the blogging syed shahir

Giam Say Khoon (The Sun)

Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman was criticised today for a recent statement in which he challenged opposition parties to bring him to court if they thought the commission was unfair or not transparent.

The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) also questioned Abdul Rashid for saying the EC’s role was not to make law.

Repeating earlier calls for Abdul Rashid to resign, coalition spokesman Sivarasa Rasiah described his statement as “misleading” as he had ignored recent developments where the courts had addressed the role of the EC and the process and conduct of elections.

Sivarasa said an amendment was made to the Election Offences Act 1954 in June 2002 whereby the electoral roll, once certified or rectified, “shall be deemed to be final and binding and not be questioned or appealed against or reviewed, quashed or set aside by any court”.

He said Abdul Rashid was also aware of the judicial review initiated by Parti Keadilan Rakyat against the commission in April 2004 in respect of some alleged irregularities that occurred during the 11th general election.

Through the attorney-general, who appeared for the EC in court, the EC objected to Keadilan’s application on the grounds that it was a backdoor challenge to the election and said any challenge regarding the conduct of an election had to be by way of an election petition.

“The amendment has effectively removed all legal avenues to challenge the credibility of the electoral roll,” Sivarasa told a press conference.

“When he was, in part, responsible for immunising the electoral roll from any challenge in an election petition, why is Abdul Rashid asking his critics to take him to court?”

Sivarasa said while laws had to be made and amended by Parliament, the proposals for any electoral law amendment came from the EC.

However, he said, Section 16 of the Elections Act 1958 authorised the EC to make regulations and under Section 17, these regulations needed only to be laid before parliament, which may choose to annul them.

“In practice, the EC has made and amended three regulations on the conduct of election, registration of electors, and postal voting.

“All three regulations began with the line: ‘In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 16 of the Elections Act 1958, the EC, with approval of the King, makes the following regulations’.”

Despite having said the election laws needed to be reviewed, he said, Abdul Rashid had consistently maintained that only the government had the power to do it, not the EC, and that the opposition parties were barking up the wrong tree.

Asked what had the coalition learnt in the Batu Talam by-election two months ago, Sivarasa said the opposition parties’ (PAS and Keadilan’s) boycott of the by-election showed their concern over the electoral process.

“The commission should deal with the response and provide the remedy and we have suggested three remedies to the EC – use indelible ink to mark voters who had cast their votes, stop postal voting, and clean up the electoral roll,” he said.

Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR), Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman sekali lagi melakukan penipuan melalui kenyataan terakhir beliau pada 21 Mac, 2007. Gabungan Pilihanraya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH) berasa amat kecewa apabila beliau enggan menjawab permasalahan serius yang diutarakan oleh BERSIH pada 13 Mac 2007 lalu.

Sebagai seorang kakitangan awam, Tan Sri Rashid yang diberikan kuasa seperti yang diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan, beliau bertanggungjawab bagi mengendalikan pilihan raya. Beliau juga diamanahkan untuk menjawab segala pemasalahan yang diutarakan oleh orang awam.

BERSIH berpendapat bahawa kenyataan Tan Sri Abdul Rashid secara sengaja mengendahkan perkembangan-perkembangan terkini di mana Mahkamah-mahkamah telah menyatakan dengan jelas peranan yang sepatutnya dimainkan oleh Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya, dan proses serta perjalanan pilihan raya secara keseluruhan.

Pada tahun 2001, Hakim Datuk Muhammad Kamil Awang membatalkan keputusan pilihan raya Likas, Sabah atas alasan senarai pemilih 1998 bagi kawasan berkenaan tidak mengikut undang-undang di mana pengundi-pengundi hantu, termasuk yang bukan warganegara, telah secara bukti dibenarkan membuang undi pada hari pengundian.

Dalam penghakimannya, Hakim Datuk Muhammad Kamil Awang berkata SPR gagal menjalankan tanggungjawab mereka dalam mengesahkan dan menggazet senarai pemilih yang mencurigakan, disamping banyak laporan yang dibuat terhadap kepincangan SPR serta pihak Kerajaan bagi menjalankan siasatan terhadap wujudnya orang yang tidak mempunyai kewarganegaraan dalam senarai pemilih.

Beliau kemudiannya menjawab “tidak terfikir bagi Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya untuk tidak mengendahkan bantahan-bantahan tanpa perbicaraan” dan “adalah sesuatu yang salah dari segi perlembagaan bagi SPR untuk menolak buta-buta bantahan-bantahan berkenaan”.

