Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Press Release No. 26: Tindak Malaysia challenges Tunku Aziz to respect & the EC to Enforce the Voter’s Right to Secrecy At Elections!

   
   
       
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,392

    Press Release No. 26: Tindak Malaysia challenges Tunku Aziz to respect & the EC to Enforce the Voter’s Right to Secrecy At Elections!

    Press Release No. 26: Tindak Malaysia challenges Tunku Aziz to respect & the EC to Enforce the Voter’s Right to Secrecy At Elections!


    We refer to Tunku Aziz’s accusations against Tindak Malaysia of plotting to cause chaos in:



    WHO ARE WE?
    Tindak Malaysia is an electoral movement made up of Malaysian volunteers who care for and want to do our bit for the nation. We do it through voter education and polling agent training for the public.


    • Our strategy is To Educate, To Empower, To Mobilize and To Act.
    • Our Goal is to Free and Fair Elections


    WHY US?
    We are puzzled why the Election Commission (EC) would make use of Tunku Aziz to do their dirty work of demonizing Tindak Malaysia for them? Are they afraid to face Tindak Malaysia?

    Since July 2012, after their one and only briefing for Tindak Malaysia at EC HQ in Putrajaya on the polling process and indelible ink, we have been trying to engage the EC in more dialogue to clarify and improve the polling procedures. We sent repeated emails to them seeking clarification.

    It was only when everything else failed that we had to resort to press releases and videos to reach out to the public to explain what are the problems with the current polling process. And they are serious problems.

    WATCH OUR VIDEOS
    You can study some of the problems at YouTube, myDurianTV (or bit.ly/myDurianTVinTM):

    • EP03 Indelible Ink,
    • EP04 Phantom Voters,
    • EP05 Hidden Dot
    • plus a few more coming up on Transparency in the voting process, Election Cost and Time available for a voter to vote).


    ROLE-PLAY DEMO ON ‘AJARAN SESAT’
    We even invited the EC Chairman and Deputy Chairman to come for an ‘Ajaran Sesat’ Role-play Demo this Sat, 13th Apr 2013 from 2pm – 6pm at S20, Mosaic Community Studio at Bandar Utama Center Point, PJ to review and correct us on our training methods. We will present through role-play with the participation of the audience to identify which parts would constitute ‘ajaran sesat’. And if they are too ‘busy’ to attend, to send their experts on law and polling processes instead.

    WHAT IS THE ISSUE?
    Finally, after all the sound and fury created by Tunku Aziz, if we are to clear through the smoke and obfuscations, what really is the issue?

    The EC is an election management body appointed by the Yang DiPertuan Agong on the basis of public confidence in them.

    The issue “Is this election managed by the EC for”:

    1. UMNO/BN, or
    2. The Rakyat?


    If an election is managed for the Rakyat, why is Randomization an issue?


    WHAT IS RANDOMIZATION?

    Randomization is a process whereby ballot papers are issued to a voter from anywhere inside the ballot book so that no one can match the serial no. of the ballot paper with a voter, in order to protect the secrecy of his vote. During the public hearing by the Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reform (PSC) during Dec 2011 in Kota Kinabalu, the Deputy Chairman of the PSC enthusiastically supported Tindak Malaysia’s proposal on randomization. Or least he appeared to be. He even went to the extent of suggesting that the EC clerk should tear the whole ballot book, place the ballot paper face down and allow a voter to choose any piece. Unfortunately, this was not included in the 22 recommendations in the final report of the PSC issued in Apr 2012.


    WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

    Tindak Malaysia has trained thousands of Malaysians on voter education and polling agent training all over the country. Talking to the people, a constant theme kept recurring. Voters do not trust the EC and were worried that their votes were not secret.

    ELECTION INCIDENCES

    This was reinforced when:

    · BN politicians go round threatening the people “We know how you vote!”

    · EC Clerks record the voter reference no. on the ballot paper counterfoil even though it is an election offence since May 2006,

    · Presiding officers recite the serial no. of the ballot paper as a voter enters the polling station (Apr 2011, SK Tanjung, Batu Danau, Sarawak), again an election offence,

    WHY ARE EC OFFICIALS ABLE TO ACT WITH SUCH IMPUNITY?

    Because Section 6 of the Election Offences Act states:

    Offences against this Part


    6. (4) A prosecution for an offence under this Part shall not be instituted without the sanction of the Public Prosecutor.
    Like Prime Minister Najib Razak declared in the Sibu By-election in May 2010 “You help me, I help you!”

    WE HAVE A CRISIS!

    Public Confidence in the EC is at a rock-bottom and Public Confidence of the EC members is a requirement specified Federal Constitution Article 114 (2). If they cannot command the confidence of the public, they should do the proper thing and step down. Instead they try every trick possible to frustrate the people’s desire for Free and Fair Elections. And instead of facing the problems head-on, the UMNO/BN and the EC resort to propaganda warfare through the Mainstream Media to demonize their critics and then send in the Police to harass them.

    IS VOTER SECRECY PROTECTED BY LAW?

    Voter secrecy is protected under the following Election Acts or Regulations:

    · Election Act, Section 13 (2) states that the vote shall be secret.

    · Election Offences Act, Section 5 Maintenance of secrecy at elections.

    · Section 9 Undue influence

    · Conduct of Elections, Regulation 13 (3) requires a screen at the voting counter to maintain secrecy.

    · Regulation 19 (2) As each voter requests for a ballot paper….. This does not specify that the ballot paper has to be issued sequentially. There is no prohibition against a voter asking for a random paper.

    · Regulation 19 (5), (7) & ( all support the requirement to maintain secrecy of voting.


    So Tindak Malaysia challenge:

    1. Tunku Aziz to declare that he respects the Voter’s Right to Secrecy At Elections &
    2. the EC to Enforce the Voter’s Right to Secrecy At Elections!


