“If you sleep on your rights, you deserve to lose them.” ~R.. Dworkin
I remembered these words clearly back in law school. Being a registered voter, I write this article in view of 4 current political affairs in Malaysia that have made me doubt the Malaysian EC. As Malaysian citizen myself, I felt the urge to voice my opinion respectfully for I remembered a quote that well describe how the Malaysian political has been for this past 50 over years.
Refer to the link of the articles below to have a grasp of the issues that occurred.
Link 1 :
I now list the substantive laws that were involved.
Section 9A ELECTIONS ACT 1958 (REVISED – 1970)
– Certified or re-certified electoral roll shall be deemed to be final.
After an electoral roll has been certified or re-certified, as the case may be, and notice of the certification or re-certification has been published in the Gazette as prescribed by regulations made under this Act, the electoral roll shall be deemed to be final and binding and shall not be questioned or appealed against in, or reviewed, quashed or set aside by, any court
S34 Election Offences Act 1954
Who may present petition
An election petition may be presented to the High Court by
any one or more of the following persons:
(a) some person who voted or had a right to vote at the election to which the petition relates;
(b) some person claiming to have had a right to be returned or elected at such election; or
(c) some person alleging himself to have been a candidate at such election.
In both Nurul Izzah & Charles Santiago’s case, the EC relied on S9A. Meaning, their decision is final. On the surface value of Section 9A, the wordings and sentences are understood crystal clear.
What is appalling to me is that, when EC relied on S9A it means the Courts have no jurisdiction upon their decision.
However, this goes against the very basics on Rule Of Law where Professor A.V. Dicey’s third postulate states, the general principles of the constitution are, with us, the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons in particular cases brought before the courts. In simple English, Courts are protector and guardian of the Law and Human Rights.
Putting Section 9A into perspective, literally this mean Courts have no jurisdiction over Electoral Commission’s decision.
However, if we refer to Nurul Izzah’s and Charles Santiago’s case, the EC was aware of the dubious voters yet upon their discretion does not exercise the power in them to track, list or remove them from the particular constituency or off from the electoral roll.
People older than 123 years [Guiness World Record certified oldest person on earth]
Sex of a man is listed and recorded as female
Foreigners listed in our electoral roll
People who didn’t register themselves realised they have been registered without their consent.
Registered voters who’s voting constituecy has been amended not according to birth or address stated in their identity card [I.C]
And the EC is able to provide such lame excuse by stating the names have been gazetted. Hence, unable to remove them. “They know the law has been broken but yet they stay mum on the issue and hide behind Section 9A.” C.Santiago mentioned in his article entitled “EC admits to knowing about dubious voters dated 2 April 2013.
For that and which the Malaysian Court has shy away from judicially reviewed both cases bring about further question to enquire the reason behind such decision.
Also, taking into consideration of the above possibilities that’ll be included in the electoral roll, does that in every rational mind portrays the term of a 1 Man = 1 Vote principle.
Example; we have to admit the size of a state varies in their own respect. But we have to remember, Putrajaya as a state is a very small constituency in comparison to Kapar.
Putrajaya (BN) = 6,608 votes
Kapar (PKR) = 112,224 votes
[RATIO = 1 Putrajaya Vote : 17 Kapar votes]
Winning Margin in Kapar :
12,297 votes = 2 Putrajayas
1 = Do you think this statistic represent the QUALITATIVE meaning of 1 Man = 1 Vote principle?
2 = [In simple everyday life example] Do you prefer a fine quality Cheesecake that satisfy your tastebud and ensure you will NOT experience diarrhoea or food poisoning OR Do you prefer to eat cheesecake in large amount despite risking its quality, your health and safety?
On 19 April 2013, AsianCorrespondent.com published an article by Rob O’Brien that Malaysia’s EC said Malaysian coming home from Singapore to vote on May 5 can only cross in a Malaysian-registered vehicle. It also urged Singapore’s Foreign Ministry to investigate reports that registered private vehicles were being used to send Malaysian voters home to vote.
Isn’t it obvious that the EC has stepped out of their jurisdiction? Any rakyat would know it’s transport matter. It’s separate issue. Why registered private vehicles used to send Malaysian voters home to vote should be investigated? Perhaps they honestly are registered voter and want to come back home to exercise their right as Malaysian.
I honestly urge EC to stick to what is within their jurisdiction as permitted by Elections Act 1958 and Election Offences Act 1954. The EC under any circumstances should not exercise their powers ultra-viresly.
I now propose my ULTIMATE questions to RAKYAT Malaysia WORLDWIDE.
Do you think Malaysia’s EC is still as clean and fair?
What do you think the EC is now to BN?