Umno’s looming end (Part 2)

— Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 23, 2012

APRIL 22 — Some of my readers will recognise that my previous article borrowed its title from Fukuyama’s hugely popular book. I am sceptical, however, that someone who writes of Najib Razak as being the prime minister of this blessing land instead of this blessed land has read Fukuyama’s book.

I haven’t got the time to enter into useless polemic with this fellow as it would only serve to dignify his blog, which isn’t widely read anyway.

One admission. My blog nowadays does not pretend to be a forum for unbiased debate. Since I joined the DAP, while I try to present an objective viewpoint, I am functioning increasingly as a pamphleteer with a specific political objective. I don’t have to explain myself as many know what I am inferring of.

Back to Fukyuma’s “End of History”. It tells the end of totalitarian and undemocratic rules all over the world. Whether it has brought about the emergence of liberal democracy in exact terms as described by Fukuyama remains to be seen.

What is happening all over the world is this: ALL totalitarian and undemocratic rules in the world have had to adjust to the new realities brought about by the empowerment of people. This is what is happening in our country too.

As a result, despite the shamefaced claim of the rise of the PM’s popularity, of promises of development that they have failed to deliver for so many years, there is an unmistakable sense of nervousness in the ruling government that this time; it’s not going to be business as usual.

The prominent feature of this government is that it has trampled over the people and stampeded through them with tyrannical policies and programmes designed to shackle the spirit of freedom. At the worst receiving end are the Malays, forever blinded and bonded to Umno’s lying machine.

In this article I am following up and using much of the material written by the intrepid and much loved commentator in my blog, Walla. He has observed that along a similar trajectory to Fukuyama’s thesis, the same is happening here because our rakyat have all woken up to what Umno has been doing.

Umno is a machine that is just racketeering to protect its coterie of cronies while spinning short-term spurts of feel-good vibes around. Umno is nothing but a mere syndicate playing on the emotions of our simple-minded rakyat.

Take last night’s event at Dataran Merdeka. While they had paid performers to gyrate around and smile for the cameras so that viewers around the country can get zapped and bedazzled by sights and sounds, our youngsters were huddling at one corner in cold tents in the same square that is emblematic of how national their plight remains.

The students had sacrificed themselves to bravely voice out their sense of injustice at how a political party can, at its whims and fancies, dish out to its own cronies millions while denying poor students a basic scholarship for their education even to the extent of hiring thugs to bully them and take away their tents the morning after.

This is as stark as you can get that Umno has walked the opposite direction of its so-called people-centric talk. If that’s not hypocrisy against the interest of the rakyat, what is? And Najib is talking cock about his track record and big ideas. Even his big ideas are rejected by the Umno people; elsewhere we want to be thick faced so as to want to delude ourselves and force ourselves and families to accept all the theatrics and rhetoric that Najib is selling. He is a snake oil salesman.

Meanwhile, Umno’s paid lackeys launch ad hominem attacks on people like Aspan Alias. Doesn’t even one of them remember how he had sat timidly next to Aspan during one get-together, when Aspan was sincerely and humbly discussing issues faced by our Malays in the country?

If one can do that to a fellow man of distinction and honour, what residual value can possibly remain in any defence of the corrupt paymaster that is Umno?

And this is what Umno has done to our country and society. It has divided and separated itself above us. More than that, it has also debased us. Didn’t someone just confess in a previous post he was not such a cheapskate to want only two hundred ringgit?

What they don’t know is, the paymasters consider those who had taken that money from Umno as cheapskates. The RM200 paid to these lackeys are but loose change to people who had dispensed money taken from the rakyat. The RM200 loose change are just alms given back but in little amounts disproportionate to the vast sums stolen in broad daylight by the paymasters under the protection of all the federal institutions of the country. Perhaps it’s all part of a soul cleansing ritual. This kind of scheming tomfoolery must end at GE13.

Just look at the clowning; watch, for instance, the Pemandu TV ad on anti-corruption. Ask yourself, how can a government ask companies to pledge not to be corrupt when the government itself is corrupt? Collect for yourself any number of A’s you like if you can honestly answer that question. Muhyiddin Yassin and Khaled Nordin won’t mind but that’s because they would never miss any they never had.

Now, some may still wonder what will happen to Umno after GE13. The answer has already arrived. Look at the Pakatan Rakyat-run states today. Umno is in the opposition in those states. And that’s how it will be if Pakatan Rakyat routs Barisan Nasional in GE13.

In those Pakatan-run states, are our Malays worse off by a long shot? Have they lost their Ketuanan, by any chance? Isn’t it odd that the occasional bellyaching is only made by a few “Malays” who don’t even look like our Malays?

As was written before, the best way to see for yourself the true colours of a political party is to look at it when it is NOT running the country. When it is the opposition, see whether it really cares for the rakyat.

Has Umno as opposition reps really cared for the rakyat in Pakatan-run states as much as Pakatan has been caring for the rakyat as their opposition reps in Barisan-majority states?

Let us next ask ourselves: If Najib has to hire flag-waving motorcyclists and Umno’s NGOs can bully their way against student and social movements of the rakyat, on which side does the word “rakyat” sit?

Therefore, on which side does Najib and his Umno NGOs sit? Sorry, limit’s up on A’s.

Are you on the side of the Oppressor or the Oppressed? — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 April 2012, 8:50 am and is filed under
Elections
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why Malaysians 0verseas are joining Global Bersih 3.0

– Yolanda Augustin

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 24, 2012

APRIL 24 – My name is Yolanda Augustin and I left Malaysia 14 years ago to study in the UK, where I now live and work as a doctor. I’m writing to explain what inspired me to get involved in the Bersih movement and global solidarity work for Malaysia.

For many years, I felt a sense of helplessness and frustration as I followed Malaysian current affairs and saw the country I grew up in stuck in a downward spiral of poor governance and deteriorating civil liberties and human rights. What really got to me was the complete waste of potential – Malaysia was and remains a beautiful country – rich in natural resources, great weather, fantastic cuisine and diverse culture. It has a small population of 28 million people that could enjoy a world class healthcare and education system if the money spent on hapless vanity projects and siphoned off to fund the multimillionaire lifestyles of government ministers was spent on improving the lives of the rakyat.

I was also struck by the vast number of Malaysians I met living overseas – many of them doing interesting and inspiring things – writers, scientists, entrepreneurs, doctors, chefs, bankers, lecturers, lawyers, nurses, town planners, engineers, actors, the list goes on. Many of them still with strong roots and a sense of connection to their place of birth. Many of them wanting to contribute something good and positive towards Malaysia but not knowing what, where or how.

People would often ask me if I ever planned to return to Malaysia one day. I would usually smile and say “One day…when I finish my training… but not yet.” The truth was that as much as I was often homesick and nostalgic for the country I grew up in, living abroad had changed my life and my mindset. I appreciated the freedom to move, think and speak as I pleased, without a psychological straight jacket, without the risk of the ‘guillotine of the Internal Security Act’ (or newly rebranded Special Security Offenses Bill) as Hishammudin Rais calls it continually hanging over my head, where overnight the special branch who have been following your every movement for months from a red Proton Saga can break into your home, kidnap you and tear the fabric of your life, and that of your family and friends apart.

I appreciated living in a place where archaic pieces of legislation such as the Press and Printing Act didn’t keep the press muzzled, making newspapers not worth the paper they were printed on, where the press kept the politicians in check, not the other way round. I appreciated living in a place where critical thinking and debate were encouraged, where students were not arrested for peaceful protest, where freedom of speech and assembly were part and parcel of everyday life.

In my student days I had been part of a London solidarity anti-ISA campaign, sparked by the arrest and detention of those involved in the 1998 reformasi movement. A small group of 5-6 of us used to picket outside the Malaysian tourism Office in Trafalgar Square during our lunch hour. It was a nice gesture but it all seemed pretty depressing – Malaysians in general seemed to be plagued by a sense of inertia and a general unease that Special Branch Big Brother would catch them (even all the way in London) if they dared tell the government to start behaving itself.

Then in 2010 I met a group of like minded Malaysians in London, many of whom have since become great friends, and we started a series of solidarity protests again, to give support to our brothers and sisters in Malaysia who were tirelessly campaigning on various human rights issues and to form a pressure group aimed at holding the Malaysian government to account for their pitiful human rights record. It was incredibly encouraging to see the solidarity movement grow from 10 to 20 to 50 regular attendees.

I mean – these are MALAYSIANS we are talking about – and we are generally not used to challenging authority or protesting (particularly not in freezing just above 0 degree temperatures!). In June 2011 we joined in the global solidarity campaign for Bersih 2.0 and it was awe-inspiring to see Malaysians from over 30 cities around the world stand in solidarity with over 50,000 fellow Malaysians in KL to support the call for free, fair and clean elections. In London we had expected around 100 people to turn up, 150 if we were lucky. When nearly 500 Malaysians gathered in front of the Malaysian high commission in Belgravia we were gobsmacked. Across 5 continents the global Bersih 2.0 fire had been lit and there was no stopping it.

The ridiculous antics of a panicking government – arresting over 1500 civilians, many for as little as wearing a yellow t-shirt, the detention of 6 activists under the Emergency Ordinance, the tragic death of 1 rally supporter, the unleashing of water cannons and tear gas on peaceful demonstrators, in one instance even into the confines of a maternity hospital, failed to snuff out the ‘unggun Bersih’ (flame of Bersih) as Pak Samad so aptly calls it.

It had exactly the opposite effect – merely igniting the flame further. Peacefully, sincerely and with quiet resolve – Malaysians around the world came together, with their own small but significant acts of peaceful resistance – to remind the Malaysian government and the world that it doesn’t have to be this way. Free and fair elections are the essential building blocks of any open and mature democracy. It is our right to demand it, and we should expect no less.

