14 APRIL 2004
Malaysia’s recently concluded 11th General Election can be
Immediately after the conclusion of Malaysia’s 11th General
Election on 21 March 2004, the opposition coalition, Barisan
Alternatif (Alternative Front), set up a working committee
called the ‘Badan Bertindak Penyelewengan Pilihanraya Umum
ke-11’ (Action Committee to Investigate Irregularities in the 11th
General Election) to investigate and confirm the alleged
incidents of violations, irregularities and misconduct that were
reported to have occurred on a rampant and blatant basis all
over the country.
Due to the many reports and complaints received, the Action
Committee decided to categorise them into two categories:
1. Main Violations
These are violations that would affect the legality of the
election itself and render the entire election defective and
therefore null. On this basis alone, there would be no further
need to even go into the individual complaints as any other
transgressions in an election that, to start of with, is
illegal, would make it purely academic.
2. Individual Cases
These are complaints received from various individuals all over
Malaysia. These complaints certainly affect that particular
individual’s right to vote (or to vote freely) but may or may
not affect the election as a whole.
list of individual complaints compiled to date is quite
substantial but are by no means comprehensive as there are more.
These few incidences backed by testimonies of witnesses and/or
documentary evidence, which the Action Committee was able to
procure in the short space of time, merely serve to demonstrate
the authenticity of these complaints and to prove that they are
genuine and did occur.
Amongst the complaints about main violations received by the
Action Committee are the following:
1. Extension of polling hours for the State of Selangor
The time, date and place (for each and every polling station)
for the 11th General Election had already been gazetted before
Polling Day, and as such polling must be held only within the
gazetted time, date and place. It is crucial that not only the
time and date, but the place as well, must be gazetted so that
the Elections Commission (EC) can enforce the election rules and
For the State of Selangor, however, the polling hours were
suddenly extended to 7.00 pm. Further to that, this was not done
in writing or supported by a proper and authorised document but
was merely conveyed by phone or SMS to the returning officers on
duty, or in some cases through the police personnel at the
centres via walkie-talkie. In most cases, the extension was
conveyed close to 5.00 pm and in some a few minutes AFTER 5.00
pm -- after the ballot box had already been sealed, which
necessitated the seal be broken in order to resume the voting
Considering that the two-hour extension was not gazetted
beforehand, this makes the extension illegal and therefore the
election for the entire State of Selangor is rendered null.
Whatever reason the EC may have had to decide on a two-hour
extension is immaterial since, like any illegal act,
notwithstanding it may have been done with the noblest of
intentions, it is illegal nevertheless.
The EC must therefore nullify the results for the State of
Selangor and call for a new election at the earliest possible
2. Ungazetted Code of Ethics
The EC issued a new Code of Ethics for the recent election and
took pains to ensure that it was complied with. They gave
briefings to opposition parties during which this code of ethics
was deliberately presented as if it were gazetted and
For example, during the campaign period, Parti Keadilan
Nasional’s candidate for Putrajaya, Abdul Rahman Othman, was
constantly reminded to observe the Code of Ethics and he even
received a letter warning him about a breach he had allegedly
committed and that action would be taken against him if he
continued with the breach. In addition, Abdul Rahman was told to
take down all the PAS flags as required by the new Code since it
was keADILan and not PAS that was contesting the Putrajaya seat.
When he failed to do so, the EC officers went round and cut down
all the PAS flags leaving only the flagpole intact.
When Alternative Front leaders had a meeting with the EC some
months before the election, the specific legal status of the
proposed Code was questioned, but the EC declined to give any
answer. In fact, the new Code of Ethics was actually never
gazetted and therefore was illegal and non-enforceable.
Nevertheless, the EC still enforced the Code resulting in the
opposition having to campaign under very restrictive rules. The
BN, on the other hand, were apparently apprised of the fact that
the Code was not legally binding and therefore proceeded to
break the rules with impunity.
Clearly the EC kept changing the rules during the course of the
election but the most important aspect of these constantly
changing rules is that the Code itself was unenforceable as it
was never gazetted as required by law.
3. Different versions of Electoral Rolls
The electoral roll, one very important ingredient in the
election, was certainly a sore point, not only amongst the
candidates but amongst the voters as well. It was found that the
opposition was given a different set of electoral roll compared
to the ruling party. In some instances, even both these two
lists differed from that of the EC, and in some polling stations
different EC officials even had different versions of the list.
According to Section 14 Elections (Conduct of Elections)
Regulations 1981, this electoral roll too needs to be gazetted
and the official or legal date that was used to gazette the
electoral roll for this election was 5 March 2004 (see details
in keADILan’s 2 April 2004 write-up on fraud in the recent
elections, ‘FRAUD AND RIGGING IN THE MALAYSIAN 11th GENERAL
ELECTIONS’: addendum 1 of this press statement). However, on
Polling Day, there were also other versions in use, which were
dated 15 March and even 23 April 2004 (after the election!).
It is not the date alone that is the bone of contention but the
fact that each of these different electoral rolls shows a
different set of voters.
For example, when a voter checks his name in the electoral roll
in possession of the opposition, he may find his name missing.
Then, when he goes over to countercheck in the electoral roll in
possession of the BN, he would find his name there. Clearly the
electoral roll given to the opposition was incomplete with many
missing names while that given to the BN was complete and
In at least one constituency, the Kuantan Parliamentary
constituency, the electoral roll given to the opposition also
had one column deleted rendering the voters’ addresses
incomplete, whereas the electoral roll given to the BN was
complete and with no deleted columns. This was brought to the
EC’s attention by the keADILan Women’s Wing Chief, Fuziah Salleh,
keADILan’s candidate for Kuantan, who noticed that the electoral
roll in her possession was not complete whereas that given to
the BN was. The reply she received from the EC was that this was
done on the instruction from HQ.
