|
Wednesday, 14-Apr-2004 3:56 PM MEDIA RELEASE BARISAN ALTERNATIF 14 APRIL 2004 Malaysia’s recently concluded 11th General Election can be deemed illegal Immediately after the conclusion of Malaysia’s 11th General Election on 21 March 2004, the opposition coalition, Barisan Alternatif (Alternative Front), set up a working committee called the ‘Badan Bertindak Penyelewengan Pilihanraya Umum ke-11’ (Action Committee to Investigate Irregularities in the 11th General Election) to investigate and confirm the alleged incidents of violations, irregularities and misconduct that were reported to have occurred on a rampant and blatant basis all over the country. Due to the many reports and complaints received, the Action Committee decided to categorise them into two categories: 1. Main Violations These are violations that would affect the legality of the election itself and render the entire election defective and therefore null. On this basis alone, there would be no further need to even go into the individual complaints as any other transgressions in an election that, to start of with, is illegal, would make it purely academic. 2. Individual Cases These are complaints received from various individuals all over Malaysia. These complaints certainly affect that particular individual’s right to vote (or to vote freely) but may or may not affect the election as a whole. The list of individual complaints compiled to date is quite substantial but are by no means comprehensive as there are more. These few incidences backed by testimonies of witnesses and/or documentary evidence, which the Action Committee was able to procure in the short space of time, merely serve to demonstrate the authenticity of these complaints and to prove that they are genuine and did occur. MAIN VIOLATIONS Amongst the complaints about main violations received by the Action Committee are the following: 1. Extension of polling hours for the State of Selangor The time, date and place (for each and every polling station) for the 11th General Election had already been gazetted before Polling Day, and as such polling must be held only within the gazetted time, date and place. It is crucial that not only the time and date, but the place as well, must be gazetted so that the Elections Commission (EC) can enforce the election rules and laws. For the State of Selangor, however, the polling hours were suddenly extended to 7.00 pm. Further to that, this was not done in writing or supported by a proper and authorised document but was merely conveyed by phone or SMS to the returning officers on duty, or in some cases through the police personnel at the centres via walkie-talkie. In most cases, the extension was conveyed close to 5.00 pm and in some a few minutes AFTER 5.00 pm -- after the ballot box had already been sealed, which necessitated the seal be broken in order to resume the voting process. Considering that the two-hour extension was not gazetted beforehand, this makes the extension illegal and therefore the election for the entire State of Selangor is rendered null. Whatever reason the EC may have had to decide on a two-hour extension is immaterial since, like any illegal act, notwithstanding it may have been done with the noblest of intentions, it is illegal nevertheless. The EC must therefore nullify the results for the State of Selangor and call for a new election at the earliest possible date. 2. Ungazetted Code of Ethics The EC issued a new Code of Ethics for the recent election and took pains to ensure that it was complied with. They gave briefings to opposition parties during which this code of ethics was deliberately presented as if it were gazetted and enforceable. For example, during the campaign period, Parti Keadilan Nasional’s candidate for Putrajaya, Abdul Rahman Othman, was constantly reminded to observe the Code of Ethics and he even received a letter warning him about a breach he had allegedly committed and that action would be taken against him if he continued with the breach. In addition, Abdul Rahman was told to take down all the PAS flags as required by the new Code since it was keADILan and not PAS that was contesting the Putrajaya seat. When he failed to do so, the EC officers went round and cut down all the PAS flags leaving only the flagpole intact. When Alternative Front leaders had a meeting with the EC some months before the election, the specific legal status of the proposed Code was questioned, but the EC declined to give any answer. In fact, the new Code of Ethics was actually never gazetted and therefore was illegal and non-enforceable. Nevertheless, the EC still enforced the Code resulting in the opposition having to campaign under very restrictive rules. The BN, on the other hand, were apparently apprised of the fact that the Code was not legally binding and therefore proceeded to break the rules with impunity. Clearly the EC kept changing the rules during the course of the election but the most important aspect of these constantly changing rules is that the Code itself was unenforceable as it was never gazetted as required by law. 3. Different versions of Electoral Rolls The electoral roll, one very important ingredient in the election, was certainly a sore point, not only amongst the candidates but amongst the voters as well. It was found that the opposition was given a different set of electoral roll compared to the ruling party. In some instances, even both these two lists differed from that of the EC, and in some polling stations different EC officials even had different versions of the list. According to Section 14 Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981, this electoral roll too needs to be gazetted and the official or legal date that was used to gazette the electoral roll for this election was 5 March 2004 (see details in keADILan’s 2 April 2004 write-up on fraud in the recent elections, ‘FRAUD AND RIGGING IN THE MALAYSIAN 11th GENERAL ELECTIONS’: addendum 1 of this press statement). However, on Polling Day, there were also other versions in use, which were dated 15 March and even 23 April 2004 (after the election!). It is not the date alone that is the bone of contention but the fact that each of these different electoral rolls shows a different set of voters. For example, when a voter checks his name in the electoral roll in possession of the opposition, he may find his name missing. Then, when he goes over to countercheck in the electoral roll in possession of the BN, he would find his name there. Clearly