• More mistakes by the Election Commission in the 2nd Public Display of the 2016 Delimitation Exercise (or “Syor 2”)?

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, Member of Parliament of Serdang, 17th of March, 2017

    More mistakes by the Election Commission in the 2nd Public Display of the 2016 Delimitation Exercise (or “Syor 2”)?

    Yesterday, I highlighted two possible mistakes by the Election Commission in the 2nd public display of the 2016 delimitation exercise (referred to as “Syor 2” here on). There was a case of a ‘missing’ polling station in Johor and also a case of a new polling station in Pahang.

    In today’s statement, I want to highlight 10 cases where the number of voters in polling stations have been changed from the first public display (Syor 1) to the second public display (Syor 2). Why is this an issue? Think of the delimitation exercise as one big jigsaw puzzle. Each polling station is one piece of the jigsaw puzzle. From Syor 1 to Syor 2, the Election Commission can shift polling stations from one state seat to another, but it cannot change the size and composition of the individual polling stations. The reasoning is simple: If voters are shifted from one polling station to another between Syor 1 and Syor 2, there is no way for the voters to know if they are the ones who have been shifted. This would obviously affect their constitutional right to object to the delimitation exercise under Syor 2.

    For example, in Syor 1, the Taman Temiang Jaya polling station in the N12 Temiang state seat under the P128 Seremban parliament seat had 2994 voters (See Figure 1 below)

    Figure 1: Taman Temiang polling station with 2994 voters in N12 Temiang under the P128 Seremban parliament seat

    However, under Syor 2, the number of voters in the Taman Temiang Jaya polling station has decreased from 2994 voters to 2412 voters (See Figure 2 below). Note that the number of voters for the other polling stations remain the same. Note also, that I am not challenging the ability of the EC to shift polling stations from one state seat to another, which is what it has done to the Kampong Nee Yan polling station (from N12 Temiang to N11 Lobak). What I am challenging is the EC’s ability to change the composition of the individual polling stations and hence the number of voters in each polling station from Syor 1 to Syor 2.

    For example, if I am one of the 2994 voters in Taman Temiang Jaya in Syor 1, I have no idea if I am still a voter in Taman Temiang Jaya in Syor 2 or if I have been shifted to another polling station. So, I cannot make an objection even if I wanted to since I have no idea which polling station or which state seat or which parliament seat I will be voting in if Syor 2 is passed in parliament.

    Figure 2: Number of voters in Taman Temiang Jaya reduced from 2994 in Syor 1 to 2412 in Syor 2

    Another example of this mistake made by the EC is found in the Sura Gate polling station in the N27 Sura state seat under the P39 Dungun parliament seat. In Syor 1, the Sura Gate polling station has 1387 voters (Figure 3 below). In Syor 2, the number of voters in Sura Gate has been increased to 2550 (Figure 4 below).

    Figure 3: Sura Gate polling station in N27 Sura state seat in P39 Dungun parliament seat with 1387 voters in Syor 1

    Figure 4: Number of voters in Sura Gate polling station increased to 2550 in Syor 2

    In total, I identified 10 such cases, whereby the number of voters in each polling station was changed from Syor 1 to Syor 2. The full list of polling stations is listed in Table 1 below.

    The EC needs to state if it has made a mistake in changing the number of voters in these polling stations from Syor 1 to Syor 2. The failure to do so may mean that the constitutional right of certain voters to voice their objections to the delimitation exercise proposal in Syor 2 are affected.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    Table 1: 10 Polling Stations where the number of voters have changed from Syor 1 to Syor 2

  • 选委会是否在第二轮选区划分展示中错误地排除掉现有的投票站和添加新的投票站

    (2017年3月16日)沙登区国会议员王建民博士的媒体声明

    选委会是否在第二轮选区划分展示中错误地排除掉现有的投票站和添加新的投票站

    在2017年3月8日,选举委员会发布一项公告来宣布针对马来西亚半岛(不包括雪兰莪)2016年的第二轮选区重划展示正式开始。这项公告除了刊登在国家的联邦宪报上,[1] 也在各大主流媒体,各州的地方办事处上广泛流传。