An aunt wrote to me in the aftermath of Bersih 2.0 to explain what had inspired her to join the Bersih rally in KL. She put it simply, “July 9th 2011 will forever be etched in my mind as the day I decided to stop being afraid. My daughter was adamant about going for the Bersih rally in KL and she went in on Friday evening with friends from the Women’s Aid Organisation to stay at a hotel in Bukit Bintang. I felt then that our generation had let our kids down and we were expecting them to move mountains by cleaning up the mess. It really was time to do something, no matter how minimal.”

This Saturday the 28th of April 2012, Global Bersih 3.0 solidarity actions will be taking place in over 70 cities in 29 countries around the world. We urge Malaysians the world over to take part and stand up for free and fair elections and civil liberties in Malaysia – because we CAN. The time has come for Malaysians the world over to do something, no matter how minimal. That time is NOW.

Salam Bersih.

To find and attend a Global Bersih 3.0 solidarity sit-in near you please go to http://www.globalbersih.org/

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 April 2012, 6:24 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


10 major problems in EC’s electoral roll

By
Ong Kian Ming
 | Apr 7, 2012

Malaysiakini

ANALYSIS The Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reform report, which was released earlier this week, highlights 22 recommendations on how to improve the electoral process.

I will not go through each and every recommendation or discuss the overall quality of these recommendations since others including the Bar Council chairperson and the Bersih steering committee have already done so.

bersih announcing 3rd rally 040412 ong kian mingWhat I will focus on in this two-part article is the many problems which are to be found in the electoral roll. To summarise, the report fails to acknowledge significant problems that have to do with the electoral roll, many of which are already well known, and seems to limit the scope of checking the accuracy of the electoral roll to a few not very useful parameters.

Section 10.6 of the report recommends that an independent agency such as Mimos (Malaysian Institute Of Microelectronic Systems), under the supervision of a newly-established PSC, be given the responsibility of checking the accuracy of the electoral roll.

Unfortunately the examples listed in Sections 10 and 11 of the report are not wide-ranging enough. For example, Mimos was given the task of checking to see if there are duplicate IC numbers in the electoral roll. Not surprisingly, this search failed to turn up any such entries.

Mimos only did a search for duplicate entries using the new IC (identity card) numbers and not the old IC numbers. Nor did Mimos did a search to see if the civilian IC numbers of army and police postal voters (who have their own unique army and police IC numbers) appear on the electoral roll.

As will be clear later in this article, these are but some of the methods in which the electoral roll can be manipulated and abused.

The only significant problem area identified in the report was the presence of addresses with more than 50 registered voters. There were 938 addresses with between 51 to 100 registered voters and another 324 with more than 100 registered voters.

For these cases, the report recommends that the Elections Commission (EC) display these names in public so that the voters in question can come forward to help EC clean up the electoral roll in these addresses.

The Merap project

Any electoral roll in any country will have its share of problems. Voters move and do not update their voting constituency. Voters who have died may not be taken off the electoral roll. Resourceful politicians often shift supporters into their own voting constituency.

These problems may be unintentional administrative errors or they may arise as a result of purposeful fraud. Both types of problems need to be addressed.

But systematically identifying and addressing these problems require a lot of resources not just in terms of time and personnel, but also in terms of computing power and knowledge.

The problems which will be highlighted in these two articles were uncovered as a result of an ongoing academic study called the ‘Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (Merap)’, whose purpose is to identify problems with the electoral roll and to make recommendations on how to deal with them.

These results took three part-time researchers approximately three months to compile. These findings are not exhaustive and are possibly only the tip of the iceberg of the underlying problems with the electoral roll.

A total of 10 problems with the electoral roll will be examined – five in this first part and another five in the second part.

The 10 problems are:

Voters who are above 85 years old.

Inconsistencies in the gender indicated by the IC number and EC data.

Voters with the same name, and some with the same/similar date of birth.

Voters who have IC addresses with the state of birth as ‘7x’, indicating that they are born overseas.

Voters in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur in the third quarter and fourth quarter of 2011 who do not have house addresses, even though other newly-registered voters in the same locality have house addresses.

Postal voters who are registered using their regular ICs.

Spouses of police who are registered as postal voters.

Spouses of army/police voters who are of the same gender.

Army and police voters who are above the retirement age.

New army and police postal voters who are above the recruitment age.

1. Voters who are above 85 years old

An analysis of the third quarter (3Q) of the 2011 electoral roll revealed 65,543 voters who were aged 85 and older. In addition, more than 1,000 voters were listed at 100 years old and above. 19 voters were born before 1900!

This is not to say that all of these voters are fraudulent voters that have been included in the electoral roll by irresponsible parties. Rather, the number of elderly voters is a good place to start in terms of identifying voters who may have died but for whatever reason, have not been deleted from the electoral roll.

This is an area of concern since the ICs of dead voters can be used by others to cast a vote on their behalf.

The oldest voter identified was Wong Kwan Moy (IC: 530823040010) who was listed as being born in 1853, which makes this person 149 years old in 2012.

This voter is registered in Setiawangsa in Kuala Lumpur. It is possible this could be typo and that the voter was born in 1953 rather than 1853 but this needs to be verified.

But this cannot be said of Tey Kim (IC: 900206740068) who was listed as being born in 1890. This cannot be a typo since voters who are born in the 1990s do not have old IC numbers, which this voter clearly does (K844769).

If Tey Kim was born in 1890 and she is still alive, she would be 122 this year.

The EC would probably respond by saying that they rely on the National Registration Department (NRD) to provide them with names of recently deceased people who then can be deleted from the electoral roll.

But there is nothing to prevent the EC from conducting their own periodic investigations on voters, especially those who are above 100 years old, to ensure that these voters are still alive and residing in their voting constituency.

2. Inconsistencies in the gender indicated by the IC number and EC data

An IC ending with an odd number means that the person is a male, while an IC ending with an even number means that the person is female.

An analysis of the 3Q 2011 electoral roll found 15,855 voters whose IC numbers indicate a different gender from that listed by EC.

Among these 15,855 voters, there were 72 “bin”(son of) who are listed as female and 76 “binti” (daughter of) who are listed as male.

For example, Mashitah binti Hashim (IC: 550901095040) was listed as a male while Ali bin Ariff (IC: 880726265197) was listed as a female.

These ‘gender inconsistencies’ point to the possibility that a person of a different gender could have used these ICs to register themselves as voters.

While these instances could be legitimate errors on the part of NRD, it makes sense to conduct more analysis, including field visits and discussions with NRD to ensure that these are merely clerical errors.

In addition, the presence of these sorts of inconsistencies also raises the question on whether polling agents can object to the identity of these voters on the basis that their listed gender differs from that indicated by the IC number.

These sorts of inconsistencies also highlights the need for NRD to get more involved in the process of clarifying these inconsistencies and discrepancies and play a more pro-active role in helping the EC maintain a clean and updated electoral roll.

3. Voters with the same name and some with the same/similar date of birth

Many Malaysians share the same name and as such many same/similar names are bound to appear in the electoral roll.

But when Malaysians with the same name and the same or similar date of birth appears, often in the same constituency or in the same state, this should certainly raise concerns.

The presence of such voters raises the possibility that they have been issued more than one IC number in order for them to vote multiple times.

For example, an analysis of the 2008 general election electoral roll for Terengganu found 369 voters named “Fatimah binti Ismail” and 346 named “Fatimah binti Abdullah”.

Among the 369 “Fatimah binti Ismails”, 10 pairs were found to have same/similar date of births.

Among the 346 “Fatimah binti Abdullahs”, 13 pairs were found to have same/similar date of births.

This seems like too much of a coincidence especially when one considers that Terengganu experienced a significant percentage increase in the number of voters from 1999 to 2004, after the state fell to PAS in the 1999 general elections.

This example illustrates how conventional methods of data mining conducted by Mimos for the PSC on Electoral Reform are insufficient to detect problems in the electoral roll.

More refined searches such as looking for same names with similar or same date of births (the first six digits of the IC number) are required.

4. Voters who have IC addresses with the state of birth as ‘7x’, indicating that they are born overseas

Voters who are not born in Malaysia have ‘71′ as their 7th and 8th digits in their IC number. There has been much speculation that non-Malaysian have been given citizenship and hence, voting rights, in order to have them vote for the ruling government.

Malaysiakini recently reported on a certain ‘Mismah’ being originally listed as a permanent resident and registered as a voter and then later being listed as a citizen in the NRD website.

A preliminary analysis of the September 2011 electoral roll for voters in Selangor turned up 30 voters with ‘Indonesian’ sounding names (only one name). For example, Juwairiyah (IC: 560317715158), is a ‘71′ voter in the Gombak parliamentary constituency.

Table 1 below shows the full list of these 30 names.

This is not to say that those who the digits 71 in their ICs and who appear on the electoral roll are necessarily suspicious voters. But the precedent of illegal immigrants in Sabah, many of them from Indonesia and Philippines, being given fake ICs to register as voters should make one especially wary of such cases.

There were over 167,000 ICs with the state of origin digits listed as ‘7x’ (71, 74 and 75) in the 3Q 2011 electoral roll.

Our findings are thus only a small sub-sample of this larger dataset. While many of these names are of Malaysian citizens born in China and India, much more in-depth analysis needs to be done in order to ascertain the percentage of voters among this dataset, which are legitimate citizens and those who have been given IC numbers through less than legitimate means.

5. Voters in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur in 3Q and 4Q of 2011 who do not have house addresses, even though other newly-registered voters in the same locality have house addresses

One would not expect that voters who are newly registered in Kuala Lumpur or Selangor would still be registered in addresses without house numbers.

Given the 100 percent urbanisation rate in Kuala Lumpur and an almost 100 percent urbanisation rate in Selangor, it is surprising that some voters would still have IC addresses without house numbers.

