WE’VE come a long way since the last state polls in Sabah, which was regarded as the main reason our country experienced the third, and most devastating wave of the Covid-19 epidemic to date.

Even though circumstances have changed, where our country has successfully inoculated the majority of the population by now, the Health Ministry (MOH) was still quick to issue a ban on election-related activities and gatherings for the coming Malacca polls weeks before nomination day, citing that it’s in line with the list of unauthorised activities (negative list) in the standard operating procedure under phase 4 of the National Recovery Plan, even ahead of the Election Commission (EC). 

I won’t be discussing the science behind the transmission of Covid-19, or the possible correlation between election activities and the spike in new cases here. Rather, I would like to discuss the effects of limiting offline campaigning activity to the democratic process.

Although the Malacca polls came unwelcomed, it could’ve been a testing ground for future elections held under the Covid-19 endemic phase, which look set to stay for the foreseeable future.

The Malacca elections will be closely followed by the coming Sarawak polls in December, and the general election next year will likely be held under the same circumstances.  

With all the restrictions in place, campaigners are struggling to get their message across to their respective electorate this time around. I’ve checked with several friends on the ground and they replied the political temperature has yet to rise despite only days left until polling date.

Perhaps the nation is exhausted from dealing with the pandemic over the past year, or perhaps the people are annoyed by the political fiasco that has been happening in the midst of the pandemic, and with the restrictions now easing across the country, politics is likely the least of the people’s concerns. 

However, it’s also due to the fact that campaigners are being cautious to not make headlines by breaching social distancing rules, and by shifting to digital campaigning, it’s hard to gauge voter response to the digital-sphere and adjust their strategies accordingly.  

In a democratic process, it’s vital for the voters to be well-informed before casting a vote. 

The campaigning period is where the important things happen. Ideally it should allow for enough time, and a level-playing field for the campaigners to present their message to the voters.

More importantly, it’s the time where voters get to engage with the candidates and evaluate them personally, instead of blindly following them based on their presented manifesto.

Although the federal government has now agreed to allow the candidates’ posters and biodata to be aired on national television channel, Radio Television Malaysia – a policy that should have existed long ago – I doubt it’s enough to even the playing field for all the parties.

Our country doesn’t have the fairest election to begin with. Money politics have been deeply embedded in our system, with the incumbent and well-funded parties already having significant advantage over the others. 

Now that the election campaign is mostly shifting to the digital battleground, the gap is becoming wider. 

The use of the internet and social media has changed the political landscape over the past few election cycles. However, the lack of oversight over digital campaigning methods allows for loopholes to be exploited. 

While I was searching the web for reading materials to prepare for this article, I encountered paid advertisements in the form of Google ad pop-ups, paid for by Perikatan Nasional (PN). I’ve also managed to find influencer marketing for PN on Facebook (nowhere mentioned whether it was a paid advertisement).

The 15-second (or less) advertisement must have been costly for them for it to reach me, but by paying for air time, one can transcend the political divide with their campaign messages, which is a good thing, but that won’t be possible if one is not financially loaded, or well-versed enough in digital marketing. 

I haven’t yet stumbled across ads run by other parties, but maybe there is, and I’m not seeing them because their ads are not targeted to me.  

It also begs the questions: how much money is spent on digital campaigning, could it be traced, or how does a voter differentiate between influencer marketing and genuine endorsements from people of influence? 

Our EC will have to come out with a comprehensive proposal as soon as possible detailing the guidelines on digital campaigning if we were to ensure a level-playing field for all parties involved in the coming Sarawak and general elections.

We could take a leaf from the United Kingdom government’s proposal on ensuring transparency on election materials, which is to require all paid-for digital campaign material to carry a digital imprint, that carries the information of who produced and paid for the material, including the name and addresses of the person or group promoting the material and whether they are promoting it on behalf of someone else. 

In the UK, this practice is already enforced under their electoral law for printed materials. The Electoral Commission in the UK welcomed this proposal and then added a view that it should also include materials produced by all campaigners, regardless if it’s paid-for or not.  

Singapore, too, has strict rules put in place requiring candidates to declare all paid and unpaid online advertising. 

However, for candidates without big bucks, they will be unable to compete in the digital campaigning department. The only way for them to have a fighting chance is to do the traditional canvassing, walkabouts and hold political rallies.  

Meeting their voters not only allows them to present their cases to them. It could also help them better understand the situation on the ground, and be a better representative to the locals when elected.  

Election season is also the time when voters have a chance to tell the candidates to their faces what they actually want and get a direct response from them. Online engagement, on the other hand, is less impactful and can be easily neglected. 

Without ground engagement, we too wouldn’t know if the candidate is able to comprehend complex political issues merely by looking at his/her biodata.

Anyone can put up a facade for their online persona, or pay big money to make them look more presentable with a scripted appearance.  

Voter-candidate engagement goes both ways. By taking part of it away, most of it will be a one-sided conversation, which is not an ideal situation for a democratic process. 

If we were to continue having the same campaigning method or restrictions for the coming elections, independent candidates and small parties will be the most disadvantaged. Should they be disqualified from the race early on just because they don’t have the resources to match the big guns in order to be seen, or should they be at least given a chance to compete on more equal terms? 

I’m not a fan of having unnecessary elections when we’re not yet clear of the Covid-19 threat. 

Be that as it may, after the nation enduring nearly two years of the pandemic, we’ve learned, more or less, to live with the virus with various preventative measures, and with a high vaccination rate. Is this the best we can do to Covid-proof an election? – November 15, 2021.

* Kelvin Lee is a member of Agora Society. Both a dreamer and realist, he is constantly figuring out ways to balance the two. He believes that by defying the norm, one can pave the way for a better future.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.