COMMENT | PKR vice-president Rafizi Ramli’s organisation Invoke’s latest initiative is certainly an interesting one.

This rather unique organisation has offered funds to potential candidates who will run against BN in GE14, in exchange for a public declaration of assets, and a pledge towards supporting certain reforms.

The purpose of this article is not to blindly bash this initiative.

Indeed, I believe efforts to innovate and improve our current political incentive structures should always be explored.

One supposes that the asset declaration part of this deal is relatively non-controversial and welcome, as greater transparency is seldom a bad thing.

Nevertheless, I think it could be fruitful to raise a number of questions about some of the other practical implications of this project.

Financial conflicts of interest

This deal touches directly on the question of political financing, which is an old and contentious issue that we could certainly use some improvement in.

Academicians like Penang Institute research fellow Wong Chin Huat have championed a number of interesting models related to political financing, most notably using government funds to support political parties that meet certain criteria.

The Invoke path to political financing is quite unique. On the one hand, it clearly lies outside and bypasses traditional political party structures and opens itself to a number of different parties.

On the other, Invoke is led by an individual who is himself a high-ranking member of one of those political parties.

This raises a number of awkward questions. As vice-president of PKR, some may be asking Rafizi (photo) why he did not direct his fundraising efforts towards the party instead.

It is one thing for a politician to be involved in another organisation, but quite possibly another if that politician is using the said organisation as a platform to pursue political financing - especially when an organisation like Invoke could plausibly be said to be competing with PKR to raise funds from a very similar pool of donors.

The situation is not entirely a zero-sum game, but neither is it one with absolutely no overlap. We cannot authoritatively say that people (with limited funds) might donate to Invoke instead of to PKR, creating a significant conflict of interest.

It is one thing to want to circumvent political parties in building new models of political financing, it is rather another to try to do so while remaining a leading figure in one of those parties.

The situation might have been different if Invoke consisted of individuals with no formal political affiliations whatsoever, but as it stands, the approach does seem rather strange.

Party discipline

There is another problem regarding conflict of interest.

Individuals who sign this contract with Invoke are obliged to support a number of policy matters.

Some are worded quite generally, like “freeing public institutions”, and “upholding media freedom”, while others are more specific, like supporting a two-term limit for the prime minister.

All 30 of the individuals who have signed the contract thus far (photo) are members of established parties. What if the parties to which they belong to instruct them to support a policy that goes against what is stated in their Invoke contract - say, for example, a refusal to set a term limit for the prime minister?

Remember, these individuals would have been elected on their party ticket, running on their party logo, and thus to quite an extent, have some moral obligation to follow party protocols regarding policy.

While a conflict between a party’s agenda and Invoke’s is perhaps not necessarily the most likely scenario in the world, it is certainly theoretically possible, and far from implausible.

Is an RM20 million fine credible?

We should also examine what we know thus far about what would happen should one of the Invoke candidates theoretically fail to uphold what they have pledged to Invoke.

Reportedly, they would then be subject to an RM20 million dollar fine.

At this point, it is worth noting that the amount of funds Invoke is looking to donate to each candidate is RM20,000 and RM10,000 for parliamentary and state seat candidates respectively (“subject to the availability of Invoke's own coffers”).

This would be the equivalent of making yourself legally liable for a fine of RM20,000, in order to get a grant of RM20 or RM10.

There are only two scenarios in which accepting such a grant makes even a modicum of sense.

The first is where there is almost no chance of default, which we have pointed out above is not the case.

The second is where all the parties involved are not treating this RM20 million fine as a serious and credible threat.

The outlandish sum of RM20 million itself suggests the second scenario.

In what world is there a person who both really needs RM10,000 or RM20,000, and can afford to pay an RM20 million fine?

Ethical consistency

These rather odd set of rules and quanta suggest a certain lack of seriousness regarding the entire arrangement, on top of the aforementioned awkwardness regarding party discipline.

The idea of an independent NGO raising funds to support candidates who pledge themselves to a certain agenda is not in and of itself an entirely bad idea.

However, in evaluating this case, we must take into consideration the fact that the leader of Invoke is a sitting vice-president of a major political party, as well as the fact that the monetary quanta stated in the arrangements are disproportionate to the point where it is debatable if they should be taken seriously.

By all means, let us look into alternative models of political financing, but let us transition to said models in a sensible and ethically consistent way.

NATHANIEL TAN has not been to Parliament for a long time.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.