Chua Lai Fatt’s IC (Taken from TheStar)
A lot of fuss has been raised regarding the mistaken “arrest” of Chua Lai Fatt, a Malaysian Indian who was adopted into a Chinese family. The misunderstanding arising from the mismatch between his skin colour and Chinese name was used by the Electoral Commission as a means to accuse a Dr Ong Kian Ming and bring to light his “irresponsibility”. I admit, I have little knowledge of the legal aspects of this issue, but through this short essay, I would like to argue that this allegation (that Ong is wrong) – is completely unfounded, and that the true culprit is one we’re all familiar with.
I would like to begin by addressing one key aspect that the EC has in fact neglected, when hurling it’s accusations at Ong; that is, the role of civil societies in GE13. Borrowing from John Keane, we can define civil society as “…non-governmental institutions that tend to be nonviolent, self-organizing, self-reflexive, and permanently in tension, both with each other and with the governmental institutions that ’frame’, constrict and enable their activities”. To summarize, Keane was pointing to two major characteristics of a civil society: the voluntary nature of participation, as well as its limited capabilities.
With that understanding, let’s try to revisit GE13. There was already a ruckus over immigrants being transported days before GE13 itself (video footages in KLIA, as well as snapshots of these migrant workers are well documented evidence). In response to a possible hijacking of the elections (which was highly possible by then), civil societies such as ABU as well as a “loose coalition” of social media users (also voters) began sharing information regarding countermeasures to engage and stop these political migrants.
Some of these include stopping them in their tracks, asking them in Bahasa Malaysia their place of birth, education and more importantly, requesting them to recite the Rukun Negara and sing Negaraku. Should a “detained” person blunder in any way, it was taken as a sign that he may indeed be a political migrant and was told to leave the polling center immediately.
Indeed, the election commission has attempted to use the scenario described to their advantage by making this an issue of skin color. Basically, the accusation is that we are “discriminating” people based on what colour they are – just because they are a certain colour does not necessarily mean that belong to only a particular race. Furthermore, their argument goes on to say that in acting this way, the masses (led by Ong) has effectively denied one person’s rights to vote and decide for him/herself the future of this country. On this account, the civil society seems guilty of both charges.
What a convincing argument posed by the EC! However, before buying into it, we need to remember again the fact that civil societies are voluntary movements which are limited in in both resources and scope of activity, due to its non-violent and non-formal natures. Despite that, they are still a group of citizens united in struggling for a cause, regardless of the structural constraints placed on them.
Having little to no formal political means of stopping phantom voters, civil society has by itself devised methods to identify and stop the hijacking of Malaysia’s elections. Sure these are not foolproof, but this remains the one thing Malaysians can afford to do without resorting to fear mongering and violence. Malaysians may have wronged Chua Lai Fatt, but we now need to ask a more fundamental question – why has this occurred in the first place?
The answer is simple: because the EC is corrupt to its core, and is merely a tool ready to bow to manipulation of the ruling coalition. Had the EC been trusted to carry out fair elections, there would have been no need for the citizens to take to such measures. After all, a social movement works in a manner similar to Newtonian physics: always in reaction to something. In this case, it is unfair elections.
To illustrate that, I’ll pose a question quoted directly from ABU’s pamphlet:
“If you and your friends do not protect your polling center, then who will?”
The answer to that – No one.
The fact still remains that Chua Lai Fatt was wronged, but who is to be blamed? I leave that thought to you.
*The edited and published version of this article can be found at http://aliran.com/14165.html
Deliberating Politics in Malaysia 