What is even more surprising is that there are still voters who are registered in addresses without house numbers in the same locality, where other newly-registered voters are registered in addresses with house numbers.

For example, according to Table 2 below, Syahrul Ali Mansur (IC: 691023715099) is a newly-registered voter in 3Q 2011 in Kampung Puah, which is in the Wangsa Maju parliamentary constituency.

Table 2 also lists nine other newly-registered voters in 3Q 2011 in the same locality which do have house numbers.

Voters who fall into this category are still being compiled from 3Q 2011 and 4Q 2011 in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor.

In Part 2 of this article, five problems which have to do with postal voters will be examined in greater detail.

Part 2:
‘Dubious’ voters may determine GE13 outcome

ONG KIAN MING holds a PhD in political science from Duke University. He is currently a lecturer at UCSI University. He can be reached at
[email protected]
.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 11:50 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


“428” Bersih 3.0 acid test of Najib’s “political transformation” to make Malaysia “best democracy in the world”  – start with immediate revocation of  government ban on Bersih

The April 28 Bersih 3.0 peaceful “Duduk Bantah” rally at Dataran Merdeka for clean, free and fair elections  is an acid test of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s “political transformation” to make Malaysia, in his own words, “the best democracy in the world”.

In the past seven months, the Najib government had been  trying to undo the damage caused by the  disastrous government mishandling of the 709 Bersih 2.0 peaceful rally for free and fair elections, which saw an arrogant, ham-fisted, high-handed and mindless repression and clampdown such as the government ban on Bersih,  unjustified PSM arrests under Emergency Ordinance, arbitrary arrests for wearing Bersih 2.0 T-shirts or just wearing yellow.

In his Malaysia Day message on Sept. 16 last year, Najib promised a “political transformation” with a slew of reform of undemocratic and draconian laws like the repeal of the Internal Security Act and the revocation of the four Emergency Proclamations.

At that time, I had specifically asked: “Will the replacements for the repeal or removal of repressive laws and measures result in the reincarnation of these very same draconian features in a new format, e.g. repeal of ISA but enactment of new law which could be described as ISA2?”

This is what have come to pass in the past seven months.
 Although there have been reform or repeal of draconian laws, they have been basically “one step forward, two steps backward” exercises, whether enactment of the Peaceful Assembly Act; repeal of the Internal Security Act and replacement by Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill as well as amendments to the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act; and amendments to the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Universities and University Colleges Act.

This is why Pakatan Rakyat MPs could not support the Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill although we unanimously welcome the repeal of the Internal Security Act to end its  pernicious detention-without-trial powers.

If the Prime Minister is sincere in wanting to make Malaysia the “best democracy in the world”, let him make a start by ending all government obstacles and objections to the holding of a peaceful gathering of Malaysians at Dataran Merdeka this Saturday in a “sit-in” protest to demand free, fair and clean elections in Malaysia.

“709” has gone down in Malaysian history as the day of empowerment of the real 1Malaysia – where all races and religions came together to demand a “Clean Malaysia”, not just for clean elections but also in the political system and all aspects of national governance.

Let “428” go down in Malaysian history, not only as demonstration of greater empowerment of decent and patriotic Malaysians for a “Clean Malaysia”, but as a testament that the Prime Minister is sincere in wanting to make Malaysia “the best democracy in the world”.

I say, lets start with the immediat revocation of the unjustified, unreasonable and undemocratic government ban on Bersih – especially as the Kuala Lumpur High Court Judge Justice Rohana Yusof is asking the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein to clarify the government declaration of Bersih as an illegal organisation after  the  Home Minister’s recent change of stand in conceding that  the Bersih 3.0 rally is not a security threat.

I will be at the Bersih 3.0 “Duduk Bantah” rally at Dataran Merdeka on Saturday. Let all decent and patriotic Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, gender or age, come forward whether at Dataran Merdeka, other parts of Malaysia or throughout the world,  to send out one common message in peace and harmony: Malaysians want a “Clean” elections as a prerequsite to a “Clean Malaysia”!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 1:26 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Human Rights
,
ISA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Begitu kata Mahathir …

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 24, 2012

24 APRIL — Memang sudah menjadi adat dan cara hidup semua bangsa dan agama mengenang jasa dan budi orang itu memang menjadi tuntutan. Hidup tidak mengenang budi “ibarat kacang lupakan kulit”. Itulah perbilangan Melayu yang semua orang tahu. Dan sememangnya orang Melayu mengenang jasa.

Hanya sekarang politik tidak dapat membezakan diantara siapa yang patut mengenang jasa dan siapa yang telah memakan jasa. Itulah sekarang menjadi tuntutan Najib apabila beliau melawat P. Pinang dua hari yang lepas. Najib seperti pemimpin Umno yang lain sentiasa menuntut orang Melayu dan rakyat untuk mengenangkan jasa Umno dan pemimpin-pemimpin besarnya yang telah lalu dan yang sedang berkuasa pada hari ini.

Katanya kita mesti ingat kepada jasa Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein Onn, Dr Mahathir Mohamad serta Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Mereka ini semuanya berjasa kepada orang Melayu dan negara, kata Najib.  Kata-kata Najib itu ada benarnya tetapi mengenang jasa itu biarlah bertempat dan kena pada orangnya serta tepat kepada sasaran dimana jasa itu dikenang. Kita tidak boleh mengenangkan jasa kepada mereka yang tidak berjasa seperti mereka yang telah membinasakan perjuangan dan tamaddun bangsa kita sendiri.

Saya  berpendapat Dr Mahatnir sepatutnya mengenang budi parti yang telah mengangkat beliau ke mercu kekuasaan, tetapi Mahathir menggunakan kuasa hasil dari mengenang jasa orang Melayu dengan membinasakan parti itu pada suatu ketika dahulu. Jasa parti itu besar kepada beliau tetapi beliau tidak mengenangnya kerana beliau merasakan ahli-ahli Umno tidak lagi mahu lagi mengenang jasanya.

Beliau tidak mahu menerima yang ahli-ahli Umno sudah keberatan untuk memberikan jasa lagi kepada beliau kerana sebab-sebab yang kita dengar semasa ramai dari ahli-ahli Umno mahukan beliau  dibersarakan setelah memberikan jasa yang begitu besar kepada beliau. Justru beliau telah membiarkan Umno itu mati walaupun kuasa yang diberikan rakyat kepada beliau boleh menyelamatkan parti itu dari terkubur.

Beliau adalah Perdana Menteri yang juga Menteri Dalam Negeri semasa itu yang sepatutnya menggunakan kuasa yang ada kepada beliau mengikut Akta Pertubuhan 1965 sek 70 yang membolehkan beliau menggunakan kuasa itu untuk menghidupkan mana-mana pertubuhan yang diharamkan oleh mahkamah. Beliau enggan menggunakan akta itu kerana beliau mahukan Umno itu mati terus dan menggantikannya dengan parti baru yang menggunakan nama “Umno” yang keramat itu.

Maka wujudlah satu parti yang meminjam nama Umno yang telah terkubur itu. Apa yang hendak diterima kasihkan kepada pemimpin-pemimpin seperti ini? Kenapa hendak memaksa orang ramai khususnya orang Melayu yang berjiwa tulin dalam perjuangan mereka untuk mengenangkan “jasa” yang seperti ini? Inikah dia yang dinamakan jasa?

Selepas dan bermula dari saat itu kita tidak lagi mempunyai pemimpin-pemimpin yang jujur untuk perjuangan selain dari memperjuangkan untuk mengisi perut dan keluarga masing-masing. Pemimpin-pemimpin berkomplot sesama sendiri untuk naik takhta kepimpinan dan melakukan perkara-perkara yang menjadi persoalan kepada rakyat. Masalahnya rakyat begitu perlahan untuk sedar tentang perlakuan yang telah merosakkan keseluruhan “fabric” politik orang Melayu khususnya dan rakyat amnya. Hanya  sekarang baru ramai rakyat telah sedar dan mereka memulakan langkah untuk bertindak melawan arus yang deras ini.

Dalam keadaan inilah Najib dan barisan pimpinan mundar mandir untuk memujuk kembali rakyat menyokong mereka. Najib telah menjanjikan bulan dan bintang, tetapi kita sedar yang apa yang dijanjikan oleh Umno sejak 54 tahun yang lalu masih menjadi janji dan isu pada masa ini.

Janji untuk memajukan kaum Melayu tidak pernah tercapai walaupun setiap pilihanraya isu memajukan orang Melayu menjadi bahan kempen pihak BN dan Umno. Tiada Umno Melayu akan mati, kata mereka. Tetapi Melayu wujud sebelum Umno wujud lebih-lebih lagi kewujudan Umno baru yang lebih muda dari anak bongsu saya. Bagaimana Melayu hendak memberikan keyakinan jika masa lima dekad tidak mampu untuk menambah equiti Bumiputera misalnya.

Umno hanya melalui kegiatan siasahnya dengan slogan besar-besar tetapi tidak ada pun satu dari slogan yang diwarwarkan itu membuahkan hasilnya. Semasa slogan Bersih, Cekap dan Amanah dahulu tiada satu yang bersih, tiada nampak kecekapannya dan jauh sekali ada sifat amanah kepada bangsa Melayu kita. Malahan zaman itulah rasuah mula menjadi-jadi dan masa itu jugalah bermulanya berlakunya noda-noda berlaku terhadap politik dan ekonomi negara.

Kata orang, keroh air dihulu kerohlah air dihilir. Kekalutan zaman inilah yang menyebabkan kita mendapat warisan yang kita lihat pada hari ini. Kekalutan yang begitu parah yang rakyat hadapi hari ini tidak mungkin bermula dizaman Pak Lah. Ianya bermula setidak-tidaknya 20 tahun sebelum kekalutan itu sampai ketahap hari ini. Tidak adil kita letakkan kesalahan itu kepada Pak Lah kerana siapa yang melantik Pak Lah itu wajib bertanggungjawab bersama-sama.