the electoral roll given to the opposition was incomplete with many missing names while that given to the BN was complete and accurate. In at least one constituency, the Kuantan Parliamentary constituency, the electoral roll given to the opposition also had one column deleted rendering the voters’ addresses incomplete, whereas the electoral roll given to the BN was complete and with no deleted columns. This was brought to the EC’s attention by the keADILan Women’s Wing Chief, Fuziah Salleh, keADILan’s candidate for Kuantan, who noticed that the electoral roll in her possession was not complete whereas that given to the BN was. The reply she received from the EC was that this was done on the instruction from HQ. 4. Discrepancies in the election results Immediately after the votes were counted on 21 March 2004, the results were announced live through the electronic media and the EC website was updated with these latest results soon after. The following day, the print media carried the detailed results except for those constituencies where the results had not been received yet or where a recounting had to be conducted. The print media’s detailed results the following day tallied with that of the EC website. However, these results, in particular those on the EC website, were found to have huge discrepancies, especially in relation to the number of ballot papers issued compared to those actually in the ballot box – where the discrepancies were listed as ‘unreturned votes’. The fact that all contesting candidates have polling agents and counting agents (PACA) representing them makes it impossible for voters to walk up to the polling booth, collect their ballot paper, and walk out again without first dropping them into the ballot box. Furthermore, there were no such reported incidences from the PACA, which means every ballot paper issued to the voters were dropped into the ballot box. Therefore, the number of ballot papers in the ballot box must tally with the actual voter turnout and there should be no discrepancies. Nevertheless, in many constituencies, the ballot papers issued far exceeded the voter turnout resulting in the surplus ballot papers issued having to be listed under the category of ‘non-returned votes’. Kuala Terengganu and Kuala Selangor were two glaring cases though not the isolated ones. In fact, only 50 of the 219 parliamentary constituencies had NO incidences of non-returned votes. Two days later, when the media started noticing the glaring discrepancies and started reporting it (see Malaysiakini.com’s news report of 25 March 2004, ‘Massive gaps in EC’s ballot figures’: addendum 2 of this press statement), the EC immediately pulled the pages out of its website. Some pages were subsequently amended to reduce the discrepancies from five figures to only two. Clearly the EC website reported the real results as these not only tally with the PACA’s figures but with that of the mainstream media’s as well. It can be assumed therefore that the latest figures are doctored figures to ‘look good’ and to save the EC the embarrassment of having to explain the extremely high incidence of ‘non-returned votes’. The fact that quite a number of these so-called non-returned votes were found abandoned, still in official EC envelopes, and some even accompanied by the list of voters’ names, makes this even more suspect. (Dr Badrulamin Bahron has already made a police report on this matter and has already called a separate press conference to reveal the evidence he gathered to support his allegation). 5. Illegal postponement of the Sungai Lembing election Just as in the case of Selangor State, the postponement of the Sungai Lembing election to a later date when it had already been gazetted for 21 March 2004 and polling had in fact already commenced is an illegal act. Whatever the reason the EC may have had for the postponement is immaterial as the postponement was illegal whether it was done with good reason or otherwise. 6. Fear factor used against the voters The voters were given the impression that their vote is not a secret and that the government will know who they vote for. Some civil servants were warned specifically that the government will know which candidate they voted for. This increased the fear factor amongst voters resulting in many admitting that they chose to vote for the BN rather than take the risk of voting for the opposition. One polling agent in Putrajaya has confirmed that she witnessed many voters holding up their ballot papers after marking them, to show they had voted for the BN, before dropping them into the ballot box. Other Putrajaya voters confirmed that the BN candidate for that Parliamentary constituency visited all the voters in their offices to inform them that the government will know who they voted for, and they would run the risk of losing their government quarters if it were known they voted for the opposition. What compounds this fear factor is the fact that all the ballot papers are numbered and the voter’s serial number is jotted down on the ballot paper counterfoil, with the ballot paper itself bearing the corresponding serial number. The fact that many newspapers carried photographs of the polling booths, with details of the ballot papers visible, is further proof that the confidentiality of the voters is not protected. For police and army personnel who are obliged to vote ‘by post’, they were asked to line up and vote openly, thereby requiring considerable bravery for any of them to vote for any other party except the BN. This was not only observed at all the police stations (army camps are off limits so we could only rely on feedback) but the newspapers also showed the army personnel voting openly and in full view of everyone. 7. No witnessing of the postal voting Candidates are not allowed to be present or send his/her polling agent/representative when the postal voting is being carried out. The excuse given is that army camps are security areas. Police stations, however, are not, yet polling agents were not allowed to witness the voting. In Putrajaya, a representative of the keADILan candidate, Abdul Rahman Othman, sneaked into the police station while the postal voting was being carried out and discovered that all the police personnel had to collect the ballot papers and mark them in front and in full view of the senior officer. Due to this, all police and army personnel would have no choice but to vote for the BN candidate. INDIVIDUAL CASES Amongst the complaints received about individual cases are as follows:
As all these complaints are well documented - with the various testimonies and evidences to support these allegations available for perusal - we will not go into the details. Suffice to say, all these complaints are but a tip of the iceberg and in the event these cases are taken to court more evidence will be adduced to support our case. More details on examples of these violations are highlighted in the Addendums below. Tuan Haji Abdul Rahman Othman Timbalan Pengerusi Badan Bertindak Penyelewengan Pilihanraya Umum ke-11 Barisan Alternatif ADDENDUM 1: Fraud and Rigging in the Malaysian 11th General Election -- a booklet published by Parti Keadilan Nasional FRAUD AND RIGGING IN THE MALAYSIAN 11TH GENERAL ELECTIONSWe draw your attention to irregularities in the conduct of the Malaysian 11th General Elections and the consequent violation of the right of voters to choose their representatives in free and fair elections. The election was ruined by fraud and treachery, and by outright cheating and blatant denial of voters’ fundamental rights. The evidence available to prove these violations is overwhelming in both quality and quantity. Indeed, the election result announced on 21 March 2004 was a false picture of the wishes of voters. The National Justice Party (keADILan) hereby registers its condemnation of the malpractices committed during the election and holds the Election Commission Malaysia (EC) blameworthy. Other political parties, as well as voters and non-governmental organisations, have also criticised the conduct of the election and denounced the process of the election and rejected the announced outcome, putting into serious question the legitimacy of the federal government and state governments formed after the election. The Malaysia’s Bar Council has also joined calls for an independent inquiry into claims of fraud in the 11th General Elections, saying a transparent audit is crucial to ensure the legitimacy of the results. The council, which represents more than 8,000 lawyers, says there have been a high number of complaints about the Election Commission’s management of the March 21 vote. The Bar has rejected the Election Commission’s proposal for an internal investigation. The EC was riddled by irresolution and confusion in its management of the election. By causing the electoral rolls to be gazetted on 3 March 2004, it defied its own pronouncement that the rolls would not be ready until the middle of March. It was also on 3 March 2004 that the Prime Minister dissolved Parliament. The two events were tied by more than mere coincidence of time. It was as if the EC was harried to hurry. On 4 March 2004, the Alternative Front (BA) lodged an official protest against the premature publication of the rolls. The EC’s submissiveness to the Barisan Nasional (BN) is contemptible, and its haste in publishing the rolls atrocious, for it raises doubts as to their authenticity, even among those unaware that the law allows 60 days between the dissolution of Parliament and a general election. Article 55 (4) of the Federal Constitution clearly states that; “ Whenever Parliament is dissolved a general election shall be held within sixty days from the date of the dissolution and Parliament shall be summoned to meet on a date not later than one hundred and twenty days from that date.” This memorandum represents keADILan’s denunciation of the conduct of the 11th General Elections. It is a protest based on sound reasoning and firm evidence supported by authentic documents. Some instances of the EC’s misconduct and the BN’s violation of the law are mentioned below. 1. The EC produced two distinct electoral rolls on Polling Day The 11th General Elections introduced for every polling station what is officially known as a 'Barung SPR' (Malay for 'EC booth'), where every voter is supposed to check his name against the roll for that station and receive a number representing the queue he must take in order to receive his ballot paper and cast his vote. The voter’s name should appear also in the electoral roll held by the election official in charge of his designated queue. Each queue is officially referred to as a 'Saluran'. On Polling Day, 21 March 2004, many cases were reported of queue electoral rolls in the polling station not tallying with the electoral rolls kept at the EC booths although the EC officials was supposed to be in control of both booths and queues. Many a voter who had verified his entitlement to vote and received his designated queue number from the tally clerk at the EC booth was barred from casting his vote because his name was absent from the electoral roll at his designated queue. An amazingly large number of these cases happened in Selangor such as in Sabak Bernam, Sungai Besar, Tanjung Karang, Kuala Selangor, Selayang, Gombak, Ampang, Pandan, Hulu Langat, Serdang, Puchong, Subang, Shah Alam, Kapar, Kuala Langat and Sepang. In a statement issued on 23 March 2004 and quoted by The Sun on 24 March 2004, the EC Chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, confirmed that there were cases in which a polling station had two electoral rolls. He was quoted as saying that “The position of the voters became different when the document used was amended.” Police report number 1698/04, which was lodged with the Serdang Police Station on 22 March 2004 by Mr Yaakob bin Sapari, a candidate for Sri Serdang (N.29), Selangor, testifies that 255 voters were thus disfranchised. They have been confirmed as registered voters by the EC officials at the EC booth as well as confirmation of their eligibility through the EC website but were denied the right to cast their votes by the EC officials at the respective queues that they were allocated. The total given represents only the number of barred voters who registered their protest with keADILan in a random exercise conducted when pandemonium broke at the polling station concerned. The actual total could be more than 700 voters. A large number of voters left the polling station disappointed and angry. Many complained that they had to wait for more than three hours only to be told that they could not vote. Disfranchisement of voters in the Sri Serdang state constituency happened at the following polling stations:
A similar case was reported in the Cempaka state constituency, which lies within the parliamentary constituency of Pandan, Selangor. Mr Mohd Shah bin Hassan, the representative of the candidate contesting in N.21 Cempaka, lodged police report number 5063/04 on 21 March 2004, in which he complains that the EC used two distinct electoral rolls at the polling stations of Sekolah Kebangsaan Pandan Jaya and Sekolah Menengah Pandan Indah. Thirty-three voters were denied their right to vote because their names were not listed in the electoral rolls at the queues to which the tally clerks who had verified their eligibility to vote had assigned them. The same abuse of the electoral process was evident in Ampang, Selangor. Hundreds of names were absent from queue electoral rolls in the polling districts of Lembah Jaya, Tasik Permai, Taman Bukit Indah, Ampang Campuran dan Taman Kosas. A police report was lodged in Ampang regarding this. The EC caused a panic when, at 10.15 a.m. on Polling Day ( 2 hours after the opening of the polling station ), it produced a new electoral roll for Queue 2 of the Taman Kosas polling district. Worse, it was 4.50 p.m. ( 10 minutes before the closing of the polling station ) when EC produced a new electoral roll for Queue 3 of the Lembah Jaya polling district. The use of two distinct electoral rolls represents a fundamental flaw in any elections that is supposed to be fair. Indeed, it created confusion among voters on Polling Day. The instances cited here should be proof enough that the EC used two distinct electoral rolls, one for the EC booth and one for the queue, and thereby committed the dire offence of denying citizens their right to vote. 2. The EC used one electoral roll for Nomination Day and a different one for Polling Day Section 14 Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981, Right of registered elector to vote clearly states that; “The electoral rolls for the time being in force shall be prima facie evidence for the purpose of determining whether a person is or is not entitled to vote at an election in any constituency.” Section 14 A Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981, Authoritative text of electoral rolls clearly states that; “The electoral rolls which are submitted to the candidates on the day of nomination shall be authoritative texts of the electoral rolls which will be used by the returning officer and the presiding officer of a polling station on polling day.” The electoral rolls submitted to candidates on Nomination Day, 13 March 2004, was the one gazetted on 3 March 2004. However, on Polling Day, 21 March 2004, the EC used the electoral rolls gazetted on 15 March 2004. The EC was in clear violation of the regulations cited above namely Section 14 A Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981. The use of two distinct electoral rolls occurred in almost all the polling districts in Selangor. On 21 March 2004, police report number 10515/04 was lodged with the Klang Police Station by Mr Mohamad Amkah b. Ahmad, polling agent for Haji Abdul Rahman bin Ibrahim, a candidate for the N.43 Sementa state seat in Selangor. He testifies that the electoral roll he received on 13 March 2004 which was submitted to the candidate on the day of nomination was different from the electoral roll used by EC on the Polling Day which was gazetted on 15 March 2004. The same irregularities were reported in the polling districts of Lembah Jaya, Taman Kosas dan Taman Tun Abdul Razak in Ampang. More interesting was the case in the parliamentary constituency of Putrajaya. The electoral roll purchased from the EC on 1 March 2004 shows clearly that it had “been gazetted” on 23 April 2004, that is, a month after Polling Day. However, the roll given to candidates on Nomination Day was the one gazetted on 3 March 2004 and the one used on Polling Day was gazetted on 15 March 2004. 3. The EC illegally extended the polling period Section 11 (5) Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981, Contested elections clearly states that ; “ Upon the receipt of the report mentioned in sub-regulation (3), the State Elections Officer shall cause to be published in the Gazette and also in such manner as he thinks fit a notice as set out in Form 8 in the First Schedule specifying –
Section 15 (2) Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981, Admittance to polling station clearly states that; “Unless the Election Commission, by notification in the Gazette, appoints any other hours in respect of any constituency or part thereof, the poll in any constituency shall be open for twelve hours between such hours as the Election Commission shall specify.” Section 23 Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981, Closing of poll clearly states that; “No ballot paper shall be issued to a voter after the hour fixed for the closing of the poll but if at that hour there is in the polling station any voter to whom a ballot paper has been issued, such voter shall be allowed to record his vote.” In the entire State of Selangor, the voting period was extended by 2 hours from 5 p.m. which is in clear violation of Section 15 (2) of the Elections Regulations. The EC failed to adhere to the voting period gazetted after the dissolution of Parliament and state assemblies. Syed Shahir bin Syed Mohamud, a candidate for the parliamentary seat of Kelana Jaya, Selangor has lodged a police report complaining that at 5 p.m. on Polling Day, the EC directed the presiding officer in Kelana Jaya to extend the voting period to 7 p.m. The extension was announced after 5 p.m., that is, after the close of the gazetted voting period. It also contradicted Clause 3.2 of the Candidates’ Guide Book published by EC, which, on page 49, states that the “voting period is fixed between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.” The same paragraph states that “ The State Election Officer shall, through notices posted at public places, inform the public regarding the date, place and hours of voting. ” No notice of extension of the voting hours was exhibited. Instead, it was announced through the electronic media and, among EC officials, by walkie-talkie. Neither the contending political parties nor the contesting candidates were informed officially, although the EC had then a list of phone numbers to call. Among voters, the extension was known only to those who were watching television or listening to the radio; those who were away from television or radio sets did not have this privileged information and, if they had not voted before 5 p.m., were disfranchised. Furthermore, the extension was announced after the polling agents had left the polling stations and political parties were thus denied the opportunity to