REFORMING the electoral system is a tedious and lengthy process, but it has to be done. Even change to a new system if necessary. The electoral system is not a one-size-fits-all. Neither is there a perfect system. Of how and what to reform, there is no correct answer.

The aim here is to bring this important matter to public discourse. Bersih 2.0, the Coalition for Clean and Fair Election, has come a long way. From five street rallies since 2007 where the familiar yellow t-shirt-clad protesters by the hundreds of thousands, young and old, braved water cannons and tear gas; they have today successfully organised the Electoral Reform Roundtable, held at the august house of our Parliament last week. Indeed, a superlative recognition of its achievement. Yours truly is honoured to have participated among more than a hundred, including several local and foreign experts.

While the current spirit of institutional reform remains high, the impetuosity to change should persist before the ruling party sinks into familiar comfort zone and becomes sluggish for change.

It is a foregone conclusion at the roundtable that we should reform our current first past the post (FPTP) electoral system while also consider if it warrants change to the proportional representation (PR) system.

Used in about one-third of the more than 200 countries in the world, what favours the FPTP is simplicity. It enables a strong government to be formed and specifically who to represent the constituency. The FPTP system has its main demerit in winner takes all while loser loses all, hence is considered unrepresentative because a candidate can be elected with a very small margin and the rest of the votes cast are considered wasted.

The election need not be won through majority of votes (as seen in GE13), but through majority of seats. The system leaves the minority parties and minority ethnic groups unrepresented. Furthermore, once the ruling party has rooted into the system and using majority might to its advantage, it will be adverse to change, as can be seen in the BN-led government that ruled for 61 years.

The demerits of the FPTP system are to PR merits, and vice versa. PR electoral system in varying forms is used in about half the nations of the world. The straightforward form is that voters do not vote directly for the candidates, but for the party. Once all the votes are counted, each party will receive the number of seats in proportion to the percentage of votes received. The PR system favours smaller and regional parties, minority interest groups, independents, and feminists.

Which of the two systems is able to solve the problem of malapportionment and gerrymandering? This is an important question considering that these are major problems of our FPTP system. Certain seats, especially in urban areas, are under-represented while the rural seats are over-represented. In addition, which of the two systems is best able to solve or reduce problems of racism, and to reinforce democratic principles? The answers point to the PR system.

Should political parties be publicly funded? Proponents at the roundtable argued that covert funding, which is at a worrying stage, is difficult to control and therefore leads to unfair advantage and monetisation of politics. Within individual parties, money-based factionalism is threatening the existence of the parties and undermining public confidence in politicians. Public funding solves the problem of the dichotomy of acceptable and unacceptable private donations. It provides the opportunity to free politics from unhealthy influence of special interest and corruptible acts.

What about the caretaker government after the dissolution of Parliament? A caretaker government promising expenditure to the tune of hundreds of millions, as practiced in past elections, must stop. Tightening of regulations and the laws is necessary.

With regards to absentee voting, there were strong suggestions to discard early voting, but retain the postal voting for limited categories, like foreign service, students and those employed overseas, naval and maritime personnel on patrols, and security forces manning remote islands. Having 16 categories (military and police included) eligible for early voting, including their spouses, as seen in the last election, made a mockery of the system.

There were several other issues deliberated during the roundtable: consideration for a fixed-term Parliament, voter registration and integrity of electoral rolls, enforcing electoral laws against offences, ensuring smooth transition of power, and ensuring the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission.

There is so much to reform. The process to achieve the desired results is equally important. Whatever reforms to the current system, or the proposal to change to another system, if the process is perceived to be manoeuvering for the ruling party’s advantage, there will be little support. There is bound to be disagreements to lots of suggested reform issues. A wide consensus among all parties is the best hope.

Much work has been put into organising of the roundtable, with comprehensive conference notes and papers of superb research materials produced. Bersih 2.0 deserves the highest commendation for a job well done.

But the person who stole the show in the end was none other than Azhar Azizan Harun, chairman of the Election Commission. He already had lots of ideas how and what to reform. He exuded a burning desire to deliver, and expressed his fear of making mistakes.

Participants held the hope that Azhar would be the best chairman of the Election Commission of Malaysia. In my heart, he already is. – December 6, 2018.

* Captain Dr Wong Ang Peng is a researcher with an interest in economics, politics, and health issues. He has a burning desire to do anything within his means to promote national harmony. Captain Wong is also a member of the National Patriots Association.