Defending Democracy by Exposing Electoral Irregularities

by Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj

The Electoral Roll for the country is updated annually by the Election Commission (SPR). Voters who have died are taken off, and new eligible voters who have reached 21 are added to the list. The Election (Registration of Voters) Regulations 1971, which sets detailed guidelines for this updating process, also sets out the procedure for any voter who wishes to object to the inclusion of any other voters in the Electoral Roll of his/her constituency.

The Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) team in Sg Siput has been objecting to the presence of several thousands of phantom voters in the Sg Siput (U) electoral roll ever since the 1999 election campaign. (See Table 1). Until now, however, we have not succeeded in getting the authorities to take any form of action against these phantoms.

The PSM team therefore decided to test the avenue granted by the Registration of Voters Regulations. According to this legislation, if any voter files an official objection against the inclusion of a particular person, the Election Commission has to hold a Public Inquiry to which the objector as well as the person being objected to are invited. The objector can make out a prima facie case for his objections, then the SPR will require the person being objected to, to give proof of his residential status.

Only One Form per Objector

The PSM filed objections to 382 phantom voters through 20 supporters and members of the BA in Sg Siput. However, we had to battle with the Perak SPR all the way. Initially the SPR did not want to release the objection forms to us. �Only one form per objector,� they said, �and you are not allowed to photostat more forms!� We had to complain to the SPR in KL just to be allowed to obtain sufficient forms to file the objections. Then SPR Perak attempted to dismiss all the objections filed by misrepresenting the meaning of certain provisions of the Registration of Voters Regulations. Again we had to send several letters to the SPR, and complain again to KL before the SPR Perak decided to hold a Public Inquiry.

The Public Inquiry started on 12 October 2000 and exposed several important matters. For example, six individuals who had been transferred from Ipoh to Sg Siput appeared before the SPR Board and testified that they were never residents in Sg Siput and that they could not understand how their names had been transferred to the Sg Siput rolls. They categorically denied having signed the forms required to transfer their votes to Sg Siput. We had earlier obtained copies of the form used to transfer several of these outside voters.

Signature on the Form was a Forgery

When we showed �her� form to a lady whose name had been transferred to Sg Siput without her knowledge, the SPR was shocked and embarrassed when she said that the signature on the form was a forgery.

Several of the outside voters were able to name the MIC official who they suspected had transferred their names.

A few Sg Siput house-owners came and testified that the phantom listed as �resident� in their houses were never ever there.

Several phantom voters were registered with addresses of houses that have not yet been built!

All in all it was a good expose, and the SPR was forced to accept that there has been a widespread transfer of outside voters into Sg Siput electoral list.

The MIC bungled the handling of this Inquiry. Initially they sent in their thugs to try and insult and harass us. When this did not deter us, five lawyers headed by Sothinathan, the newly elected MP for Teluk Kemang, turned up to represent the phantoms.

These lawyers attempted to argue that the evidence that we provided did not meet the necessary requirements and thus the voters being objected to did not need to reply; they tried to stretch the meaning of �residence�; they tried to persuade the SPR that we had to prove that the phantom had no other residence in Sg Siput; they ranted about how we were depriving their clients of their democratic right to vote, etc.

We'll take the matter to the AG's Chambers

However, when this line of attack failed to stem the tide, and the SPR kept on ruling in our favour, Sothinathan lost his cool on 2 November 2000, and threatened to �take the matter to the AG�s Chambers� and led a walk-out of the MIC lawyers!

The SPR proceeded with the Public Inquiry. We had filed objections against 382 voters. We withdrew our objections against 43 of them because we realised that our evidence against them might not be good enough, and we did not want to make any mistakes. Of the 339 objections that went through the hearing, we were right in saying that the voters were not residing at the addresses given in the SPR roll for 330 of them � an accuracy rate of 98 per cent, which we are quite pleased with, given the conditions under which our investigation into phantom voters was carried out immediately after the elections.

We are now waiting to see how the SPR is going to proceed. The Public Inquiry has provided them with very clear evidence of electoral fraud and forgery of signatures that was coordinated by the MIC in Perak.

As custodians of free and fair elections, the SPR is dutybound to pursue the leads that have emerged in the course of this Public Inquiry and continue with the clean-up of the Sg Siput list. 311 phantom voters have been transferred back to their actual place of residence. That still leaves some 5500 other phantoms still on the rolls. However, going by history, it is likely that the SPR will slip back into its stupor; in which case we will have to think of ways to prod them into action again.

Defend and Preserve Democracy

The exposure of fraudulent practices such as the massive registration of phantom voters, is time consuming. However we believe that it has to be done if we wish to defend and preserve the meaningful practice of democracy in Malaysia.

It would be good if others also pitch in and combat other dirty tricks and electoral irregularities that occur during the elections. Intimidation of voters through the mass media is one good example. The buying of votes by using public funds is another. Only if these and other irregularities are exposed and challenged, can we hope to stem this undemocratic tide and discourage these perpetrators from carrying on with these irregularities. Only then we can prevent further erosion of our democratic rights and make the electoral process a meaningful one.