Menurut Peraturan Pilihan Raya (Pendaftaran Pengundi) (Sabah) 1971, sekiranya seorang pengundi memfailkan bantahan rasmi terhadap wujudnya nama seseorang yang tidak sepatutnya, SPR mestila menjalankan Perbicaraan Awam di mana kedua belah pihak; pihak yang membuat bantahan dan pihak yang dibantah dipanggil untuk disoal.

Walau bagaimana pun, selepas penghakiman Likas, Kerajaan dengan kebenaran SPR membuat pindaan kepada Akta Pilihan Raya 1954 pada Jun 2002 di mana senarai pemilih – sebaik sahaja disahkan atau disahkan semula – “dianggap muktamad dan diterima” dan tidak boleh “dipersoalkan atau membuat rayuan atau dinilai semula, dipinggirkan oleh mana-mana mahkamah.”

Pindaan ini secara efektifnya menolak segala peluang yang ada untuk mencabar kredibiliti dalam senarai pemilih.

Dalam masa beliau dalam keadaan untuk menjadi kebal daripada sebarang petisyen pilihan raya yang bakal wujud dalam senarai pemilih, mengapa Tan Sri Abdul Rashid mencabar pihak yang mengkritik beliau untuk membawanya ke mahkamah?

Tan Sri Rashid juga sedar penilaian penghakiman kes yang dibawa oleh Parti Keadilan Rakyat (KeADILan) terhadap SPR pada April 2004 berkaitan dengan kepincangan yang berlaku semasa Pilihan Raya Umum ke-11.

KeADILan memohon arahan daripada mahkamah – penggunaan beberapa versi oleh senarai-senarai pemilih oleh SPR, yang membenarkan “pondok panas” didirikan pada saat-saat akhir yang jelas bercanggah dengan undang-undang, lanjutan masa mengundi di Selangor sehingga 7 petang, mencatitkan nombor siri pengundi pada kertas ceraian dan samada calon-calon masih boleh bertanding dalam pilihan raya sekiranya didapati bersalah tetapi dalam proses rayuan.

Apakah yang dilakukan oleh SPR? Melalui Peguam Negara yang mewakili SPR di mahkamah, permohonan keADILan dihalang dengan alasan pihak pendakwa menggunakan jalan belakang untuk mencabar pilihan raya dan berkata bahawa sebarang pendakwaan yang berkaitan dengan pilihan raya mestilah dibuat melalui petisyen pilihan raya.

KeADILan telah menyatakan dalam afidavitnya bahawa permohonan yang dibuat bukanlah untuk membatalkan keputusan pilihan raya umum tetapi mahukan peraturan ditetapkan oleh mahkamah untuk menjelaskan undang-undang sebagai panduan kepada SPR bagi keselesaan dalam pilihan raya di Malaysia.

Tan Sri Abdul Rashid yang meminta kritikan beliau dibawa ke mahkamah adalah jelas sesuatu yang bersifat hipokrit bilamana beliau telah memberi arahan kepada Peguam Negara untuk menghalang dakwaan KeADILan dalam cara berkenaan.

Kami juga ingin mencabar beliau untuk menjawan beberapa persoalan:

1. Kehilangan 10,254 kertas undi di P36 Kuala Terengganu

Berdasarkan keputusan peruntukan yang diumumkan oeh SPR dan dilindungi oleh akhbar perdana selepas pilihan raya 2004, 71,322 pengundi atau 98.39% daripada pengundi hadir dalam tempat pengundian dan menerima kertas-kertas pengundian mereka. Walaupun demikian, 10,254 kertas undi tidak dipulangkan. Dalam erti kata lain, kertas-kertas undi itu hilang samada di meja pegawai yang mengeluarkan kertas undi ataupun di kotak undi.

Apa yang menarik, keputusan peruntukan juga menunjukkan bahawa 10,130 pengundi yang hadir hanya mendapatkan kertas-kertas undi parlimen dan bukannya kertas undi negeri.

Dalam penjelasan Tan Sri Abdul Rashid, kertas-kertas undi tersebut telah dibawa pulang oleh pengundi. Beliau difahamkan bahawa terdapat lebih 10,000 pengumpul kertas undi di Kuala Terenggan, di mana menurut beliau adalah normal bagi manusia yang selalunya mengumpul syiling, setem dan lain-lain lagi.

