Share |

Tuesday, 14 May 2013

Palani turned MIC into Pensioners Club

The party is crying out for a new vibrant leadership that can take it forward to be on par with the aspirations of the community. Palanivel is not the person for that.
COMMENT

By Vivega

MIC president G Palanivel must quit immediately and take responsibility for the party’s dismal polls result in the general election.

The party has lost its direction under the leadership of Palanivel, resulting in the massive beating it got in the polls. The party lost five parliamentary seats and 13 state seats it contested.

Running the party like a “Pensioners Club” will only lead MIC to further humiliation and destruction. Palanivel is regarded as the most weakest president the party ever had.

Palanivel who was not elected by the general assembly and became the party’s acting president in 2010 after S Samy Velly stepped down.

Since 2012, the strength of the MIC president was not tested as Palanivel’s term has expired as the presidential term is for three years only, which ended in March 2012.

Sources within the party say Palanivel is trying hard to get the support of Samy Vellu in the coming presidential election.

MIC needs fresh elections. MIC needs fresh top level leaders with integrity and substance. The new party president must carry out reforms and re-engineer the party so that MIC can move forward.

MIC needs a new credible and competent president, not someone who give reasons why the party did poorly in the GE.

Grassroots leaders of MIC want the long overdue MIC presidential election to be held as soon as possible but party’s secretary-general S Murugesan says he has not received any instructions from Palanivel to call even for the CWC meeting. Wonder what is Palanivel waiting for?

Saravanan the favourite

The question before us now is as to who can best replace Palanivel. The party needs a young and vibrant leader.

Party insiders say M Saravanan, who successfully defended the Tapah seat, is the popular choice.

Saravanan is the party vice president and is seen by political observers as a daring and capable young leader who understands the heart beat of the Indian community.

In order to run for presidential election, Saravanan needs a solid team. He can’t do it alone.

The fact remains that vice president SK Devamany, ex-deputy president contender S Sothinathan and Youth chief T Mohan need to team up with Saravanan and lend their support to bring about change in the leadership of the party.

The new party president must carry out reforms and re-engineer the party so that MIC can move forward.

Before MIC is warded in the ICU, the party urgently needs a think tank group to chart a new party direction.

Vivega is a political observer and an MIC member.

SJKT, BM dan agama Hindu

Mana-mana pihak yang menyeru SJKT dimansuhkan perlu terlebih dahulu tampil menyokong penulisan bahan berkaitan agama Hindu dalam Bahasa Malaysia.
COMMENT

Salah satu topik yang kembali dipolitikkan puak tertentu sejak belakangan ini adalah supaya sekolah-sekolah jenis kebangsaan Cina dan Tamil (SJKC dan SJKT) dimansuhkan.

Maknanya, kesemua sekolah di negara ini akan menjadi sekolah kebangsaan (SK). Ingat: “kebangsaan” dan bukannya “Melayu” seperti diimpikan puak fanatik, etrosentrik, ultra kiasu dan rasis tertentu.

Secara kebetulan, baru-baru ini saya berbincang bersama-sama beberapa rakan mengenai penulisan karya berkaitan budaya India dan agama Hindu dalam Bahasa Malaysia. Nampaknya topik yang saya kemukakan itu akan menjadi lebih penting sekiranya SJKT dimansuhkan dan semua kanak-kanak kaum India belajar di SK.

Kalau diperhatikan, sejak tahun 1970-an – iaitu sejak istilah “Bahasa Malaysia” diperkenalkan dan sistem pendidikan kebangsaan mula diberikan keutamaan ke arah pembinaan “Bangsa Malaysia” – ramai ibu bapa kaum India (dan Cina) menghantar anak-anak ke SK.

Walaupun saya sering menulis dan mengungkitkan pelbagai kepincangan yang nyata terdapat pada SJKT, tidak bermakna saya mahu sekolah berkenaan dimansuhkan. Sebaliknya, harapan saya adalah dupaya segala kelemahan yang wujud perlu diatasi.

Tambahan pula, Barisan Nasional (BN) sudah memberikan pelbagai “janji manis” bagi memelihara SJKT selagi gabungan parti-parti politik berasaskan kaum itu terus menguasai Putrajaya.