4. Discrepancies in the election results
Immediately after the votes were counted on 21 March 2004, the
results were announced live through the electronic media and the
EC website was updated with these latest results soon after. The
following day, the print media carried the detailed results
except for those constituencies where the results had not been
received yet or where a recounting had to be conducted. The
print media’s detailed results the following day tallied with
that of the EC website.
However, these results, in particular those on the EC website,
were found to have huge discrepancies, especially in relation to
the number of ballot papers issued compared to those actually in
the ballot box – where the discrepancies were listed as
‘unreturned votes’. The fact that all contesting candidates have
polling agents and counting agents (PACA) representing them
makes it impossible for voters to walk up to the polling booth,
collect their ballot paper, and walk out again without first
dropping them into the ballot box.
Furthermore, there were no such reported incidences from the
PACA, which means every ballot paper issued to the voters were
dropped into the ballot box. Therefore, the number of ballot
papers in the ballot box must tally with the actual voter
turnout and there should be no discrepancies.
Nevertheless, in many constituencies, the ballot papers issued
far exceeded the voter turnout resulting in the surplus ballot
papers issued having to be listed under the category of
‘non-returned votes’. Kuala Terengganu and Kuala Selangor were
two glaring cases though not the isolated ones. In fact, only 50
of the 219 parliamentary constituencies had NO incidences of
Two days later, when the media started noticing the glaring
discrepancies and started reporting it (see Malaysiakini.com’s
news report of 25 March 2004, ‘Massive gaps in EC’s ballot
figures’: addendum 2 of this press statement), the EC
immediately pulled the pages out of its website. Some pages were
subsequently amended to reduce the discrepancies from five
figures to only two.
Clearly the EC website reported the real results as these not
only tally with the PACA’s figures but with that of the
mainstream media’s as well. It can be assumed therefore that the
latest figures are doctored figures to ‘look good’ and to save
the EC the embarrassment of having to explain the extremely high
incidence of ‘non-returned votes’. The fact that quite a number
of these so-called non-returned votes were found abandoned,
still in official EC envelopes, and some even accompanied by the
list of voters’ names, makes this even more suspect. (Dr
Badrulamin Bahron has already made a police report on this
matter and has already called a separate press conference to
reveal the evidence he gathered to support his allegation).
5. Illegal postponement of the Sungai Lembing election
Just as in the case of Selangor State, the postponement of the
Sungai Lembing election to a later date when it had already been
gazetted for 21 March 2004 and polling had in fact already
commenced is an illegal act. Whatever the reason the EC may have
had for the postponement is immaterial as the postponement was
illegal whether it was done with good reason or otherwise.
6. Fear factor used against the voters
The voters were given the impression that their vote is not a
secret and that the government will know who they vote for. Some
civil servants were warned specifically that the government will
know which candidate they voted for. This increased the fear
factor amongst voters resulting in many admitting that they
chose to vote for the BN rather than take the risk of voting for
One polling agent in Putrajaya has confirmed that she witnessed
many voters holding up their ballot papers after marking them,
to show they had voted for the BN, before dropping them into the
ballot box. Other Putrajaya voters confirmed that the BN
candidate for that Parliamentary constituency visited all the
voters in their offices to inform them that the government will
know who they voted for, and they would run the risk of losing
their government quarters if it were known they voted for the
What compounds this fear factor is the fact that all the ballot
papers are numbered and the voter’s serial number is jotted down
on the ballot paper counterfoil, with the ballot paper itself
bearing the corresponding serial number.
The fact that many newspapers carried photographs of the polling
booths, with details of the ballot papers visible, is further
proof that the confidentiality of the voters is not protected.
For police and army personnel who are obliged to vote ‘by post’,
they were asked to line up and vote openly, thereby requiring
considerable bravery for any of them to vote for any other party
except the BN. This was not only observed at all the police
stations (army camps are off limits so we could only rely on
feedback) but the newspapers also showed the army personnel
voting openly and in full view of everyone.
7. No witnessing of the postal voting
Candidates are not allowed to be present or send his/her polling
agent/representative when the postal voting is being carried
out. The excuse given is that army camps are security areas.
Police stations, however, are not, yet polling agents were not
allowed to witness the voting.
In Putrajaya, a representative of the keADILan candidate, Abdul
Rahman Othman, sneaked into the police station while the postal
voting was being carried out and discovered that all the police
personnel had to collect the ballot papers and mark them in
front and in full view of the senior officer. Due to this, all
police and army personnel would have no choice but to vote for
the BN candidate.
Amongst the complaints received about individual cases are as
Voters who were underage and below 21 were allowed to vote.
Many voters found their names missing from the electoral roll
even though some had been voting in that particular
constituency for some time and had never applied to transfer
their name to another constituency.
Many voters found that they had been transferred to another
constituency, sometimes in another state.
Deceased voters were still registered as voters and in some
instances someone had voted in their place. (Refer FAC News 3
April 2004: Addendum 3)
One Malaysian citizen who has been living overseas for many
years and had never registered herself as a voter nor voted in
her life found that her name had been registered as a voter at
Jalan Gurney. (Refer FAC News 3 April 2004: Addendum 4)
Many voters were shown to be registered at a certain address
but on investigation it was found that such an address did not
Some addresses were found to have dozens and sometimes more
than 100 voters registered there but on investigation it was
found that no such people lived there and the house owners,
who had lived there for years, have not even heard of these
The names of voters bearing the same identity cards numbers
appeared more than once in the electoral roll, most times in
There were voters who voted using the identity cards of others
and in some cases women voting under the registered name of a
man and vice versa. (Refer FAC News 3 April 2004: Addendum 5)
Then there was one case where an opposition candidate was not
allowed to enter the polling station to witness the voting
going on though the rules allowed him to do so. He has since
made a police report on the matter.
The ruling party candidates blatantly and rampantly abused
government facilities in their election campaign.