Kemudiannya, dalam keadaan yang lebih pelik dan diputarbelitkan, keputusan terakhir yang digazetkan pada 12 April 2004 menunjukkan bahawa kertas-kertas undi parlimen dikurangkan kepada 10,237 dan yang hilang sebanyak 10,014 kepada hanya 240. Jadi, apa yang menyebabkan perbezaan dalam angka asal tersebut? Berdasarkan sumber SPR, tidak ada pengiraan semula dijalankan di Kuala Terengganu.

Sekarang, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid dengan bongkaknya berkata, “Apa yang dikatakan tidak telus….bila kita kira, kita tayangkan keputusannya, mengumumkan keputusan-kelutusannya? Semuanya disaksikan dan dibuat secara terbuka…”

Kita mahukan beliau menjelaskan apa yang SPR telah beliau lakukan bagi menghapuskan 10,014 pengumpul kertas undi tersebut di Terengganu. Bagaimana SPR boleh meyakinkan orang awam bahawa tidak terdapat sebarang kemungkinan perkara kotor berlaku dalam proses pilihan raya?

2. 5.486 undi hilang di P74 Lumut

Dalam kaedah yang serupa, di Lumut (P74) 5,486 kertas undi diterima tetapi tidak dipulangkan. Tan Sri Abdul Rashid menjelaskan bahawa pada 13 April 2004 terdapat “….banyak anggota tentera laut yang bertugas di perairan, jadi mereka yang mengundi secara pos tidak dapat menghantar kertas-kertas undi pada waktu yang ditetapkan”.

Berdasarkan kepada buku beliau, Perjalanan Pilihan Raya di Malaysia (1994), undi-undi pos selalunya dikirim lima hari selepas hari penamaan calon.

Orang awam masih berminat untuk mengetahui berkenaan dengan operasi pengawalan perairan dijalankan sehingga melibatkan 5,000 anggota dari 19hb hingga 21hb Mac 2004.

Selain itu, Tan Sri Rashid juga mendedahkan bahawa 67,000 kertas undi pos atau satu pertiga daripada 200,712 yang dikeluarkan ke seluruh negara tidak dipulangkan. Secara teknikal, sekiranya ndi-undi tersebut dipindahkan ke kawasan-kawasan pendalaman dalam menjalankan penipuan, jumlah kawasan yang terlibat ialah sebanyak 38 kawasan.

Bukankah menjadi tanggungjawan Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya untuk melaksanakan tugasnya dengan jujur? Bukankah beliau sepatutnya menyokong cadangan yang dibangkitkan oleh BERSIH untuk memansuhkan undi pos?

3. Maklumat salah bahawa “SPR tidak membuat undang-undang”

Sementara undang-undang parlimen dibuat dan dipinda oleh Parlimen, cadangan-cadangan bagi sebarang pindaan undang-undang datangnya dari SPR. Seksyen 16 Akta Pilihan Raya 1958 memberi kuasa kepada SPR di bawah Seksyen 17, peraturan-peraturan ini hanya diperlukan dibentangkan di Parlimen, di mana SPR mempunyai pilihan untuk membatalkannya.

Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya telah membuat pindaan kepaada tiga peraturan terhadap Kaedah Pilihan Raya, Pendaftaran Pengundi dan Undi Pos. Ketiga-tiga peraturan, boleh diperolehi dari http://www.spr.gov.my/index/legislation.htm, yang dimulakan dengan ayat:

“Pada menjalankan kuasa yang berikan oleh seksyen 16 Akta Pilihan Raya 1958 [Akta 19], Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya, dengan kelulusanYang di-Pertuan Agong, membuat peraturan-peraturan yang berikut:”

Adakah Pengerusi SPR tidak malu bahawa beliau telah memberi makumat yang salah kepada orang awam?

Satu-satu jalan yang ada bagi Tan Sri Abdul Rashid ialah keluar

Sebagai salah satu daripada institusi yang mentadbir fungsi demokrasi, Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya dan pegawai-pegawainya adalah sama penting dengan Penghakiman dan mestilah menjalankan tahap tertinggi dalam integrity dan kredibiliti.

Dalam tindakan yang terdesak untuk membela dirinya dan maruah SPR, malang bagi Tan Sri Abdul Rashid yang selanjutnya mempamirkan kelemahan SPR dan ketidakupayaan dalam menjalankan pilihan raya yang bebas dan adil, dan sikap beliau yang tidak bercakap benar.

