680,804 new voters may seem only a small fraction compared to the rest of the nine million plus registered voters in Malaysia (a mere 7.56%). Nonetheless, in the first-past-the-post electoral system practiced by Malaysia, these new voters can still play a significant role in determining the results of the upcoming general election.

 It is widely believed that the majority of these new voters are mostly of young blood or so- called reformasi minded youths as well as others who in the past could not be bothered about voting but have since been moved to have their say counted because of the September 1998 Anwar sacking fiasco. Hence, though small in terms of proportion, their potential (or threat, depending on which side of the political fence one sits on) is not to be taken lightly.

 Whether or not such a belief proves to be true in the end, the fact that these new voters would be unable to vote if snap elections are called in the next few months have caused many Malaysians to ask some very disturbing questions. They revolve around the primary issue of why it should take the Malaysian Election Commission (SPR), an independent statutory body, up to eight months to process the registration of these new voters.

 Unsatisfied, many have sought to bring the credibility of the SPR into question, prompting a seemingly honest but somewhat bitter reply from one of the high ranking SPR officials (see http://www.spr.gov.my/keratanakbar/fitnahdanpembohonganterhadapspr.htm).

 And on November 5, 1999 a delegation of "People's Representatives", made up mainly of representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) including SUARAM, JUST, AWAM and the Women's Development Collective (WDC) as well as opposition party representatives from PRM and keADILan, delivered a petition to the SPR head office in Kuala Lumpur. Topping the list of the demands was for the SPR ensure that the processing of the new voters would be completed in 1999 so that they would not be denied their constitutional right to vote.

 Almost predictably, the reception by the SPR was cold and perfunctory. The delegation was not allowed to proceed beyond the front desk area and when asked why, the SPR representative, Mr. Ibrahim, Assistant Secretary of the SPR, explained that he had orders only to receive the petition. Furthermore the delegation's letter to the SPR did not stipulate a discussion session or meeting of any sort.

 Poor Mr. Ibrahim. For all the accusations leveled against the SPR, he seemed like a decent enough man - a civil servant who appeared unable to do more than carry out the orders-from-above to the letter. Still, many among the delegation felt that some amount of protest ought to be registered and register it they did.

 A sit-in was almost done but Mr. Ibrahim deftly discouraged it. And thankfully, despite the uncomfortable situation, everyone, including Mr. Ibrahim, managed to keep their tempers in check.

 Should the SPR have been more obliging? Head of the delegation, Mr. Sivarasa Rasiah of SUARAM, certainly thought so. "These are legitimate concerns being voiced through the people's representatives", he told the hapless Mr. Ibrahim. "We had hoped that the SPR would be more courteous," added Mr. Sivarasa. "We have no choice but to tell all the people waiting downstairs that the SPR's reaction was negative."

 Mr. Ibrahim, of course, disagreed that "negative" was the correct interpretation of how the SPR had received the delegation, though one would have thought that the SPR could have done a better public relations job, what with its credibility at stake. Still, judging from how hostile the SPR responses have been toward many who would question its conduct, the delegation should not expect anything more than a person with orders to carry out his instructions to the letter such as Mr. Ibrahim.

 More importantly, is the SPR justified in being so hostile towards those who would question it, particularly in relation to the new voters issue? According to Dato' Wan Ahmad bin Wan Omar, Secretary of the SPR, in his article published in the SPR website (see the above reference), those who question the credibility of the SPR in regard to the new voters are either of two kinds: (1) those who do not understand the laws that govern the SPR's registration of new voters process; or (2) those who are seditious, who understand the laws governing the SPR all too well but nonetheless wish to poison the people's mind in order to cast doubts on the election process and in turn the government.

 Hence, according to Dato' Wan Ahmad, there can be no truth to the allegations made by either of these two types of people though they may persist in indulging in the despicable act of bringing the credibility of both the SPR and the government of Malaysia into question.

 With all due respect, such an emotionally charged retort does nothing to improve the image of the SPR. For, while the good Dato' has the right to his opinion, it would seem that he is accusing those who would question the SPR as being either damn fools or seditious anarchists. If so, it is both presumptuous and simplistic.

 While it is true that there are eight statutes that govern the SPR's conduct, experience shows that the SPR can take less than eight months to complete the registration of new voters, something which was pointed out succinctly by Malaysia's Opposition Leader Mr. Lim Kit Siang in the Dewan Rakyat on October 27, 1999.

 In the last general election (which was in 1995),  the Election Commission took only six months and nine days to prepare the new electoral roll. For the 1990 general election, it took only four months to prepare the new electoral roll for the whole of Malaysia except for Sabah, which took another month. For the 1982 general election, the Election Commission took five months 19 days to prepare the new electoral roll. It was only for the 1986 general election, the Election Commission took eight months and four days to prepare the new electoral roll for the whole of Malaysia except for Sabah.

 What this shows is that, more often than not, the SPR need not take up to eight months to prepare a new electoral. Hence it would only be natural for the people to question why the SPR would need eight months to complete the process of registering new voters. And in spite of the eight statutes that govern the SPR, it needs to provide an explanation that is more satisfactory than "the laws that govern the SPR causes it to take no less than eight months to complete the registration process".

 Over and above that, while the SPR Secretary, Dato' Wan Ahmad, may believe that the laws that govern the SPR are just and fair - for that matter, he proclaimed those laws to be "just" on the basis of what seems to be purely faith - it is no justification for him to declare those who would question the SPR as either fools or anarchists.

 The very fact that other Commonwealth countries have other laws governing elections that they consider "just" provides a legitimate reason for one to question why Malaysian laws seem less accommodating in ensuring a citizen, of majority age, his or her right to universal suffrage.

 Take, for instance, New Zealand. According to the New Zealand's Electoral Enrolment Centre (EEC), New Zealanders who are eligible to vote but have not registered for the coming Polling Day on November 27, 1999 can still enrol for the election because enrolments will be accepted up to and including Friday, November 26, the day before Polling Day. However, they will need to cast a special vote on Polling Day (http://www.elections.org.nz).

 This sort of example can only cause right thinking Malaysians to question why this is possible in New Zealand but not in Malaysia. What ever happened to "Malaysia Boleh!"?

 In other words, without having gone into issues of comparative laws, the SPR cannot, then, simply say that those who question it along with the laws that govern it are either fools or anarchists for not believing that Malaysian election laws are just and fair.

 And speaking of anarchists, there seems to be a tendency in Malaysia for government officials to brand those who are critical of government practices and policies or the laws passed by the government of the day as "anti-government" when, in fact, democracy is all about interrogating power.

 This  means that anyone who would simply accuse others of being "anti-government" without establishing the grounds for that accusation properly are, inadvertently or otherwise, promoting an understanding that is very much anti-democracy - one may have elected the government of the day into power, but this does not mean that, henceforth, that government can choose to do whatever it pleases.

 Thus those who are critical of the government cannot simply be branded as those who do not like the State and would therefore oppose it because it is in their nature as anarchists to oppose the State, no matter what.

 Undeniably, the world is filled with fools and anarchists, but one would need an incredible stretch of the imagination to assume, as Dato' Wan Ahmad Wan Omar seems to have done, that the world is made up of only fools and anarchists simply because people would question the SPR.