Apa yang hendak kita katakan lagi jika Mahathir sendiri berkata, yang pandai menyertai PAS, yang cerdik menyertai PKR dan yang pintar menyertai DAP. Kata-kata itu bukannya datang dari pemimpin-pemimpin dalam komponen PR tetapi dari mulut Dr Mahathir sendiri. Kalau begitu kata Mahathir, yang bodoh itu menyertai parti apa?

Saudara jawablah sendiri. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 8:30 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih 3.0, the fear factor

 — Thomas Fann

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 24, 2012

APRIL 24 — As I write this, we are just four days away from April 28, 2012. It is the day which the Bersih 2.0 steering committee has chosen to have Bersih 3.0, a sit-down protest called by its BM name Duduk Bantah. It is late at night and I am sleepless. As I lay awake, I reminisced about Bersih 2.0 held last year on July 9.

However, this time round, Bersih 3.0 is no longer an option for me for I found myself roped into the committee organising it simultaneously with the KL event, in my city.  The band of us was crazy enough, probably foolish as well, to even consider doing it. Probably the experiences of July 9, 2011 have hardened our resolve to push for change and we didn’t want our beloved city to miss out on it.

But I am realising that it is one thing to risk your own life and another to be in a position where you may also be risking the lives of others. It is a fear that is multiplied by the number of those who will be coming out to sit down and protest.

Wait a minute! We are just talking about we, the citizens, wanting to say that we think the present electoral system and roll needs to be improved and cleaned up. All we are asking is two hours to sit down in a public space to voice our concerns. Why should we be afraid? Yet, we are.

Earlier, we were out distributing our flyers promoting the event and we could see the fear in the eyes of people. It is not that they do not support the cause, I mean, who doesn’t want a free and fair election, who doesn’t want to get rid of corruption and dirty politics? Yet, the question asked by many is, “Polis tangkap tak?” Or “Will the police arrest us?” We have come to a point where we are even afraid to wear yellow! We are truly a pathetic lot!

But this fear of arrest and even brutality is understandable, almost. Because we have seen it. Not just at the protest last year, whose image is still fresh in the minds of people, but we have seen it in our country the past 54 years and probably even longer when we were colonised. I believe there is a stronghold of fear over our nation, a spirit of intimidation that hovers over all of us. Fear paralyses us and discourages us from doing what we know is right. It makes us put up with evil even though we abhor it. Evil triumphs.

Edmund Burke’s quote comes to mind — “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” I believe that there are more good people in Malaysia than there are evil ones. But they remain paralysed by fear.

We need to break this stranglehold of fear over our society, we need to set ourselves and our people free.

How?

One at a time. One person breaking through at a time because we find courage in the courage of others. When we push through our own fears, we find courage on the other side. Nelson Mandela said: “I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.”

I feel afraid but I know I cannot afford to be. So I push and push through the layers of fear which are like strong cobwebs trying to hold me back. Others are looking to us. The good people who want to do the right thing are looking to us. We cannot but overcome our fears and step forward on April 28 and do the right thing for this nation.

The spirit of intimidation must be defeated once and forever so that our people can be free. “Free at last; free at last; thank God Almighty we are free at last.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.

* Thomas Fann is co-chairman of Bersih 3.0 Johor Baru.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 9:00 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Dubious’ voters may decide GE13

By
Ong Kian Ming
 | Apr 8, 2012

Malaysiakini

ANALYSIS In the first part of this article, I highlighted five problems with the electoral roll which were not addressed in the report by the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on Electoral Reform.

In this second part, I will highlight five additional problems with the electoral roll, all of which concern the highly problematic area of postal voting among army and police personnel.

5. Postal voters who are registered using their regular ICs

Army personnel, who are postal voters, have IC addresses beginning with T. Police personnel, who are postal voters, have IC addressing beginning with R, G and I.

If any of these army or police voters were previously registered as voters using their civilian IC numbers, their civilian registration entries should be deleted from the electoral roll.

While this process may have taken place for most of these postal voters, the possibility that these voters appear twice on the electoral roll cannot be discounted. This possibility was not investigated by the PSC on Electoral Reform.

The analysis conducted by Mimos (Malaysian Institute Of Microelectronic Systems) on behalf of the PSC was only restricted to looking for voters who were registered under the same IC number.

Conducting this analysis requires massive amounts of computing power since the name and date of birth of each army and police postal voter has to be matched with the name and date of birth of every single entry in the electoral roll (currently numbering more than 12 million).

Even researchers, political parties and politicians who are interested in investigating the presence of this specific problem in the electoral roll would not have the capacity and know-how to conduct this analysis.

Table 3 below shows two examples of army voters who were also registered as voters using their civilian ICs. The civilian entries were deleted after their inclusion was referred to the Election Commission (EC).

This problem is not restricted to the presence of one person registering under his or her own civilian IC as well as his or her army/police IC.

It is also possible for the IC of army or police voter to be used by his or her spouse. If this occurs, it would be much harder to detect since it would not be the same name and date of birth registered under two ICs – one army/police and the other civilian.

If the spouse is registered twice, one using his or her own IC, and once using the civilian IC of his or her army/policy spouse, then the same name would appear twice but having to different dates of birth.

Of course, one way to detect this is to check for the mistake in the gender indicated by the IC and the gender of the voter as indicated by the EC records.

The screenshot below shows one such example of a wife who are registered as a voter using the IC number of the husband. The name of the voter is female as is their gender identity in the EC records but her IC number ends with an odd number which indicates that the holder of the IC is male.

When the IC number was inputted into the MyEG (Malaysian E-Government) website, the name of the male postal voters appeared.

After a total of 42 cases were discovered across five parliament seats in Negeri Sembilan (Seremban, Rasah, Telok Kemang, Rembau and Tampin) in Q2 (Quarter 2) of 2011, the EC was obliged to delete these names.

This was a very time-consuming task since the civilian IC addresses of the postal voters in question had to be ‘tracked down’ using other databases (since they are not given in the EC website). In this particular instance, the MyEG database was used because NRD (National Registration Department) no longer allows open access to their website to check for the validity of ICs.

If one’s wife could be allowed to register using the husband’s IC which has a different name, one wonders if another person could register using any police/army postal voter’s civilian IC address?

Again, this possibility was not addressed in the PSC report. There are currently more than 200,000 army and police postal voters. To ensure that their civilian ICs are not being used by other people, a thorough investigation needs to be conducted using the civilian IC numbers of these army/police postal voters.

6. Spouses of police who are registered as postal voters

According to section 2 of Elections (Registration of Electors) Regulations 2002, spouses who qualifies to be registered as postal voters are as follows:

Spouse of a serving member of regular naval, military or air force of Malaysia, the Commonwealth or other country;

Spouse of a person in the public service of the Malaysian government or any state/local authority or statutory body who is living with the serving spouse outside the boundaries of Peninsular Malaysia or Sabah or Sarawak;

Spouse of a person engaging in full-time studies at any university, training college or any higher educational institution outside the boundaries of Peninsular Malaysia or Sabah or Sarawak and who is living with the student at the time for application for registration as a parliamentary or state elector.

The spouse of a member of the police force is not eligible to be registered as postal voters.

But in our analysis of the postal voters in the June 2011, we found there were over 4,000 spouses of police voters who were registered as postal voters. Table 4 below shows a sample of spouses of police voters who are also registered as postal voters.

7. Spouses of army/police voters who are of the same gender

In this category, spouses of army/police who are of the same gender – i.e. same sex marriages – were identified.

For example, in the Setiawangsa June 2011 electoral roll, Harisah binti Ab Ghani (IC: 770130035668) was listed being married to Zaini binti Hamzah (IC: T1110543).

When Zaini binti Hamzah’s IC was searched in the EC website, it was found that she had now become Zain bin Hamzah/Lelaki and had been shifted to the Ketereh parliamentary constituency in Kelantan.

In the most recent check, Zain was switched back to Zaini binti Hamzah. Both Zaini and Harisah’s current voting constituency is unknown as both are listed as being ‘processed’ in the EC website.

8. Army and police voters who are above the retirement age

According to the army’s website, the retirement age for army personnel is 55 (maximum). For certain grades, it is lower than 55. For other civil servants, the mandatory retirement age is 58.

A limited search of the June 2011 electoral roll revealed over 44 names of police postal voters who were above the age of 58.

For example, Wan Rasidy bin Roni (IC: RF151304), born on Nov 19, 1900, which makes him 112 this year, is registered in Balai Polis Lumut in the Lumut parliamentary constituency.

9. New army and police postal voters who are above the recruitment age

The maximum entry age for army recruits is not more than 30 years of age.

However, an investigation into the voters who were cut from the electoral roll in Q3 2011 because they had joined the army showed more than 200 recruits who were more the maximum age of 30.

Of equal or perhaps greater concern is that these over-aged recruits, who changed their place of voting in the 3Q of 2011, were then moved to another constituency in 4Q 2011.

For example, Abu Talib bin Ahmad (IC: 690625086571), aged 42, was taken out of the 3Q 2011 electoral roll because he had joined the army. He was originally registered in the parliamentary district of Kuala Kangsar in Perak as a regular voter with a civilian IC address.

According to the 4Q 2011 supplementary electoral roll, this voter, who was then registered in the parliamentary constituency of Jeli in Kelantan, was then transferred to the parliamentary constituency of Ketereh as a postal voter.

In other words, in the space of six months, this voter, who was not only over 30 years of age, had also experienced two changes in his voting constituency from Kuala Kangsar to Jeli and from Jeli to Ketereh.

Abu Talib bin Ahamd, aged 42, was registered as a new army postal voter in 3Q 2011.