    To the EC: Implement Randomization for this election to prove your sincerity.


    REPEAT INVITATION TO BOTH TUNKU AZIZ AND THE EC.
    Come, if you dare, this Sat 13th Apr 2013, 2pm – 6pm at S20, Mosaic Community Studio, Bandar Utama Center Point to have a dialogue with us in presence of the public and the Press. Don’t hide behind the Mainstream media and throw your wild accusations at Tindak Malaysia.

    By the way, Tunku, you really should do your homework. It is clear you have not attended any of Tindak Malaysia’s PACABA Training. If you had and if you had asked about randomization, you would have known:

    In a meeting in October last year, Pakatan Rakyat and BERSIH 2.0 pleaded with us to stop the teaching of randomization. They explained that the Deputy EC Chairman in an election briefing in Johor Bahru claimed: “We have consulted with the Attorney General on the issue of randomization and the advice we got is that any voter who asks for randomization will be “invited” to leave the polling station without being given the ballot paper.”

    We were shocked that the EC would countenance such an act. Under Section 4(d) of the EOA, it is an election offence to prevent a legitimate voter from voting. The penalty is two years jail or up to five thousand ringgit fine or both.

    Why would the EC would put their presiding officers at risk and resort to such a measure to prevent a voter from ensuring the secrecy of his vote?

    Is it to inflict fear in the voter?

    If a voter had his finger marked by Kerani Pengundian KP2 and then have his ballot paper refused by KP3 because he asked for randomization, and evicted, he would be in a very difficult situation. There could be chaos if the EC resorted to such underhand tactics to prevent randomization.

    To avoid the risk of the EC abusing their powers and prevent a voter from voting, Tindak Malaysia has since Oct 2012 stopped the teaching of randomization. When a participant queried us why we stopped teaching randomization, we explained that we had to avoid chaos in the polling station and the risk of a voter losing his vote. We told them “If you see randomization in the polling station, you will know that particular presiding officer is fair and respects your right to secrecy of voting. If you don’t see randomization, you know that the EC is trying to cheat you. In that case, punish them by voting accordingly!”

    Regards,


    Py wong
    Tindak Malaysia
    pywong@tindakmalaysia.com
    Mobile: 012-2149322


    Forum www.tindakmalaysia.com Registration www.network.tindakmalaysia.com/


    Personal - wong piang yow
    Tindak Malaysia - tindakmalaysia.com
    Malaysia Electoral Reform Program - 1 Juta Rakyat Menyokong Reformasi Sistem Pilihan Raya
    FAQ - Tanya Tanya Tindak Malaysia - Ask Tindak
    Rat Race System - Malaysians4Change


    Malaysians4Change - piang yow wong
    http://bit.ly/myDurianTVinTM
    myDurianTV
    py

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,392
    Admin: Election Laws & Regulations supporting the voter's right to secrecy of voting. All the text in red font are relevant.


    LAWS OF MALAYSIA Act 5 ELECTION OFFENCES ACT 1954

    PART II ELECTORAL OFFENCES

    3. Offences by any person

    4. Offences by election officers

    4A. Offence of promoting feelings of ill-will or hostility

    5. Maintenance of secrecy at elections

    6. Offences against this Part




    PART III CORRUPT PRACTICES

    7. Personation

    8. Treating

    9. Undue influence


    10. Bribery

    11. Punishment and incapacities for corrupt practice


    PART VII ELECTION PETITIONS

    39. Prohibition of disclosure of vote


    PART II - ELECTORAL OFFENCES

    O
    ffences by any person

    3. (1) Any person who—

    (a) knowingly makes any false statement on or in connection with any application to be placed on any register of electors;

    (b) forges or fraudulently defaces or fraudulently destroys any nomination paper, or delivers to a returning officer any nomination paper knowing the same to be forged;

    (c) forges or counterfeits or fraudulentl y defaces or fraudulently destroys any ballot paper or the official mark on any ballot paper;

    (d) without due authority supplies any ballot paper to any person;

    (e) sells or offers to sell any ballot paper to any person or purchases or offers to purchase any ballot paper from any person;

    (f) not being a person entitled to be in possession of any ballot paper which has been marked with any authorized mark has any such ballot paper in his possession;

    (g) puts into any ballot box anything other than the ballot paper which he is authorized by law to put in;

    (h) without due authority takes out of the polling station any ballot paper or is found in possession of any ballot paper outside a polling station;

    (i) without due authority destroys, takes, opens, or otherwise interferes with any ballot box, ballot paper or packet of ballot papers in use or intended to be used for the purposes of an election;

    (j) without due authority prints any ballot paper or what purports to be or is capable of being used as a ballot paper at an election;



    (k) for the purposes of an election, manufactures, constructs, imports, has in his possession, supplies or uses, or causes to be manufactured, constructed, imported, supplied or used, any appliance, device or mechanism by which a ballot paper may be extracted, affected or manipulated after having been deposited in a ballot box during the polling at any election;

    (l) votes at any election when he is not entitled to vote thereat;

    (m) prints any advertisement, handbill, placard or poster which refers to an election and contains a reproduction of a ballot paper, or of what purports to be a ballot paper, to be used or likely to be used at such election;

    (n) obstructs or prevents a voter who is otherwise entitled to vote from voting at an election; or

    (o) votes in an election at more than one polling station in the same constituency or a different constituency,

    shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to both such imprisonment and fine and, subject to any provision to the contrary in any written law relating to any election, shall until the expiration of five years from such conviction, be incapable of being registered or listed as an elector or of voting at any election or of being elected at any election, and if at that date he has been elected at any election, his seat shall be vacated from the date of such conviction:

    Provided that nothing in paragraph (m) shall be deemed to prohibit, during the campaign period, the printing in any such advertisement, handbill, placard or poster of the name or symbol of one candidate only, together with a reproduction of a cross or other mark indicating approval of any such name or symbol.

