The Peoples Manifesto Initiative (of which I represent) refers to the recent announcement of extensive changes to the election laws, in particular the raising of deposits for candidates and a RM20,000 bond per candidate for putting up posters and election paraphernalia.

The excuse that higher deposits will keep away 'publicity-seekers' and 'spoilers' does not hold water. Firstly, the number of votes garnered by candidates using the elections as a publicity platform is too small to warrant such drastic measures. Ong Kian Ming's article (Increase in election deposits not warranted, Feb 8) deals with this quite well. Clearly this shows that this issue is merely being used as a weak excuse.

Secondly, the issue of splitting votes should not arise at all as it is the prerogative of candidates to run if they believe they have something to offer the public, and it is the prerogative of the people to vote for whoever they believe can do the job.

It is the role of the Elections Commission to facilitate political processes and participation, not to encumber the running for public office nor decide for the public what options they should have.

The inflation argument by the Elections Commission also seems to suggest that the government has failed so badly in its bid to keep inflasi sifar (zero inflation) that the deposit has had to be doubled! 'Pegging' the deposits to an MP's salary seems also to suggest that most Malaysians earn MP salaries.

All these untenable excuses will only fuel suspicion that both the Elections Commission and cabinet are tailoring the elections to deny certain sectors of the community from running for office.

PMI maintains that although the definition of democracy is not limited to elections every five years, free and fair participatory elections are an essential component of a democracy.

We also have our reservations on the process through which this proposal has come about. The move to tighten the election laws apparently began two years ago. Even within the minimal public debate that took place in 2001, there were sectors that were opposed to the proposals. Any healthy democracy would rigorously seek public comment before embarking such amendments, so as to maintain a high degree of transparency and integrity. The public needs to be made aware of the proposed amendments and the implications of those amendments so that they can make informed choices.

The public must understand the implications of not being able to challenge the gazetted electoral roll in court. They must be confident that objections raised when the rolls are open will be taken seriously and dealt with such that the rolls are so clean that there will not be any need to object to it.

We call upon the Elections Commission and cabinet to rethink this proposal in the interest and spirit of participatory democracy. We urge the Elections Commission to invite public debate on the matter and to fully explain the proposed amendments and what recourse is there.

We also call upon Parliament to uphold the right of all persons in the country to run for office and reject this proposal. Approving it will send out a message to the public that political participation is only for the 'haves' and those well-connected.