• The Election Commission and the National Registration Department should conduct an immediate investigation into the 7,475 voters in Sabah with “Red” and “Green” old IC numbers to verify if they have been naturalized as citizens and hence voters via the proper procedures and channels

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, Election Strategist, DAP in Kuala Lumpur on Friday, 22nd of March, 2013 in Kuala Lumpur

    The Election Commission and the National Registration Department should conduct an immediate investigation into the 7475 voters in Sabah with “Red” and “Green” old IC numbers to verify if they have been naturalized as citizens and hence voters via the proper procedures and channels

    Earlier this week, on Tuesday, March 19th, 2013, I, together with my colleagues from DAP Sabah, revealed that there were more than 60,000 voters with old ICs that were considered “problematic” by Ruslan bin Alias, an assistant head in the IC division of Sabah / Sarawak in the National Registration Department, during his testimony in the Sabah RCI.

    In his testimony, Ruslan also provided a list of old IC numbers which were allocated to non-Malaysian permanent residents – termed “Red” ICs or IC “Merah” – and to non-Malaysian temporary residents – termed “Green” ICs or IC “Hijau”. The “Red” ICs were allocated old IC numbers ranging from H6000000 to H6040000 while the “Green” ICs were allocated old IC numbers ranging from H8000000 to H8040000 (Appendix 1 below).

    When we investigated the latest Quarter 4 2012 electoral roll, which will be the roll that will most likely be used for the upcoming general election, we found that there were 7029 voters with old IC numbers belonging to the “Red” IC range and 446 voters with old IC numbers belonging to the “Green” IC range. This means that there could be potentially 7475 who are non-Malaysian residents who are not eligible to register to vote but who have been put on the electoral roll.

    Not surprisingly, the seats with the highest number and % of these “Red” and “Green” voters are also the seats with the highest number and % of problematic old ICs. In fact, the top three seats for “Red” and “Green” voters and for the “problematic” ICs are the same – namely P188 Silam, P190 Tawau and P191 Kalabakan. These three seats hold more than half (52.6%) of voters with “Red” and “Green” old IC numbers – Kalabakan has 1704 or 22.8%, Tawau has 1326 or 17.7% and Silam has 903 of 12.1% (Appendix 2). They include 20 voters – 19 of whom are “Red” and 1 who is “Green” – who are located in the Kg Tanjung Labian locality, which has been one of the flashpoints in the ongoing Sabah terrorist invasion (Appendix 3).

    While some of these “Red” and “Green” voters may have since obtained citizenship and thus have become eligible to register as voters, the fact that they are located in the very seats with a large number of “problematic” ICs warrants that these cases be investigated more thoroughly.

    As such, we call upon the National Registration Department (NRD) and the Election Commission (EC) to conduct an immediate joint investigation into these 7475 “Red” and “Green” voters to verify that these registered voters who were once (or perhaps still are?) non-Malaysian permanent and temporary residents have been granted citizenship through the proper procedures and are thus eligible to remain on the electoral roll. If any or all of these IC holders are found not to be Malaysian citizens or were awarded their ‘citizenship’ under dubious circumstances, we call on the Election Commission (EC) to immediately remove them from the electoral roll. The presence of these potentially dubious voters casts a further cloud on the electoral roll in Sabah and hence on the freeness and fairness of the electoral process in Sabah.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming, DAP Election Strategist

    Appendix 1: Range of old ICs according to status of residency and citizenship

    Appendix 2: Distribution of “Red” and “Green” voters across the parliament seats in Sabah

    Appendix 3: List of 20 “Red” (19) and “Green” (1) Voters in Kg Tanjung Labian in the Silam parliament seat

  • Prime Minister Najib should issue an immediate correction to his ‘boast’ that Malaysia’s GNI per capita has increased by 49% from 2009 and 2012 and explain the failure of the ETP to achieve its 6% growth target for 2011 and 2012

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, DAP Election Strategist, on Thursday, 21st of March, 2013 in Kuala Lumpur

    Prime Minister Najib should issue an immediate correction to his ‘boast’ that Malaysia’s GNI per capita has increased by 49% from 2009 and 2012 and explain the failure of the ETP to achieve its 6% growth target for 2011 and 2012

    After ‘boasting’, not once, but twice, on national television that Malaysia’s GNI per capita has grown by 49% from US$6700 in 2009 to US$9970 in 2012, the CEO of PEMANDU and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Idris Jala has revised this growth figure down to 41%.[1] This was after DAP parliamentary leader, Lim Kit Siang, as well as Executive Director of Research for Social Advancement (REFSA), Teh Chi Chang, and myself criticize the Prime Minister and PEMANDU for misleading the public for using wrong numbers to calculate the growth in our country’s GNI per capita.