    (2) Any person who has been convicted of an offence under subsection 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 [Act 15], which is an offence by reason of paragraph 3(1)(f) of that Act shall, until the expiration of five years from such conviction, be incapable of being elected at any election, and if at that date of such conviction he has been elected at any election, his seat shall be vacated from that date.



    Offences by election officers


    4. Any officer, clerk, interpreter or other person having any duty to perform pursuant to any written law relating to any election who—

    (a) makes, in any record, return or other document which he is required to keep or make under such written law, any entry which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false, or does not believe to be true;

    (b) permits any person whom he knows or has reasonable cause to believe not to be a blind person or an incapacitated person to vote in the manner provided for blind persons or incapacitated persons;

    (c) refuses to permit any person whom he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be a blind person or an incapacitated person to vote in the manner provided for blind persons or incapacitated persons;

    (d) wilfully prevents any person from voting at the polling station at which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe such person is entitled to vote;

    (e) wilfully rejects or refuses to count any ballot paper which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe is validly cast for any candidate in accordance with the provisions of such written law;

    (f) wilfully counts any ballot paper as being cast for any candidate, which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe was not validly cast for such candidate; or

    (g) is without reasonable cause guilty of any act or omission in breach of his official duty,

    shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to both such imprisonment and fine and, subject to any specific provision to the contrary in any written law relating to any election, shall until the expiration of five years from such conviction, be incapable of being registered or listed as an elector or of voting at any election or of being elected at any election, and



    if at that date he has been elected at any election, his seat shall be vacated from the date of such conviction.


    Offence of promoting feelings of ill-will or hostility

    4A. (1) Any person who, before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, does any act or makes any statement with a view or with a tendency to promote feelings of ill-will, discontent or hostility between persons of the same race or different races or of the same class or different classes of the population of Malaysia in order to induce any elector or voter to vote or refrain from voting at an election or to procure or endeavour to procure the election of any person shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to both such imprisonment and fine.

    (2) Subject to any specific provision to the contrary in any written law relating to an election, any person who is convicted of an offence under this section shall, until the expiration of five years from such conviction, be incapable of being registered or listed as an elector or of voting at an election or of being elected at an election, and if at that dat e he has been elected at an e l e c t i o n , hi s s e a t s h a l l b e v a c a t e d f r o m th e d a t e o f s u c h conviction.


    Maintenance of secrecy at elections

    5. (1) Every officer, clerk, interpreter, candidate, agent and any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as an “authorized person”) authorized to attend any proceedings connected with the issue or receipt of postal ballot papers, or at a polling station, or at the counting of the votes, shall, before so attending make an oath of secrecy substantially in Form A in the First Schedule.

    (2) Every officer, clerk, interpreter, candidate, agent and a u t h o r i z e d p e r s o n i n a t t e n d a n c e a t a p o l l i n g s t a t i o n s h a l l maintain, and aid in maintaining, the secrecy of the voting in such station, and shall not communicate, except for some purpose authorized by law, before the poll is closed, to any person any information as to the name or number on the register of electors of any elector who has or has not applied for a ballot paper or voted at that station, or as to the official mark, but the total number of voters who have voted at any station at any time before the poll is closed may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be divul ge d to a c an di date or hi s agen t o r a poli ce of fic er authorized to attend or on duty at the polling station.


    (3) No such officer, clerk, interpreter, candidate, agent, police officer or authorized person and no person whosoever shall attempt to obtain in the polling station information as to the candidate for whom any voter in such station is about to vote or ha s v o t e d , o r c o m m u n i c a t e a t an y tim e t o an y p e r s o n an y information obtained in a polling station as to the candidate for whom any voter in such station is about to vote or has voted, or as to the number of the ballot paper given to any voter at such station.

    (4) Every officer, clerk, interpreter, candidate, agent, police officer and authorized person, in attendance at the counting of the votes shall maintain, and aid in maintaining, the secrecy of the voting, and shall not attempt to communicate any information obtained at such counting as to the candidate for whom any vote is given by any particular ballot paper.

    (5) No person, except a presiding officer acting for a purpose authorized by any written law relating to any election or a person authorized by the presiding officer and acting for such purpose as aforesaid, shall communicate or attempt to communicate with any voter after such voter has received a ballot paper and before he has placed the same in a ballot box.

    (6) Every person attending any proceedings in connection with the issue or the receipt of ballot papers for persons voting by post shall maintain, and aid in maintaining, the secrecy of the voting and shall not without lawful excuse—

    (a) communicate, before the poll is closed, to any person any information obtained at those proceedings as to any official perforation, stamp or mark to be used in connection with any ballot paper;

    (b) communicate to any person at any time any information obtained at those proceedings as to the number of the ballot paper sent to any person;

    (c) attempt to ascertain at the proceedings in connection with the receipt of ballot papers the number on any ballot paper; or



    (d) attempt to ascertain at the proceedings in connection with the receipt of the ballot papers the candidate for whom any vote is given in any particular ballot paper or communicate any information with respect thereto obtained at those proceedings.


    (7) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this section shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding three thousand ringgit or to both such imprisonment and fine.


    Offences against this Part


    6. (1) Every person who abets the commission of or attempts to commit an offence specified in this Part shall be liable, on conviction, to the punishment and disqualifications prescribed for that offence.


    (2) Every offence under this Part shall be a seizable offence within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code [Act 593].

