• Did SPR make mistakes in Syor 2 of the Delimitation Exercise by excluding existing polling stations and adding in new polling stations?

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 16th of March, 2017

    Did SPR make mistakes in Syor 2 of the Delimitation Exercise by excluding existing polling stations and adding in new polling stations?

    On the 8th of March, 2017, the Election Commission (EC) published a notice to announce the official start of the 2nd round of the public display for the 2016 constituency delimitation exercise for Peninsular Malaysia (excluding Selangor). This notice was published in the Federal Gazette[1], in mainstream newspapers and can also be found in land offices and district offices in each state in Peninsular Malaysia.

    By going through the first delimitation proposal first published on the 15th of September, 2016 (Syor 1) and the second delimitation proposal published on the 8th of March, 2017 (Syor 2), I was able to identify polling districts (or daerah mengundi) which were included in Syor 1 but were excluded in Syor 2. For example, the polling district of Kampong Teratai, with 876 voters, was listed under the state constituency of N9 Gambir under P144 Ledang in the state of Johor (Figure 1 below). This was one of the many polling stations that were taken out of the P143 Pagoh parliament seat and moved into the P144 Ledang parliament seat.

    Figure 1: Kampong Teratai polling station with 876 voters in N9 Gambir under P144 Ledang in Johor, published in Syor 1 on the 15th of September, 2016

    Surprisingly, in Syor 2, the Kampong Teratai polling district is missing. So where did this polling station go? Why does this matter? The reason why this matters is because if the 876 voters in Kampong Teratai do not know which state and parliamentary seat they have been placed, they cannot object to the delimitation exercise as shown in Syor 2. Hence, they would be deprived of their constitutional right to object, which is spelt out in Section 5 of the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

    As it turns out, it is likely that the Kampong Teratai polling station was moved back to the P143 Pagoh parliamentary constituency under the N7 Bukit Kepong state constituency. The total number of voters in N7 Bukit Kepong is given as 27350 in Syor 2 (See Figure 2 below) but the sum of voters obtained by adding up the number of voters in the 26 polling stations in N7 Bukit Kepong shown in Syor 2 is only 26474.[2] This means there is a different of 876 voters in N7 Bukit Kepong which, coincidentally is also the number of voters in the Kampung Teratai polling station which is missing from Syor 2.

    Figure 2: The 26 polling stations in N7 Bukit Kepong (under P143 Pagoh) in Syor 2 showing 27350 voters but adds up to only 26474 voters (difference of 876 voters)

    If the Election Commission (EC) has indeed made a mistake by leaving out the Kampong Teratai polling district from the N7 Bukit Kepong state seat, it should immediately publish a correction in the gazette and in the mainstream newspapers. Failure to do so may mean that this second public notice is unconstitutional.

    At the same time, I also found examples of where new polling stations were added in Syor 2. While the Election Commission has the right to add new polling stations, it must do so under Section 7 (2) of the Elections Act 1958. The Election Commission reconfigured existing and added new polling stations on the 29th of April, 2016 under this provision in the Elections Act 1958. (See Figure 3 below).

    Figure 3: Reconfiguring existing and adding new polling stations under Section 7 (2) of the Elections Act 1958 (Announced in the Federal Gazette on the 29th of April, 2016)

    If the Election Commission had wanted to add in new polling stations, it must do so under Section 7 (2) of the Elections Act 1958. It cannot do so between Syor 1 and Syor 2 of the delimitation exercise. But this was exactly what the Election Commission did when it added in the new polling station of Taman Rimba in the state constituency of N30 Mentakab under the P88 Temerloh parliamentary constituency in Syor 2 (See Figure 4 below). Taman Rimba was not a polling station in Syor 1 of the delimitation exercise.

    The adding of new polling stations affects the ability of voters to make objections to the delimitation exercise as shown in Syor 2 since voters may not know that they have been assigned to the new polling station such as the one created in N30 Mentakab. If this is the case, then their constitutional right, under Section 5 of the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, will be affected.

    Figure 4: Addition of a new polling station called Taman Rimba in Syor 2 in N30 Mentakab, P88 Temerloh

    Based on the evidence presented here, the Election Commission should immediately answer the following two questions: (i) have polling stations which were originally in Syor 1 been mistakenly left out in Syor 2 (e.g. Kampong Teratai in N7 Bukit Kepong under P143 Pagoh) and (ii) have there been new polling stations created in Syor 2 and why was this not done under Section 7 (2) of the Elections Act 1958.

    Failure to do so would affect the constitutionality and the procedural validity of the entire delimitation exercise for the States of Malaya.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    Appendix 1: List of polling stations and number of voters in N7 Bukit Kepong in Syor 2

    [1] http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputp/pub_20170308_PU%20(B)%20127%20(2)%20latest.pdf

    [2] Refer to Appendix 1 below to check the total number of voters as shown in Syor 2.

  • Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Amar Abang Johari Tun Openg should show proof that the North Korean workers who were and are still in Sarawak are specialist workers

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 10th of March, 2017

    Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Amar Abang Johari Tun Openg should show proof that the North Korean workers who were and are still in Sarawak are specialist workers

    On the 8th of March, 2017, Chief Minister of Sarawak, Datuk Amar Johari Tun Openg was reported to have said that the North Koreans who are working in Sarawak are “mostly specialist workers in coal mining, bridge and hydroelectric dam projects”. [1] I received a parliamentary reply on the 17th of June, 2015 to my question on the number of North Korean workers who was then working in Malaysia. The reply stated that all of the North Korean workers in Malaysia were working in the construction and mining industries (See Figure 1 below)

    Figure 1: Parliamentary Reply received on the 17th of June, 2015

    I visited the Selantik coal mine in the Sri Aman district on the 25th of September, 2015. I did not speak to the North Korean coal miners because of concerns of safety and the language barrier. I did see that the living conditions of these workers were very basic. I also saw a woman who looked Korean coming out from one of the run-down accommodations at the mine to wash some plates. My guess at that time was that she was a cook for the North Korean workers. (See Pictures below)

    I also asked the villagers living near the coal mine and they all said that they had very little interaction with the workers there. I find it hard to believe that ‘specialist’ coal miners from North Korea would be willing to live in such basic and inhospitable living conditions which I saw at the mine. There is also nothing from my parliamentary reply to indicate that these coal miners were ‘specialist’ workers.

    Chief Minister Amar Johari can convince the public that these were indeed specialist workers by releasing information about the background, qualifications and work experience of these specialist workers as well as proof that the company employing them had advertised for these positions and were unable to fill them with Sarawakian workers.

    At a time when relations between Malaysia and North Korea is at an all-time low and with the global media’s attention focused on Malaysia because of the recent assassination of Kim Jong Nam, it is imperative that we demonstrate to the global community that proper operating procedures were followed in the employment of the North Koreans in Sarawak. Failure to do so would put Malaysia in a negative light and may even cause the downgrade in Malaysia’s position in the US state department’s Trafficking in Persons (TiP) report.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    Picture 1: Coal Mining operations in Selantik, Sri Aman in Sarawak

    Picture 2: One of the accommodation housing the North Korean workers in Selantik, Sri Aman in Sarawak

    Picture 3: One of the accommodation housing the North Korean workers in Selantik, Sri Aman in Sarawak

    Picture 4: One of the accommodation housing the North Korean workers in Selantik, Sri Aman in Sarawak

    Picture 5: A Korean looking woman coming out of one of the accommodation at the Selantik coal mine in Sri Aman to wash some dishes

    [1] http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/03/08/north-koreans-in-no-rush-to-go-home/#4grlAk1YbeqsO6oV.99

  • 选委会第二次公布更新版本的选区重划建议,但却没涵盖雪州的国州选区,令人高度怀疑和违反联邦宪法。

    (2017年3月9日)沙登区国会议员王建民博士的媒体声明

    选委会第二次公布更新版本的选区重划建议,但却没涵盖雪州的国州选区,令人高度怀疑和违反联邦宪法。

    在2017年3月8日,选举委员会公布第二轮更新的2016年选区划分建议,并通过主流媒体和联邦政府的宪报开始流传。更甚的是,选委会以前所未有的方式,没有涵盖雪州的国州选区。 此举不仅令人非常可疑的,同时很有可能违反联邦宪法。

    根据联邦宪法的第113(6)条文,我们都可以对马来亚半岛和沙巴,沙捞越州的选区划分建议进行各别检讨。 不过,联邦宪法也很明确地规定,我们应视马来亚国家(或马来亚土地)(即是马来西亚半岛) [1] 的选区划分为一个个别的审查单位来进行检讨。因此,在不涵盖雪兰莪州的国州选区的情况下,选举委员会不能将此建议提呈到国会。

    那这就衍生到选委会此举背后所存在的理由。其中包括雪兰莪的选区划分工作目前在高等法院正被雪兰莪州政府挑战。 此首开先例由州政府所发起的法律挑战也暂缓了选委会所要展开的地方咨询和聆听反对意见的程序。可见的是,雪兰莪州政府的法律挑战对选委会可说是扮演起重要的制衡作用,以反对后者除了在在雪兰莪州外,还包括隶属同一单位的马来西亚半岛其他州属随心所欲地划分选区。

    按照过去的先例,选委会在有下一步的动作之前,理应等待高等法院就雪兰莪的案件作出的最终裁决。但是,由于高等法院的裁定之前有利于雪兰莪州政府,因此选委会不能在雪兰莪州内继续展开任何公众咨询。相反的,选委会将被迫对向上诉庭提起上诉,并可能将此案件拖到联邦法院,直到满意裁决为止。因此,这将有可能拖延选委会无法及时完成马来西亚半岛的选区划分的建议,并交由首相进行国会批准。

    选委会排除雪兰莪州公布第二轮的选区划分建议,显示它可能想要将雪兰莪州排除在外,强硬地推行选区划分工作,因为依照现有的划分建议将十分有利于国阵。如果高等法院的裁决最终有利于雪兰莪州政府,选委员就会可以向首相提出一个没有雪兰莪州的选区划分建议,以寻求在2017年7月/8月的国会通过。