    It was reported in Kinibiz that “Pemandu said the change in figures was due to the adoption of the latest version of the United Nations Systems of National Accounting (SNA 2008) in 2012 which had pushed the GNI per capita up for 2009 from US$6700 to US$7059.”

    One wonders why, with all the resources which PEMANDU has, that it did not correct this figure earlier especially when the aforementioned United Nations figure was available in December 2012! Was PEMANDU merely incompetent in providing wrong figures to the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Najib Tun Razak, or was he hoping that the Malaysian public would not notice this intentional manipulation of figures in order to inflate the results of the Economic Transformation Program (ETP)?

    The fact is that using GNI per capita figures in US$ clearly exaggerates the growth in our economy in a way that masks the actual failure of the ETP to deliver on its targets. If the Prime Minister had used GNI per capita in RM instead, which is the figure published by most, if not all, of the relevant departments and agencies – the Department of Statistics, the Ministry of Finance, Bank Negara Malaysia – our GNI per capita growth rate would have come in at a much more pedestrian 24%, from RM24,879 in 2009 to RM30,809 in 2012. In fact, this growth rate works out to an annual rate of 7.4% (compounded) from 2009 to

    2012, which is lower than the 8.2% GNI per cap growth rate from 2001 to 2010, when there was no Economic Transformation Program (ETP) or PEMANDU.

    The exaggeration of the GNI per capita figure also hides the reality that the ETP failed to deliver on its promise of a 6% annual real growth rate since real GNI grew only by 4.3% in 2012 and by 4.9% in 2011.

    Given this new revelation made by Minister Idris Jala, Prime Minister Najib should immediately make a correction to his announcement that Malaysia’s GNI per cap has increased by 49% from 2009 to 2012. He should also clarify that Malaysia’s GNI per cap in RM has only increased by 24% from 2009 and 2012 and explain to the Malaysian public why the ETP failed to deliver on its 6% growth target for 2011 and 2012.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming, DAP Election Strategist

  • A big fat F for Fail (Part 2): The ETP has failed ordinary Malaysians

    This is a statement by not-for-profit research institute REFSA (Research for Social Advancement) released on Thursday, 21 March 2013. 

    (Read Part 1 here)

    The perception manipulation and deception surrounding the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) masks much more than the mediocre economic growth and dodgy math that we spotlighted yesterday. Today, we draw attention to 3 points:

    1. The ETP experienced a spectacular reversal in investments in 2012 in its second full year. Committed investments slumped 82% from RM179.2b in 2011 to RM32.1b in 2012;
    2. Not only did investments shrink, they were also of lower quality. Each ringgit of committed investments in 2012 is expected to generate less national income and create jobs that pay lower than the investments committed in 2011;
    3. The sharp contradiction between the fact that over 20 million Malaysians, nearly 70%, of our population, are poor enough to qualify for the BR1M welfare handouts even while PEMANDU trumpets we are on-track to high-income status.

    If PEMANDU and the ETP were truly about transforming our nation for the better, there must be far more emphasis on improving education, skills and the social and business environment. They must also have the political will to combat grand corruption rather than just clear red tape and increase competition by dismantling monopolies which are controlled by political cronies.

    Finally they must be honest and transparent about their achievements rather than resort to manipulating statistics in order to deceive the public. Only then can we take real steps towards a future where all Malaysians can have the dignity of decent jobs, housing and security.

    ETP Failed: Committed investments collapsed in 2012

    ETP Failed: Committed investments collapsed in 2012

    The ETP experienced a spectacular reversal in its second full year of existence in 2012. The value of committed investments in 2012, their Gross National Income (GNI) impact and the number of jobs created collapsed compared to the previous year.