    (3) In a prosecution for an offence in relation to a nomination paper, ballo t box , ball ot paper or markin g instrumen t at an election, the property in such nomination paper, ballot box, ballot paper or markin g instrument, as well as the propert y in the count e rfoi l o f an y b a llo t pap er, ma y be st ated to be in the returning officer at that election.


    (4) A prosecution for an offence under this Part shall not be instituted without the sanction of the Public Prosecutor.


    Undue influence


    9. (1) Every person who, before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence, or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm, or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting, at any election, or who by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance impedes or prevents the free exercise of the franchise of any elector or voter, or thereby compels, induces, or prevails upon any elector or voter either to give or refrain from giving his vote at any election, or who directly or indirectly interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise by any person of any electoral right shall be guilty of the offence of undue influence.

    (2) A person shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of a person within the meaning of this section who induces or attempts to induce such person to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure.


    ************************************************** ****************

    FEDERAL SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION

    ELECTIONS ACT 1958 [ACT 19]

    P.U.(A) 386/81

    ELECTIONS (CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS) REGULATIONS 1981

    Incorporating latest amendment-P.U.(A) 113/2012

    Conduct of Elections Regulations

    ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS
    _____________________________
    1 - 12 omitted

    CONTESTED ELECTIONS

    Regulation 13. Facilities to be provided at polling centre and station.
    Regulation 14. Right of registered elector to vote.
    Regulation 14A. Authoritative texts of electoral rolls.
    Regulation 15. Admittance to polling station.
    Regulation 16.Marking of polling station limits.
    Regulation 17. Poll by ballot and ballot papers.
    Regulation 18. Ballot boxes.
    Regulation 19. Manner of voting.
    Regulation 19A. Non- compliance with the manner of voting.
    Regulation 20. Declarations by voters.
    Regulation 21. Spoilt ballot papers.
    Regulation 22. [Deleted]
    Regulation 23. Closing of poll.
    Regulation 23A. Place of counting of votes.
    Regulation 24. Procedure on close of poll.
    Regulation 24A. Fresh poll at polling station in the case of unlawful removal, loss, destruction, etc., of anyballot box.
    Regulation 25. Counting of votes by presiding officer.
    Regulation 25A. Safe custody of election documents.
    Regulation 25B. Postponement or adjournment of counting of votes.
    Regulation 25C. Counting of votes of postal voters.
    Regulation 25D. Proceedings of returning officer after return of ballot boxes, and official addition of votes.
    Regulation 25E. Disposal of ballot papers, etc.
    Regulation 25F. Declaration of win by political party.
    Regulation 26. Court order to copy or inspect election documents.
    Regulation 26A. Supply of copies and inspection of documents relating to an election.
    Regulation 27.Publication of results and statement of poll in the Gazette.
    ADVANCE VOTING
    Regulation 27A. Persons required to vote as advance voter.
    Regulation 27B. Safe custody of ballot box.
    Regulation 27C. Counting of votes of advance voters.

    GENERAL
    Regulation 28. Errors with regard to persons and places.
    Regulation 29. Publication of notice.
    Regulation 30. Failure to comply with provisions of Regulations.
    Regulation 31. Punishment for making false declaration.
    Regulation 32. Revocation.
    FIRST SCHEDULE
    SECOND SCHEDULE
    THIRD SCHEDULE
    LIST OF AMENDMENTS

    [Admin: The following Regulations have references relating to the protection of secrecy of voting and safe-guarding the ballot papers from illegal scrutiny.]

    Regulation 13. Facilities to be provided at polling centre and station.
    Regulation 15. Admittance to polling station.
    Regulation 19. Manner of voting.
    Regulation 24. Procedure on close of poll.
    Regulation 25. Counting of votes by presiding officer.
    Regulation 25A. Safe custody of election documents.

    ADVANCE VOTING
    Regulation 27B. Safe custody of ballot box.
    Regulation 27C. Counting of votes of advance voters.

    SECOND SCHEDULE


    Regulation 13. Facilities to be provided at polling centre and station.


    (2) During the taking of the poll the presiding officer shall cause to be exhibited outside his polling station a notice substantially in the form set out in the Second Schedule giving directions for the guidance of voters in voting, which shall be in the national language and may cause to be exhibited such notice in such other language or languages and in such characters as the Election Commission may direct.

    [Am. P.U.(A) 67/2004]

    (3) It shall be the duty of the returning officer to provide at each polling station reasonable facilities for the electors allotted to such station to enable them to mark their votes screened from observation and to vote in accordance with these Regulations, and he shall determine, or may authorize the presiding officer to determine, in what manner such facilities shall be distributed among the electors entitled to vote at such election.


    Regulation 15. Admittance to polling station.

    (6) (a) It shall be the duty of the presiding officer to keep order at his polling station.

    (b) If a person misconducts himself in a polling station or fails to obey the lawful order of the presiding officer, he may immediately, by order of the presiding officer, be removed from the polling station by a police officer on duty outside or near that station or by any other person authorized in writing by the returning officer or the presiding officer to remove him, and the person so removed shall not, without the permission of the presiding officer, again enter the polling station during the day.

    (c) The powers afforded by this regulation shall not be exercised so as to prevent a voter who is otherwise entitled to vote at a polling station from having an opportunity of voting at that station. [Admin: A presiding officer cannot evict a voter to prevent him from voting!]

    (d) Failure to obey the lawful orders of the presiding officer shall be an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit.


    Regulation 19. Manner of voting.

    (1) Each voter shall be given one ballot paper and shall be entitled to one vote.

    (2) As each voter requests for a ballot paper, the number and name of the voter as stated in the electoral roll shall be called out.[Admin: No prohibition against asking for a random paper.]

