Time to bring back the third vote

Malaysians living in 12 cities, 38 towns and 98 rural districts across the country have been deprived of elected representation for more than half a century.

WE may be under an Emergency now, but this is as good a time as any to talk about democracy. As the word is made up from two Greek terms – “demos” (people) and “kratos” (rule), democracy basically means rule by the people.

What constitutes a democracy? In a nutshell, it should embody these key principles: A system to choose governments through free and fair elections, ensures active participation of the populace in politics, and practises the rule of law under which the rules must apply equally to all citizens

Under a democracy, theoretically at least, the people are sovereign and wield the highest form of political authority. Besides exercising their power to vote, they should also have the right to be involved in policies and issues affecting them, and entitled to question their elected representatives on the use or abuse of power.

The 260-year-old phrase “No taxation without representation” is still as pertinent today as it was when American colonists resisted the imposition of taxes by the British before the revolution and creation of the republic.

So, what is its relevance to Malaysia and our (currently suspended) democracy? At the very basic level, Malaysians living in 12 cities, 38 towns and 98 rural districts across the country have been deprived of elected representation for 56 years.

It wasn’t so in the 1950s and early 60s. Besides the Kuala Lumpur municipality (which was under a different jurisdiction by virtue of it being the country’s capital) and the three prominent municipalities of George Town, Ipoh and Malacca, there were 373 other local authorities with more than 3,000 elected representatives.

George Town made history by being the first municipality to elect nine of its councillors in 1951. It also became the first city council in 1957 when Queen Elizabeth II bestowed the status.

It also emerged as the richest with annual revenue almost twice as much as Penang state in 1965. But a year later, its operations were transferred to the Chief Minister to enable a Commission of Inquiry into alleged “maladministration, malpractices and breaches of the law”.

During the same year, at a time when local government elections were already suspended because of the Confrontation with Indonesia, the Federal Government set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry on Local Authorities, headed by Senator (later Tan Sri) Athi Nahappan. The commission was tasked with reviewing all local authorities and to report and recommend structural changes.

The Commission took three years to complete the exhaustive inquiry by holding meetings, hearings and receiving feedback from all over the country and submitted its report in January 1969, four months before the May 13 racial riots. The four-volume report is regarded as one of the most comprehensive and impressive documents ever published by the Malaysian government.

While it strongly supported local council elections, the Commission also noted that some reforms were needed. The government, however, ignored the report but formed another committee to study its implications instead.

This panel, among the members of which was the future Chief Justice of Malaya Hashim Yeop Sani (later Tan Sri), accepted the findings of the Commission but two members – the representative of the Development Administration Unit (DAU) and the representative of the Town and Country Planning Department – dissented from the majority view.

DAU raised the fear of external threats and attempts by undesirable elements to subvert the administration, adding that a partisan, democratic system of local government could lead to political instability and affect socio-economic development.

So, the Indonesian Confrontation and May 13 riots ended up being convenient excuses to do away with grassroots democracy, but the more likely reason was the fact that the Alliance, forerunner of the Barisan Nasional, had effectively lost support in all the major towns to the Socialist Front, Labour Party and the PPP (People’s Progressive Party).

The final nail for the abolition of local government elections was the enactment of the Local Government Act, 1976, which provided that the mayor or president and all councillors of local authorities be appointed by state governments while the Commissioner of the City of Kuala Lumpur would be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Since the 1980s right up to today, the common excuse touted for the denial of the third vote is the possibility of ethnic strife, purportedly on fears that non-Malays dominate in urban local authorities.

This fear-inducing narrative has been freely spouted by the likes of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who returned as Prime Minister for the second time under Pakatan Harapan and leaders of Umno and PAS.

But a recent study commissioned by electoral watchdog Bersih 2.0 shows that the claim is false and outdated.

Instead, the report on the “Reintroduction of Local Government Elections in Malaysia” shows that Malays now make up the majority in cities and urban areas.

According to Danesh Prakash Chacko, author of the report who disclosed the findings in a webinar, most of the councils in the peninsula are now dominated by Malays, based on the census data of 2010. The report shows that the Chinese only constituted a majority in two local authorities – Kampar District Council in Perak and the Penang Island Municipal Council (now Penang Island City Council).

As for the eight local authorities with city status, two – Alor Setar and Kuala Terengganu – had a Malay supermajority (above 66%) while two others – Shah Alam and Melaka – comprised Malay majority.

As for the other four cities with mixed populations, the Chinese only made up the majority in Kuala Lumpur and Ipoh. With bumiputras having higher birth rates and their increasing level of urbanisation, it is a matter of time before the population in these two cities change or could have already changed.

We cannot call Malaysia a democracy without elected representation at grassroots level.

Media consultant M. Veera Pandiyan likes this quote by Abraham Lincoln: “No man is good enough to govern another man without the other’s consent.” The views expressed here are the writer’s own.