    • Committed investments slumped 82% from RM179.2b in 2011 to RM32.1b in 2012;
    • These investments were also less income accretive. The Gross National Income (GNI) impact of the committed 2012 investments plunged 95% from RM129.5b in 2011 to a mere RM6.6b in 2012;
    • Reflecting the low value-added nature of these investments, the number of jobs expected to be created fell too but by a smaller 70% from 313,741 in 2011 to 94,702 in 2012.

    In simple terms, each Ringgit of committed investments in 2012 is expected to generate less GNI and create jobs that pay lower than the investments committed in 2011. The GNI for each job created by the 2012 committed investments is 83% lower at RM69,692 GNI per job in 2012 compared to RM412,761 in 2011. In terms of capital intensity, the investments per job fell 41% from RM571,172 in 2011 to RM338,958 in 2012.

    Table 1: Committed Investments, GNI Impact in 2020 and number of jobs created from Entry Point Projects collapsed in 2012

    2011

    2012

    Total

    Change

    %Change

    Investments

    RM179.2b

    RM32.1b

    RM211.3b

    -147.1

    -82%

    GNI in 2020

    RM129.5b

    RM6.6b

    RM136.1b

    -122.9

    -95%

    Jobs

    313,741

    94,702

    408,443

    -219,039

    -70%

    Source: Exhibit E, 2012 ETP Annual Report 

    ETP failed: What happened to the shovel-ready projects?

    Repeating the experience of 2011, the 2012 ETP Annual Report also avoided stating the amount of actual investments compared to committed investments. In our earlier critiques, we called out PEMANDU [1]  for failing to declare in its 2011 ETP Annual Report that actual investments in 2011 was only RM12.9b. This is  a mere 7% of the committed RM179b [2].

    The 2012 ETP Annual Report is no different. It leaves us all in the dark as to how much of the committed investments from the 2011 as well as 2012 have been actually invested. Any reasonable Malaysian would expect to see a large amount of actual investments in 2012 from the RM179b committed by 2011 Entry Point Projects (EPPs). They have had a whole year or more to be rolled out, and would have had the help of PEMANDU cutting red tape and fast tracking processes.

    The 2012 ETP Annual Report also fails to state the breakdown of investments between the public (government) and private sector. This information is important as a major target of the ETP is to have the private sector contribute 92% of the investment necessary to drive the ETP.

    The miserable investment, GNI impact and job figures for 2012 coupled with the absence of disclosure on the amount of actual investments and the public-private breakdown suggests the following logical conclusions:

    1. That many of the announced EPPs, especially those in 2011, have failed to take off;
    2. That the private sector is not driving the EPPs as originally envisioned; and
    3. That the private sector is losing confidence and interest in the ETP.

    The 2012 ETP Annual Report attempts to skirt the issue by saying that many of the EPPs were front-loaded [3]. However, even on that basis, the RM211.3b of total investments for 2011 and 2012 is nearly RM30b short of the RM240b for two years originally targeted by the ETP [4].

    Further evidence of the failure of 2011 EPPs to take off is the fact that the 2012 ETP Annual Report could only highlight the completion of a RM4.9m new restaurant for the RM9.6b Karambunai Integrated Resort City. The absence of any news on the RM3 billion Tanjong Agas Oil & Gas and Logistics Industrial Park in Pahang also points to the possibility that this massive EPP has grounded to a halt. Incidentally, these are two projects which we highlighted as ‘dodgy’ EPPs as far back as February 2012 [5].

    ETP Failed: More Malaysians qualify for BR1M payments than before

    Ironically, it is another so-called ‘achievement’ of PEMANDU which strips bare the total failure of the ETP in terms of sustainably raising the incomes of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. When launching the ETP, PEMANDU said, “A key focus will be on ensuring that substantial improvements are made for people with the lowest household incomes. [6]”

    Sadly, PEMANDU’s approach has been mega contracts for the big boys, while placating poor Malaysians with crumbs that momentarily lift their incomes. The number of Malaysians eligible for welfare has been steadily increasing under PEMANDU’s tenure. It was originally estimated that only 3.4m households comprising 53% of total households in Malaysia earned less than the RM3,000 per month threshold for entitlement to the RM500 Bantuan Rakyat 1 Malaysia (BR1M) handout [7]. But ultimately, approximately 4.2 million applications were approved which resulted in RM2.1b being paid instead of the originally anticipated RM1.8b. Under the latest BR1M 2.0, which also includes individuals earning less than RM2000 per month, a total of 6.1m applications have been approved [8].