monitor the process of casting votes during the extended polling hours. The extension, coming as a bombshell, threw the process into disarray. Some returning officers obeyed the extension order and some were reluctant to allow voting after 5 p.m. At some polling stations, the counting of ballots had begun before the order was received. Mr Abdul Rahman bin Ibrahim, candidate for the N.43 Sementa state seat, reported that at Queue 1 of the Sekolah Kebangsaan Sementa polling station, vote counting began at 5.30 p.m. A counting agent at polling district 104/31/05 in the Kelana Jaya parliamentary constituency submitted a written protest to the returning officer at Sekolah Kebangsaan SS 19, complaining that 11 people were allowed to vote after 5 p.m. Similar complaints were made at Sekolah Kebangsaan USJ 12 and Sekolah Kebangsaan SS 14, involving 3 and 6 voters respectively. Written complaints over the extension of the voting hours were also recorded by the returning officers at Sekolah Kebangsaan SS 19, Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan USJ 13 and Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan SS 17. Dr Xavier Jayakumar, candidate for the Ampang parliamentary constituency, made a police report denouncing the extension. This lack of uniformity represented a serious weakness in the electoral process in the 11th General Elections especially in Selangor. 4. The electoral rolls were manipulated The EC did not clean up the electoral rolls before publishing them. They contained the names of people long deceased. Some names appear more than once, either in different queue lists or different voting district lists. And some rolls are haunted by phantom voters. We have found that the electoral roll for the Lembah Jaya polling district 099/20/02 that was gazetted on 16 March 2004 had the names of four voters who could cast their ballots more than once. They were :
Similar cases were detected in Serdang. For example, Siti Rohana bte Abdullah (I/C 630110108116) was registered to vote in both Sri Serdang and Sabak Bernam. There were also cases of voters turned away because other people had used their names and identity cards (I/C) to vote. One such disfranchised voter was Normah binti Baharom (I/C 601002105644), Serial Number 2467, polling station 01 – Sekolah Kebangsaan Bandar Sunway, Queue 4.) Mr Abdul Rahman bin Ibrahim, a candidate for the state seat of Sementa (N.43), reported that the electoral roll supplied to his polling agent in the last minutes was incomplete, with several pages missing. According to Mr. Abdul Rahman, the electoral roll for polling district 109/43/04 Pekan Kapar in Sementa, voters who were assigned the serial numbers 2084 to 2987 and 3363 to 3987 did not exist. This means 1,531 (905+626) registered voters were not able to vote on Polling Day. He too lodged a police report. The abuse of electoral rolls was especially obvious in Hulu Kelang, Gombak. The published roll by EC contained the names of deceased persons and of those using the addresses of people not related to them and without the consent of the householders. The Hulu Kelang roll also had people with fictitious addresses. The electoral roll for the Kelang Gate polling district 098/18/02 shows 5 voters with Chinese names and one Malay voter lived at the home of the mother of Mohamed Azmin Ali, the former Member of Selangor State Legislative Assembly for Hulu Kelang at No. 1 E Kampong Kelang Gate, Hulu Kelang. They were:
All of the voters above, except for Lim Hock Seng, did cast their ballots in the 11th General Elections. Mohamed Azmin’s father, Ali Bin Omar (I/C 280903025057) passed away nearly 5 years and yet was still registered in the electoral roll with the Serial Number 44. Voter with a Serial Number 146 namely Zahara Binti Ahmad (I/C 440414105494) also is deceased. Yet, according to the record, she too cast her vote in the 11th General Elections. In Perlis, Mr Ramlee b. Ahmad (I/C 570710026315) lodged a report with the Simpang Empat Police Station in which he complained that one Shuib bin Taib (I/C 3585774), who died on 26 January 1976, was still registered as a voter and the record showed that this deceased person cast his vote with a Serial Number 13 at Queue 1, Sekolah Kebangsaan Kampung Serdang. Dr. Sanusi Osman, candidate for the parliamentary constituency of Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur reported the listing of voters of doubtful identity and who could be classified under “phantom voters.” According to the electoral roll in his constituency, 13 voters of different ethnic origins and genders shared an address at No. 12 Batu 6 1/2 Jalan Puchong, Kampong Bohol, Lembah Pantai. Similar doubts involving 26 voters were raised with regard to the supposed occupants of No. 2 Jalan Sepat, Pantai Baharu, Lembah Pantai; No. 5 Jalan Telawi 8, Bangsar Baru; No. 6 Jalan Tempinis, Taman Lucky; and No. 5 Jalan Terasek 2, Bangsar Baru. The electoral roll for Kelang Gate in Hulu Kelang also showed 6 voters using false addresses. They were:
Kampung Kelang Gate came into existence in the 1960s. It is a Malay community in which all the members live in individual homes, not apartments, condominiums or flats. There is not a single high-rise building in the kampong. The addresses given for all 5 voters above were characteristic of addresses in high-rise buildings. The address of voter with Serial Number 1062 was patently false. The last house in the region is 32 E. We are further disturbed by the presence in the roll of so many non-Malay voters. According to the record of a polling agent, all of the voters listed above except Yeow Siew Kian and Nor Karina Binti Mohd Nor managed to cast their votes on 21 March 2004. A study conducted by Malaysians for Free and Fair Elections (MAFREL) showed that the electoral rolls for Gombak, Lembah Pantai dan Tanah Merah had not been cleaned up, with many cases of untraceable voters. In Lembah Pantai, 37.6 % of voters’ addresses could not be traced. For Gombak it was 26.01 % and for Tanah Merah in Kelantan 11.01 %. This study also revealed one address in Kampung Kerinchi in Lembah Pantai became the address for 142 voters. The location is in fact a wooden shack with a zinc roof where sundry goods are sold. The owner of the shop denied that 142 people lived at the address. Fuziah Salleh, who heads keADILan’s women’s wing, has registered her protest over corrupt and doubtful electoral rolls. She observed, among other things, that: 1. The electoral rolls listed incomplete addresses.