Examples such as these raise the possibility that over-aged voters have been illegally ‘recruited’ as army postal voters and then quickly transferred from one electoral constituency to another in successive quarters in order to ‘mask’ the origin of these suspicious army recruits.

In the Q4 2011 data, the EC no longer gave details of why voters were deleted from the electoral roll, which meant that voters who joined the army and police could no longer be detected. One wonders why EC altered the structure of the data released by quarter from 3Q 2011 to 4Q 2011.

How much difference will these ‘problematic’ voters make?

At the end of the day, one should ask the question of how many ‘problematic’ voters are in the electoral roll. The simple answer is that we really do not know.

The cases highlighted under these 10 categories number approximately 100,000. But even within these categories, an exhaustive analysis has not been conducted because of time and manpower limitations.

These problems could potentially be the tip of the iceberg. They do not include addresses with a large number of registered voters. They do not include the 42,000 voters whose IC numbers could not be found in the NRD database.

They do not include other categories such as the insertion and removal of registered voters who do not appear in any of the quarterly electoral roll updates. They do not include other categories of possible electoral manipulation which have not yet been analysed or investigated such as the registration of voters in non-existent addresses.

The inclusion of these categories could easily increase the number of problematic voters to 400,000 names or approximately 1,800 votes divided over 222 parliamentary constituencies.

Considering that 35 seats out of 222 were won or lost by less than 2,000 votes, these problematic voters can potentially affect the balance of power in the next general election.

History repeats itself?

If one does not think that the presence of these problematic voters is not sufficient to swing the overall election results, I point to two past precedents where sudden increases in the number of voters in the electoral roll in states which were lost by BN which probably helped win the BN win back these states.

The two states are Sabah after the 1990 elections and Terengganu after the 1999 elections. We see the same pattern being repeated in the state of Selangor leading up to the 13th general election.

The number of voters in Sabah increased by 17.6% from 1990 to 1995 compared to the national average of 13.0%. This was just after PBS left the BN coalition prior to the 1990 Sabah state elections. PBS controlled the Sabah state government from 1990 to 1994.

In the state of Terengganu, the number of voters increased by a whopping 17.7% from 1999 to 2004 compared to a national average of 7.3%. Again, it is noteworthy that the state of Terengganu had fallen to the opposition during the 1999 general elections.

In 1999, the opposition won 28 out of 32 state seats and all eight parliamentary seats. In 2004, after this massive increase in the number of voters, the opposition won only one parliamentary and four state seats, an almost total reverse of the 1999 general election results.

In Selangor, according to the Q4 2011 electoral roll, the number of voters has increased by over 340,000 to more than 1.9 million voters since the 2008 general election. This represents an increase of 21.8% compared to a national average of 16.3%.

Some of these increases have occurred in areas which limited increases in the number of new housing estates and population inflows.

For example, the seat of Hulu Selangor, a marginal parliamentary seat, saw an increase of more than 17,000 voters, or 27.1%, from the 2008 general election to the Q4 2011 electoral roll.

Finally, for those who use the fact that the opposition managed to win a historic number of parliamentary seats and control of five state governments in the 2008 general election to say that the electoral roll is relatively clean and accurate, one could easily respond by saying that the opposition could have won even more seats if the electoral roll did not include these problematic voters.

The upcoming 13th general election is expected to be one of the most closely contested electoral battles in our nation’s history. This increases the importance of having a relatively clean and transparent electoral roll to ensure that the results are a fair representation of the will of the electorate.

Without a strong commitment by the authorities, including the PSC on electoral reform, EC, NRD and the government of the day to firstly identify and then address these problems, the accuracy of the electoral roll cannot be ascertained with any degree of confidence.

Part 1:
10 problems in EC’s electoral roll

ONG KIAN MING holds a PhD in political science from Duke University. He is currently a lecturer at UCSI University. He can be reached at
[email protected]
.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 12:03 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Electoral roll: What else is the EC hiding?

By
Ong Kian Ming
 | Apr 24, 2012

Malaysiakini

COMMENT In two previous articles, I highlighted 10 problems associated with the electoral roll as part of the preliminary findings of the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (Merap), a research effort to identify and understand problems with the existing electoral roll.

In this article, I want to highlight further problems involving far more voters than those identified in the previous two articles. [see Part 1 I Part 2]

Firstly
, approximately 3.1 million voters were identified as potential non-resident voters by the National Registration Department (NRD) in 2002. This data was given by NRD to the Election Commission (EC) but no action was taken by the EC to assess the magnitude of this problem and to identify ways to rectify it.

Secondly
, using the EC’s own data which lists the nationality or ‘bangsa’ of each voter, approximately 65,000 voters were identified as having foreign nationalities. Of these, close to 90 percent or 58,000 had IC numbers which indicate that they were born in Malaysia.

In addition, approximately 49,000 of these voters came from one state alone – Sabah – which has a well-documented history where ICs were given to illegal immigrants in order to allow them to register as voters.

Thirdly
, by comparing the electoral rolls in Quarter 4 (Q4) 2010 and Quarter 3 (Q3) 2011 and by cross-checking them with the quarterly updates in the first to third quarters in 2011, it was found that there were 106,743 voters removed from the electoral roll without public display and another 6,762 voters added to the electoral roll during the same period, also without public display.

Fourthly
, important information provided by the EC in the Q1 to Q3 2011 quarterly roll updates such as the reasons for the deletion of names from the electoral roll were omitted in the Q4 2011 quarterly roll. This omission immediately raises concerns about the possibility of concealing important information by the EC in order to prevent detailed analysis from being conducted.

Adding the figures which I found from the initial preliminary analysis to the figures highlighted in this article, I have identified approximately 3.4 million cases where further investigation needs to be conducted by the EC in order to verify the legitimacy of these voters because this is the pool of problematic registrations that currently tars the integrity and accuracy of the electoral roll.

1) 3.1 million potential non-resident voters

In 2002, the information systems section of the NRD (Bahagian Perkhidmatan Sistem Maklumat) conducted an exercise called Projek SPR where the IC addresses of all voters in Peninsular Malaysia were compared with the voting constituencies of these voters.

The main purpose behind this project was to identify all the voters whose IC addresses did not correspond to the constituencies that these voters were registered in.

For example, if a person’s IC address was somewhere in Bukit Gasing in Petaling Jaya, which is located in the PJ Selatan parliamentary constituency but if this person is registered as a voter in the Shah Alam parliamentary constituency, then this voter would be classified as a potential non-resident voter (pengundi luar kawasan).

A total of 3,082,482 million voters were identified as potential non-resident voters, meaning that their IC addresses did not correspond with their voting constituencies. This constituted 37 perrcent of the then 8.3 million voters in Peninsular Malaysia in 2002.

Of course, not all of these 3.1 million voters are non-resident voters. For example, a person’s IC address may be that of his parent’s home in Bukit Gasing, but he may be currently residing in a house in Shah Alam and registered as a voter in that constituency.

Article 119 (1) of the Federal Constitution states that “Every citizen who (a) has attained the age of twenty-one years on the qualifying date; and (b) is resident in a constituency on such qualifying date or, if not so resident, is an absent voter, is entitled to vote in that constituency in any election to the House of Representatives or the Legislative Assembly…”

This means that only those who are residents in a particular constituency when they register as voters are qualified to vote in that particular constituency.

The presence of such a large number of voters whose IC addresses do not correspond with their voting constituencies clearly shows that the problem of non-resident voters is a serious one, even if only a small proportion of these 3.1 million voters were not residents in these constituencies at the time of their registration.

The possibility of these voters not being resident voters is further enhanced when one considers the lax standards required before 2002 in order to ‘qualify’ as a resident of a constituency. All someone needed to do prior to 2002 was to show some sort of proof that he was a resident in a particular area – an electricity or phone bill for example.

A number of politicians whom I interviewed on an informal basis told me that the requirement for this proof of residency was often waived. This meant that many strategic politicians could pad their respective constituencies with supporters, friends and family, even though they did not live in that constituency.

One manifestation of this voter padding exercise is the presence of houses with a large number of registered voters.

According to analysis done by Mimos (Malaysian Institute Of Microelectronic Systems), as instructed by the parliamentary select committee on Electoral Reform, 938 houses with between 51 and 100 registered voters each and 523 houses with more than 100 registered voters were identified in the most recent electoral roll.

If we include the 2,071 houses with between 21 and 50 registered voters each and the 3,949 houses with between 11 and 20 registered voters, there are approximately 260,000 voters who are registered in houses with 11 or more registered voters.

And this excludes localities with no house addresses (kampung or longhouses, for example). This is a legacy system left behind by the pre-2002 electoral roll where non-resident voters were registered in addresses that they did not live in.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of this NRD analysis is that the EC, as far as we know, made no effort to identify the magnitude of this problem – how many of these voters were actually non-resident voters – nor did the EC seem to take any measure in order to rectify this problem in the pre-2002 electoral roll.

2) 65,000 ‘foreigners’ in the electoral roll

The EC collects comprehensive data on the ‘bangsa’ or nationality of individual voters. This data is not distributed to political parties, not officially at least, but contains valuable information that can be used to identify problematic registrations.

Table 2 below lists the nationalities which I classified as ‘foreign’. I then extracted all the voters from the Q3 2011 electoral roll which were categorised as belonging to either one of these nationalities or ‘bangsa’.

I identified approximately 65,000 ‘foreigners’ on the Q3 2011 electoral roll using this list of ‘foreign’ nationalities. Out of these 65,000 voters, I found that approximately 58,000 or 90 percent had IC numbers which indicated that they were born in one of the states in Malaysia.

This was quite unexpected, since I presumed that most of these foreigners would have IC numbers which would indicate that they were born outside Malaysia rather than in Malaysia.

