Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers
Is political financing reform a fallacy?

I read with curiosity the proposals made by the National Consultative Committee on Political Financing. I will just concentrate on two aspects. The first was to scrap the spending limit imposed on parties and candidates. The second was to introduce anti-victimisation mechanisms to address the concerns of the opposition that their funders might be discriminated against when donations were made public.

According to the rationale, successful politicians should be given more leeway to raise money. Hence, limiting the amount they can raise is like bringing everybody ‘down to the lowest common denominator’. As for disclosure of political donors, it was thought that as long as there are anti-victimisation or anti-discrimination laws and mechanisms put in place, all donors should feel safe.

I really wish things are that simple. I really wish there are no ulterior motives behind these proposals.

Has the committee considered why there were spending limit imposed on parties and candidates in the first place? I think we have largely forgotten that democracy and level-playing field election should rightly be based on the contest of ideas and ability, not money and power. Is there a ‘new democracy’ in Malaysia today based on wealth, money and power?

It is really ironic to argue that successful politicians should be allowed to raise more money. First, I think we have to clearly define what ‘successful politicians’ are. If an incumbent politician sells his influence to raise money, is he ‘successful’? If an up and coming politician promises a quid pro quo after winning the election to raise money, is he or she ‘successful’? I think the committee’s thinking is upside-down.

When incumbent politicians enjoy unfettered power, who really cares there are mechanisms or legislation put in place to prevent victimisation of opposition funders? It is easy to talk about ‘seeking justice’ if one is victimised. I think the whole world knows it is expensive, laborious and often ended with fruitless results.

As I see it, the committee, in the name of transparency and accountability, is really proposing measures that are difficult to implement impartially given the state of democracy in this country today. Please don’t waste our time.

ADS