    (3) Where no mark in accordance with subregulation (5) has been made against the number and name of the voter in the electoral roll to denote that a ballot paper has been issued to the voter, the presiding officer or any person acting under his authority shall, before a ballot paper to be issued to the voter, require the voter to show his left forefinger in order to insure that no indelible ink has been marked on the voter's left forefinger.

    (4) After the presiding officer or any person acting under his authority is satisfied that-

    (a) no mark has been made against the number and name of the voter in the electoral roll in accordance with subregulation (5); and

    (b) no indelible ink has been marked on the voter's left forefinger,

    the presiding officer or any person acting under his authority shall then make a mark on the voter's left forefinger using the indelible ink and thereafter the presiding officer shall issue a ballot paper to the voter.

    (5) Before the ballot paper is issued to the voter, a mark, without indicating in any way the particular ballot paper to be issued to him, shall be made in the electoral roll against the number and name of the voter to denote that he has been issued with a ballot paper. [Admin: emphasis secrecy.]

    (6) The ballot paper shall be perforated or stamped with the official mark or initialled by the presiding officer on the margin of the ballot paper and the ballot paper shall then be issued to the voter by the presiding officer or a person acting under his authority. [Admin: No requirement for the EC clerk to fold the ballot paper.]

    (7) On receiving the ballot paper, the voter shall forthwith proceed to such place in the polling station as may be indicated by the presiding officer or any person acting under his authority and shall there secretly mark such ballot paper in accordance with the directions given for the guidance of voters referred to in subregulation 13(2). [Admin: emphasis secrecy.]

    ( The voter shall then fold the ballot paper so as to conceal his mark and shall put the ballot paper into the ballot box and without undue delay shall then forthwith leave the polling station limits. [Admin: emphasis secrecy.]

    (9) The presiding officer or any person acting under his authority may ask any voter whether such voter understands the manner of voting and if he thinks fit, at the request of any voter, may explain to such voter in the hearing of any polling agent present in the polling station the manner of voting; in so doing he shall carefully refrain from any action which might be construed as advice or direction to vote for any particular candidate.

    (10) At the request of a voter who is incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause from voting in the manner prescribed by these Regulations, any person trusted and nominated by the voter, who shall be a citizen of or over the age of twenty-one years, or if such person is not nominated, the presiding officer, shall mark the ballot paper of such voter in the manner dictated by the voter and shall cause the ballot paper to be placed in the ballot box.

    (11) Any person nominated under subregulation (10) shall make a declaration as to his identity and nomination in Form 10 in the First Schedule and every such declaration shall be exempt from stamp duty.

    (12) The presiding officer may, at any time while the polling is proceeding, take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no voter delays unduly in any place reserved for marking of ballot papers.

    (13) A reference to the left forefinger of a voter in this regulation and regulation19A shall be construed-

    (a) in the case where the voter's left forefinger is missing or his left forefinger cannot be marked for whatever reason, as a reference to another one of his left fingers;

    (b) in the case where all of the voter's left finger are missing or all his left finger cannot be marked for whatever reason, as a reference to his right forefinger or another one of his right fingers; and

    (c) in the case where all of the voter's left and right fingers are missing, as a reference to the end of his left or right arm.


    Regulation 24. Procedure on close of poll.

    (1) As soon as practicable after the close of the poll the presiding officer shall, in the presence of each candidate or his election agent or polling agent who is present—

    (a) secure the ballot box at such polling station and affix a security tape to it so as to prevent the introduction of any ballot paper thereafter into the ballot box and the security tape shall then be signed by the presiding officer and by each candidate or his election agent or polling agent who is present and who desires to sign on the security tape;

    (b) determine the number of ballot papers issued to voters at the polling station, and the number of unused and spoilt ballot papers;

    (c) prepare the ballot paper statement in Form 13 in the First Schedule, which shall be certified by the presiding officer and signed by each candidate or his election agent or polling agent who is present and who desires to sign the same; and

    (d) make up—

    (i) the unused and spoilt ballot papers;

    (ii) the marked copies of the electoral rolls; and

    (iii) the counterfoils of the ballot paper,

    into a single packet which shall then be affixed with security tape and the security tape shall be signed by the presiding officer and by each candidate or his election agent or polling agent who is present and who desires to sign on the security tape.


    [Admin: Secure all the electoral rolls including the clerk, KTM, counterfoils of ballot papers in Parcel 1, signed and sealed by KTM and PA.]

    (2) As soon as practicable after the conclusion of the proceedings under subregulation (1), the presiding officer shall make preparation to count the votes by electors at the polling station at which he presides in the presence of each candidate or his election agent or counting agent who is present, and shall inform the candidates, their election agents or counting agents of the time when he will begin to count the votes:

    Provided that where the Election Commission directs, under subregulation 23A(2), that the votes by electors at the polling station be counted at a specified counting place, the presiding officer shall take the ballot box, the packet referred to in paragraph (1)(d) and the statement in Form 13 referred to in paragraph (1) (c) to such counting place.

    (3) Where the same person is appointed to preside at more than one polling station within the same polling district and the Election Commission directs that the same ballot box be used at all the polling stations at which he presides, the presiding officer—

    (a) may, in the presence of each candidate or his election agent or polling agent who is present—

    (i) notwithstanding paragraph (1)(a) reopen the ballot box affixed with security tape in such a manner that ballot papers issued at any subsequent polling stations at which he presides can be inserted but nothing can be removed from it;

    (ii) reopen the packets affixed with security tape pursuant to paragraph (1)(d) for use at each subsequent polling stations at which he presides;

    (b) shall only perform the proceedings referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and proceed to count the votes on the last day of the poll for the constituency and after the completion of the poll at the last polling station at which he presides.



    Regulation 25. Counting of votes by presiding officer.