After all, if we met 10 random ‘Italians’ who are Malaysian citizens, wouldn’t we expect most of them to be born outside Malaysia and subsequently became naturalised Malaysian citizens? Instead, we find the opposite phenomenon, whereby a majority of these foreign voters are born in Malaysia instead.

More worrying is the fact that approximately 49,000 voters out of 65,000 are foreign voters, or 75 percent, and they are in Sabah, where cases of illegal immigrants being given Malaysian ICs has been well-documented.

Out of these 49,000 foreigners in Sabah, almost 48,000 or 97 percent are ‘Malaysian born’.

Table 3 below shows the distribution of these 65,000 foreigners by state and the number and percentage of these voters with IC numbers that indicate that they were born in Malaysia.

Armed with this kind of information, the EC can easily do an audit of these foreign voters in Sabah, perhaps in cooperation with NRD, to verify if their identities are indeed legitimate and that they are resident voters. As it is, the presence of these voters and the high percentage of them who are Malaysian-born certainly raise serious concerns.

3) Mysterious deletions and additions

In every quarterly update of the electoral roll (Rang Daftar Pemilih Tambahan, or RDPT), the names of those who are newly registered voters, those who have changed their addresses and those whose names have been deleted from the electoral roll in a constituency have to be publicly displayed in a location within that constituency, usually in a government building.

The number of voters who have been added and deleted from the gazetted electoral roll before and after this public display and after the possible objections to the inclusion and the exclusion of some names must add up.

For example, if the gazetted roll had 10,000 voters before the quarterly update, during which 1,000 voters were added and 500 voters were deleted, the gazetted roll after public display should contain 10,500 voters.

My team of researchers compared the number of voters in the Q4 2010 with the Q3 2011 electoral roll and cross checked the numbers with the Q1, Q2 and Q3 2011 electoral roll updates. What we found was that 106,743 voters in the Q4 2010 electoral roll no longer appeared in the Q3 2011 electoral roll and also did not appear in the Q1 to Q3 2011 electoral updates as deleted voters.

This means that they were deleted from the electoral roll without public display. In addition, we found that 6,762 new voters were found in the Q3 2011 electoral roll but these new voters did not appear in any of the quarterly updates in 2011, meaning that these voters were added without public display!

The presence of such a high number of cases of additions and deletions without public display raises doubts as to whether these voters were removed or added under suspicious circumstances. It also raises questions about the number of voters that were removed/added without public display in the quarters prior to 2011.

4) Information on deletion of voters missing

The data given by the EC to the political parties for the Q1 to Q3 2011 quarterly updates had detailed information with regard to the reasons as to why a voter was deleted from the electoral roll.

These reasons include: death, change of address, having joined the police or army, losing one’s citizenship, losing the status of being a postal voter and doubtful identities, just to name a few.

Tables 4 to 6 below show the number of voters added and deleted and the reasons for these deletions for the Q1 to Q3 2011 electoral roll updates.

But all of a sudden, the reasons as to why voters were deleted from the electoral roll were no longer included in the Q4 2011 electoral roll update.

What is more shocking is no voter was listed as being deleted as a result of death. The only data given is the number of voters who were deleted from the Q4 2011 electoral roll as a result of a change in address.

The summary of the Q4 2011 electoral roll update are given in Table 7 below.

One cannot help but wonder if the EC wanted to exclude the voters who had been deleted from the electoral roll because of the intense scrutiny given to the earlier Q1 to Q3 2011 electoral roll updates.

For example, the 42,051 voters whose identity was questionable because of their details could not be verified in the NRD database was revealed in the Q3 2011 update (highlighted in yellow in Table 6 above).

In addition, the sudden increase in the number of deletions in Q3 2011 because of voters entering into the army/police force (highlighted in blue in Table 6 above) also may have drawn unwanted attention as to where these new army/police postal voters were being transferred to.

In-depth audit of electoral roll needed

The data shown in this article raises many concerns about the EC’s desire to ensure a clean, accurate and transparent electoral roll.

The EC has clearly failed to act on important data with regard to problematic registrations that were handed over to it by NRD back in 2002 – the 3.1 million potential non-resident voters – and also data that it collected on its own – the 65,000 foreign voters in the Q3 2011 electoral roll.

In addition, the EC seems to have concealed important data from public knowledge, such as the nationality or ‘bangsa’ of the individual voters, deleting and adding voters without public display and excluding the reasons why voters were deleted from the electoral roll.

The EC should conduct an in-depth audit of the electoral roll, including further investigations into selected samples, and then consider various solutions to these problems, including automatic registration of all voters according to their IC addresses.

With the presence of these problems in the electoral roll, it is clear that the EC chairman’s claim that Malaysia has world’s cleanest electoral roll is one that is not based on reality or facts.

__

ONG KIAN MING holds a PhD in Political Science from Duke University. He is a lecturer and political analyst at UCSI University. He is also the project director of the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (MERAP) and can be reached at
[email protected]
.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 1:16 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A lack of sincerity is what pisses off city folks

 — Stephen Ng

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 25, 2012

APRIL 25 — I had half expected that this would develop, despite the Najib administration promising that the Bersih 3.0 sit-in protest could go on.

The prime minister will not allow civil society’s push for democracy to topple his government under Barisan Nasional for the past 55 years. Frankly, since Bersih 2.0 on July 9, Najib Razak has not learnt his lesson from history that no government that continues to fight the people will last long.

Whatever happens on Saturday will cost his government a big price. Two things I wish to remind Najib Razak and his men:

— That if the government continues to fight civil society, it will no last very long

— That if the civilians are treated with brutality or arrested, or charged in court, as threatened, it will create more anger amongst the people. Each of us has a network of at least 100 people around us. People like Ambiga Sreenevasan or Pak Samad Ismail would have thousands of supporters. You touch anyone, it will have a multiplying effect that will never be matched by even the biggest tsunami!

Although I was not involved in Bersih 1.0 or Bersih 2.0, I was watching the news and making my own assessments. The time has come for me to go down to the ground with my fellow Malaysians to push for democracy. I can see that the momentum built for Bersih 3.0 is sufficient to cause a political earthquake in the 13th General Election, given that the Bersih demonstration in 2007 merely caused a political tsunami.

What I read of late has pissed me off over the way in which the Kuala Lumpur Datuk Bandar, Fuad Ismail, has conducted his duty. Sheer arrogance and a lack of sincerity is the style that we see so often in our civil servants and their political masters.

If previously it was the police that behaved thuggishly, this time I believe it will be City Hall officers behaving like they are the bosses. The Datuk Bandar should realise that although 1.9 million urban citizens may not participate in this Saturday’s Bersih 3.0, the people are watching the way things are developing.

It is time for Fuad to learn who his bosses are at the end of the day. He should also read the book on Bersih 2.0, as compiled by the Bersih 2.0 Steering Committee, to realise how fellow Malaysians have risen up as one. This is something that Najib, Muhyiddin and Hishammuddin will not be able to fight.

As the saying go, if you cannot fight, ask for a truce. But this is not the way the Najib administration appears to be responding to civilian pressure. On Saturday, it is not the terrorists who will be going down to the ground. It is the rich, the poor, the learned, the educated, the professionals, from all walks of life.

Making their decision independently, I know of at least five people who are planning to go to Dataran Merdeka. Each person is angry at the way the BN Government treated its people in the 709 Bersih demonstration. They are all professionals, and one has a good career, and at least three of them have homes in Sierra Mas and Valencia. Most of us will be going down to the ground for the first time.

My wife just told me that at her office, a big group of people have decided to also show up. From the forum organised by Tindak Malaysia on “How Clean will the 13th General Election be?” last night, I can feel the pulse and the anger of the people.

The people are simply angry at the BN administration, which has overstayed its welcome for far too long. People are angry at the way corruption has worked its way into all strata of government departments. People see how RM240 million is being given out to a family with no experience in raising cattle, only to be used to purchase luxury condominiums.

People are also angry at the way young Malaysians like Teoh Beng Hock ended up dead, at the hands of an agency that is supposed to fight high-level corruption cases like the NFC, PKFZ, Perwaja, MAS, Bank Bumiputra and so on. Instead, MACC went after the Selangor mentri besar for donating cattle to his constituents for Korban.

I am sure even within government agencies there are hundreds of thousands of fellow Malaysians who have seen through the hypocrisy of their leaders, whose promotion depended mainly on their links with their political masters. This alone is sufficient for them to lend their support to Bersih 3.0. It will come to a point in time that even the civil servants will join the rest of Malaysia to push for clean and fair elections.

This is what Najib should realise after using the hardliner’s approach on Bersih 1.0 and Bersih 2.0. The more the people of this country suffer at his hands, the faster it is that the BN Government will be toppled. None of us, who are pro-Bersih citizens, even talk about toppling the BN Government, except to push for cleaner and fairer elections.

Give us a clean and fair election, and clean up the electoral roll of some three million doubtful voters — and we, and I am sure Ambiga, Pak Samad, Maria, Chin Huat, will back off, since you refuse Dataran Merdeka, owned by Malaysians, as our assembly point.

It is the insincerity of the Najib administration that pisses me off, from the day I have been monitoring the Bersih news. Stop playing a game of tug-of-war, and admit that the electoral roll needs a lot of cleaning up. If you lose, lose with dignity.

Najib, remember, you are only an elected leader of the government! We will show you who we are — the BOSSES!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 April 2012, 8:06 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Adakah berdosa besar jika tidak bersama Umno?

 — Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 25, 2012

25 APRIL — Masih ada saki baki penulis di dalam maya ini yang mengkritik keras tindakan saya menyertai DAP. Bermacam-macam tuduhan dilemparkan terhadap diri saya dan beberapa orang bekas ahli Umno yang bertindak menyertai parti ini, kononnya kami telah menjual bangsa dan agama kami. Saya ulangi saya tidak mengurangkan Melayu saya dan tidak mengurangkan kepercayaan saya terhadap agama saya.

