To me, any competition should be fair, or as fair as reasonably possible.
Contrary to what is being put out in cyberspace, the choice of who to vote for is not black and white and definitely not between good and evil. There are many good reasons to choose either one. There are also many reasons to reject either of them.
You can pick and choose any issue, highlight it and make it appear that it is the only thing that matters. But there are many more factors to be considered and I sincerely believe that things should be looked at from an overall perspective.
But for me, the continual failure to separate the 'government' and the 'political party' is the deciding factor. The repeated misuse of governnment resources and mainstream media for the benefit of the incumbent, which has been going on since I've started reading newspapers, cannot go on forever.
The 'pengundi hantu' or phantom voters' issue has also been around for the longest time. From a neutral perpsective, the EC does not appear to be neutral. It likes to brush of these matters as though they are not important. The washable indelible ink is a case in point. Their stance is to deny first and then admit only when confronted with irrefutable evidence.
The alleged transfer (subject to the news being true) of the TUDM officer for correctly highlighting the weakness is further proof of an unfair system. He should be righfully praised for highlighting a potential flaw that could affect the voting process.
The other disturbing factor is the negative ads put out by the incumbent. There are two serious issues with these ads. One is the distasteful content. But more importantly, the incumbents are misusing their control of the media to get easy access to the public.
Dato' Seri Dr Rais Yatim said that once the campaign period starts, the incumbent cannot use government assets. Take a look at RTM's coverage and you can clearly see that it is biased. It has been that way since the day I started watching TV. I believe that you should not and cannot use government resources for party purposes at any time, not only during elections.
TV3 is a separate matter because it is indirectly controlled by the ruling party. Technically they can say what they want. But why is it that only one side can control TV stations and broadcast free to air channels?
I'll conclude by saying that in a game of football, you expect the goals to be of the same size, and the playing field level. If not, you can still play, but you must change sides at half-time. Since the playing field is not level and heavily skewed towards the incumbent, I choose to ask the teams to change sides. Then, only then, will the incumbent realise how unfair it is.