2. Some postal voters were registered to vote at two different polling stations within the same parliamentary constituency. 3. There were deceased voters whose names had not been removed from the rolls. 4. Some addresses were claimed by too many voters. In one case, 29 people claimed that they lived in the same house. There were also cases in which ordinary voters were registered as postal voters. For example, Hatijah bte Abu Bakar (I/C 600729015418), who lives at 46 – 12 – 1, Kondominium Teratai Merah, Danau Kota, Setapak, Kuala Lumpur, was registered as postal voter in the Bota state constituency which lies within the parliamentary constituency of Parit, Perak. Complaints were also received that the electoral rolls submitted to the opposition parties did not have the complete addresses of the voters. This was a deliberate act by the EC to deny the opposition’s right to reach out to the voters. However, the complete electoral rolls with full addresses were supplied to BN and this is evident when BN Chairman, Dato’ Seri Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi was able to send a personal campaign message to every single voter in Malaysia utilizing the free service of Pos Malaysia a few days before the 11th General Elections on 21 March 2004. 5. The recording of voters’ serial numbers on ballot papers Election officers routinely recorded voters’ serial numbers onto their ballot papers and announced those numbers loudly across the hall. This inspired fear among some voters that their votes were not secret after all, that they were being monitored secretly and systematically and that they were therefore not free to vote according to their conscience. This is a violation of the right to secrecy in casting one’s vote. This practice must be stopped immediately. A report against this practice was lodged at the Jasin, Melaka police station. 6. Provision for withdrawing from a contest within 3 days Section 11 (7) Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981, Contested elections clearly states that ; “ If, after an election has been reported as contested, one of the candidates who stands nominated withdraws from being a candidate to the Dewan Rakyat or the State Legislative Assembly, as the case may be, within three days of the day of nomination, the candidate shall give in person a written notice to that effect to the returning officer. ” This provision opens the way to bribery. It encourages influential and unprincipled candidates to offer bribes to their opponents in return for withdrawing from the race. Indeed, such a corrupt practice was exposed when a BN candidate in Johor tried to bribe the PAS candidate into withdrawing. And the press statement issued by keADILan’s candidate in Rantau provided evidence that his opponent from the BN had tried to bribe him. 7. The voter turnout was too high to be credible keADILan has misgivings with regard to the abnormally high turnout of voters in UMNO-targeted areas such as in Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang. For example, the turnout in Pekan was 80.06 % and in Kuala Terengganu 88.84 %. Meanwhile, in states where the BN was confident of winning, the turnout was comparatively low - 69.55 % in Pulai and 68.55 % in Johor Bahru. keADILan is also concerned over early reports that nearly 40,000 born outside Terengganu – some in Singapore – had cast their votes in that East Coast state. The concern is justified by the large number involved and their apparently well-organised turnout. 8. Hot Huts Section 26 A (1) Election Offences Act 1954 (Amendment 2002), Booth to be provided by Election Commission clearly states that; “The Election Commission shall, on polling day, provide such number of booths situated at such places as it thinks necessary for the purpose of assisting electors to ascertain their electoral numbers in the electoral roll.” The new amendment to the Election Offences Act effectively abolished the so-called “pondok panas” (literally, “hot huts”) manned by political parties and replaced them with the EC booths. However, two days before Polling Day, the EC announced that hot huts were now allowed. Why? This reversal must be the result of pressure from the BN, whose workers had gone ahead to construct hot huts a few days before polling. The EC’s inconsistency in this case reflects upon its irresponsible and unfair attitude. 9. Election Offences Committed by the BN Section 26 (1) Election Offences Act 1954 (Amendment 2002), Limitation on polling day clearly states that; “No person shall on polling day – (e) within a distance of fifty metres from the limits of any polling station –
(g) within a distance of fifty metres from the limits of any polling station and in a polling station wear, hold or carry any form or type of clothing, head covering, ornament, rosette, water bottle or umbrella on which the name of candidate or the name, emblem or symbol of any political party is printed or imprinted.” At Sekolah Menengah Syed Mashor, Batang Kali, in the polling district of Hulu Kali 094/07/03, the BN used its Puteri UMNO wing to solicit for votes for the BN within the banned area, that is less than 50 metres from the polling station on Polling Day. Also in Batang Kali, the BN set up election operations rooms in at least the following public facilities: Balairaya Kampung Sungai Masin, Balairaya Fasa 3, Ligamas, Komplek JKKK Kampung Kuantan, Pejabat Rukun Tetangga Hulu Rening, Balairaya Kampung Batu 30, Surau Kampung Pasir, Pejabat JKKK Kampung Kalong Tengah / Hilir, Padang Awam Batang Kali, Balairaya Taman Genting Permai, Balairaya Taman Arowana, Surau Kampung Hulu Kalong, Pejabat Majlis Daerah (Pasar) Batang Kali. The conversion of public facilities into BN operations centres also occurred in the state constituency of Paya Jaras, Sungai Buloh, such as at Balai Gerakan Masyarakat Paya Jaras Hilir, Dewan Orangramai Bandar Baru Fasa 3, Dewan Orangramai Bandar Baru Sungai Buloh Fasa 2, Dewan Orangramai Kampung Masjid, Dewan Orangramai Bukit Darah, Dewan Orangramai Bandar Baru Sungai Buloh Fasa 4. A police report was lodged in Ampang complaining about the BN’s use of almost all public halls in the Ampang parliamentary constituency. We also received a complaint regarding the harassment of a seconder of keADILan’s candidature for the parliamentary constituency of Putrajaya. A police report number Putrajaya/000881/04 was lodged on 14 March 2004 (a day after the Nomination Day) at the Putrajaya Police Station by Mr Fathullah Uzir bin Abdullah, I/C No. 69120205739 alleging that the Political Secretary of Dato’ Tengku Adnan Mansor threatening the wife of Fathullah Uzir who is working at the Economic Planning Unit at the Prime Minister’s Department unless Fathullah Uzir withdraws his name from being the seconder of keADILan’s candidature for the parliamentary constituency of Putrajaya. Mr Fathullah Uzir was also offered bribe with money, holiday packages and also a Petronas petrol station in Putrajaya. ConclusionkeADILan views with seriousness the faulty conduct of the Malaysian 11th General Elections and the evidence of cheating and other forms of treachery. For that reason, we launched a People’s Tribunal on 27 March 2004 for Selangor and on 28 March 2004 for Perak. The objective of the programme is to gather information and strong evidence from registered voters who have been denied of their right to vote freely and fairly in the 11th General Elections. The pieces of evidence presented in this memorandum are only those that have been gathered to date. We are convinced that many more people will come forward with other proofs in the near future to be presented. We have reasons to believe that they represent only a tip of an iceberg of a systemic exercise to rig the 11th General Elections. We have warned, time and again, of the possibility of the fraud before the election. The EC paid a deaf ear to our warnings. Thus, the election were contaminated with fraud and irregularities resulting in the denial of citizens’ democratic rights. In the name of genuine democracy and citizens’ empowerment; 1. keADILan demands the immediate resignation of members of the Election Commission Malaysia, especially its Chairman and Secretary. 2. keADILan also demands the immediate establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate abuses in the election process that led to the fraud and rigging of the election. The EC Chairman has himself made a public statement to the effect that the EC would agree to the establishment of such a Royal Commission. 3. The proposed Royal Commission must decide firmly on the form of action to be taken against those responsible of denying citizens their right to choose their representatives and to vote fairly and freely in the 11th General Elections. 4. keADILan also demands the Royal Commission to reexamine the role and responsibilities of the EC to ensure that future elections are conducted cleanly, fairly and transparently. DR WAN AZIZAH ISMAIL, MPPresident National Justice Party [ keADILan ] April 2, 2004 ADDENDUM 2: Malaysiakini.com’s report of 25 March 2004Massive gaps in EC’s ballot figuresBy Yoon Szu-Mae and Cindy Choo 8:02pm Thu, Mar 25th, 2004 The Election Commission - a body tasked with the impartial management of free and fair general elections - has come under intense fire for a number of poll irregularities in last Sunday’s general election. Now, there are more questions it has to answer Malaysiakini has been alerted by a number of readers to the high number of unreturned - or 'missing' - ballot papers as well as other discrepancies in certain constituencies. According to them, there is a 10,000-large discrepancy in the number of ballot papers issued to voters for the Kuala Terengganu parliamentary seat. A check with the Election Commission’s (EC) website today showed that the total number of ballot papers issued for the four state seats under the Kuala Terengganu parliamentary constituency was 60,948. Polling procedures require that every voter be issued their state ballot papers the same time as their parliamentary ballots. This would mean that all ballots issued for the state seats should tally with the number of ballots issued for the parliamentary constituency. However, EC figures show that they issued a total of 71,322 ballots for the Kuala Terengganu parliamentary seat, exceeding the total state ballots by 10,374. The statistics showed that ballots issued for Wakaf Mempelam (15,399), Bandar (15,031), Ladang (13,190), and Batu Buruk (17,328) - all state constituencies under Kuala Terengganu - only add up to 60,948 ballots. Why the 10,000-odd difference in the number of ballot papers issued for the parliamentary and state seats? Three other seats, Setiu (Terengganu), Kemahang and Bachok (Kelantan), also showed similar discrepancies ranging from 1,444 to 4,843 votes. BN’s Razali Ismail won the Kuala Terengganu seat by a 1,933 majority against PAS’ Syed Azman Syed Ahmad Nawawi - the contest recorded an astounding voter turnout of 98.7 percent. In 1999, the voter turnout for this seat was only 76.5 percent, out of 64,435 total registered voters for the seat. BN also won the Bandar and Ladang state seats, while PAS took Wakaf Mempelam and Batu Buruk. All the state seats saw high voter turnouts ranging from 81.52 to 85.92 percent. Syed Azman, when contacted, told malaysiakini that his party has filed a formal complaint with the EC over the discrepancy in the number of ballots for his seat. "We are in the process of waiting for their answer," said the former Kuala Terengganu MP, declining to comment further. Glaring exampleAlso surprising is the fact that EC recorded an astonishing 10,254 ‘unreturned’ ballots for the Kuala Terengganu parliament seat. Unreturned ballots for the constituency’s state seats only amounted to 124. Unreturned ballots are defined as ballot papers which were issued to voters at polling stations but for some reason or the other never made it to the ballot boxes. This would mean that for Kuala Terengganu parliamentary seat, one out of every seven ballot papers has gone missing. The statistics oddly suggest that most of these 10,254 voters managed to drop their votes into the state ballot boxes while withholding their parliamentary ballot papers. This despite the presence of EC officials next to the ballot boxes. The discrepancy between the number of ballots issued against the number of ballots received could not be more glaring than for the parliamentary seat of Kuala Selangor. EC figures for the constituency show that almost one out of every two voters collected their ballots at their respective polling centres but failed drop their votes into the ballot boxes. The election authorities had issued 31,231 ballot papers for Kuala Selangor parliament seat but recorded receiving only 13,271 votes. A total of 17, 960 ballots, or 57.5 percent, were recorded as unreturned. The same occurred for the state seat of Pangkor - which comes under the Lumut parliamentary constituency in Perak - where one out of every third voter did not drop their votes into the ballot boxes. A total of 5,108 ballots were recorded as unreturned out of the 6,712 issued. Why is there such a high number of ballots papers unaccounted for? The discrepancies in the EC’s figures for total number of ballots issued for the state and parliamentary seats and the number of unreturned votes highlights claims by opposition political parties that the 2004 general election was conducted in a ‘dubious manner.’ Following its unexpected poor performance at the elections, PAS has questioned the sudden jump in voter turnout in Terengganu, and the absence of registered voters from the electoral roll. The party on Sunday was routed by the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, losing Terengganu and coming close to being defeated in neighbouring Kelantan as well. Yesterday, it moved to reject poll results, calling instead for a royal commission to probe into complaints of poll irregularities. Fellow opposition party, Keadilan, which also suffered big losses at the polls, followed suit. Chaos on polling dayChaos erupted in various constituencies on polling day when voters alleged that their names were not on the electoral roll, despite having voted in that constituency in the past. Nowhere was this more stark than in Gombak, Selangor, where polling agents alleged that "hundreds" of names were missing from the roll, and EC officers nowhere to be found. Scores of others were caught out when they found that while their names were on the roll, they still could not vote as the EC failed to assign them to voting channels, a procedure ensuring voters can obtain a ballot at their polling stations. Some also alleged that they had been transferred, without their knowledge, to other constituencies and even other states. Malaysiakini managed to independently verify some of these complaints. And while both BN and the opposition parties have criticised the conduct of the 2004 general election, PAS, Keadilan and DAP had gone one step further in calling for the resignation of EC chief Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, as a first step in the direction of correcting the electoral fiasco. Yesterday, Abdul Rashid conceded to the electoral foul ups and himself called for an independent probe, but said he would not step down unless the problems can be traced back to his incompetence. ADDENDUM 3: Extract of FAC News report of 3 April 2004In another development, Azmin Ali, keADILan’s Director of Elections and a party Vice President, said the Election Commission (EC) documents showed that his dead father had turned up to cast his vote. “Many voters who had died came to vote, including my late father. Sad, I was unable to meet him,” quipped Azmin. ADDENDUM 4: Extract of FAC News report of 3 April 2004 A Malaysian lady married to a foreigner, Hajjah Noor Ibrahim, who has been living outside the country all these years, said she was surprised to find her name registered as a voter. She said, out of curiosity, she keyed in her identity card number, 510707-05-5292, into the EC website search section and found that she was registered as a voter. “All I know is I have never registered as a voter and have never voted in my life,” said Hajjah Noor. “I have been living outside Malaysia all these years.” “I then went to the Malaysian Embassy in my country to enquire how to vote,” Hajjah Noor went on to say. “I thought, since I am now a registered voter, I might as well vote to prevent someone else voting in my place.” “To my surprise, however, I was told by the embassy official that they have no postal voting system for Malaysians living in my country. They told me if I wanted to vote I would have to fly back to Malaysia to do so.” “I cannot understand why I cannot vote through the postal voting system when I live halfway around the world whereas police officers and army personnel who live within walking distance from the polling centres are obligated to vote through the postal voting system.” ADDENDUM 5: Extract of FAC News report of 3 April 2004 Then there were cases where women voted using the identity cards of men. In one such case in Putrajaya, an opposition election worker raised a protest and asked that the EC establish the voter was merely a cross-dresser or transvestite and not a real woman. However, no one dared volunteer to undertake the task of doing the fondling so the she-man was allowed to vote on the basis that he probably did have a male organ between his legs.
|