Atas nama Negara dan demokrasi, kami mendesak agar Tan Sri Abdul Rashid meletakkan jawatan sekarang, secara hormat.

The Election Commission chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman has once again misled the public with his latest statement on 21 March 2007. The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH) is extremely disappointed that he has avoided answering the serious concerns and issues raised by BERSIH on 13 March 2007. As a public servant, Tan Sri Rashid is, by the powers bestowed on him by the Federal Constitution, responsible for the conduct of elections and has a duty to address the concerns of the Malaysian public.

BERSIH is of the opinion that Tan Sri Abdul Rashid’s statement intentionally ignored certain recent developments where the Courts have addressed the role of the Election Commission, and the process and conduct of elections as a whole. In 2001, Justice Datuk Muhammad Kamil Awang nullified the election result of Likas, Sabah on the ground that the 1998 electoral roll for the state seat was illegal as phantom voters, including non-citizens, had cast their votes on polling day. In his judgement, Justice Muhammad Kamil took the EC to task for its role in certifying and gazetting a questionable electoral roll, in spite of the numerous complaints made to the EC and the Government to carry out investigations into the existence of non-citizens in the electoral roll. He then went on to say that “it was unthinkable that the Election Commission should shut off the objections without inquiry” and “a constitutional wrong for SPR to have rejected the objections outright”.

According to the Election (Registration of Electors) Regulations (Sabah) 1971, if a voter files an official objection against the inclusion of a particular person, the EC has to hold a Public Inquiry to which both the objectors as well as the ‘objectee’ are invited.

However, after the Likas judgment, the Government with the consent of the EC made an amendment to the Election Act 1954 in June 2002 whereby the electoral roll — once certified or recertified — shall be “deemed to be final and binding” and not “be questioned or appealed against in, or reviewed, quashed or set aside by, any court.” This amendment has effectively removed all legal avenues to challenge the credibility of the electoral roll. When he was in part responsible for immunizing the electoral roll from any challenge in a election petition, why is Tan Sri Abdul Rashid asking his critics to take him to court?

Tan Sri Rashid is also aware of the judicial review case initiated by Parti Keadilan Rakyat against the EC in April 2004 in respect of some of the irregularities that occurred during the 11th General Elections. Parti Keadilan Rakyat applied for rulings from the court with regard to several issues — the use of several versions of electoral rolls by the EC, allowing “pondok panas” at the last minute in contravention of the law, the extension of voting time in Selangor up to 7 pm, the practice of writing the voter’s serial number on the counterfoil of the ballot paper and whether candidates could still run for elections if convicted but had an appeal pending.

What did the EC do? Through the Attorney-General who appeared for the EC in court, it objected to PKR’s application on the grounds that it was a back-door way to challenge the election and said that any challenge regarding the conduct of an election had to be by way of an election petition. PKR had expressly said in its affidavit that it was not seeking to nullify the result of the general election in the way that a election petition would nullify the outcome in a particular constituency but was seeking rulings from the court to clarify the law for the future guidance of the EC and for the benefit of the Malaysian electorate. Tan Sri Abdul Rashid’s call for his critics to take him to court is therefore completely hypocritical when he had then instructed the Attorney-General to object to PKR’s challenge in that way.

We would also like to challenge him to answer the following queries.

1. 10,254 missing ballot papers in P36 Kuala Terengganu

According to the provisional results announced by the EC and covered by the mainstream press immediately after the 2004 elections, 71,322 voters or 98.39% of the registered electorate turned out at the polling stations and collected their ballots. However, 10,254 ballots were not returned, in another words, they went missing somewhere between the issuing desk and the ballot box. Interestingly, the provisional result also showed that 10,130 voters turned out to collect only their parliamentary ballot papers and not their state papers.

Tan Sri Abdul Rashid’s explanation then was that the ballot papers were taken home by ‘collectors’. It is simply beyond our comprehension that there were more than 10,000 ‘ballot paper collectors’ in Kuala Terengganu, when ‘normal’ people usually collect coins, stamps and so on.

Then in an even more bizarre twist to the whole episode, the final result gazetted on 12 April 2004 showed that the parliamentary ballot papers collected were reduced by 10,237 and the missing ones by 10,014 to only 240. So, what caused the original discrepancy? There was no recount in Kuala Terengganu, according to EC’s own report.