There was unfair media coverage where the ruling party was
allowed airtime whereas the opposition was not and the only
publicity the opposition got was negative in nature.
The campaign period was too short.
As all these complaints are well documented - with the various
testimonies and evidences to support these allegations available
for perusal - we will not go into the details. Suffice to say,
all these complaints are but a tip of the iceberg and in the
event these cases are taken to court more evidence will be
adduced to support our case. More details on examples of these
violations are highlighted in the Addendums below.
Tuan Haji Abdul Rahman Othman
Badan Bertindak Penyelewengan Pilihanraya Umum ke-11
ADDENDUM 1: Fraud and Rigging in the Malaysian 11th General
Election -- a booklet published by Parti Keadilan Nasional
FRAUD AND RIGGING IN THE MALAYSIAN 11TH GENERAL ELECTIONS
We draw your attention to irregularities in the conduct of the
Malaysian 11th General Elections and the consequent violation of
the right of voters to choose their representatives in free and
The election was ruined by fraud and treachery, and by outright
cheating and blatant denial of voters’ fundamental rights. The
evidence available to prove these violations is overwhelming in
both quality and quantity. Indeed, the election result announced
on 21 March 2004 was a false picture of the wishes of voters.
The National Justice Party (keADILan) hereby registers its
condemnation of the malpractices committed during the election
and holds the Election Commission Malaysia (EC) blameworthy.
Other political parties, as well as voters and non-governmental
organisations, have also criticised the conduct of the election
and denounced the process of the election and rejected the
announced outcome, putting into serious question the legitimacy
of the federal government and state governments formed after the
The Malaysia’s Bar Council has also joined calls for an
independent inquiry into claims of fraud in the 11th General
Elections, saying a transparent audit is crucial to ensure the
legitimacy of the results. The council, which represents more
than 8,000 lawyers, says there have been a high number of
complaints about the Election Commission’s management of the
March 21 vote. The Bar has rejected the Election Commission’s
proposal for an internal investigation.
The EC was riddled by irresolution and confusion in its
management of the election. By causing the electoral rolls to be
gazetted on 3 March 2004, it defied its own pronouncement that
the rolls would not be ready until the middle of March. It was
also on 3 March 2004 that the Prime Minister dissolved
Parliament. The two events were tied by more than mere
coincidence of time. It was as if the EC was harried to hurry.
On 4 March 2004, the Alternative Front (BA) lodged an official
protest against the premature publication of the rolls. The EC’s
submissiveness to the Barisan Nasional (BN) is contemptible, and
its haste in publishing the rolls atrocious, for it raises
doubts as to their authenticity, even among those unaware that
the law allows 60 days between the dissolution of Parliament and
a general election.
Article 55 (4) of the Federal Constitution clearly states that;
“ Whenever Parliament is dissolved a general election shall be
held within sixty days from the date of the dissolution and
Parliament shall be summoned to meet on a date not later than
one hundred and twenty days from that date.”
This memorandum represents keADILan’s denunciation of the
conduct of the 11th General Elections. It is a protest based on
sound reasoning and firm evidence supported by authentic
documents. Some instances of the EC’s misconduct and the BN’s
violation of the law are mentioned below.
1. The EC produced two distinct electoral rolls on Polling Day
The 11th General Elections introduced for every polling station
what is officially known as a 'Barung SPR' (Malay for 'EC
booth'), where every voter is supposed to check his name against
the roll for that station and receive a number representing the
queue he must take in order to receive his ballot paper and cast
his vote. The voter’s name should appear also in the electoral
roll held by the election official in charge of his designated
queue. Each queue is officially referred to as a 'Saluran'.
On Polling Day, 21 March 2004, many cases were reported of queue
electoral rolls in the polling station not tallying with the
electoral rolls kept at the EC booths although the EC officials
was supposed to be in control of both booths and queues. Many a
voter who had verified his entitlement to vote and received his
designated queue number from the tally clerk at the EC booth was
barred from casting his vote because his name was absent from
the electoral roll at his designated queue.
amazingly large number of these cases happened in Selangor such
as in Sabak Bernam, Sungai Besar, Tanjung Karang, Kuala Selangor,
Selayang, Gombak, Ampang, Pandan, Hulu Langat, Serdang, Puchong,
Subang, Shah Alam, Kapar, Kuala Langat and Sepang. In a
statement issued on 23 March 2004 and quoted by The Sun on 24
March 2004, the EC Chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman,
confirmed that there were cases in which a polling station had
two electoral rolls.
He was quoted as saying that “The position of the voters
became different when the document used was amended.”
Police report number 1698/04, which was lodged with the Serdang
Police Station on 22 March 2004 by Mr Yaakob bin Sapari, a
candidate for Sri Serdang (N.29), Selangor, testifies that 255
voters were thus disfranchised. They have been confirmed as
registered voters by the EC officials at the EC booth as well as
confirmation of their eligibility through the EC website but
were denied the right to cast their votes by the EC officials at
the respective queues that they were allocated. The total given
represents only the number of barred voters who registered their
protest with keADILan in a random exercise conducted when
pandemonium broke at the polling station concerned. The actual
total could be more than 700 voters. A large number of voters
left the polling station disappointed and angry. Many complained
that they had to wait for more than three hours only to be told
that they could not vote.
Disfranchisement of voters in the Sri Serdang state constituency
happened at the following polling stations:
Sekolah Menengah Sri Serdang;
Sekolah Menengah Sri Indah;
Sekolah Menengah Puchong Perdana;
Sekolah Kebangsaan Puchong Indah;
Sekolah Kebangsaan Puchong Batu 14;
Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (T) Casetafil.