    If GNI per capita has indeed soared 48.8% in two years as PEMANDU claims, why has the number of Malaysians who are eligible for welfare handouts increased rather than decreased? Over 20 million Malaysians, or nearly 70% of our population are on welfare while PEMANDU trumpets projects and investments under the ETP.

    ETP Failed: To Transform Malaysia

    The ETP Annual Reports and publicity focusing on investments, projects and US$ income proves our view that the ETP is only there to help the ‘big boys’ who can lobby PEMANDU to fast track their projects rather than measures that help ordinary Malaysians sustainably improve their livelihoods [9].

    If PEMANDU and the ETP were truly about transforming our nation for the better, there must be far more emphasis on improving education, skills and the social and business environment. They must also have the political will to combat grand corruption rather than just clear red tape and increase competition by dismantling monopolies which are controlled by political cronies. Finally they must be honest and transparent about their achievements rather than resort to manipulating statistics in order to deceive the public. Only then can we take real steps towards a future where all Malaysians can have the dignity of decent jobs, housing and security.

    Teh Chi-Chang, CFA
    Executive Director

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming BSc (LSE), MPhil (Cantab), PhD (Duke)
    Visiting Contributor


    [1] The acronym that the Performance Management and Delivery Unit within the prime minister’s department is better known by. PEMANDU is the government agency that created and is now steering the ETP.

    [2] Covered in Part 3 of our series Dissecting the ETP Annual Report: It was only RM12.9 billion of ACTUAL investment. Available at www.refsa.org.

    [3] Pg.10, 2012 ETP Annual Report

    [4] The ETP calls for investments of RM120 billion per year. Pg.20 of ETP – A Roadmap for Malaysia Report.

    [5] Covered in our Focus Paper A Critique of the ETP (Part 3(iii)) – Doubtful EPPs; doubtful achievements and due diligence. Available at www.refsa.org

    [6] Pg. 60 of the ‘ETP – A Roadmap for Malaysia’ report

    [7] pg 35, 2012 Budget speech by Finance Minister and Prime Minister Dato Sri Najib Razak.

    [8] http://www.nst.com.my/latest/5-3-million-br1m-2-0-vouchers-claimed-1.237738

    [9] Covered in our Focus Paper A Critique of the ETP (Part 3(i)) –  PEMANDU strengthens the ‘know-who’ cancer  and also in Part 5 of our series Dissecting the ETP Annual Report, The EPPs do not seem to be creating high-income jobs. Available at www.refsa.org

    This article was published as a statement by REFSA.

  • A big fat F for Fail: The ETP has failed to meet its targets

    This is a statement by not-for-profit research institute REFSA (Research for Social Advancement) released on Wednesday, 20 March 2013.

    ————-

    PEMANDU perception manipulation

    We are dismayed to find perception manipulation and deception still surrounds the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP). The mainstream media today is full of praise and claims of excellent performance and transformation. This is exactly the opposite of the true picture. Today, REFSA draws attention to 3 points:

    1. Real national income growth has been pedestrian at under 5% per year, well below the 6% targeted by the ETP. PEMANDU is manipulating perception by trumpeting nominal GNI (Gross National Income) numbers, which include inflation, and in US$, which are irrelevant to the vast majority of Malaysians;
    2. PEMANDU still cannot get its basic math and data right. It said (nominal) GNI per capita hit US$9,970 in 2012, but also said it was RM30,809 and the exchange rate was RM3.058:US$1. However, at that exchange rate, RM30,809 is equivalent to US$10,075. It is shocking that this high-powered unit cannot even get the basics correct;
    3. Based on Department of Statistics data, nominal GNI per capita grew an average of just 7.4% per year from 2009 to 2012, which is less than the 8.2% per year average growth rate registered from 2001 to 2010. PEMANDU and the ETP came into force in 2010. In short, the ETP and PEMANDU have failed to increase our GNI per capita above its long term growth trajectory.