Now, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid has righteously claimed, “What is it that we are not transparent about… when we count, display results, announce results? Everything is seen and done in the open…” We want him to explain what the EC did to make 10,014 ‘ballot collectors’ disappear in Kuala Terengganu. How can the EC convince the public that there was no possibility of ballot stuffing or number tampering in the electoral process?

2. 5,486 missing ballots in P74 Lumut

In a similar fashion, 5,486 ballot papers were collected but not returned in Lumut (P74). Tan Sri Abdul Rashid’s explanation for that on 13 April 2004 was that “… many navy personnel [there] were out patrolling at sea, so they could not make it (in time for the postal balloting exercise)”. According to his own book, The Conduct of Elections in Malaysia (1994: 96), postal votes were normally delivered five days after nomination day. The public is still interested to know about the patrolling operation that involved over 5,000 personnel from 19th to 21st March 2004.

In addition to that, Tan Sri Rashid further revealed that 67,000 postal ballot papers or one-third of the 200,712 issued were not returned nationwide. Technically, if these ballots were systematically transferred to marginal constituencies for ballot-stuffing purposes, the number would be sufficient to overturn the results of 38 most marginal constituencies.

Is this not a concern for the Election Commission chairperson whose top priority is by right the probity of elections? Should he not support BERSIH’s proposition to abolish domestic postal voting?

3. The misinformation that “EC do not make laws”

While parliamentary laws have to be made and amended by Parliament, the proposals for any electoral law amendment come from the EC in practice. In fact, Section 16 of the Elections Act 1958 authorizes the EC to make by-laws called regulations and under Section 17, these regulations need only to be laid before Parliament, which may choose to annul them. In practice, the Election Commission has made and amended three regulations on the Conduct of Election, Registration of Electors and Postal voting. All three regulations, available at http://www.spr.gov.my/index/legislation.htm , begin with this line: “IN exercise of the powers conferred by Section 16 of the Elections Act 1958 [Act 19], the Election Commission, with the approval of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, makes the following regulations:”

Is the EC chairman not ashamed that he has misinformed the public?

The only way for Tan Sri Abdul Rashid is out

As one of the institutions that governs the functioning of our democracy, the Election Commission and its officials are as important as the Judiciary and must therefore possess the highest level of integrity and credibility. In his desperate move to defend his and the EC’s reputation, it is most unfortunate that Tan Sri Abdul Rashid has only further demonstrated the EC’s weakness and inability to conduct elections freely and fairly, and his own dishonesty.

In the interest of the nation and democracy, we urge Tan Sri Abdul Rashid to resign now, honourably.

The Election Commission chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman has once again misled the public with his latest statement on 21 March 2007. The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH) is extremely disappointed that he has avoided answering the serious concerns and issues raised by BERSIH on 13 March 2007. As a public servant, Tan Sri Rashid is, by the powers bestowed on him by the Federal Constitution, responsible for the conduct of elections and has a duty to address the concerns of the Malaysian public.

BERSIH is of the opinion that Tan Sri Abdul Rashid’s statement intentionally ignored certain recent developments where the Courts have addressed the role of the Election Commission, and the process and conduct of elections as a whole. In 2001, Justice Datuk Muhammad Kamil Awang nullified the election result of Likas, Sabah on the ground that the 1998 electoral roll for the state seat was illegal as phantom voters, including non-citizens, had cast their votes on polling day. In his judgement, Justice Muhammad Kamil took the EC to task for its role in certifying and gazetting a questionable electoral roll, in spite of the numerous complaints made to the EC and the Government to carry out investigations into the existence of non-citizens in the electoral roll. He then went on to say that “it was unthinkable that the Election Commission should shut off the objections without inquiry” and “a constitutional wrong for SPR to have rejected the objections outright”.

According to the Election (Registration of Electors) Regulations (Sabah) 1971, if a voter files an official objection against the inclusion of a particular person, the EC has to hold a Public Inquiry to which both the objectors as well as the ‘objectee’ are invited.

However, after the Likas judgment, the Government with the consent of the EC made an amendment to the Election Act 1954 in June 2002 whereby the electoral roll — once certified or recertified — shall be “deemed to be final and binding” and not “be questioned or appealed against in, or reviewed, quashed or set aside by, any court.” This amendment has effectively removed all legal avenues to challenge the credibility of the electoral roll. When he was in part responsible for immunizing the electoral roll from any challenge in a election petition, why is Tan Sri Abdul Rashid asking his critics to take him to court?