A similar case was reported in the Cempaka state constituency,
which lies within the parliamentary constituency of Pandan,
Selangor. Mr Mohd Shah bin Hassan, the representative of the
candidate contesting in N.21 Cempaka, lodged police report
number 5063/04 on 21 March 2004, in which he complains that the
EC used two distinct electoral rolls at the polling stations of
Sekolah Kebangsaan Pandan Jaya and Sekolah Menengah Pandan Indah.
Thirty-three voters were denied their right to vote because
their names were not listed in the electoral rolls at the queues
to which the tally clerks who had verified their eligibility to
vote had assigned them.
The same abuse of the electoral process was evident in Ampang,
Selangor. Hundreds of names were absent from queue electoral
rolls in the polling districts of Lembah Jaya, Tasik Permai,
Taman Bukit Indah, Ampang Campuran dan Taman Kosas. A police
report was lodged in Ampang regarding this. The EC caused a
panic when, at 10.15 a.m. on Polling Day ( 2 hours after the
opening of the polling station ), it produced a new electoral
roll for Queue 2 of the Taman Kosas polling district. Worse, it
was 4.50 p.m. ( 10 minutes before the closing of the polling
station ) when EC produced a new electoral roll for Queue 3 of
the Lembah Jaya polling district.
The use of two distinct electoral rolls represents a fundamental
flaw in any elections that is supposed to be fair. Indeed, it
created confusion among voters on Polling Day. The instances
cited here should be proof enough that the EC used two distinct
electoral rolls, one for the EC booth and one for the queue, and
thereby committed the dire offence of denying citizens their
right to vote.
2. The EC used one electoral roll for Nomination Day and a
different one for Polling Day
Section 14 Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981,
Right of registered elector to vote clearly states that; “The
electoral rolls for the time being in force shall be prima facie
evidence for the purpose of determining whether a person is or
is not entitled to vote at an election in any constituency.”
Section 14 A Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981,
Authoritative text of electoral rolls clearly states that; “The
electoral rolls which are submitted to the candidates on the day
of nomination shall be authoritative texts of the electoral
rolls which will be used by the returning officer and the
presiding officer of a polling station on polling day.”
The electoral rolls submitted to candidates on Nomination Day,
13 March 2004, was the one gazetted on 3 March 2004. However, on
Polling Day, 21 March 2004, the EC used the electoral rolls
gazetted on 15 March 2004. The EC was in clear violation of the
regulations cited above namely Section 14 A Elections (Conduct
of Elections) Regulations 1981. The use of two distinct
electoral rolls occurred in almost all the polling districts in
21 March 2004, police report number 10515/04 was lodged with the
Klang Police Station by Mr Mohamad Amkah b. Ahmad, polling agent
for Haji Abdul Rahman bin Ibrahim, a candidate for the N.43
Sementa state seat in Selangor. He testifies that the electoral
roll he received on 13 March 2004 which was submitted to the
candidate on the day of nomination was different from the
electoral roll used by EC on the Polling Day which was gazetted
on 15 March 2004.
same irregularities were reported in the polling districts of
Lembah Jaya, Taman Kosas dan Taman Tun Abdul Razak in Ampang.
More interesting was the case in the parliamentary constituency
of Putrajaya. The electoral roll purchased from the EC on 1
March 2004 shows clearly that it had “been gazetted” on 23 April
2004, that is, a month after Polling Day. However, the roll
given to candidates on Nomination Day was the one gazetted on 3
March 2004 and the one used on Polling Day was gazetted on 15
3. The EC illegally extended the polling period
Section 11 (5) Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations
1981, Contested elections clearly states that ; “ Upon the
receipt of the report mentioned in sub-regulation (3), the State
Elections Officer shall cause to be published in the Gazette and
also in such manner as he thinks fit a notice as set out in Form
8 in the First Schedule specifying –
) the constituency in which the election is
) the date on which the poll will be taken;
) the names of the candidates in the order in which
they will be printed on the ballot papers, the symbol allotted
to each candidate and the names of their proposers and seconders;
) the situation of the polling station or polling
stations for each of the polling districts for that constituency
and the hours between which each polling station will be
Section 15 (2) Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations
1981, Admittance to polling station clearly states that; “Unless
the Election Commission, by notification in the Gazette,
appoints any other hours in respect of any constituency or part
thereof, the poll in any constituency shall be open for twelve
hours between such hours as the Election Commission shall
Section 23 Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981,
Closing of poll clearly states that; “No ballot paper shall
be issued to a voter after the hour fixed for the closing of the
poll but if at that hour there is in the polling station any
voter to whom a ballot paper has been issued, such voter shall
be allowed to record his vote.”
In the entire State of Selangor, the voting period was extended
by 2 hours from 5 p.m. which is in clear violation of Section 15
(2) of the Elections Regulations. The EC failed to adhere to the
voting period gazetted after the dissolution of Parliament and
Syed Shahir bin Syed Mohamud, a candidate for the parliamentary
seat of Kelana Jaya, Selangor has lodged a police report
complaining that at 5 p.m. on Polling Day, the EC directed the
presiding officer in Kelana Jaya to extend the voting period to
extension was announced after 5 p.m., that is, after the close
of the gazetted voting period. It also contradicted Clause 3.2
of the Candidates’ Guide Book published by EC, which, on page
49, states that the “voting period is fixed between 8 a.m. and 5
p.m.” The same paragraph states that “ The State Election
Officer shall, through notices posted at public places, inform
the public regarding the date, place and hours of voting. ”
No notice of extension of the voting hours was exhibited.
Instead, it was announced through the electronic media and,
among EC officials, by walkie-talkie. Neither the contending
political parties nor the contesting candidates were informed
officially, although the EC had then a list of phone numbers to
call. Among voters, the extension was known only to those who
were watching television or listening to the radio; those who
were away from television or radio sets did not have this
privileged information and, if they had not voted before 5 p.m.,
were disfranchised. Furthermore, the extension was announced
after the polling agents had left the polling stations and
political parties were thus denied the opportunity to monitor
the process of casting votes during the extended polling hours.