Saya hairan kenapa mereka ini menggunakan isu agama dan bangsa sebagai isu terhadap diri saya, sedangkan salah satu sebab saya keluar daripada Umno itu ialah kerana parti itu menggunakan isu agama secara keterlaluan dan sebaliknya apa yang dilakukan oleh pemimpin parti itu semuanya bertentangan dengan agama dan bangsa. Bagi mereka agama itu menjadi tempelan sahaja sedangkan Islam itu sepatutnya menjadi cara hidup mereka (ad-din).

Bercakap tentang isu agama di sana sini tetapi entah apa yang dilakukan terhadap agama mereka pun kita tidak tahu dan payah untuk difahami. Islam kata orang, Islam kata mereka. Tetapi dalam bercakap pasal Islam dan membaca ayat-ayat suci dalam perhimpunan agong Pemuda, parti itu hanyalah sebagai tempelan sahaja kerana apa yang mereka lakukan hampir kesemuanya bertentangan dengan kehendak Islam. Rasuah tidak terkawal dan hampir kesemua di antara pemimpin parti itu sedang kemaruk dan penagih rasuah yang tegar.

Semuanya itu bertentangan dengan Islam. Entah siapa guru dan pendidik mereka dalam agama ini saya tidak tahu. Kalau Umno serius tentang agama dan akidah, saya berharap Umno memanggil seramai mana sadiqiah Islam dan membuat perbincangan dan tunjukkan kepada kami semua nas-nas dalam Al-Quran dan kitab-kitab tulisan ulamak-ulamak muktabar yang menyatakan bahawa menyertai DAP itu adalah haram. Kita juga mahukan mereka menunjukkan dalil-dalil serta nas-nas yang jelas yang orang Islam diwajibkan menyertai Umno untuk selamat dunia dan akhirat. Kalau ada terjumpa bukti-bukti ini beritahu kami yang telah menyertai DAP ini. Jika boleh berikan ketetapan, apa hukumnya menyokong dan mendukung pemimpin yang rasuah yang memerah harta rakyat tanpa batas ini.

Saya tidak berani menggunakan agama kerana saya takut kepada perlanggaran aqidah. Tetapi selagi tidak dibuktikan yang agama kita menegah umatnya menyertai DAP saya tidak berganjak dan sesiapa pun boleh teruskanlah bercakap dengan cara hipokrit itu. Saya kembali menyebut isu ini kerana masih ada saki-baki mereka yang berfikiran kuno bahawa Melayu itu mesti menyokong Umno kerana mereka beragama Islam. Kepada mereka asalkan mereka beragama Islam mereka mesti menyokong Umno walau macam mana rasuah sekali parti yang wujud pada tahun 1988 dahulu itu.

Kita mesti faham bahawa DAP dan parti-parti dalam komponen PR sedang berhempas-pulas untuk memerangi rasuah yang dicegah oleh agama itu. Umno tidak ada hak untuk menentukan aqidah sesiapa kerana merekalah yang sepatutnya melakukan instrospeksi diri dan fahami apakah kedurjanaan yang mereka telah lakukan kepada bangsa dan agama mereka. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 April 2012, 8:00 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih 3.0 and the clamor for change

by
Dr. Chris Anthony

The first Bersih rally held on 10 November2007 saw over 40,000 people from all walks of life taking to the streets of Kuala Lumpur demanding for fair, free and clean elections. The rally organized by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) reflected the people’s yearning for change. However after more than 3 years on we did not see any substantial changes to our electoral system towards that end as the Barisan Nasional(BN) government did not take the calls by the people seriously. This lackadaisical attitude towards the demands by the people led to the second rally, Bersih 2.0 on 9 July 2011.

Bersih2.0 was a great success as despite being declared illegal, the tightened security, extensive police road blocks and threatening tactics, the people came out in droves, braving the high handed and brutal tactics of the police to defy the ban and demand for something simple and basic rights of every citizen – a free and clean elections.

The eight demands of Bersih 2.0 were:

*A thorough     review of the electoral roll

*Reforms to     the postal balloting process

*Marking     voters who have cast their ballots with indelible ink

*A minimum 21     day campaign period

*Equitable     access to media by participating parties

*Strengthen     institutions which enforces election laws

*Eradicating     electoral bribery

*Putting a     stop to dirty politics.

These demands were very reasonable and just but the Election Commission(EC) and the BN government refused to heed the calls of Bersih2.0 which reflected the sentiments of the vast majority of Malaysians. Due to tremendous pressure,from the opposition and in particular non-political civil rights groups, the government finally set up the Parliament Select Committee (PSC) to study the proposals and recommend electoral reforms. Regrettably after months of deliberations only one of the demands, the least important of them, use of indelible ink was accepted. All other 7 demands were not acted upon accordingly.

The more important issues of alleged fraudulent electoral roll,phantom voters, sudden unexplained surge in voters in selected areas, fair access to the media and abuse of government machinery by the ruling party remain unresolved. The new allegation of large number of foreigners being given citizenship and voting rights is a serious one that must be addressed and rectified immediately. Otherwise it would be a mockery of the democratic process that allows foreigners to elect our government.

As time was running out and it was clear that the expected electoral changes will not materialize before the elections, the people had no choice but to proceed with another public rally to re-demand for reforms to be implemented before the elections due to be held by March 2013.They want to impress the government of the urgency and seriousness of the flaws in the election system. They are fearful that the wishes to elect the government of their choice will be marred by this unfair system in place.

The country is at the crossroads and the people have to decide its course as this is the first time in history they have a genuine choice for an alternative government in the form of the Pakatan Rakyat. The BN government of 54 years is straddled with major scandals involving mega corruptions and power abuses which the people at large are fed up. The people’s calls for change and reforms go unheeded. The people want a change and the sentiment on the ground for that change is gaining momentum which the BN is fearful and is resorting to all means to arrest that growing clamor for change. Instead of showing seriousness and sincerity in introducing reforms by engaging the people, the BN is adopting a confrontational stance and resorting to unwarranted tactics to gain the support of the people.

When all attempts to remain in power seem to be failing the BN is resorting to abusing the electoral process to its advantage. This could have worked before but not today with the increasing maturity of the people and highly facilitated communications. Facts cannot be suppressed anymore. It is now a battle between the people versus an incumbent government of more than half a century. Who will come out as the winner in this most crucial 13GE which is being described as the Mother of all elections? The people may not win this time but they will not be losers either as history has shown they will be the winners finally.

This Bersih3.0 is not about politicians or political parties. It is not about the EC, police, DBKL or another government agencies. Instead it is about ordinary Malaysians who want to show the authorities that they are the real masters of their country. They want to exercise the power vested on them to elect the government of their choice freely and fairly without fear, favor or harassment from any parties. They want to be given full freedom to vote in the people they choose. Is it wrong for the people to claim their constitutional rights which they fear are being robbed from them?

Bersih3.0 is just the beginning in our clamor for change where we demand for a clean and fair election. More important is what we do at the 13GE that comes next. Let us not take for granted the power invested in us as citizens, the power of our vote. Let us not trade inthat vote for anything else. Let us join hands to make the difference and together vote to make Malaysia a better place for all Malaysians regardless of race, creed or political affiliation.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 April 2012, 9:47 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Citizens’ and Bersih 3.0’s freedom to assemble

 — Proham

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 26, 2012

APRIL 26 — Proham recognises that freedom of assembly is a fundamental human right. Public discussions, debates, peaceful demonstrations and “sit-ins” are a form of public expression within the democratic tradition and should be viewed as normal. Proham recognises that these provisions are part of the newly enacted Peaceful Assembly Act 2011.

In this context Proham feels that the authorities including Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and the police should facilitate Bersih and its followers the exercise of this right as citizens of Malaysia in a place of their choice. The home minister has already indicated that this movement is not viewed as a security threat.

Proham feels that the authorities could view this citizens’ movement as part of the people’s call for “free and fair elections” in Malaysia. In addition, if both authorities and Bersih leaders work together there will be no disruption in the city as many larger events have been hosted in the city centre before.

A positive commercial value can be gained when viewed as a carnival. This will not hamper business but enhance taxi and transportation services including hawking and restaurants. The approach authorities take will provide the right environment for citizens making a claim in public for democracy and good governance.

It is in this context that Proham feels that the police and other enforcement officials should exercise understanding, empathy and tremendous restraint and enable citizens’ action in a peaceful and open way. We are confident that in light of many democratic changes adopted by the federal government that the democratic space will be enhanced for citizens’ participation.

Since this is the first public demonstration after the adoption of the Peaceful Assembly Act, it is a great opportunity for government to show its commitment to human rights, freedoms and moderation.

We hope the government and the people will both come out well in this test case, which will set the precedent for the implementation of the new Peaceful Assembly Act.

* Proham is the group of former human rights commissioners of Malaysia. This statement is endorsed by Tan Sri Simon Sipaun (Proham chairman), Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam (Proham member), Datuk Michael Yeoh (Proham secretary) and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (Proham exco).

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 April 2012, 5:21 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Election spending risks credit downgrade, say S&P and Moody’s

By Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 26, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, April 26 — The federal government’s record spending binge ahead of elections expected within months may result in Malaysia’s first credit-rating downgrade in 15 years.

Bloomberg reported today that several top rating companies say Putrajaya must bring down its debt, the second highest in Asia at 53.8 per cent of GDP or face a ratings cut.

The international business wire cited Standard & Poor’s (S&P) analyst Takahira Ogawa as saying it “might have to think about” a potential cut in a few years unless the next government boosts revenue and reduce subsidies after polls.

It also reported that Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings also said Malaysia must cut its debt, which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects may climb to a 20-year high of 55.9 per cent this year, above the statutory 55 per cent ceiling.