Tan Sri Rashid is also aware of the judicial review case initiated by Parti Keadilan Rakyat against the EC in April 2004 in respect of some of the irregularities that occurred during the 11th General Elections. Parti Keadilan Rakyat applied for rulings from the court with regard to several issues — the use of several versions of electoral rolls by the EC, allowing “pondok panas” at the last minute in contravention of the law, the extension of voting time in Selangor up to 7 pm, the practice of writing the voter’s serial number on the counterfoil of the ballot paper and whether candidates could still run for elections if convicted but had an appeal pending.

What did the EC do? Through the Attorney-General who appeared for the EC in court, it objected to PKR’s application on the grounds that it was a back-door way to challenge the election and said that any challenge regarding the conduct of an election had to be by way of an election petition. PKR had expressly said in its affidavit that it was not seeking to nullify the result of the general election in the way that a election petition would nullify the outcome in a particular constituency but was seeking rulings from the court to clarify the law for the future guidance of the EC and for the benefit of the Malaysian electorate. Tan Sri Abdul Rashid’s call for his critics to take him to court is therefore completely hypocritical when he had then instructed the Attorney-General to object to PKR’s challenge in that way.

We would also like to challenge him to answer the following queries.

1. 10,254 missing ballot papers in P36 Kuala Terengganu

According to the provisional results announced by the EC and covered by the mainstream press immediately after the 2004 elections, 71,322 voters or 98.39% of the registered electorate turned out at the polling stations and collected their ballots. However, 10,254 ballots were not returned, in another words, they went missing somewhere between the issuing desk and the ballot box. Interestingly, the provisional result also showed that 10,130 voters turned out to collect only their parliamentary ballot papers and not their state papers.

Tan Sri Abdul Rashid’s explanation then was that the ballot papers were taken home by ‘collectors’. It is simply beyond our comprehension that there were more than 10,000 ‘ballot paper collectors’ in Kuala Terengganu, when ‘normal’ people usually collect coins, stamps and so on.

Then in an even more bizarre twist to the whole episode, the final result gazetted on 12 April 2004 showed that the parliamentary ballot papers collected were reduced by 10,237 and the missing ones by 10,014 to only 240. So, what caused the original discrepancy? There was no recount in Kuala Terengganu, according to EC’s own report.

Now, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid has righteously claimed, “What is it that we are not transparent about… when we count, display results, announce results? Everything is seen and done in the open…” We want him to explain what the EC did to make 10,014 ‘ballot collectors’ disappear in Kuala Terengganu. How can the EC convince the public that there was no possibility of ballot stuffing or number tampering in the electoral process?

2. 5,486 missing ballots in P74 Lumut

In a similar fashion, 5,486 ballot papers were collected but not returned in Lumut (P74). Tan Sri Abdul Rashid’s explanation for that on 13 April 2004 was that “… many navy personnel [there] were out patrolling at sea, so they could not make it (in time for the postal balloting exercise)”. According to his own book, The Conduct of Elections in Malaysia (1994: 96), postal votes were normally delivered five days after nomination day. The public is still interested to know about the patrolling operation that involved over 5,000 personnel from 19th to 21st March 2004.

In addition to that, Tan Sri Rashid further revealed that 67,000 postal ballot papers or one-third of the 200,712 issued were not returned nationwide. Technically, if these ballots were systematically transferred to marginal constituencies for ballot-stuffing purposes, the number would be sufficient to overturn the results of 38 most marginal constituencies.

Is this not a concern for the Election Commission chairperson whose top priority is by right the probity of elections? Should he not support BERSIH’s proposition to abolish domestic postal voting?

3. The misinformation that “EC do not make laws”

While parliamentary laws have to be made and amended by Parliament, the proposals for any electoral law amendment come from the EC in practice. In fact, Section 16 of the Elections Act 1958 authorizes the EC to make by-laws called regulations and under Section 17, these regulations need only to be laid before Parliament, which may choose to annul them. In practice, the Election Commission has made and amended three regulations on the Conduct of Election, Registration of Electors and Postal voting. All three regulations, available at http://www.spr.gov.my/index/legislation.htm , begin with this line: “IN exercise of the powers conferred by Section 16 of the Elections Act 1958 [Act 19], the Election Commission, with the approval of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, makes the following regulations:”

Is the EC chairman not ashamed that he has misinformed the public?

