On the surface the decision by the election judge to nullify the election results of the Pasir Puteh parliamentary constituency and declare the Barisan Nasional candidate the winner, seems to be a simple matter especially as all the parties - PAS, Barisan Nasional (BN) and the Election Commission (EC) were in agreement that a mistake had been made during the tallying process.

Yet the whole episode leaves one with the disturbing feeling that the way the matter was resolved shows a clever attempt on the part of the EC to shield itself from the public scrutiny.

It seems odd, to say the least, that the mistake was kept a secret for three months or so after the elections. One would have expected the candidate who lost the elections as a result of the mistake to have raised the matter publicly.

One would have also expected that the mistake would have been made known to the candidate who had been declared the winner. If this is the case, and the political parties all agreed that a mistake had been made, surely the only proper course of action would be for the EC to announce the mistake, suspend gazetting the inaccurate results, and take the necessary legal steps to correct the mistake.

Instead, according to the EC chairman, when the matter was brought to his attention, he advised the returning officer '... to do nothing as only the court can nullify the result'.

There are several issues here that have long-term implications for the management of elections in the future.

First, it seems that the candidate and the political party most affected by the mistake was willing to 'go along' with the EC's decision not to raise the matter publicly even though this meant allowing a person who was clearly not elected as the representative of that constituency to sit in parliament and receive an MP's allowance.

One wonders what the long-term effects of this willingness on the part of the governing party to accommodate the EC is likely to have on the latter's integrity. It smacks too much of an attitude of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'.

Secondly, it seems that while the EC has powers to appoint the returning officers and other officials to administer the elections, it has no powers to discipline them should they not carry out their duties properly.

According to the EC chairman, before disciplinary action could be taken against that particular returning officer, he would need to discuss the matter with the government because the officer is a civil servant. If the EC cannot control its own staff how can we expect it to ensure free and fair elections?

Thirdly, it seems that the judge, perhaps unintentionally, cooperated with the EC in nullifying the elections results based entirely on an agreement reached by the parties concerned. As a consequence, the court hearing did not reveal how the mistake occurred and who was responsible for it.

The EC chairman informed the media only after the court decision was made that he had received a letter from the returning officer overseeing the Pasir Puteh parliamentary seat to the effect that a mistake had been made.

Questions such as what were the actual contents of the letter; when did he receive the letter and why the EC chose to resolve the matter through the mechanism of an election petition rather than taking the matter directly to the courts will now never be answered. (The mistake was not an election offence but more of human error, as the election judge himself admitted).

All this serves to leave the public bewildered and confused. To add to this, the refusal of the EC chairman to disclose the contents of the letter only adds to suspicions that there was something that needs to be hidden from the public.

At the same time, the public is told that this was a genuine mistake that should not affect the EC's image '... as it had conducted elections successfully in the 218 other parliamentary seats'. What is he talking about? Has he forgotten the fiasco throughout the country on polling day and the allegations of irregularities in the conduct of the elections that are now subject of an unprecedented number of election petitions?

The public confidence in the EC now is perhaps lower than ever before and the refusal of its chairman to disclose the contents of the letter has merely added to public suspicion and distrust.

Nobody expects the EC to be infallible. But unless its admits to its mistakes and is genuinely interested in implementing what it was constitutionally set up to do, there will be no real progress towards democratically held elections in this country.

Lastly, if the recently announced post-mortem on the general election by the EC is going to be genuinely beneficial for the nation, and a step towards restoring public confidence in our democratic institutions, than the public must be allowed to participate fully in it.