Encourage voting, not blaming voters lazy to vote (Original unedited article text)

 

“Are you ready to vote? Do you know who you want to vote for? Or vote against?” I asked in a talk organised by Agora Society in Skudai on 7th October, before the Parliament was dissolved. Many in the audience raised their hands and expressed their willingness to vote. On whom they want to vote for, it is still a big question mark. First, they are not sure which candidate would stand in which constituency, often this depends on the seat negotiation outcome and party leader’s decision. Another problem is that they really do not know who to vote for, perhaps they are not satisfied with the immediate past Member of Parliament. However, when asked who they really do not want to vote for, they reacted with certainty.

Some worry about voter turnout rate, if it would ensue the trend found in the immediate past state elections in Melaka, Sarawak and Johor. While it is true that in the Johor state election, 43% eligible voters were added to the electoral rolls as a consequence of automatic voter registration among those 18 years old and above, lower polling rate is still a fact. Even if we disregard the Undi 18 effect, why did the preceding state elections also appear to have lower voter turnout rate?

Lower voter turnout rate could indicate that a significant number of out-of-state voters did not come back and vote. This may have a disproportionate impact on certain political parties. In the past Melaka and Johor state elections, politicians from Pakatan Harapan blamed Election Commission for choosing a polling date which caused inconvenience to their voters coming home and vote, but often disregarded why the out-of-state or even local voters felt disappointed and indifference towards them.

Since the Melaka state election, academician Wong Chin Huat and his organisation collectively labeled those absentee voters as Parti Aku Malas Undi (PAMU). I strongly disagree with the negative label, because the narrative seems to assert moral blame on those who failed to turn up or did not come back to vote as ‘lazy’.

Voting in Malaysia is only a civic obligation, unlike in Singapore and Australia it is mandatory to vote. I encourage people to vote, whether it is a spoilt vote, a vote for the third force or an independent candidate. But I can also understand why some cannot go home or do not want to come out and vote, it is not because they are ‘lazy’.

Previously, some had fallen ill to COVID-19, therefore were not allowed to vote, forced to become PAMU. However, just to make it to vote, the out-of-state voters have to pay a considerable economic cost to come back, or there could be instances where these people had very important matters to attend to, they could not leave home or their area.

Maybe the bigger question is, what if the contesting candidates and parties and the entire election campaign fail to appeal and inspire voters to come back or come out to vote? The former have to review and do soul-searching, not to blame the voters.

PAMU’s another narrative goes like this: because you are ‘lazy’,  you let strangers make a decision on behalf of you. This shows the proponent’s consequentialism tendency: what if you decide to spoil the vote or vote for third force, or even vote for a heavily defeated second party, it is still the same case as strangers making the decision of who is elected! Isn’t it election the time to reflect people’s voices and judgments, that they should decide which candidate and party they truly support, then cast their ballot? Not going home or not coming out to vote may also involve mindful consideration and conscious decision, must they be lazy?

Of course, voters can have their free will when deciding their vote, for example, some could react emotionally just to cast a protest vote, that means vote for the opponent to those they definitely do not like, regardless of the opponent’s quality and past records. There are also parties and their supporters attempting to persuade voters to do tactical voting, that means asking voters to forgo all third force or independent candidates just to increase the chance of electing the second most likely candidate. ‘You must see the BIG picture, defeat the XX party’, so the narrative goes.

Isn’t this mindset shaping the political culture of sending in and sheltering ‘parachute’ candidates or less quality ‘yes men’ type of candidates? Is this acceptable? Some voters look at the politicians on the stage and then look away with disappointment and indifference, affecting their willingness to go vote.

Therefore, tactical voting and ‘big picture’ mindset could be one stumbling block why in the coming GE15 the voter turnout may not go as high. So, political parties and politicians have to give the people a very good reason why they need to vote for them. Just by attacking their opponents, it may not be sufficient to persuade the voters. If the parties and candidates did not do their job well, social activists still use PAMU to morally blame the voters for not coming out to vote, I’m afraid it could backfire.