    (1) No counting agent—

    (a) whose name and address have not been notified to the presiding officer as required by subsection 14(1) of the Election Offences Act 1954; or

    (b) whose name and address have been notified as such but is not permitted by the presiding officer to attend,

    may be present at the counting of votes.

    (1A) Not more than one counting agent of each candidate may be admitted at a time to any polling station or place appointed for the official addition of votes.

    (2) No person other than—

    (a) the members and officers of the Election Commission;

    (b) the returning officer, the presiding officer and such other officers and staff appointed under regulation 12A;

    (c) the candidates and their election agents and one counting agent of each candidate; and

    (d) persons authorized in writing by the Election Commission,

    may be present at the counting of votes.


    (5) The presiding officer while conducting the procedure described in the Third Schedule shall take all proper precautions for preventing any person who has not taken the oath of secrecy as prescribed by subsection 5(1) of the Election Offences Act 1954, from seeing the numbers printed in such ballot papers.

    (6) The presiding officer or the persons authorized by him shall then proceed to count the ballot papers according to the votes by electors for each candidate and shall endorse the word "rejected" on any ballot paper which he may reject as invalid.

    (7) The presiding officer shall reject as invalid the following ballot papers only, namely, any ballot paper—

    (a) which is not stamped or perforated with the official mark, or initialled by the presiding officer;

    (b) on which votes are given for more than one candidate;

    (c) on which anything is written or marked by which the voter can be identified;



    Regulation 25A. Safe custody of election documents. [This section is confusing. Refer to TM's Schedule of Envelopes in the Handouts - http://bit.ly/T-PAGPACABA1]

    (1) On the completion of the counting of votes, the presiding officer shall, in the presence of each candidate or his election agent or counting agent who is present—

    (a) make up the counted ballot papers and the rejected ballot papers into a single packet which shall be affixed with a security tape and the security tape shall be signed by the presiding officer and by each candidate or his election agent or counting agent who desires to sign on the security tape; and [Admin: Secure and seal counted and rejected ballot papers in packet 6]

    (b) enclose the statement in Form 13 referred to in paragraph 24(1)(c) in a special envelope and affix security tape to it. [Admin: Envelope 4 - unused ballot papers, marked electoral rolls, ballot paper counterfoil.]

    (2) The packets referred in paragraphs (1)(a) and 24(1)(d) [Admin: Packet 1 & 6]

    (a) shall be placed in the ballot box which shall be affixed with a security tape so that nothing can be inserted into or removed from it without breaking the security tape; and

    (b) the security tape shall then be signed by the presiding officer and by each candidate or his election agent or counting agent who is present and who desires to sign on the security tape.

    (3) The presiding officer shall despatch or deliver in such manner as may be determined by the Election Commission—

    (a) the ballot box;

    (b) the special envelope containing the statement in Form 13 referred to in paragraph (1)(b); and [Envelope 4]

    (c) the special envelope containing the statement in Form 14 referred to in paragraph 25(12)(b), [Envelope 7]

    in safe custody to the returning officer.



    Regulation 27B. Safe custody of ballot box.

    The ballot box containing the advance ballot papers on the conclusion of the advance voting shall be kept in the safe custody of the returning officer of the constituency in which the election is contested or in accordance with the arrangement approved by the Election Commission until the counting of votes of advance voters on the polling day.

    Regulation 27C. Counting of votes of advance voters.

    All provisions relating to the counting of votes in these Regulations except regulation 25C shall apply to the counting of votes of advance voters.
    py

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,392
    ‘EC banking on getting more spoilt votes?’


    Leven Woon April 14, 2013
    Polls watchdog Tindak Malaysia is fearful that the marking of indelible ink on voters' fingers before voting may lead to ballot papers being smudged in ink, and causing a spike of spoiled votes.
    PETALING JAYA: Election education movement Tindak Malaysia has questioned the motive of the Election Commission in deciding to apply indelible ink on voters before they vote.


    The movement said this could result in ballot papers being smudged in ink and thus be interpreted as spoiled votes.


    At a forum on voter education yesterday, Tindak Malaysia president Wong Piang Yow said the EC rules on the ink usage were in contrast to the common practice in other countries which only marked a voter’s finger with ink after voting.


    “However, here, the voter would have their fingers marked before a ballot paper is given.


    “The ballot paper is folded twice. And to unfold it you would naturally need to use both your hands. It’s highly possible that the ballot paper may be smudged.


    “If it is smudged, does it then count as a spoiled vote? The EC did not give us a clear-cut answer,” he told 50-odd attendees.


    Indelible ink was introduced by EC last year to prevent repeat voting among voters. It is set to be used for the first time when the nation goes to polls on May 5.


    Wong estimated that EC would spend RM7 million to employ a new election clerk in each polling station to apply ink on voters.


    “This has got no logic. They could have just place the ink on a table next to the ballot box and allow voters to dip their fingers after voting.


    “Besides, indelible ink takes time to dry. It will disrupt the flow of voting if it is applied before a voter gets to vote,” he said.


    He said that when a question was raised in a meeting with EC last July, an EC official said they would provide voters with tissue papers.


    “But if the ink is not dry yet and you ask them to wipe it with tissue paper, what is point of indelible ink?” he asked.


    Meanwhile, he also questioned the need to fold the ballot paper before it was handed over to a voter because there is no rule that requires this to be done.


    “Article 19 of the Elections (Conduct of election) Regulations 1981 doesn’t specify the need of folding,” he said.


    He alleged that the move was to “waste voters’ time” to reduce the number of votes cast.
    py

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,392
    By Kee Thuan Chye
    Saturday, 13 April 2013 17:19






    inShare





    Pix: The Star
    WHILE announcing the date for the 13th general election, the Election Commission (EC) also said that it would make the event “the best” ever held. In pledging this, its chairman, Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof, reiterated what he had said on Feb 5.
    But somehow the pledge rings hollow. Many Malaysians have lost too much confidence in the EC to believe that it will be, in Abdul Aziz’s words, “transparent” and that it “will not help any party to win”. Its actions and pronouncements have too often indicated the contrary.