    Failed: Reaching the target to grow national income by 6% per year

    “Propelling Malaysia towards becoming a high-income developed nation” as promised by the ETP requires Gross National Income (GNI) to grow by 6% per year. PEMANDU [1] gave much prominence to this 6% per year growth target in its “A Roadmap for Malaysia” report that launched the ETP with much fanfare in 2010 [2].

    However, the just published 2012 Annual Report of the ETP makes not a single reference to the fact that the ETP failed to meet this crucial 6% per year growth target last year. The fact is, real GNI grew by a pedestrian 4.3% in 2012 [3], well below PEMANDU’s aspirations and even lower than the 4.9% recorded in 2011.

    Whatever happened to the 6% growth target trumpeted by the ETP on its launch? 

    6percent growth promise

    Source:  Executive Summary, Economic Transformation Program – A Roadmap for Malaysia, 2010 (page 5).

    More perception manipulation and deception from PEMANDU

    Rather than address the core issues impeding growth, PEMANDU continues to practise perception manipulation and deception in its efforts to hoodwink Malaysians into believing it has reached or exceeded its targets.

    Firstly, its 2012 ETP Annual Report quoted real GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth rates, which at 5.1% and 5.6% in 2011 and 2012 [4], were higher than GNI growth and presented a slightly better picture of the sad situation.

    Secondly, when discussing GNI, PEMANDU used nominal numbers (which include inflation) and US$ instead of Ringgit. The 2012 ETP Annual Report states The country’s GNI per capita has risen from US$6,700 in 2009 to US$9,970* in 2012. This represents a 48.8 per cent surge in just a two-year period. Based on current projections and barring unforeseen circumstances, this gives Malaysia the potential to achieve a GNI per capita of US$15,000 earlier than the 2020 target. [5]

    As pointed out in our Focus Papers critiquing the ETP, quoting nominal numbers including inflation can be misleading [6]. Inflation does not make us any richer. If our incomes go up by 15%, and so do the cost of the things we buy, we are not any richer, because the extra income is spent on paying more expensive prices for the goods and services that we use.

    We also pointed out that a weakening US$ will not directly help most Malaysians. Say your household income is RM3,000 per month (in line with about 70% of Malaysian households). At RM3:US$1, that is equivalent to US$1,000. Say the US$ weakens to RM2.50:US$. You still earn RM3,000 per month, but that’s now worth US$1,200, which PEMANDU can then claim is an impressive 20% increase. But you live here and spend here. Your teh tarik still costs RM1.50, your coffee shop lunch RM5 …. The US$ increase is certainly helpful if you are visiting the United States, but on a RM3,000 household income, that is an unlikely possibility. Rich Malaysians who travel overseas extensively would certainly benefit from a weaker US$, but not the vast majority of Malaysians [7].

    PEMANDU still cannot even get its basic Math right [8]

    Let’s go back to the part saying GNI per capita had ‘risen from US$6700 in 2009 to US$9970 in 2012’ and that ‘this represents a 48.8 percent surge in just a two year period’. Not only is 2009 to 2012 a 3 year period rather than a 2 year period, the calculations for GNI per cap in 2012 are also misleading. Exhibit B footnotes GNI per capita in 2012 at RM30,809 and an exchange rate of RM3.058 to US$1. This translates into a GNI per capita of US$10,075 rather than US$9,970.

    So what are the correct numbers? Until the high-powered and highly-paid staff and consultants at PEMANDU can get their basic math right, let’s start from first principles and use data from the Department of Statistics. The latest set of GNI figures from the Department of Statistics (which PEMANDU surely has access to as well), shows GNI per capita at RM24,879 for 2009 and RM30,809 for 2012. This works out to a mere 23.8% GNI per capita growth from 2009 to 2012, less than half the 48.8% figure cited in the Annual Report!

    On average, this works out to a 7.4% per year growth in nominal GNI per capita for the three years from 2009 to 2012 which is less than the 8.2% per year average growth rate registered from 2001 to 2010 [9]. GNI per capita has been below the long-term trajectory after PEMANDU and the ETP came into force in 2010. In other words, the ETP and PEMANDU have had no impact in increasing our GNI per capita above its long term growth trajectory!

