|
The Star - February 24, 2008
The need for transparent financing
Stories by CHIN MUI YOON
Amidst the excitement of campaigning for the March 8
general election, a niggling issue that has been around
for a while raises its head again: campaign financing.
THE race begins! With nominations in today, candidates
begin in earnest to wage the publicity war for voters’
hearts and minds.
To make the most of one of the country’s longest
campaign periods – 13 days – in almost three decades,
banners will be strung across streets in cities, towns,
and villages. Flat surfaces of all sorts, from walls to
trees, will be plastered with posters, and leaflets will
be stuffed into letterboxes.
But, of course, nothing beats the personal approach,
especially if you are new in your constituency. So
candidates will begin daily walkabouts to meet-and-greet
voters and explain their manifestos while wearing
specially produced caps and T-shirts advertising their
party affiliations.
And all of it costs money, of course.
You can’t spend an endless amount on campaigns, though,
as the law imposes limits.
In 2004, the Malaysian Election Commission (EC) believed
it took more money than previously to contest in
elections, so it raised campaign funding limits from
RM30,000 per candidate for state seats (State
Legislative Assembly) to RM100,000; and from RM50,000
for parliamentary seats (House of Representatives) to
RM200,000.
The amounts remain unchanged for this general election.
Where do these substantial sums come from for most
candidates? And, apart from printing their banners and
posters and making their buttons and caps, how exactly
do they spend it?
In many countries around the world, these are thorny
questions indeed – so thorny that governments have
toppled when they didn’t give the right answers.
Yet, money is a necessary element in making democracies
run smoothly, acknowledges a recent report (from the
Crinis Project) released by Transparency International
and the Carter Center, NGOs that promote transparency
and accountability in election finances.
After monitoring elections in eight Latin American
countries, the report points out that money can only oil
the wheels of democracy if it is fully and transparently
accounted for.
This would guarantee citizens’ basic right to know the
financial interests supporting candidates and give them
the chance to consider those interests when casting
their votes. Transparency and accountability also serve
to monitor irregularities such as vote buying.
The latter is almost a ubiquitous abuse of the election
process that occurs in many democratic countries.
• In Thailand, some 30% of household heads recently
surveyed said they were offered money during the 1996
general election.
• In the Philippines, some 7% of eligible voters
received some form of payment in the 2002 barangay
(community level) elections.
• Voters in Mexico testified that they were threatened
with the withdrawal of state-provided subsidies if they
voted for the opposition. (Information sourced from the
Crinis Project report by Transparency International and
the Carter Center.)
What is the situation in Malaysia?
Most Malaysian political parties raise funds from
members’ subscriptions and donations from supporters.
They also rely on volunteers to help during campaigning
to reduce costs while IT-savvy candidates do that by
using the Internet to reach out to voters.
Do local candidates buy votes with the money they raise
from such efforts? Even if the abuse doesn’t seem as
rampant here as in the countries mentioned, there have
been police reports made in past elections of vote
buying and cases have gone up to the election courts.
The problem is, the potential for much greater abuse
exists because there is no law in Malaysia that requires
candidates to disclose the source of their campaign
funds or how those funds are used.
What the law says
EC secretary Datuk Kamaruzaman Mohd Noor says that the
commission requires candidates to keep to the stipulated
cap sums and file their expenses within 31 days of
election results being published.
“There is nothing under the law that prevents candidates
from spending their money in any way they want to,” he
says.
What if candidates use the money to buy votes?
“The EC does not formulate the laws. If the money is
spent in any way deemed unethical, it is for the
Anti-Corruption Agency to act upon, not the EC,” insists
Kamaruzaman.
This is cause for concern for watchdogs like
Transparency International.
Its reports have documented the difficulty of assessing
just how widespread the practice of vote buying is as
the term covers everything from the distribution of food
and clothing to providing public services.
Transparency International Malaysia president Tan Sri
Ramon V. Navaratnam says the issue of money in politics
during elections is especially important in developing
countries where “people are grateful and impressed with
little gifts”.
But in a previous interview for the 2004 election,
former Barisan secretary-general Tan Sri Mohamad Rahmat
said dinners and the like “should be looked upon simply
as a means of getting people together to listen to what
candidates have to say”.
“You have to understand the culture,” he reportedly
said. “That’s the style of the Chinese community. For
the Malays, they will normally ask: ‘Kopi pun tak ada
(No coffee even)?’”
But there is no such thing as a free lunch, argues
Ramon, who feels it is reasonable to provide
transportation to voting stations or drinks but not a
big kenduri – “Anything else is unacceptable.”
Ramon also points out that the Election Offences Act
1958 governs only candidates’ expenses but not the
expenses of the parties as a whole.
This loophole could allow parties to spend massively
beyond the capped limits, perhaps even to accept
donations running into the millions.
This could then leave parties open to being pressured
after the election: If a donor donates a million ringgit
to a campaign, what’s to stop him from approaching the
party for favours later?
“Will you feel obligated to say yes?” asks Ramon.
Need for guidelines
Malaysian Institute of Integrity president Datuk Dr Mohd
Tap Salleh believes that registering all donations is
the way to go in making elections more transparent.
(The institute was set up by Prime Minister Datuk Seri
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in 2004.)
“However, it takes preparation and, currently, there are
no specific guidelines governing this aspect of
funding,” he says.
“The infrastructure is not available to control just how
political parties are receiving their campaign funding
or how they are spending it. In this age and time, the
stipulated RM100,000 and RM200,000 are insufficient.
“I believe the American federal election system is an
ideal model that is transparent and provides federal
funding for all candidates standing for elections.
“But talk is useless here unless there is strict
enforcement of such laws or they will be made a
mockery.”
The American Federal Election Commission has had a
public financing system in place since 1976. Taxpayers
can direct US$3 (RM10) of their annual tax to underwrite
the system. Last year, 9% of taxpayers, accounting for
some 11.7 million people, checked the “contribute” box
on their income tax form.
However, even this seemingly admirable system has
limitations. Since public funding comes with caps,
President George W. Bush and then Democrat candidate
John Kerry both declined public money to avoid limits
during the 2004 elections; they eventually accepted some
US$75mil (RM241mil) each in private financing according
to news reports.
But even those private contributions came with some
limitations because American federal law caps campaign
donations from individuals at US$4,600 (RM14,835), a sum
that would have to be split between presidential and
general elections.
In January 2007, The New York Times reported that
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton became the first
candidate since the programme began in 1976 to forgo
public financing for both the presidential and general
elections because she was confident of raising much more
privately than the public financing system would allow.
By doing this, Clinton was gaining a significant – some
would say, unfair – advantage over other candidates.
Compared to that, our concerns about overly sumptuous
kenduris seem like small potatoes. But Tap Salleh does
believe the serving of food and drink is a grey area.
“Now, during open houses when we invite people to come
to our homes, don’t we serve them food and drinks, and
perhaps we also talk about politics. Is that tantamount
to vote buying?” he asks.
At the end of the day, says Ramon, the decision lies
with the people.
“It’s up to individuals to say: ‘I will not sell my soul
for a vote’. Money politics happens in every country.
Our democracy is still young compared to Britain or
America’s but we must know where we are headed.
“A sacred responsibility our politicians hold is to look
out for the long term interest and sustainability of the
country, not concentrate on the short term gains of
winning elections every four years.
“By not being transparent and accountable to ensure a
free and fair election, politicians might be able to win
the battle, but they will lose the war for a progressive
and united country.”
|