The extension, coming as a bombshell, threw the process into
disarray. Some returning officers obeyed the extension order and
some were reluctant to allow voting after 5 p.m. At some polling
stations, the counting of ballots had begun before the order was
received. Mr Abdul Rahman bin Ibrahim, candidate for the N.43
Sementa state seat, reported that at Queue 1 of the Sekolah
Kebangsaan Sementa polling station, vote counting began at 5.30
A counting agent at polling district 104/31/05 in the Kelana
Jaya parliamentary constituency submitted a written protest to
the returning officer at Sekolah Kebangsaan SS 19, complaining
that 11 people were allowed to vote after 5 p.m. Similar
complaints were made at Sekolah Kebangsaan USJ 12 and Sekolah
Kebangsaan SS 14, involving 3 and 6 voters respectively.
Written complaints over the extension of the voting hours were
also recorded by the returning officers at Sekolah Kebangsaan SS
19, Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan USJ 13 and Sekolah Menengah
Kebangsaan SS 17.
Dr Xavier Jayakumar, candidate for the Ampang parliamentary
constituency, made a police report denouncing the extension.
This lack of uniformity represented a serious weakness in the
electoral process in the 11th General Elections especially in
4. The electoral rolls were manipulated
The EC did not clean up the electoral rolls before publishing
them. They contained the names of people long deceased. Some
names appear more than once, either in different queue lists or
different voting district lists. And some rolls are haunted by
We have found that the electoral roll for the Lembah Jaya
polling district 099/20/02 that was gazetted on 16 March 2004
had the names of four voters who could cast their ballots more
than once. They were :
Ridzuan bin Md Zahar I/C 770826105553
Sani bin Sukir I/C
Mazrul Nizam bin Mohamad Misri I/C 790304145065
Frust binti ND Zakni @ Md Dahlan I/C 781101145940
Similar cases were detected in Serdang. For example, Siti Rohana
bte Abdullah (I/C 630110108116) was registered to vote in both
Sri Serdang and Sabak Bernam.
There were also cases of voters turned away because other people
had used their names and identity cards (I/C) to vote. One such
disfranchised voter was Normah binti Baharom (I/C 601002105644),
Serial Number 2467, polling station 01 – Sekolah Kebangsaan
Bandar Sunway, Queue 4.)
Mr Abdul Rahman bin Ibrahim, a candidate for the state seat of
Sementa (N.43), reported that the electoral roll supplied to his
polling agent in the last minutes was incomplete, with several
According to Mr. Abdul Rahman, the electoral roll for polling
district 109/43/04 Pekan Kapar in Sementa, voters who were
assigned the serial numbers 2084 to 2987 and 3363 to 3987 did
not exist. This means 1,531 (905+626) registered voters were not
able to vote on Polling Day. He too lodged a police report.
The abuse of electoral rolls was especially obvious in Hulu
Kelang, Gombak. The published roll by EC contained the names of
deceased persons and of those using the addresses of people not
related to them and without the consent of the householders. The
Hulu Kelang roll also had people with fictitious addresses.
The electoral roll for the Kelang Gate polling district
098/18/02 shows 5 voters with Chinese names and one Malay voter
lived at the home of the mother of Mohamed Azmin Ali, the former
Member of Selangor State Legislative Assembly for Hulu Kelang at
No. 1 E Kampong Kelang Gate, Hulu Kelang. They were:
Serial No. 517 Tan Teek Fong I/C No.
Serial No. 541 Lim Hock Seng I/C No.
Serial No. 677 Tan Teek Hock I/C No.
Serial No. 706 Song Poo Wan I/C No.
Serial No. 707 Chong Chee Peng I/C No.
Serial No. 765 Amirudin Bin Harun I/C No.
All of the voters above, except for Lim Hock Seng, did cast
their ballots in the 11th General Elections.
Mohamed Azmin’s father, Ali Bin Omar (I/C 280903025057) passed
away nearly 5 years and yet was still registered in the
electoral roll with the Serial Number 44.
Voter with a Serial Number 146 namely Zahara Binti Ahmad (I/C
440414105494) also is deceased. Yet, according to the record,
she too cast her vote in the 11th General Elections.
In Perlis, Mr Ramlee b. Ahmad (I/C 570710026315) lodged a report
with the Simpang Empat Police Station in which he complained
that one Shuib bin Taib (I/C 3585774), who died on 26 January
1976, was still registered as a voter and the record showed that
this deceased person cast his vote with a Serial Number 13 at
Queue 1, Sekolah Kebangsaan Kampung Serdang.
Sanusi Osman, candidate for the parliamentary constituency of
Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur reported the listing of voters of
doubtful identity and who could be classified under “phantom
voters.” According to the electoral roll in his constituency, 13
voters of different ethnic origins and genders shared an address
at No. 12 Batu 6 1/2 Jalan Puchong, Kampong Bohol, Lembah Pantai.
Similar doubts involving 26 voters were raised with regard to
the supposed occupants of No. 2 Jalan Sepat, Pantai Baharu,
Lembah Pantai; No. 5 Jalan Telawi 8, Bangsar Baru; No. 6 Jalan
Tempinis, Taman Lucky; and No. 5 Jalan Terasek 2, Bangsar Baru.
The electoral roll for Kelang Gate in Hulu Kelang also showed 6
voters using false addresses. They were:
Serial No. 419 Tan Ean Seng I/C No.
580421055303 BLK 22-5-14
Serial No. 629 Margaret A/P I/C No.
Serial No. 800 Tan Chin Hun I/C No.
681028086034 BLK 22-5-14
Serial No. 962 Yeow Siew Kian I/C No.
Serial No. 993 Nor Karina Binti I/C No.
750815065212 107 BLOK E
Serial No. 1062B Shila A/P C P I/C No.
800404145624 83 E
Kampung Kelang Gate came into existence in the 1960s. It is a
Malay community in which all the members live in individual
homes, not apartments, condominiums or flats. There is not a
single high-rise building in the kampong. The addresses given
for all 5 voters above were characteristic of addresses in
high-rise buildings. The address of voter with Serial Number
1062 was patently false. The last house in the region is 32 E.
We are further disturbed by the presence in the roll of so many
non-Malay voters. According to the record of a polling agent,
all of the voters listed above except Yeow Siew Kian and Nor
Karina Binti Mohd Nor managed to cast their votes on 21 March
study conducted by Malaysians for Free and Fair Elections (MAFREL)
showed that the electoral rolls for Gombak, Lembah Pantai dan
Tanah Merah had not been cleaned up, with many cases of
untraceable voters. In Lembah Pantai, 37.6 % of voters’
addresses could not be traced. For Gombak it was 26.01 % and for
Tanah Merah in Kelantan 11.01 %. This study also revealed one
address in Kampung Kerinchi in Lembah Pantai became the address
for 142 voters. The location is in fact a wooden shack with a
zinc roof where sundry goods are sold. The owner of the shop
denied that 142 people lived at the address.
Fuziah Salleh, who heads keADILan’s women’s wing, has registered
her protest over corrupt and doubtful electoral rolls.
She observed, among other things, that:
1. The electoral rolls listed incomplete addresses.
a. For the Kuantan parliamentary constituency, 5,179 addresses
gave only the localities and not the house numbers.
b. For some addresses, the house number was given, but not the
name of the street. This was especially the case with densely
populated areas such as Sungai Isap, which is within the Tanjung
Lumpur state constituency.
2. Some postal voters were registered to vote at two different
polling stations within the same parliamentary constituency.
3. There were deceased voters whose names had not been removed
from the rolls.
4. Some addresses were claimed by too many voters. In one case,
29 people claimed that they lived in the same house.
There were also cases in which ordinary voters were registered
as postal voters. For example, Hatijah bte Abu Bakar (I/C
600729015418), who lives at 46 – 12 – 1, Kondominium Teratai
Merah, Danau Kota, Setapak, Kuala Lumpur, was registered as
postal voter in the Bota state constituency which lies within
the parliamentary constituency of Parit, Perak.
Complaints were also received that the electoral rolls submitted
to the opposition parties did not have the complete addresses of
the voters. This was a deliberate act by the EC to deny the
opposition’s right to reach out to the voters.
However, the complete electoral rolls with full addresses were
supplied to BN and this is evident when BN Chairman, Dato’ Seri
Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi was able to send a personal campaign
message to every single voter in Malaysia utilizing the free
service of Pos Malaysia a few days before the 11th General
Elections on 21 March 2004.
5. The recording of voters’ serial numbers on ballot papers
Election officers routinely recorded voters’ serial numbers onto
their ballot papers and announced those numbers loudly across
the hall. This inspired fear among some voters that their votes
were not secret after all, that they were being monitored
secretly and systematically and that they were therefore not
free to vote according to their conscience. This is a violation
of the right to secrecy in casting one’s vote. This practice
must be stopped immediately.
A report against this practice was lodged at the Jasin, Melaka
6. Provision for withdrawing from a contest within 3 days
Section 11 (7) Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations
1981, Contested elections clearly states that ; “ If, after an
election has been reported as contested, one of the candidates
who stands nominated withdraws from being a candidate to the
Dewan Rakyat or the State Legislative Assembly, as the case may
be, within three days of the day of nomination, the candidate
shall give in person a written notice to that effect to the
returning officer. ”
provision opens the way to bribery. It encourages influential
and unprincipled candidates to offer bribes to their opponents
in return for withdrawing from the race. Indeed, such a corrupt
practice was exposed when a BN candidate in Johor tried to bribe
the PAS candidate into withdrawing. And the press statement
issued by keADILan’s candidate in Rantau provided evidence that
his opponent from the BN had tried to bribe him.
7. The voter turnout was too high to be credible
keADILan has misgivings with regard to the abnormally high
turnout of voters in UMNO-targeted areas such as in Kelantan,
Terengganu and Pahang. For example, the turnout in Pekan was
80.06 % and in Kuala Terengganu 88.84 %. Meanwhile, in states
where the BN was confident of winning, the turnout was
comparatively low - 69.55 % in Pulai and 68.55 % in Johor Bahru.
keADILan is also concerned over early reports that nearly 40,000
born outside Terengganu – some in Singapore – had cast their
votes in that East Coast state. The concern is justified by the
large number involved and their apparently well-organised
8. Hot Huts
Section 26 A (1) Election Offences Act 1954 (Amendment 2002),
Booth to be provided by Election Commission clearly states that;
“The Election Commission shall, on polling day, provide such
number of booths situated at such places as it thinks necessary
for the purpose of assisting electors to ascertain their
electoral numbers in the electoral roll.”
The new amendment to the Election Offences Act effectively
abolished the so-called “pondok panas” (literally, “hot huts”)
manned by political parties and replaced them with the EC
booths. However, two days before Polling Day, the EC announced
that hot huts were now allowed. Why? This reversal must be the
result of pressure from the BN, whose workers had gone ahead to
construct hot huts a few days before polling. The EC’s
inconsistency in this case reflects upon its irresponsible and
9. Election Offences Committed by the BN
Section 26 (1) Election Offences Act 1954 (Amendment 2002),
Limitation on polling day clearly states that; “No person
shall on polling day –
(e) within a distance of fifty metres from the limits of any
polling station –
(i) endeavour to establish the identity of any person entering a
(ii) check on any list the name of any person entering or
leaving a polling station;
(iii) solicit or persuade or attempt to persuade any person to
abstain from voting at the election, or to vote or to abstain
from voting for any candidate at the election;
(iv) wait or loiter except for the purpose of gaining entry to
the polling station to cast his vote, but nothing in this
paragraph shall prevent the proper officer or any person
authorized by the proper officer from carrying out his duties in
relation to the conduct of an election;
(g) within a distance of fifty metres from the limits of any
polling station and in a polling station wear, hold or carry any
form or type of clothing, head covering, ornament, rosette,
water bottle or umbrella on which the name of candidate or the
name, emblem or symbol of any political party is printed or
At Sekolah Menengah Syed Mashor, Batang Kali, in the polling
district of Hulu Kali 094/07/03, the BN used its Puteri UMNO
wing to solicit for votes for the BN within the banned area,
that is less than 50 metres from the polling station on Polling
Day. Also in Batang Kali, the BN set up election operations
rooms in at least the following public facilities: Balairaya
Kampung Sungai Masin, Balairaya Fasa 3, Ligamas, Komplek JKKK
Kampung Kuantan, Pejabat Rukun Tetangga Hulu Rening, Balairaya
Kampung Batu 30, Surau Kampung Pasir, Pejabat JKKK Kampung
Kalong Tengah / Hilir, Padang Awam Batang Kali, Balairaya Taman
Genting Permai, Balairaya Taman Arowana, Surau Kampung Hulu
Kalong, Pejabat Majlis Daerah (Pasar) Batang Kali.
The conversion of public facilities into BN operations centres
also occurred in the state constituency of Paya Jaras, Sungai
Buloh, such as at Balai Gerakan Masyarakat Paya Jaras Hilir,
Dewan Orangramai Bandar Baru Fasa 3, Dewan Orangramai Bandar
Baru Sungai Buloh Fasa 2, Dewan Orangramai Kampung Masjid, Dewan
Orangramai Bukit Darah, Dewan Orangramai Bandar Baru Sungai
Buloh Fasa 4.
A police report was lodged in Ampang complaining about the BN’s
use of almost all public halls in the Ampang parliamentary
We also received a complaint regarding the harassment of a
seconder of keADILan’s candidature for the parliamentary
constituency of Putrajaya. A police report number Putrajaya/000881/04
was lodged on 14 March 2004 (a day after the Nomination Day) at
the Putrajaya Police Station by Mr Fathullah Uzir bin Abdullah,
I/C No. 69120205739 alleging that the Political Secretary of
Dato’ Tengku Adnan Mansor threatening the wife of Fathullah Uzir
who is working at the Economic Planning Unit at the Prime
Minister’s Department unless Fathullah Uzir withdraws his name
from being the seconder of keADILan’s candidature for the
parliamentary constituency of Putrajaya. Mr Fathullah Uzir was
also offered bribe with money, holiday packages and also a
Petronas petrol station in Putrajaya.
keADILan views with seriousness the faulty conduct of the
Malaysian 11th General Elections and the evidence of cheating
and other forms of treachery. For that reason, we launched a
People’s Tribunal on 27 March 2004 for Selangor and on 28 March
2004 for Perak. The objective of the programme is to gather
information and strong evidence from registered voters who have
been denied of their right to vote freely and fairly in the 11th
The pieces of evidence presented in this memorandum are only
those that have been gathered to date. We are convinced that
many more people will come forward with other proofs in the near
future to be presented. We have reasons to believe that they
represent only a tip of an iceberg of a systemic exercise to rig
the 11th General Elections. We have warned, time and again, of
the possibility of the fraud before the election. The EC paid a
deaf ear to our warnings. Thus, the election were contaminated
with fraud and irregularities resulting in the denial of
citizens’ democratic rights.
In the name of genuine democracy and citizens’ empowerment;
1. keADILan demands the immediate resignation of
members of the Election Commission Malaysia, especially its
Chairman and Secretary.
2. keADILan also demands the immediate establishment
of a Royal Commission to investigate abuses in the election
process that led to the fraud and rigging of the election. The
EC Chairman has himself made a public statement to the effect
that the EC would agree to the establishment of such a Royal
3. The proposed Royal Commission must decide firmly on
the form of action to be taken against those responsible of
denying citizens their right to choose their representatives and
to vote fairly and freely in the 11th General Elections.
4. keADILan also demands the Royal Commission to
reexamine the role and responsibilities of the EC to ensure that
future elections are conducted cleanly, fairly and
DR WAN AZIZAH ISMAIL, MP
National Justice Party [ keADILan ]
April 2, 2004
ADDENDUM 2: Malaysiakini.com’s report of 25 March 2004
Massive gaps in EC’s ballot figures
By Yoon Szu-Mae and Cindy Choo
8:02pm Thu, Mar 25th, 2004
The Election Commission - a body tasked with the impartial
management of free and fair general elections - has come under
intense fire for a number of poll irregularities in last
Sunday’s general election. Now, there are more questions it has
Malaysiakini has been alerted by a number of readers to the high
number of unreturned - or 'missing' - ballot papers as well as
other discrepancies in certain constituencies.
According to them, there is a 10,000-large discrepancy in the
number of ballot papers issued to voters for the Kuala
Terengganu parliamentary seat.
A check with the Election Commission’s (EC) website today showed
that the total number of ballot papers issued for the four state
seats under the Kuala Terengganu parliamentary constituency was
Polling procedures require that every voter be issued their
state ballot papers the same time as their parliamentary
ballots. This would mean that all ballots issued for the state
seats should tally with the number of ballots issued for the
However, EC figures show that they issued a total of 71,322
ballots for the Kuala Terengganu parliamentary seat, exceeding
the total state ballots by 10,374.
The statistics showed that ballots issued for Wakaf Mempelam
(15,399), Bandar (15,031), Ladang (13,190), and Batu Buruk
(17,328) - all state constituencies under Kuala Terengganu -
only add up to 60,948 ballots.
Why the 10,000-odd difference in the number of ballot papers
issued for the parliamentary and state seats?
Three other seats, Setiu (Terengganu), Kemahang and Bachok (Kelantan),
also showed similar discrepancies ranging from 1,444 to 4,843
BN’s Razali Ismail won the Kuala Terengganu seat by a 1,933
majority against PAS’ Syed Azman Syed Ahmad Nawawi - the contest
recorded an astounding voter turnout of 98.7 percent.
In 1999, the voter turnout for this seat was only 76.5 percent,
out of 64,435 total registered voters for the seat.
BN also won the Bandar and Ladang state seats, while PAS took
Wakaf Mempelam and Batu Buruk. All the state seats saw high
voter turnouts ranging from 81.52 to 85.92 percent.
Syed Azman, when contacted, told malaysiakini that his party has
filed a formal complaint with the EC over the discrepancy in the
number of ballots for his seat.
"We are in the process of waiting for their answer," said the
former Kuala Terengganu MP, declining to comment further.
Also surprising is the fact that EC recorded an astonishing
10,254 ‘unreturned’ ballots for the Kuala Terengganu parliament
seat. Unreturned ballots for the constituency’s state seats only
amounted to 124.
Unreturned ballots are defined as ballot papers which were
issued to voters at polling stations but for some reason or the
other never made it to the ballot boxes.
This would mean that for Kuala Terengganu parliamentary seat,
one out of every seven ballot papers has gone missing.
The statistics oddly suggest that most of these 10,254 voters
managed to drop their votes into the state ballot boxes while
withholding their parliamentary ballot papers. This despite the
presence of EC officials next to the ballot boxes.
The discrepancy between the number of ballots issued against the
number of ballots received could not be more glaring than for
the parliamentary seat of Kuala Selangor.
EC figures for the constituency show that almost one out of
every two voters collected their ballots at their respective
polling centres but failed drop their votes into the ballot
The election authorities had issued 31,231 ballot papers for
Kuala Selangor parliament seat but recorded receiving only
13,271 votes. A total of 17, 960 ballots, or 57.5 percent, were
recorded as unreturned.
The same occurred for the state seat of Pangkor - which comes
under the Lumut parliamentary constituency in Perak - where one
out of every third voter did not drop their votes into the
ballot boxes. A total of 5,108 ballots were recorded as
unreturned out of the 6,712 issued.
Why is there such a high number of ballots papers unaccounted
The discrepancies in the EC’s figures for total number of
ballots issued for the state and parliamentary seats and the
number of unreturned votes highlights claims by opposition
political parties that the 2004 general election was conducted
in a ‘dubious manner.’
Following its unexpected poor performance at the elections, PAS
has questioned the sudden jump in voter turnout in Terengganu,
and the absence of registered voters from the electoral roll.
The party on Sunday was routed by the ruling Barisan Nasional
coalition, losing Terengganu and coming close to being defeated
in neighbouring Kelantan as well.
Yesterday, it moved to reject poll results, calling instead for
a royal commission to probe into complaints of poll
irregularities. Fellow opposition party, Keadilan, which also
suffered big losses at the polls, followed suit.
Chaos on polling day
Chaos erupted in various constituencies on polling day when
voters alleged that their names were not on the electoral roll,
despite having voted in that constituency in the past.
Nowhere was this more stark than in Gombak, Selangor, where
polling agents alleged that "hundreds" of names were missing
from the roll, and EC officers nowhere to be found.
Scores of others were caught out when they found that while
their names were on the roll, they still could not vote as the
EC failed to assign them to voting channels, a procedure
ensuring voters can obtain a ballot at their polling stations.
Some also alleged that they had been transferred, without their
knowledge, to other constituencies and even other states.
Malaysiakini managed to independently verify some of these
And while both BN and the opposition parties have criticised the
conduct of the 2004 general election, PAS, Keadilan and DAP had
gone one step further in calling for the resignation of EC chief
Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, as a first step in the direction of
correcting the electoral fiasco.
Yesterday, Abdul Rashid conceded to the electoral foul ups and
himself called for an independent probe, but said he would not
step down unless the problems can be traced back to his
ADDENDUM 3: Extract of FAC News report of 3 April 2004
In another development, Azmin Ali, keADILan’s Director of
Elections and a party Vice President, said the Election
Commission (EC) documents showed that his dead father had turned
up to cast his vote.
“Many voters who had died came to vote, including my late
father. Sad, I was unable to meet him,” quipped Azmin.
ADDENDUM 4: Extract of FAC News report of 3 April 2004
A Malaysian lady married to a foreigner, Hajjah Noor Ibrahim,
who has been living outside the country all these years, said
she was surprised to find her name registered as a voter. She
said, out of curiosity, she keyed in her identity card number,
510707-05-5292, into the EC website search section and found
that she was registered as a voter.
“All I know is I have never registered as a voter and have never
voted in my life,” said Hajjah Noor. “I have been living outside
Malaysia all these years.”
“I then went to the Malaysian Embassy in my country to enquire
how to vote,” Hajjah Noor went on to say.
“I thought, since I am now a registered voter, I might as well
vote to prevent someone else voting in my place.”
“To my surprise, however, I was told by the embassy official
that they have no postal voting system for Malaysians living in
my country. They told me if I wanted to vote I would have to fly
back to Malaysia to do so.”
“I cannot understand why I cannot vote through the postal voting
system when I live halfway around the world whereas police
officers and army personnel who live within walking distance
from the polling centres are obligated to vote through the
postal voting system.”
ADDENDUM 5: Extract of FAC News report of 3 April 2004
Then there were cases where women voted using the identity cards
of men. In one such case in Putrajaya, an opposition election
worker raised a protest and asked that the EC establish the
voter was merely a cross-dresser or transvestite and not a real
woman. However, no one dared volunteer to undertake the task of
doing the fondling so the she-man was allowed to vote on the
basis that he probably did have a male organ between his legs.