INTERNAL party elections should come under the purview of the Election Commission because it is where money politics starts, said Transparency International Malaysia’s new president Dr Muhammad Mohan.

Muhammad told The Malaysian Insight that money transactions have been observed on both sides of the political divide.

Political parties, like associations, churches and mosques, are under the purview of the Registrar of Societies (RoS) but they are not monitored, he said.

“The RoS does not have the capacity to even audit its accounts. The EC at least has the authority to have all the parties submit their accounts after the general election.”

Those currently heading the EC are performing well in terms of raising public awareness of election abuses and they would do well to also monitor internal party elections, Muhammad said.

Resources the political parties expend on the candidates are “much more concentrated” in a by-election than in a general election, he said.

“However, checks and balances have increased under the current EC leadership. Whether they take action is a separate matter, but at least, public awareness has risen.

“Some politician put his logo on a state vehicle and he was caught. This was not seen under the past government.”

Muhammad was responding to a recent comment by Universiti Malaya professor Terence Gomez on money politics in internal party elections, which surfaced after 1981 when Dr Mahathir Mohamad came into power for the first time.

Gomez said money politics could seep into the national arena if left unaddressed at the intra-party stage.

He had also criticised the proposed law on political funding addressing loopholes in the regulation of internal party elections and political financing from government-linked companies (GLCs).

Muhammad said the proposed law to require political funding coming from GLCs must be transparent, as it was currently unclear how much the parties receive.

“Whether they are ruling or in the opposition, nobody knows how much and who they are receiving money from. I can say this applies to both sides of the divide. Both sides seem very reluctant to talk about it or create a law for it.”

On Dr Mahathir’s statement that the government was studying the political funding models of countries, such as Germany, Muhammad said Malaysia should not “blindly pick one country’s model” without first studying all the models employed by various countries.

“Malaysia should not, in our view, blindly pick one country’s model. As the prime minister has said, look at the German model, but also look at other countries. Look at the UK, Netherlands, or some of the Scandinavian countries. Pick what is best for Malaysia. We will never be perfect at the start, but we will mature.

“The best model would be a hybrid. The German model is complicated and cannot be 100% applicable to Malaysia. It is best that the government take what is applicable from it and others.”

The Norwegian model, for example, did not have by-elections and replacements for vacated positions are automatically a candidate from the incumbent party, Muhammad said.

This discouraged party hopping.

“This means that a person stands in a constituency on a party ticket. The moment he leaves, there is already an immediate successor. He stands not as an individual, but for the party.

“This is better in that the people vote for the party, not the individual. Suppose you vote for Party X, and then the candidate jumps ship. (Under the Norwegian model) If you jump ship, the seat remains with the party.

“In the current situation, you vote a person in under a party ticket, he jumps ship, and the party immediately loses a seat in Parliament or the state assembly. No such thing in the Norwegian model. This way, you don’t betray the people’s trust.” – April 16, 2019.