    Besides that, NGOs that have engaged with the EC know how frustrating the experience can be. The latter is notorious for not replying to pressing questions concerning the electoral process or improper conduct at elections. Its dismissal of Bersih’s demands for electoral reform compelled the Coalition for Free and Fair Elections to take its cause to the streets in July 2011.

    The EC is also noted for its apparently cavalier attitude towards calls for cleaning the electoral roll. Instead of getting down to the task of doing it, it has been giving excuses – even though a Merdeka Center survey in April 2012 revealed that 92% of Malaysians in Peninsular Malaysia want the roll cleaned.

    The biggest joke, made in April 2012, was Abdul Aziz’s declaration that the Malaysian electoral roll was “the cleanest in the world”. He said there were only 42,000 dubious voters out of the 12.6 million registered, which works out to a mere 0.3%.

    But political scientist Ong Kian Ming had a radically different figure to present. Ong said an analysis conducted under one of his projects showed that the number of dubious voters was 3.3 million.

    Apart from dubious voters, missing names and other anomalies have reportedly been found in the constituencies of Klang MP Charles Santiago and Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar, both from Pakatan Rakyat.

    But when they both requested the EC to look into the matter, it did not respond accordingly. Both were forced to go to the High Court. However, Section 9A of the Elections Act denies the courts jurisdiction in regard to the electoral roll, so their cases were thrown out.

    More distressing for Izzah is the sudden spike in the number of postal voters there. By the end of 2011, it had gone up by an unusual 1,400% from 2008. And since postal votes are known to favor the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, their increased presence could be a bane to the PKR vice-president.

    As for the total number of voters in Lembah Pantai, there has been, according to Izzah, a phenomenal increase of 15,000. While some are newly registered voters, many more appear to have been transferred there, for reasons known only to the EC.

    With the general election coming up on May 5, what happens now to the discrepancies in the electoral roll? Do Malaysians go to the polls with doubt in their minds about whether the process might be compromised and phantom voting might influence the outcome unfairly?

    What about newly registered voters who find they are no longer registered?

    Someone who had confirmed in 2010 that he was a registered voter got a shock when he checked his polling station online last week at the EC’s website and was greeted with this: “Record not found.”

    He went to the EC’s headquarters in Putrajaya to find out what had happened. The counter clerk asked for his identity card number and after keying it into the system found that all his personal details were in there but he was not a registered voter.

    He was flabbergasted. How could the EC have his personal details in its system if he was not a registered voter?

    When he asked for the situation to be rectified, the clerk merely told him to register again – and wait to vote at the next general election!

    Angry and disappointed, he posted his story on Facebook and several others responded with similar ones. Like him, they were also new voters.

    Is this another example of a compromised electoral roll? Is the EC shedding new voters because it’s worried about whom they will vote for? How many more have been deprived of their right to vote?

    Meanwhile, Tindak Malaysia, an election watch NGO, has just raised reasonable doubts about the EC’s instructions on the use of indelible ink.

    A Bersih demand that the EC acceded to, the use of indelible ink is aimed at preventing double, even multiple voting. But the EC has decided that those who will be voting before the actual election day, which would include its own officials, are to be considered postal voters and therefore exempted from having their fingers marked with indelible ink.

    As this involves a huge number of voters because the EC officials alone already add up to about 300,000, what is there to prevent some of them from surreptitiously voting again on election day itself since their fingers are not marked?

    Another curious decision made by the EC is that the indelible ink would be applied on each voter before they cast their vote.

    Tindak Malaysia has tried this out in a practice run and found that it’s a bad idea because it could result in the ballot paper getting smudged, which could lead to the vote being considered spoilt.

    Worse, prior application of the ink will also slow down the voting flow. Tindak Malaysia has timed the process of applying the ink and waiting for it to dry at between 50 seconds and two minutes. If it takes that long per voter in an average voting stream of about 700 voters, the stipulated nine hours on election day will not accommodate even half of that number.

    According to Tindak Malaysia’s estimation, if this procedure were to be followed, as low as only 38% of the people queuing up would get to vote!

    The NGO proposes instead that the voter’s finger be marked after they have voted. This makes sense because no one will be held back waiting for the voter ahead of them. It will neither disrupt nor slow down the voting flow. It will also prevent smudging of the ballot paper.


    In fact, this is the way it is done at elections in other countries. So why has the EC chosen to do it the opposite way?


    Tindak Malaysia has tried contacting the EC for answers, but, as usual, the latter has not responded.


    Furthermore, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) recommends that election commissions using indelible ink for the first time should carry out open trial runs before election day, in order to instil confidence in the voting public.


    If the EC doesn’t carry that out, the public should pressure it to do so. Otherwise, “the best” general election might well turn out to be neither free nor fair. It could even become the dirtiest one ever.
    *Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians, and the latest volume, Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More! The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer.
    py

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,392
    Who’s really teaching ‘ajaran sesat’?


    April 15, 2013

    FMT LETTER: From Stephen Ng, via e-mail

    Tindak Malaysia once again challenges the Election Commission (EC) to a public debate, or immediately put its publicity campaign against NGOs to a stop, when these organisations are in fact doing the job which the EC has failed -teaching the members of the public to ensure that their votes are counted.


    Tindak Malaysia warned that, if the EC continues with its publicity campaign, Tindak Malaysia and other NGOs will take it to task for failing to conduct a free and fair election.


    In another article, the EC’s accusation against unnamed NGOs is both irresponsible, and confusing the public with its own “ajaran sesat”. We will show how the EC has, in fact, got it all wrong when its statement is placed under careful scrutiny.