    Tomorrow, we shall reveal the massive plunges in investments and job creation.

    Teh Chi-Chang, CFA
    Executive Director

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming BSc (LSE), MPhil (Cantab), PhD (Duke)
    Visiting Contributor


    Sources: 

    [1] The acronym that the Performance Management and Delivery Unit within the prime minister’s department is better known by. PEMANDU is the government agency that created and is now steering the ETP.

    [2] This 6% target was very prominently highlighted at the very start of the Executive Summary on page 5 of the Economic Transformation Program – A Roadmap for Malaysia publication.

    [3] Fourth Quarter National Accounts, pg. iv  Available at www.statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Akaun/files/quartely_national/2012/SUKU_KEEMPAT/KDNK_Q412.pdf

    [4] Exhibit A, pg.6, ETP Annual Report 2012

    [5] Pg.8, 2012 ETP Annual Report

    [6] For a simple explanation of the important difference between Nominal and Real growth please read our Focus Paper A Critique of the ETP (Part 2) – We won’t really be twice as rich in 2020.  Available at www.refsa.org.

    [7] Covered in Part 1 of our series Dissecting the ETP Annual Report: Grade A+ for Obfuscation. Available at www.refsa.org.

    [8] The dodgy math and data underpinning the ETP is covered in our Focus Paper A Critique of the ETP (Part 2) – We won’t really be twice as rich in 2020 and also in Part 4 of our series Dissecting the ETP Annual Report, 45% of GNI and 20% of Jobs Disappeared in Recalibration. Available at www.refsa.org

    [9] Derived from data published in Bank Negara’s Monthly Statistical Bulletins. 2010 nominal GNI per capita was RM26,175. 2001 was RM12,859. 8.2% is the compound average growth rate (CAGR) calculated.

    This article was published by REFSA.

  • Over 60,000 potentially dubious voters in the electoral roll based on dubious old IC numbers highlighted in the Sabah RCI

    (To see Dr. Ong’s presentation on this issue, click here.)

    Joint Media Statement by Sabah DAP Chairman and Sri Tanjong ADUN Jimmy Wong, Sabah DAP Secretary Dr Edwin Bosi, Sabah DAP Publicity Secretary Chan Foong Hin and DAP Election Strategist Dr. Ong Kian Ming on the Sabah RCI

    Thus far, the proceedings of the Sabah RCI has unveiled shocking evidence of a systematic effort by the National Registration Department, with the cooperation of the Election Commission, to give out blue identity cards to immigrants whose status as Malaysian citizens were questionable, for the expressed purpose of registering them as voters and increasing the percentage of Muslim voters in order to gain an electorate advantage for the Barisan Nasional (BN) especially in marginal seats, in the lead up to the 1994 Sabah state elections.

    But up to this point, the proceedings of the RCI have not dealt with item C contained in its terms of reference, which requires that the Sabah RCI do this: “To enquire whether the immigrants in Sabah who hold blue identification cards, temporary identification receipts (blue) or citizenship which is not in accordance with the law have been registered in the electoral roll”[1]

    To address this gap, the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (MERAP) has started an investigation to examine the impact of the issuance of ICs to immigrants on the electoral roll. Our initial findings have revealed equally shocking and disturbing information.

    Ruslan bin Alias, an assistant head in the IC division of Sabah / Sarawak in the National Registration Department, revealed a list containing 130,459 ‘problematic‘ old IC numbers where their records with the NRD was either incomplete or where these cards had already been cancelled (Exhibit P9 of the Sabah RCI) .[2] These old ICs numbers were divided into lists P1 (51,300 old IC numbers), P2 (62,550 old IC numbers) and P3 (16,699 old IC numbers) (Appendix 1 below). Old IC numbers in lists P1 and P2 have been identified as ICs without proper or having incomplete information in the NRD. Not all of the ICs in lists P1 and P2 have been cancelled. Old IC numbers in list P3 have already been cancelled and thus are not in use anymore.

    According to Ruslan, whose unit is in charge of investigating the problematic ICs in P1 and P2, only 8,553 ICs in these lists have been investigated. Of these 8,553, 4,851 (or 57%) were rejected as legitimate ICs. This means that 105,927 old ICs in lists P1 and P2 have not been investigated.