    看过了在2016年9月15日首次发布的第一轮选区重划展示(Syor 1)和2017年3月8日所发布的第二轮选区重划展示(Syor 2),我就发现到一些在第一轮展示出现,但被第二轮展示排出在外的投票区,如属于柔佛州国席Ledang(P144)和州议席Gambir(N9)下(参考图一)拥有876名选民的Kampong Teratai投票区。这是其中一个从Pagoh国席(P143)移到Ledang国席(P144)的投票站。

    图表一:2016915日的第一轮展示所公布的柔佛州国席Ledang(P144)和州议席Gambir(N9)下拥有876名选民的Kampong Teratai投票区

    令人惊讶的是,在第二轮展示中,Kampong Teratai投票区不见踪影。请问这个投票站去哪儿了?这个问题重要吗?这个课题之所以重要的原因是如果Kampong Teratai的876名选民不知道他们所在的国州选区的话,他们就无法反对第二轮展示的选区划分。因此,他们将被剥夺联邦宪法第十三条第5章节所赋予的反对权利。

    而事实证明,Kampong Teratai投票站很可能被移回Bukit Kepong(N7)州选区和Pagoh(P143)国会选区。在第二轮展示中,Bukit Kepong(N7)州议席的选民总数为27,350(参阅下图二),不过合算了26个投票站中的选民人数仅有26,474。[2] 而巧合的是,这个876个选民人数的差距和从第二轮展示消失的Kampung Teratai投票站的选民人数不谋而合。

    图表二:在第二轮展示中Bukit Kepong(N7)州议席底下26所投票站的选民总数原为27,350,但实际合算仅有26,474位选民(共有876位选民的差距)

    如果选举委员会确实犯下这起错误,从Bukit Kepong(N7)州议席中排除了Kampong Teratai投票区,那便应立即作出回应,包括在宪报和主流报纸上公布修正启示。若不这样做便可能意味着这次第二轮的公告是违宪的。

    同时,我也找到了一些在第二轮展示被新添加的投票站的例子。虽然选委会有权添加新的投票站,但也必须遵守1958年选举法第7(2)条。根据这项法令,选委会可以重新安排现有和添加新的投票站。(参阅图三)

    图表三:(公布在2016429日的宪报)重启现有和新添投票站必须遵守1958年选举法第7(2)条的法令

    如果选委会想要增加新的投票站,就必须遵守1958年选举法第7(2)条。但并不是在第一轮和第二轮展示的过程中这样做。但选举委员会恰恰就在第二轮展示中在Temerloh(P88)国席和 Mentakab(N30)州议席下添加新的Taman Rimba投票站。(参阅图四) 此前,Taman Rimba在第一轮展示中并没有被规划成一所投票站。

    新增的投票站也会影响选民反对第二轮选区划分的能力,因为选民可能不知道自己已经被分配到如Mentakab(N30)下新增的投票站。 若是这样,那么这些被联邦宪法第13条第5章节所赋予权利的选民将被受到影响。

    图表四Temerloh(P88)国席和 Mentakab(N30)州议席下添加新的Taman Rimba投票站

    根据上述所提供的证据,选委会应立即回答以下两个问题:(1) 有无投票站错误地在第二轮展示中被排除掉(例如Pagoh(P143)的Bukit Kepong(N7)的Kampong Teratai投票站)和(2)有无在第二轮展示中新增任何投票站及为何没有遵守1958年选举法第7(2)条文。

    若非如此,这举动恐怕会影响马来亚各州选区划分在宪法上的正当性和在程序上的有效性。

    王建民博士
    沙登区国会议员

    附录一:在第二轮展示中Bukit Kepong (N7) 的投票站和选民人数名单

    [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.

  • 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

Page 7 of 200« First...56789...203040...Last »