    The most recent is the “clarification” published in the media, its chairman Abdul Aziz Yusof said that even with double registration, it is impossible to vote twice. This was in response to the claim by PKR’s director of strategy, Rafizi Ramly that Papagamo was registered in two constituencies using his Identity Card and his Police IC.


    Let us see how much that clarification is worth.


    1 The UNDP has recommended that indelible ink has a reliable lifetime of three days. Till today, the EC has not revealed what kind of indelible ink it will be using. Independent parties have not been given any demonstration of the durability of the ink nor have they been given any samples of the ink for testing. In the absence of other evidence, we have to take the UNDP recommendation as valid.
    2 Regulation 3 (1A) of Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981 allows that the “advance polling day shall be fixed not less than seven days after the day of nomination and not less than 3 days from the date or dates of the polling day”


    This means the use of indelible ink for Advance Voting will not meet the minimum recommendation of the UNDP. Thus the EC cannot guarantee that indelible ink applied on Advance Voters will remain visible on polling day.


    3 There are additional factors that the EC chooses to ignore although these factors have been publicly discussed:

    (a) What measures are being taken against a voter coating the finger with a transparent substance such as transparent nail polish to prevent the indelible ink from sticking?
    (b) What solvents has the SPR tested on the indelible ink to ascertain the indelibility of it? How certain are we that a person who knows the chemistry of the ink cannot devise a way to reduce, if not remove, the ink stain?
    (c) Has the indelible ink been tested on a variety of skin types to ensure that its indelibility applies effectively across all skin types?
    (d) Polling Agents are currently positioned where it is very difficult for them to inspect the fingers of voters. There is a comedic video circulating on You Tube that demonstrates this. Comedy notwithstanding, there is a very real fear that voters who have voted before can be allowed to vote again, especially given that the SPR itself stands accused of colluding with the incumbent leadership.
    (e) In a training video released by the EC, the Ketua Tempat Mengundi (Presiding Officer) is given instructions on how to cope with a long queue at the Polling Station by processing voters two-by-two. If this were to happen, how effectively can the Polling Agents screen fingers for indelible ink? If collusion is suspected, the double processing can be expected to be implemented just when voters with stained fingers come to vote, thereby ensuring that specific persons succeed in voting twice.
    (f) Even if the identity inspection is conducted one voter by one voter, we must remain aware of the time constraint – in each Polling Station (Saluran), 700 voters need to be processed in 9 hours. This means each voter has to be processed in just over 46 seconds. In those 46 seconds, the following need to be done:


    a The voter’s finger needs to be inspected and verified.
    b The voter’s identity document needs to be inspected and the photograph matched with the face.
    c The voter’s record needs to be located in the Electoral Roll
    d The voter’s name and identity number need to compared between identity document and Electoral Roll
    e The voter’s name and identity number need to be read out for the Polling Agents to verify.
    f Time must be allowed for the Polling Agent to raise any objections
    g If there are any objections, the time remaining for the remaining voters will become even less.

    How effective can the screening by the polling agent be?


    To date the EC has done nothing to assure Civil Society that the implementation of indelible ink is expected to be effective. All we have seen are potentially chaotic situations and no credible answers to the questions that have been raised.


    There is one other very significant factor that has conveniently been ignored by the SPR – there is a class of voter on whom indelible ink will not be applied! Yes, there is no provision for indelible to be used on Postal Voters.


    We understand the impracticality of applying indelible ink on persons who could be anywhere when they vote. This is why it is critical that any person eligible to be a Postal Voter must be scrupulously removed from the Electoral Roll of regular voters. Otherwise indelible ink cannot guarantee that double registration does not mean double vote.


    Remember that any member of the Police and Military forces can, at any time, opt for postal voting. This means the infamous Papagomo could have used both his military and civilian identities to vote. So let us not be fooled and lulled into complacency. This a massive loophole in the system.


    Postal voting is also available for all EC officials – some 300,000 of them. This potentially creates 300,000 double votes. This is no trivial number considering that sometimes seats are won or lost by a margin of a few hundreds or even tens.


    Journalists on duty are also eligible to be Postal Voters. We can expect that, if the suspected collusion turns out to be real, those journalists allowed the double vote would be selective and dependent on the political alignment of their parent organisation. We are not suggesting that this will happen. We are simply saying that this loophole in the system has not been plugged effectively. We should not be so naive as to depend on the honesty of the people involved. Systems should be designed to be secure.


    There is one other element that many people remain blissfully ignorant of – with the use of a Borang 717, an SPR officer can cast his Postal Ballot at any Polling Station. Since the issuing of such Ballot Papers is not witnessed by any independent agent, any number of such Ballot Papers can be issued to the officers. And these Ballots can be cast in any Saluran so long as they are accompanied by a Borang 717.


    If there is no validation system in place, SPR officers can vote any number of times. And this is why NGOs teaching about Election Laws and the Electoral Process are accused of “ajaran sesat” – too many of the SPR secrets are being exposed.


    Enough is said and we will say it again – WE HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN THE CURRENT SURUHANJAYA PILIHAN RAYA.


    Article 114 of the Federal Constitution provides that an Election Commission be appointed “which enjoys public confidence”. The public has lost confidence in this Election Commission. As loyal subjects of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, we urge His Majesty to sack this Election Commission.


    We can only have democratic elections if the body charged with conducting the elections is capable of acting in a fair and impartial manner. The present Election Commission has shown time and again that it is both biased and incompetent.


    Enough is enough!
    py

Visitors found this page by searching for:

ec malaysia challenges

malaysia ballot paper sample

pacaba training and nail polish

tape tunku aziz

offence logo election malaysia

SEO Blog

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •