THE battle for the ballot has begun as various political parties have colourfully decorated the streets with their campaign posters and party flags.
A large number of candidates have shown up this year in the race to form the new government. As Malaysians, it is our duty to vote.
The number of voters has also significantly increased to a whopping 21 million as opposed to the previous six million voters due to the recent constitutional amendment.
Voting is not an act of “personal interest”, but a collective act of “public interest” as it is a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
When a group of citizens collectively elects its representatives, it affirms the notion that we govern ourselves by free choice. An individual’s right to vote ties that person to our social order, even if that person chooses not to exercise that right.
Notable judges have emphasised on the need to vote and to quote American lawyer, politician, and jurist Justice Hugo Black, “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”
In Malaysia a voter must fulfil the qualifications as provided under Article 119 of the Federal Constitution in order to cast their vote.
A citizen is not eligible to vote if he is a person of unsound mind on the qualifying date; serving a sentence of imprisonment on the qualifying date; or before the qualifying date, he was convicted in any part of the Commonwealth of an offence and was sentenced to death or imprisonment exceeding twelve months and has not on the qualifying date served out his sentence.
It should be noted that being infected by an infectious disease does not preclude someone from exercising their right to vote.
Now, to address the elephant in the room, it was recently announced that those who are infected by COVID-19 during the election are allowed to vote during the 15th general election (GE15).
This has caused mixed reactions as some people might be concerned about the potential harm of allowing people who are infected with the coronavirus to vote since it is a contagious disease.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that the Government has taken several aspects into consideration before allowing COVID-19 patients to vote.
Every approach taken by the Government in curbing the spread of the virus has often supported the notion brought by the concept of utilitarianism which is a concept under the study of jurisprudence.
Based on utilitarianism, a person should make decisions that provide the best result for the majority of people. The father of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, came up with the principle of choosing pleasure over pain.
Utilitarianism works on the concept of outweighing all outcomes and promoting the most favourable outcome after taking all aspects into consideration.
Applying the same concept to the present situation, it can be said that allowing COVID-19 patients to vote produces more benefits and a better outcome compared to denying their rights to vote.
COVID-19 has caused significant changes in our lives, as we were forced to face an outbreak which showed no signs of its early stage. It has been classified as one of the century’s worst pandemics.
The rapid rate of the infection has increased the tension among the human population, including the state government.
It has to be agreed that each state plays an important role in dealing with issues related to the aftermath of the pandemic, including the issue of allowing COVID-19 patients to vote during GE15 whereby concerns about the standard operation procedures (SOPs) for COVID-19 patients have been raised.
However, there have been concerns over which right is more important: the rights of the citizens to vote despite being infected with the coronavirus or the rights of those under the high-risk groups from being more prone to getting infected.
People may be worried about the higher risk of getting infected as this might cause a new cluster. Nevertheless, it must be noted that those who are affected by COVID-19 still have the right and liberty to vote.
Liberty highlights an individual’s right and the acts that he can do for himself without being prevented by the law, or, in other words, he is free of the possibility of legal interference by others.
Meanwhile, a person’s right is an interest recognised and protected by the rule of law. Thus, it is vital for a person to be given the right to vote as preventing them to do so is equivalent to denying their right to vote.
In order to reduce the risk of being infected, the SOP for GE15 should be strictly adhered to at all times.
The Health Ministry has also given several recommendations to the Election Commission to allow for special voting queues for COVID-19 patients. This is an effective way to curb the spread of the virus as they will not be queuing with those who are not affected by the virus.
Besides, some people might raise the argument of allowing those who were infected to vote via post. It must be noted that postal voting for COVID-19 patients is not a feasible idea as the deadline to apply for postal voting has already ended.
Hence, they are only left with the option of physically casting their votes. We must bear in mind that before a new approach is taken the state government will consider various aspects, including but not limited to looking at it from a political, economic or social context.
Therefore, it can be said that the decision of allowing COVID-19 patients to vote is in the interest of the state and is the right approach in having a fair and just election. – Nov 16, 2022
Priyadiana Annadurai is a third-year law student from the National University of Malaysia (UKM).
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Main photo credit: NST
