democracies. And whats more, this was the case before the recently announced increases!
More than one way to skin a cat
There are more efficient ways on trying to dissuade non-serious candidates from taking part than increasing election deposits for all candidates. Making it mandatory for candidates to come up with a manifesto detailing their agenda for public office could be one such measure. This would dissuade candidates who run to get their five minutes of fame but who are not willing to think through and put on paper issues of their concern.
Lastly, the question of whether non-serious candidates should be dissuaded to run needs to be answered. How big of a nuisance or cost are non-serious candidates to the elections process, other than the increase cost for printing more names on a ballot paper?
In a participative democracy, the voters should decide who the non-serious candidates are. The safeguards that the Election Commission puts in place should not weaken the right of the voters to determine this.
One hopes that there are opportunities for the public to question the Election Commission on the underlying rationale for this move. Hopefully, this change as well as other changes pertaining to the electoral process would be discussed and highlighted in the parliament.
ONG KIAN MING was headed for glorious riches as a management consultant before too much of the good life got to him. He's now working at a think tank focusing on nation building, civil liberties and minority representation issues. He also has a column every Monday in the New Straits Times called 'Chisel and Stone' which he co-writes with his boss.
He can be reached at [email protected]. The opinions and content of this article are his alone.