The only way for Tan Sri Abdul Rashid is out

As one of the institutions that governs the functioning of our democracy, the Election Commission and its officials are as important as the Judiciary and must therefore possess the highest level of integrity and credibility. In his desperate move to defend his and the EC’s reputation, it is most unfortunate that Tan Sri Abdul Rashid has only further demonstrated the EC’s weakness and inability to conduct elections freely and fairly, and his own dishonesty.

In the interest of the nation and democracy, we urge Tan Sri Abdul Rashid to resign now, honourably.

Bersih categorically rejects EC chief Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman’s allegation in the New Straits Times last Sunday (11 March 2007) that his critics did not get their facts right. In actual fact, Tan Sri Rashid was the one trying to mislead the public by simplifying, omitting as well as denying the facts.

The contamination of electoral rolls, which breeds “phantom voters”, must not only be attributed to the failure of voters to update their voting details when they move or change their addresses. Some of the falsehoods and inaccuracies found in the 2004 general election are simply shocking:

• Many phantom voters have never lived in a particular area, as they were not known to the local community. According to a survey carried out by MAFREL before the 2004 general election, 232 of 965 voters (24%) sampled in Gombak and 282 of 796 voters sampled in Lembah Pantai (35%) were not recognized by community leaders and local residents. Most ironically, five Chinese and one Malay phantom voters were found to be ‘living’ in the house of Keadilan vice-president Azmin Ali’s mother in 2004.

• In some other cases, voters had successfully registered to vote using non-residential addresses and even false or unknown addresses. According to the abovementioned MAFREL survey, there were at least 116 such fraudulent addresses in Lembah Pantai and 13 in Gombak in 2004.

• Some were registered at addresses without house numbers, even though they lived in proper flats or apartments. For example, in the Lembah Pantai electoral roll dated 2 March 2004, a total of 203, 231 and 273 voters were registered (respectively) at Blocks 1, 2 and 3 of Rumah Pangsa Sri Pahang in Bukit Bangsar, without any unit numbers.

Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman owes the public a full explanation on the three instances of irregularities — were the addresses in these fraudulent or suspicious registrations provided by the National Registration Department?

BERSIH challenges him to provide proof so that the public can then point the finger at the responsible party. If he fails to do so, then Tan Sri Abdul Rashid is guilty of not telling the truth and directly shifting the responsibility to the NRD when he claimed that “we [EC] have never registered an ineligible individual or a non-citizen.” Tan Sri Abdul Rashid claimed that “close to four million”” of the 10 million registered voters have moved away from their constituencies. The public has a right to know how he obtained this figure. His methodology must not be untraceable, just like the phantom voters.

Sub-regulation 13(2) of the Elections (Registration of Electors) Regulations 2002 (ERER2002) accords the registrar of electors the power to make house-to-house inquiries to verify the identity of voters when necessary. Is it therefore not misleading of Tan Sri Abdul Rashid to say that purging non-residing voters requires the enforcement of Rule 15 of the National Registration Act 1990, and therefore beyond the EC’s power?

Tan Sri Abdul Rashid’s rejection of BERSIH’s proposal to use indelible ink is simply too unsophisticated to be taken seriously. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If “Malaysians had sufficient proof of identification”, how could instances of multiple voting or dead people voting emerge in every single election?

Tan Sri Abdul Rashid also evaded BERSIH’s third demand to repeal postal voting for the army, police officers and their spouses. The opaque process of postal voting is highly vulnerable to fraud and irregularities. Ironically, it was Tan Sri Abdul Rashid himself who told the media that “a large number of police and army personnel do not return their ballot papers on time” and revealed that “more than 5,000 postal ballot papers had not been returned by the navy base” in
Lumut in 2004. (Malaysiakini, 13 April 2004)

Tan Sri Abdul Rashid also ignored the question of campaign finances, caretaker government and administrative neutrality in his interview with NST. The Code of Election Ethics published by the EC which prohibits the misuse of government vehicles and communication facilities for campaigning purposes is toothless. Violations of the code are not an offence under the Election Offences Act 1954. Why has the EC not make such violations an offence under the Act?

Tan Sri Abdul Rashid also implicitly suggested that civil society has not made any attempts to hold dialogues with the government. The fact of the matter is that the issue of electoral corruption has been raised in various fora, including Parliament itself. BERSIH has also sought to meet Tan Sri Abdul Rashid but has been unsuccessful in getting an appointment in the last three months.

By misleading the public on the issue of electoral irregularities and to make them think that the EC has done its best while at the same time shifting the blame to the NRD, the Government and civil society, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid has failed in his role as the guardian of our electoral process. He is the one who did not get his facts right in the issues raised above. He owes the public a thorough explanation and apology. The only honourable thing for him to do now is to tender his
resignation.

No one should be forced to vote

EC must investigate Khaled Nordin

The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH) strongly condemns the latest development in the run-up to the Batu Talam by-elections in which 2,113 members from seven co-operatives in Batu Talam have been made to pledge to vote in the by-election.

Entrepreneurial and Cooperative Development Minister Datuk Seri Khaled Nordin was quoted as saying in a report in The Star on 23 January 2007, that there must be “a strong rapport between the Government and the co-operatives to ensure all plans and activities are carried out smoothly” and that he was confident the cooperative members “would use the by-election to give us a signal”.

The Minister also said he was confident the cooperative members would “make the right choice”, and that “it is up to the members to decide whether they want a straight or crooked bridge.”

This news report clearly demonstrates that the said Minister has abused his power and role as a Minister to secure votes for the BN candidate.

Bersih hereby calls upon the Police and the Election Commission to investigate whether Datuk Seri Khaled Nordin has committed an offence of “undue influence”, under Section 9(1) of the Election Offences Act 1954.

Every citizen has the right to decide for him/herself whether to vote and if so, who to support in an election. Anyone who directly or indirectly threatens to inflict damage or harm on another person in an effort to persuade him/her to vote is guilty of the offence of “undue influence”, which is punishable by imprisonment up to two years and a fine of up to RM5,000 under Section 11(1) of the same act. If the offender is a parliamentarian, he or she must be disqualified and the seat to be made vacant for a by-election.

Under Article 114 of the Federal Constitution, the Election Commission is said to owe a duty to exercise control and supervision over the conduct of elections and the registration of electors on the electoral rolls with a view to ensuring fair, genuine and impartial elections.

The Election Commission is empowered by law to discharge its duties and functions. This news report proves yet again that the Election Commission is merely acting as an administrative body and has failed to ensure that the upcoming Batu Talam by-election is clean and fair. Due to its ineffectiveness, the Election Commission has failed to live up to the aspirations of the public for a clean and fair election.

The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) welcomes the Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman’s call to set up an independent commission on electoral reform.

Bersih also feels that Tan Sri Abdul Rashid need not wait for the establishment of an independent commission to amend the Elections Act 1958, as there are other measures which are within the jurisdiction of the EC.

Bersih calls on Tan Sri Abdul Rashid to immediately implement three short-term measures which the EC can implement under current regulations or by proposing amendments to the current regulations, as it did before the last general elections.

The three immediate measures are as follows:

1. The use of indelible ink

The EC should introduce the use of indelible ink, in order to prevent anyone from voting more than once at different polling stations. This can be done by amending the Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981.

2. Clean-up of the electoral roll

The EC has the power to make house-to-house inquiries to eliminate flawed registrations under Sub-regulation 13(2) of the Elections (Registrations of Electors) Regulations 2002.

To ensure the deletion of deceased voters would not lead to erroneous deletion of the living, all EC needs to do is to release the list of those voters before the deletion process for public inspection, as is legally required for the addition of new voters.

3. Repeal postal voting

Postal voting should be abolished for police and military personnel. The process is neither transparent nor free, as Tan Sri Abdul Rashid himself had blamed postal voting as the cause for the missing 5,486 ballots in Lumut in 2004. Again, this can be done by amending the Elections (Postal Voting) Regulations 1959.

Tan Sri Abdul Rashid raised four issues in his comments yesterday, namely party registration, balanced reporting, campaign finances and the misuse of public facilities. These are just four out of the 24 concerns raised by Bersih on 23 November 2006, therefore we call upon him to pursue the other 20 concerns raised by Bersih.

After the scandalous administration of the last elections and appalling vote-seat disproportionality in 2004, Bersih urges the PM, Dato Seri Abdullah Badawi to respond to Tan Sri Rashid’s call for an independent commission on electoral reform.

The terms of reference of the commission must cover not only the issues above, but also fundamental concerns, such as reforming the EC organizational structure to co-opt party representatives at every decision-making level, the introduction of party-list seats, proportional and fair constituency delineation and re-introduction of local elections.