    MERAP did a search of the old IC numbers given in lists P1 and P2 using the Q1 2012 electoral roll, and we found that 60,653 (53% out of 113,850 voters in lists P1 and P2) with these problematic IC numbers were on the electoral roll. We also found 20 old IC numbers given in list P3. These voters are not evenly distributed across the state. 8 out of the top 10 parliamentary constituencies featuring these voters can be found on the east coast of Sabah (Appendix 2 and 3). 66% or 39,750 voters out of the 60,673 problematic ICs can be found in these 8 parliament seats on the east coast of Sabah.

    In addition, we also found 29 instances of old IC duplications from lists P1 and P2. These voters are still on the electoral roll at the time of writing (even though the old IC numbers of some of these voters do not appear in the SPR website) (Appendix 4).

    MERAP also found that the 20 voters with old ICs from list P3 that were on the electoral roll in Q1 2012 were deleted in Q4 2012 because they were ‘wrongly registered’ / ‘silap pendaftaran’ (Appendix 5). How did these voters manage to stay on the electoral roll up until Q4 2012 when these ICs were supposed to have been cancelled in 1996? Who was responsible for registering these voters with cancelled ICs? According to the data collected previously by MERAP, all these voters were registered after 1996 when these ICs were supposed to have been cancelled.

    Even if these are the only problematic voters currently on the electoral roll, they would constitute 6.3% of the Q3 2012 electoral roll. In 7 parliament seats, they would constitute more than 10% of the total electorate including P191 Kalabakan (16.3%), P188 Silam (15.2%) and P190 Tawau (14.4%)(Appendix 6). As a result of the addition of voters with problematic ICs (and perhaps others which have not been identified), the character of many of these seats have been altered significantly.

    In light of the large number of voters with problematic ICs that are still in Sabah’s electoral roll, we call on the NRD and the EC to immediately conduct a comprehensive exercise to identify ICs that were wrongly given out and to take out these voters from the electoral roll before the 13th general election. The failure to do so would mean that the EC is allowing the 13th general election to go on with a seriously compromised electoral roll, especially in the state of Sabah. This would affect the legitimacy of the election results especially in the areas with the largest number of people with problematic ICs who are registered as voters.

    Sabah DAP also calls all Sabahans working or living overseas, including those in Peninsular Malaysia, to come back to Malaysia to vote during GE13. As such, Sabah DAP is launching a “Save Sabah, Save Malaysia” campaign. The larger the number of genuine voters, the greater the chances of diluting the impact of dubious voters.

    The recent Sulu invasions in the Lahad Datu and Semporna areas have shown the serious impact resulting from Project IC. The hot spot conflict areas are all located in the east coast of Sabah and it cannot be coincidental that these are areas which have a high number of dubious voters. There is no exact figure of how many Sulus there are in Sabah as many of them register themselves as Bajaus in the census. We are deeply concerned that the conditions have been created for a “Reverse Takeover” which have been caused by the high number of immigrants that have made us strangers in our homeland.

    Sabah DAP Chairman and Sri Tanjong ADUN Jimmy Wong

    Sabah DAP Secretary Dr Edwin Bosi

    Sabah DAP Publicity Secretary Chan Foong Hin

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming Election Strategist, DAP & Director of the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (MERAP)

    ——–

    Appendix 1: Exhibit P9 from the Sabah RCI: P1, P2 and P3 List of Problematic ICs

    Appendix 2: Distribution of 60,673 voters by parliamentary seat from Lists P1 and P2

    Appendix 3: Geographic distribution of 60,673 voters by parliamentary seat from Lists P1 and P2

    Appendix 4: 29 Duplicate old ICs from Lists P1 and P2

    Appendix 5: 20 names with old ICs from List P3 that were deleted in Q4 2012

    Appendix 6: Problematic ICs as % of Voters by Parliament Seat, Sabah

    >10% of total voters

    [2] Pg.19 of the Notes from the Proceedings dated 16th of January 2013 lists these ICs as ‘pengeluaran yang bermasalah’

    This press statement was published by DAP Malaysia.

Page 159 of 170« First...102030...157158159160161...170...Last »