A downgrade to Malaysia’s credit, rated as A- by S&P, would be its first since the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

The rating is the same as Botswana, which has a debt ratio of 16 per cent, while Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s largest economy, is rated BB+ by S&P and has seen its debt fall to 25 per cent in 2011 from 95 per cent just after the crisis.

“Elections have delayed the required policy adjustments and aggravated the fiscal situation as populist policies take centrestage.

“Not going through with structural reforms, including introducing a broad-based consumption tax and reducing fuel subsidies, will eventually hurt Malaysia’s credit standing,” Bloomberg quoted Chua Hak Bin, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in Singapore, as saying.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak unveiled a record RM232.8 billion budget in October, which included raising civil service salaries by as much as 13 per cent and giving households earning less than RM3,000 a month a one-off RM500 handout, despite pledging to cut the fiscal deficit.

The prime minister later said that further adjustments to public sector pay would cost an additional RM6 billion, meaning the wage bill would rise by 16 per cent to RM58 billion this year.

Bloomberg also cited Fitch analyst Andrew Colquhoun as saying that while debt levels rose globally after the 2008 financial meltdown, Malaysia “has yet to articulate a clear strategy for getting the debt ratios back down.”

But Datuk Seri Idris Jala, whose PEMANDU is tasked with transforming the economy, has insisted that Malaysia is “moving in the right direction” as both national debt and fiscal deficit would continue to fall.

“Our position will get better because we are cutting costs and increasing revenue,” the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department told Singapore’s Business Times in February, saying this allowed the government to make the one-off RM500 handout.

But Moody’s assistant vice-president Christian de Guzman told Bloomberg that the upcoming election is “crucial given that the long-term outlook for fiscal sustainability and economic growth will likely hinge on the next government’s reform agenda.”

“While both sides of the political divide readily acknowledge the need for such reforms, getting them passed will indeed be much more difficult with a weak mandate,” the Singapore-based analyst said.

Najib must call elections by May next year and has said that regaining his Barisan Nasional’s (BN) customary two-thirds supermajority in Parliament would be “challenging.”

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) denied the ruling coalition 82 out of 222 federal seats and five state governments in a landmark election in 2008 that has given opposition parties hope that it can topple BN for the first time since independence.

But a survey by independent pollsters Merdeka Center in February found that the prime minister’s popularity had surged by 10 percentage points from last year to 69 per cent.

The research centre said this was driven by a huge gain among households earning less than RM1,500 a month, with 78 per cent backing the Umno president on the back of an improving economy and the RM500 cash handout to low-income earners under the Bantuan Rakyat 1 Malaysia (BR1M) scheme.

Bank Negara has projected economic growth at between four and five per cent this year compared to 5.1 and 7.2 per cent in 2011 and 2010 respectively.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 April 2012, 12:20 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Elections
,
Finance
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia should welcome independent electoral observers

 — Damien Kingsbury

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 26, 2012

APRIL 26 — Malaysia is facing a political crisis. Its government appears to have lost electoral legitimacy and is facing its biggest challenge to holding onto power since independence half a century ago.

As with the flowering of democratic movements in other countries over the past year, Malaysia now appears to be approaching its own “democratic spring”.

In order to forestall this blossoming of democracy in Malaysia, the government has hobbled the Election Commission, has rorted the electoral process through disproportionate parliamentary seats and a range of other matters that continue to require investigation.

The government now appears ready to stage elections at a time it believes will produce the best results for itself.

It is the responsibility of the government, as custodian of the state, to serve its citizens — this is the sole reason for being of the state and the role of government in it. In order to do this, the people who run the state must be selected by the citizens to represent them, in a transparent and accountable manner.

This, in turn, implies the necessity of free and fair elections.

If the government of Malaysia believes that its electoral process will be free and fair, according to international standards, we would welcome being invited to come to Malaysia as independent electoral observers. If the Malaysian government does not invite independent international observers, the question will be left: what do they have to hide?

We hope they do not feel the need to hide anything. We welcome the opportunity to observe and monitor Malaysia’s next elections, whenever they might be held. We will be there, supporting democracy in Malaysia, as expressed through a free and fair expression of the will of the Malaysian people. — www.globalbersih.org

* Professor Damien Kingsbury is director, Centre for Citizenship, Development and Human Rights at Deakin University, Melbourne, and is co-ordinator of the Australian Friendship observer mission to the East Timor elections, as well as having been an accredited observer to elections in Indonesia and Cambodia.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 April 2012, 7:49 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib should honour his declaration that “the era of government knows best is over” and heed the voice of Malaysians at home and in 72 cities/29 countries who want real and not cosmetic change in national governance

The Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak should honour his declaration that “the era of government knows best is over” and heed the voice of Malaysians at home as well as global Malaysians in 72 cities and 29 countries who want real and not cosmetic change in national governance.

An email I received today from a Malaysian who will be taking part in Boston Bersih 3.0 this Saturday illustrates not only the increasing momentum in the awakening and new sense of empowerment among Malaysians of their rights and responsibilities to help create a Malaysia where all Malaysians regardless of race or religion could feel proud, but also the light they see at the end of the tunnel inspiring their hopes and expectations for change in national governance and policies after 55 years of nationhood.

This is the email I received from a 29-year-old Penangite who have been in the United States for the last 10 years:

I’m a 29-year old Penangite, and I’ve been in the U.S. for over 10 years.  I did not get a JPA scholarship or any government scholarships, but I was offered almost a free ride to five top-tier schools in the U.S. (Wellesley, Mount Holyoke, Middlebury, Wesleyan (Freeman Asian Scholarship), and Dartmouth).  I chose Wellesley where I received an amazing education (I met Nat Tan who was then at Harvard), and then worked in economic consulting in Boston for a few years, before starting a Ph.D. in Economics at Brown University.

My father was a businessman (and not a rich taukeh, mind you) and my mother, a primary school teacher.  Growing up, money was always tight.  Yet they managed to send four out of five daughters on to pursue their Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in top 50 universities in the U.S.  How did we do it?  It was neither through government scholarships, nor through Father-Mother Scholarships, but through the generous financial aid of U.S. institutions and the contributions of relatives.  Not surprisingly, of the four, one is in London, and three are in the U.S.

As a teenager in the 1990s, my only news outlet was mainstream newspapers, e.g., The Star, which as you well know, was effectively taken over in the 1980’s by the government.  I recall being irked by the low quality of the newspaper — I would deem the standard of writing equivalent to that of a Standard Six student.  Coverage of local events, such as the planting of a tree, would revolve around xyz politician saying so and so.  More annoying was that on day one, you would have Mahathir saying blah blah blah.  On day two, you’ll have several politicians parroting Mahathir’s views, saying “Mahathir said blah blah blah so blah blah blah.”  And so on and so forth for the next few days.  Did these so-called leaders have no thoughts or ideas of their own?  It would seem that they, sememangnya, are incapable of such.  Sadly enough, the quality of the media has hardly improved, but that is another story for another day.

Only after leaving Malaysia did I slowly realize how oppressed and repressed we had been (and still are).  Part of it may have been a natural maturation process that comes with age.  A bigger part, I think, comes from being taken entirely out of the country, and placed in a new context where I was exposed to people from different countries, with different experiences and different ideas.  Perhaps more importantly, I realized that I used to identify as a Chinese in Malaysia, but now that I was out of Malaysia, my identity evolved to that of a Malaysian … period.

The results of the March 2008 elections were unexpected, to say the least.  Who would have thought it was possible?  I have to admit that that was the first time I ever thought that one day, maybe one day I can go back to my country.  Before then, it was not even a consideration … why return to a country where I’ll be treated as a second-class citizen?

Since 2008, the political sandiwara, parasitical leeching, and blatant thievery have continued, and in fact, intensified.  At the same time, there is an awakening of the rakyat.  The mantle of fear and oppression is being cast off.  And we now have hope for the future.

I just wanted to thank you for fighting for our country, for speaking up when few would do so, for being a staunch opposition-er for decades.  How much easier would it have been to fold in with the ruling party, to accept the accolades and bodek-ing and titles and easy money.  I thank God for people like you who are willing to stand up to make a difference.  And now you’ve paved the way for many, many people, young and old, to do the same.

I will be at the Bersih rally in Boston on Saturday.  Those of us outside Malaysia have it easy.  We just have to show up and sembang with fellow Malaysians.  I pray for those of you in Malaysia, for God’s protection over all of you.  I’m praying for our country, and for the new generation of leaders that God will rise up.  God bless you.

Does Najib understand the feelings and import expressed in this email, which represents not just of  one person but of entire generations of Malaysians, both inside and outside the country?

If the answer is in the positive, then Najib should  direct the police and all other enforcement agencies to give their full co-operation and assistance to facilitate and ensure the success of the Bersih 3.0 “sit-in” protest for a clean, free and fair election at Dataran Merdeka on Saturday.

This will be in keeping not only with his declaration that “the era of the government knows best is over” but also in line with his other declaration of wanting to make Malaysia the “best democracy in the world”.

The electoral reform group Global Bersih has noted that Malaysians asking for free and fair elections have not received any support from “either Putrajaya, or a police force whose job it is to ensure the safety of Malaysians, irrespective of race, creed, religion or political affiliation”.

It warned that any violence at any Bersih 3.0 sit-in in the country will ultimately smear Barisan Nasional (BN) and the police.

I endorse the  two calls by  Global Bersih to the  Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein and Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar, viz:

*firstly, to publicly declare that they support Malaysians working towards an electoral system that delivers fair and free elections;  and

*secondly, to guarantee the safety of citizens attending Duduk Bantah events this Saturday, and to act  to prevent other groups from attacking, intimidating or otherwise harassing the organisers and their fellow Malaysians.

Let the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Inspector-General perform their duty to the citizenry and the country.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 April 2012, 4:54 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Bersih
,
Elections
,
nation building
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.