    第二轮的选区划分建议必须在法庭上被挑战,因为它是违宪的。 选委会此举再次证明自己不是独立的机构,因此我们全国人民必须继续追求和建立一个强大和独立的选委会。

    王建民博士
    沙登区国会议员

    [1] Including the Federal Territory of Labuan

  • Paparan awam pusingan kedua persempadanan semula bagi Semenanjung Malaysia tanpa membabitkan Selangor adalah amat meragukan dan melanggar Perlembagaan

    Kenyataan Media oleh Dr. Ong Kian Ming pada 9 Mac 2017

    Paparan awam pusingan kedua persempadanan semula bagi Semenanjung Malaysia tanpa membabitkan Selangor adalah amat meragukan dan melanggar Perlembagaan

    Semalam, iaitu pada 8 Mac 2017, Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya telah menerbitkan notis yang mengumumkan secara rasmi permulaan pusingan kedua bagi paparan awam untuk persempadanan semula kawasan pilihan raya 2016. Pengumuman ini dipaparkan dalam akhbar arus perdana dan sebagai Warta Kerajaan Persekutuan. Tindakan SPR ini tidak pernah berlaku dalam sejarah persempadanan semula di Malaysia kerana kerusi Parlimen dan kerusi DUN Negeri Selangor terkeluar daripada paparan awam pusingan kedua. Langkah ini amat meragukan malahan ia mungkin juga melanggar Perlembagaan.

    Merujuk kepada Perkara 113 (6) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, kajian semula berasingan hendaklah dijalankan bagi ‘Negeri-negeri Tanah Melayu dan bagi setiap satu daripada Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.’ Perlembagaan Persekutuan juga jelas menyatakan bahawa persempadanan semula bagi Negeri-negeri Malaya (atau ‘Tanah Melayu’) – dalam kata lain, Semenanjung Malaysia[1] – perlu dijalankan sebagai seunit kajian semula. Persempadanan semula bagi Negeri-negeri Tanah Melayu tidak boleh dibentangkan di Parlimen tanpa penglibatan negeri Selangor.

    Ini menimbulkan persoalan mengapa SPR mendesak untuk menjalankan paparan awam kali kedua tanpa Selangor. Persempadanan semula di Selangor kini sedang dicabar oleh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor di Makahmah Tinggi. Ini merupakan kali pertama persempadanan semula dicabar oleh sesebuah kerajaan negeri dan ianya telah menghalang SPR daripada memulakan langkah inkuiri tempatan dan pendengaran bantahan kepada persempadanan semula di Selangor. Tindakan undang-undang oleh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor ini merupakan langkah semak dan imbang yang amat penting terhadap keupayaan SPR untuk menggariskan semula kawasan pilihan raya dengan sewenang-wenangnya bukan sahaja di Selangor, tetapi di semua negeri Semenanjung Malaysia yang merupakan sebahagian daripada ‘unit kajian semula’ yang sama.

    Mengikut duluan kehakiman, SPR seharusnya menunggu keputusan dari Makahmah Tinggi berhubung kes Selangor sebelum mengambil langkah selanjutnya dalam proses persempadanan semula. Namun jika keputusan memihak kepada Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, ini bermakna SPR tidak boleh meneruskan inkuiri awam di Selangor. SPR seterusnya akan terpaksa membuat rayuan di Makahmah Rayuan dan mungkin ke Makahmah Persekutuan bagi mencari keputusan yang memihak kepadanya. Ini akan melambatkan SPR dari membentangkan keputusan persempadanan semula yang lengkap bagi Semenanjung Malaysia kepada Perdana Menteri untuk kelulusan Dewan Rakyat.

    Keputusan SPR untuk mengumumkan paparan awam kali kedua bagi semua negeri Semenanjung Malaysia kecuali Selangor menandakan kemungkinan bahawa ia mungkin akan mendesak untuk mengadakan persempadanan semula yang membiarkan persempadanan di Selangor seperti asal tetapi membuat perubahan di negeri-negeri lain yang lebih memihak kepada BN. Jika keputusan Makahmah Tinggi memihak kepada Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, SPR mungkin akan mencadangkan pelan persempadanan semula kepada Perdana Menteri untuk diluluskan dalam sidang Parlimen Julai / Ogos 2017 dengan tiada sebarang pindaan kepada negeri Selangor.

    Paparan awam kali kedua persempadanan semula kawasan pilihan raya bagi Semenanjung Malaysia perlu dicabar melalui tindakan undang-undang kerana ia melanggar Perlembagaan. Tindakan sebegini oleh SPR telah sekali lagi menunjukkan bahawa ia bukan sebuah badan bebas dan rakyat Malaysia perlu terus berjuang untuk mewujudkan sebuah SPR yang teguh dan berkecuali.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Ahli Parlimen Serdang

    [1] Termasuk Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan

Page 19 of 213« First...10...1718192021...304050...Last »