JANUARY 25 — The #undirosak movement is captivating. But not so much as the response from Pakatan Harapan leaders over it, or rather the lack of coherent responses.

[#undirosak is self-explanatory in Malay, to spoil votes and encourage others to do so as an act of political protest]

Nevertheless, barbs are flying back and forth in cyberspace through conduits representing the cause or coalition in the guise of online comments, such as and not limited to the following: counter-intuitive, wasteful, cybertroopers, sabotage, political illiteracy and destructive discourse.

What strikes me is the lack of an intellectual shape in the answers to critics. As if it is adequate to label those holding on to #undirosak as the uninformed.

There are various trade-offs in politics, many of them distasteful to mere observers, but it is without a doubt a stupid strategy to assume you own votes, of anybody. Votes originate from voters, and politicians never tell off voters. It’s like right up on page one of the manual on “how to not lose votes by pissing off voters, therefore losing elections.”

There is only one way to reply, and it does not require a political science degree to form it, or one term in Dewan Rakyat. It begins with acceptance.

“I disagree with the course of action to spoil votes. Yet, it would be irresponsible to assume their views are without merit, therefore I and my party/coalition respect their decision.

“Being alerted by this vital development, between now and election day we will endeavour to convince them otherwise and win their support.”

Or something like that.

It’s not a time to re-explain the position vis-à-vis why leader A is going to be in charge while being pegged back properly by B so members of party C don’t have to fret while they wait for leader D to reassume his true place in the hearts and minds of all Malaysians. And the sulking leader E will eventually toe the line as he always has in view of his love for party C, with the outside chance of abandoning ship for party F.

They know it. They really do. The rebels I mean, those backing #undirosak.

Scolding them only increases their resolve, but going thermonuclear and insulting them as ignoramuses will risk losing their support indefinitely.

There are far-reaching consequences to that.

The voter and the vote

There is a favourite way of the powerful to emasculate those not with their leverage, they put the onus on the disadvantaged. Ask them to explain themselves.

In a time, prior to the domination of democracy it was almost factual, this power dynamic. That the weak must explain why they must access equality in power, access and responsibility.

It is easier to negate a proposal rather than form a balanced view of what is good, therefore the powerful prospered and felt authority was theirs naturally.

Democracy has levelled the playing fields since with the vote.

Voters are not compelled to explain themselves. They are expressly encouraged to have opinions and to act upon them through their vote.

Even if their will may be tempered by the aggregation of votes. When another view wins through numerical superiority.

They are choosing leaders or laws or policy or a way of doing things.

They do not have to explain themselves.

They can feel aggrieved, they can feel euphoric, but they are not compelled to explain their justifications to those elected, or removed.

A better democracy, refuses to limit the voice of the people to general elections and as such, solicits views and thoughts continuously and unofficially factors public opinion into policy and law.

In short, pulling all stops to harvest the will of the population incessantly. A brilliant democracy it makes.

Who are the spoilers?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding and more importantly, underestimation of those on a path to spoil votes.

They are different from no-shows from the registered voters list. On election day, a number flashes, of the percentage of voters on the roll who’ve showed up to vote. The Election Commission officials are responsible to confirm identities, issue voting chits and allow these voters time to mark their chits and pass the ballot box on the way out. #undirosak subscribers will be in the polling room, they will show up. The difference is they only scribble all over the chit in order to deface it, like draw the outlines of the Petronas Twin Towers, and force their chit to be counted as spoilt, meaning not a vote for any of the candidates.

They do this because they care.

If they really did not care, they’d won’t travel to a polling station. They’d be home, shopping online at Lazada.

They care tonnes more than millions of Malaysians who are not registered voters even though they are eligible.

They intend to send a political message. In an election, it is very suitable to send politically infused statements.

That’s not all their worth.

They are key influencers, not the least on social media.

This is where the far-reaching consequences I mentioned prior magnify.

First-time voters are heavily affected by online discourse and chatter. When they witness the shambolic exchanges between #undirosak and political sycophants, there is only one group at risk of losing out.

Secondly, the spoilers have not come to this point lightly. They actively read material on politics, participate in discussions and debates, shed light on ideas local and foreign onto the policy thread and do so out of their own free will.

Isn’t a vibrant democratic space what apparent usurpers of the present regime wont to repeat?

If so, these are partners, not opponents. And yes, it is so.

Allies are being lost because objections are seen as acts of sabotage.

Third, which is strategic, if political parties are scouring the earth for talents, it is among those brave enough to have a view where they will find potential.

Reminds me of the last election, when my party Parti Keadilan Rakyat put forward a parliamentary candidate who was neither bright nor capable, but he was brutally loyal even with a mild demeanour. He lost, which is no loss to the constituency.

Over at the #undirosak camp there is no shortage of opinion and most significantly, dissent.

Perhaps a bit more transparency along with party elections, and far less hidden hands and subjectivity in management, within the political parties out of power can rejuvenate them for national campaigns. These dissenters can be the missing cog to the mystery of how to finally win a national election.

They can learn from the politicians if they are persuaded to join. To initiate that, these outsiders have to feel they are being listened to.

Is the value of these people, these riffraff of #undirosak being unduly inflated? That’s up to readers to decide.

Though Margaret Mead’s words resonates strongly in this strange tale of the 14th Malaysian General Election: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.