Misalnya, dalam buku “Nambikei: Janji Ditepati” (sebuah buku haram kerana tiada maklumat ISBN, penerbit, pencetak dan sebagainya) dinyatakan bahawa “RM340 juta dibelanjakan oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan dari 2009 hingga 2011 untuk pembangunan infrastruktur di lebih 250 sekolah Tamil di seluruh negara”.

Malah, BN juga berjanji bahawa tujuh lagi SJKT akan dibina; menjadikan jumlahnya 530 buah. SJKT baru yang dimaksudkan dalam “janji BN” adalah di Lunas, Sungai Petani, Sungai Siput, Petaling Jaya, Klang, Cheras dan Masai.

Bagaimanapun, memandangkan ada “puak” yang lebih berkuasa daripada BN dalam menentukan senario politik, sosial, ekonomi, budaya dan pendidikan negara, kita andaikan sahaja bahawa kesemua SJKT berjaya dimansuhkan sepenuhnya. (Nota: Usah bermimpi mahu menghapuskan SJKC!)

Pada waktu itu, tentulah Bahasa Malaysia akan menjadi bahasa utama generasi muda kaum India; khususnya secara bertulis dan membaca. Bahasa Tamil akan menjadi bahasa kedua atau ketiga dalam andaian melampau (extreme assumption) ini. Maknanya, pengetahuan budaya India dan agama Hindu (atau Kristian) paling berkesan jika disampaikan kepada mereka menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia.

Saya amat bersetuju! Malah, pada masa sekarang, rata-rata rakyat Malaysia daripada kalangan kaum India beragama Hindu berumur 50 tahun dan ke bawah menguasai Bahasa Malaysia (selain bahasa ibunda dan bahasa-bahasa lain). Maka, apa salahnya jika bahan bacaan berkaitan agama Hindu (termasuk buku cerita, majalah dan komik) diterbitkan dalam Bahasa Malaysia.

Kalimah Allah dalam Bible jadi pengajaran?

Usah kita lupa bahawa hak mendalami agama masing-masing dilindungi Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Bahasa Malaysia pula adalah bahasa kebangsaan dan bahasa rasmi negara ini. Lalu, bukanlah sesuatu yang pelik atau menimbulkan kemusykilan jika bahan-bahan berkaitan agama Hindu bagi bacaan penganut agama Hindu diterbitkan dalam bahasa kebangsaan.

“Pada pandangan saya, adalah tidak wajar bahan berkaitan agama Hindu diterbitkan dalam Bahasa Malaysia. Saya tidak mahu melihat boleh atau tidaknya ia dilakukan dari aspek Perlembagaan, tetapi dari aspek sensitiviti umat Islam yang membentuk majoriti penduduk di negara ini,” kata Haizir Othman dari Klang, Selangor.

Pegawai perpustakaan yang berasal dari Jasin, Melaka itu berpendirian bahawa umat Islam pasti akan tersinggung. Beliau mengemukakan isu penggunaan kalimah “Allah” dalam Bible sebagai contoh yang disifatkannya “boleh merencatkan keharmonian antara kaum dan agama di Malaysia”.

“Di Malaysia, orang Melayu sudah amat sinonim dengan agama Islam. Ia suatu status quo yang bagi saya, tidak perlu diubah. Maka, jika Bahasa Malaysia (bahasa Melayu) digunakan dalam penerbitan bahan bacaan berkaitan agama Hindu, saya risau sensitiviti agama Islam akan terkait sama.

“Puak ekstrim ada di mana-mana. Mereka mungkin akan menggunakan peluang ini untuk memulakan sengketa. Pada pandangan dan permintaan saya, usahlah bahan berkaitan agama Hindu diterbitkan dalam Bahasa Malaysia kerana mudaratnya lebih banyak daripada manfaat,” kata pemuda berumur 33 tahun itu.

Seorang calon ijazah kedoktoran di Institut Perbankan dan Kewangan Islam, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia (UIAM) turut berkongsi pandangan secara ikhlas berhubung topik ini yang memang boleh dianggap sensitif sekiranya tidak ditangani secara profesional.

“Salah satu ‘hindsight’ berikutan isu penggunaan kalimah ‘Allah’ dalam Bible adalah kemunculan golongan Muslim yang sederhana (moderate) dalam sudut pandangan (worldview) mereka. Saya merupakan salah seorang daripada mereka,” akui Mohd Zaidi Md Zabri yang lahir di Ipoh, Perak.

Pemuda berumur 30 tahun ini tidak menolak realiti golongan “religious bigot” (ekstrimis agama) hadir dalam kebanyakan agama.

“Saya hampir 100 peratus yakin bahawa jikalau bahan-bahan berkaitan agama Hindu ditulis dalam Bahasa Malaysia untuk bacaan penganut agama Hindu di Malaysia, golongan yang saya sebutkan tadi bakal gelisah bak cacing yang kepanasan. Apa-apa pun, teruskan sahaja usaha itu,” kata Mohd Zaidi.

Memandangkan Bahasa Malaysia adalah bahasa rasmi dan lingua franca negara, Nagathisen Katahenggam tertanya-tanya apakah rasional bagi mana-mana pihak melarang penerbitan bahan-bahan berkaitan agama Hindu dalam Bahasa Malaysia untuk bacaan penganut agama berkenaan.

“Bukankah kita sering diseru supaya bertutur dalam Bahasa Malaysia? Masyarakat majoriti juga selalu mengkritik golongan minoriti jika kurang menggunakan bahasa kebangsaan. Lalu, kenapa perlu memprotes usaha memperluaskan penggunaan bahasa kebangsaan dalam kalangan minoriti beragama Hindu?” Demikian pertanyaan penjawat awam berumur 31 tahun ini.

Nagathisen dari Jelutung, Pulau Pinang juga mengingatkan bahawa Bahasa Malaysia menjadi bahasa komunikasi bagi pelbagai lapisan masyarakat dalam kalangan kaum India; sama ada berpendidikan tinggi atau kurang berpendidikan.

Penting bagi pupuk kesedaran, atasi masalah sosial

“Sekiranya ada bahan berkaitan agama Hindu dalam Bahasa Malaysia, maka sedikit-sebanyak dapat digunakan untuk mendidik kaum India beragama Hindu; sekali gus menjadi medium menyelesaikan masalah sosial yang sering dikaitkan dengan golongan tidak berpendidikan tinggi.

“Kalau ada pihak yang terlalu bimbang, maka satu kompromi yang dapat dilakukan adalah dengan mencetak frasa UNTUK BUKAN MUSLIM SAHAJA pada kulit buku atau majalah terbabit,” katanya.

Berbalik kepada kebimbangan yang diluahkan secara ikhlas oleh Haizir, Navanitha @ Nitha Nairu dari Menglembu, Perak cuba memberikan penjelasan agar tidak timbul sebarang kekeliruan.

“Bagi saya, penerbitan yang dimaksudkan adalah untuk memupuk kesedaran dalam jiwa remaja/belia beragama Hindu. Harus dinyatakan bahawa perkara ini tiada apa-apa kaitan dengan penganut agama Islam; atau usaha menyebarkan agama Hindu kepada penduduk Muslim.

“Cadangan penerbitan bahan berkaitan budaya kaum India dan agama Hindu dalam Bahasa Malaysia tidak sepatutnya dijadikan isu. Tambahan pula, jika pegangan agama dan keimanan seseorang adalah tinggi, tidak timbul soal penganut Islam akan tertarik untuk membaca bahan-bahan agama Hindu ini; apatah lagi meninggalkan agama asal,” juruteknologi makmal perubatan yang berasal dari Kangar, Perlis itu mengingatkan.

Turut berkongsi pandangan dalam isu ini ialah R Balamurali (Vehl Murali), peguam berumur 29 tahun yang berasal dari Pahang dan kini tinggal di Sungai Buloh, Selangor.

“Saya mengikuti isu berkaitan penggunaan kalimah ‘Allah’ dalam Bible. Memang ada anggota masyarakat yang mengeluarkan pandangan yang tidak berasas kerana hanya mendapatkan maklumat dari media arus perdana tertentu yang sudah tercalar kredibilitinya.

“Agak malang bahawa di negara ini, sentiasa ada golongan yang cuba memanipulasi isu-isu berkaitan agama demi kepentingan politik dan diri. Mujurlah majoriti umat Islam tidak termasuk dalam kategori sedemikian; sebaliknya melibatkan kumpulan kecil sahaja. Umpama nila setitik,” Balamurali menghuraikan.

Peguam muda itu juga perpendapat bahawa kebimbangan yang diluahkan secara ikhlas oleh orang-orang seperti Haizir mungkin disebabkan kurangnya akses maklumat dan pencerahan minda berkaitan isu sebenar berhubung topik penerbitan bahan bacaan agama Hindu dalam Bahasa Malaysia.

“Saya berpendapat bahawa kebimbangan seumpama itu adalah tidak berasas. Lebih-lebih lagi, maklumat mengenai agama Hindu yang mahu ditulis menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia adalah berbentuk ilmu, ilmiah dan pengetahuan sahaja. Bukan sebagai bahan memujuk orang lain memeluk agama Hindu,” katanya.

Hasil daripada pengalaman saya sendiri, ramai juga orang “Bukan Kaum India” dan “Bukan Hindu” berminat membaca bahan-bahan berkaitan budaya kaum India dan agama Hindu yang saya tulis dalam bentuk fiksyen (cerpen, novel, cerita bersiri) dan non-fiksyen (makalah, kertas kerja) menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia sejak tahun 1992.

Tidak seorang pun daripada mereka yang meninggalkan agama asal selepas membaca bahan-bahan berkenaan. Sebaliknya, mereka berupaya lebih mengenali, memahami, menghormati dan bersifat empati terhadap rakan-rakan kaum India beragama Hindu.

Uthaya Sankar SB pernah menyiarkan novel “Panchayat” dan “Hanuman” secara bersiri di FMT. Kini, kisah “Mahabharata” disiarkan pada setiap Ahad.

'Race baiting' heightens on May 13 anniversary


Syrian Rebel Bites Heart of Dead Soldier: Video

BEIRUT (Reuters) - A video of a Syrian rebel commander cutting the heart out of a soldier and biting into is emblematic of a civil war that has rapidly descended into sectarian hatred and revenge killings, Human Rights Watch said on Monday.

The New York-based group said an amateur video posted on the Internet on Sunday shows Abu Sakkar, a founder of the rebel Farouq Brigade who is well known to journalists as an insurgent from Homs, cutting into the torso of a dead soldier.

The video has caused outrage among both supporters of President Bashar al-Assad and opposition figures.

"I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog," the man says to offscreen cheers of his comrades shouting "Allahu akbar (God is great)".

The Syrian conflict started with peaceful protests in March 2011, but when these were suppressed it gradually turned into an increasingly sectarian civil war which, according to one opposition monitoring group, has cost more than 80,000 lives.

Majority Sunni Muslims lead the revolt, while Assad - whose family have ruled for over four decades - gets his core support from his own Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam.

Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch said that he had seen an original, unedited copy of the video and that Abu Sakkar's identity had been confirmed by rebel sources in Homs and by images of him in other videos wearing the same black jacket as in the latest clip and with the same rings on his fingers.

"The mutilation of the bodies of enemies is a war crime. But the even more serious issue is the very rapid descent into sectarian rhetoric and violence," said Bouckaert.

He said that in the unedited version of the film, Abu Sakkar instructs his men to "slaughter the Alawites and take their hearts out to eat them", before biting into the heart.

Abu Sakkar has been seen in previous videos firing rockets at Lebanese Shi'ite villages on the border and posing with the body of a soldier purportedly from the Lebanese Shi'ite militant Hezbollah group, which is helping Assad's forces.

Reuters cannot independently verify videos from Syria, where access is restricted by the government and security constraints.

(An edited version of the video can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9IRn5b0aik)
(Reporting by Oliver Holmes; Editing by Alistair Lyon)

Anwar: Ex-judge's speech puts Ku Klux Klan to shame

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has blasted a former judge’s comments at a forum yesterday for being racist, drawing comparisons with the Ku Klux Klan and Adolf Hitler.

mohd noor abdullah ex court of appeal judge 130513“Former appeal court judge Mohd Noor Abdullah’s (left) racist speech puts the Ku Klux Klan to shame and makes Hitler proud.

“How long more are we to tolerate such hate mongering and race baiting from the illegitimate Najib government?” said Anwar in a statement today on his blog.

Yesterday during a forum organised by UiTM Malaysia Alumni Association and Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung in Kuala Lumpur, Mohd Noor warned the Chinese that there would be a backlash for their “betrayal” of the ruling party at the 13th general election.

“For the Malays, it is taboo to be betrayed, because when they are betrayed, they will react and when they react, their vengeance will be endless,” the former judge was reported saying at the forum.
Among the points raised during the forum titled ‘GE13 post-mortem: Muslim leadership and survival’ were the suggested abolition of vernacular schools and how BN can amend the state constitution to prevent  non-Malays and non-Muslims from being a menteri besar in states where the coalition has two-thirds majority.

Anwar slammed Umno for sowing “hatred and discord” and said that in contrast, Pakatan Rakyat will continue to foster peace and understanding among various races.

NONE“While Umno sows the seeds of hatred and discord, we in Pakatan Rakyat will shower this nation with goodwill and mutual respect, and in doing so foster peace and understanding in our society.

“Let’s all stand shoulder to shoulder and remain united. To Malaysians, thank you for coming out tonight (to the Black 505 rally) in Ipoh and showing these zealots what being Anak Malaysia means,” he said.

DAP's Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo said that such racial attacks stems from Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's inability to act against individuals who have been making racial statements.

"The prime minister has over and over again promised to be a prime minister for all Malaysians under the 1Malaysia concept, which is supposed to be a policy aimed at removing racial politics. He has obviously failed," Gobind said in a statement.

NONE"He has failed to defend Malaysians who exercised their constitutional rights to vote. He has failed to show respect for the fact that citizens have every right to vote for whomsoever they want without fear of threats or compulsion," the statement further read.

Gobind (left) added that it is now "alarming" that the Malaysian government is "openly encouraging" a threat and blame exercise targeted at its own people, particularly the Chinese.

"He (Najib) must demonstrate that he is a Malaysian prime minister. He must put a stop to it and must do it now," he stressed.

Gobind also said that the conduct of Mohd Noor casts a "shadow of gloom" over those who argued that Malaysia's judiciary has always been independent.

"We can now see the mindset of some judges such as Mohd Noor, who is also the same judge who convicted (DAP secretary-general) Lim Guan Eng for offences against the Printing Presses and Publications Act and for sedition in 1997," he noted.

‘We gave you wins, now give us posts’

An emboldened Iban community in Sarawak wants premier Najib Tun Razak to consider its 14 Dayak MPs for full ministerial posts.

KUCHING: As Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak mulls over his Cabinet list, Sarawak has reminded him that the state delivered 26 parliamentary seats to Barisan Nasional’s final tally of 133 seats and “deserves a bigger representations”.

Taking this a step further, the local Iban community pointed out that of the 26 seats delivered to BN, 14 were won by Dayaks.

Kuching Iban community leader James Jimbun Pangga said Dayaks had always been loyal and supportive of BN’s leadership.

As such, he said it was only conceivable that Najib appoint “four or five full ministers” from Sarawak.

“We helped BN achieved victory, so why not have four to five full ministers from Sarawak.

“This should include some from the Dayak community since all the 14 BN Dayak candidates won their seats,” Jimbun said during a pre-Gawai celebration dinner here.

Najib is expected to announce his new cabinet on Wednesday.

As late as Saturday night, there were talks that MPs from Sabah and Sarawak were busy lobbying for posts. Running parallel to this were rumours of “negotiations” between Najib and certain MPs from Sabah, who were still considered “vulnerable”.

Last Friday, FMT disclosed that BN was trying to retain its MPs in Sabah as Pakatan Rakyat-led Anwar Ibrahim was said to be courting them.

Pakatan, which has alleged electoral fraud in the May 5 general election, secured a total 89 seats in the final count.

PKR identifies five seats

Both Sarawak and Sabah contributed a collective eight seats for Pakatan. The number fell short of the cumulative 15 the coalition had aimed to secure from both these states.

Earlier today PKR strategist Rafizi Ramli said their investigation team had determined 27 seats nationwide where electoral fraud had taken place.

Of this, two are in Sarawak – Baram and Saratok – and three in Sabah – Kota Marudu, Beaufort and Pensiangan.

Rafizi said PKR had used four criteria to determine fraud and this include;

i) Margin of wins below 5%;

ii) Spoilt votes outnumbering small margin of win;

iii) Early and postal votes outnumbering the margin of win garnered from normal votes, to the extent that it affected the results of the normal votes; and

iii) seats with reports of fraud

In Baram PKR candidate Roland Engan polled 8,988 votes against BN’s 9,182. An independent Patrick Sibat managed 363 votes.

In Saratok, BN candidate William Mawan garnered 11,600 votes against PKR Ali Biju’s 9,519. BN won by slim majority of 2,081 votes.

In Sabah’s Kota Marudu, BN’s Maximum Ongkili retained his seat by a 842 vote majority in a four-cornered fight. He polled 15,168 votes against PKR’s Maijol Mahap. Mahap polled 14,326 votes.

The other two candidates from State Reform Party and Sabah Progressive Peoples Party secured 2,228 votes and 444 respectively.

Meanwhile in Beaufort, PKR’s Lajim Ukin (incumbent) lost to BN by 673-vote majority to BN’s Azizah Mohd Dun.

And in Pensiangan, BN’s Joseph Kurup retained the seat by 1,744 majority.

Indians are for Pakatan

The GE13 results show that BN was wrong in assuming that it has regained the community’s support.

By Satees Muniandy

In the build-up to GE13, Barisan Nasional leaders, particularly those from MIC, engaged in a lot of chest thumping about Indian support for the coalition returning to pre-2008 levels.

They claimed that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s overtures had cooled down the community’s anger with the BN government that became obvious following the 2007 Hindraf protest and the subsequent ISA crackdown on its key leaders.

Leaving BN propaganda aside, there were some credible claims that the community felt let down by some Pakatan Rakyat state governments, particularly Kedah.

The PAS-led government of the rice-bowl state had failed to honour a promise to declare Thaipusam a state holiday. Furthermore, there were complaints that the sole Indian representative in the state executive council, S Manikumar of PKR, had failed to resolve several issues of concern to members of the community living in southern Kedah.

Nevertheless, observers noted that the community was generally pleased with the performance of the Penang and Selangor governments, particularly in relation to employment opportunities for Indians and issues regarding land for Hindu temples and Tamil schools.

In the days approaching GE13, Najib appeared to have pulled off a coup when Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy signed a memorandum of understanding with his government and subsequently urged the Indian community to return BN to Parliament with a two-third majority.

There was immediate disapproval from his estranged Hindraf associates, including his brother, P Uthayakumar, who in the eyes of many Indians is still the leader of the movement.

Waythamoorthy’s perceived betrayal of the Indian cause provoked strong protests in many parts of the nation. This did not bode well for BN, at least on paper.

To make matters worse, it turned out on nomination day that BN had decided to back the candidacy of maverick politician Zulkifli Noordin, just weeks after it became known that he had insulted Hinduism in a talk recorded on video and uploaded to the Internet.

So how did the Indians vote on May 5?

Let us first look at how MIC fared. It won only four of the nine parliament seats it sought and five of 18 state seats—an abysmal performance by any reckoning.

It lost in the parliamentary contests for Sungai Siput, Kapar, Subang, Teluk Kemang and Kota Raja—all urban constituencies where Malays form the majority of voters. This means MIC cannot blame poor Chinese support for BN as a cause for its defeat.

Indeed, it is now well known that 60% to 80% of support for BN came from the Malays, strongly indicating that Indian voters—at least those in urban areas—ditched MIC in droves in GE13.

The Indian swing to Pakatan was so strong that even the strong Malay support for BN could not rescue MIC in these constituencies. This has been acknowledged by no less a figure than the party’s secretary-general, T Murugesan.

In Kota Raja, for example, Malays make up 44% of the electorate, with Indians and Chinese accounting for 29% and 25% respectively. The PAS candidate, Siti Mariah Mahmud, won the seat by a thumping 29,395 majority, with a vote share of 64% of the turnout.

Assuming, at best, 45% to 50% Malay and 80% to 90% Chinese support for Pakatan, 75% of the Indians must have given Siti Mariah their votes.

This support proportion is roughly applicable in every one of the five parliament seats that MIC failed to secure.

Nevertheless, MIC is still in denial with regard to its Indian support in rural areas. Its spokesmen have referred to its slim victories in Cameron Highlands, Segamat, Hulu Selangor and Tapah to argue its case.

However, a closer look at these constituencies reveals a different picture altogether.

First, Indians account for only 10% to 14% of the voters in these constituencies, compared to the likes of Kota Raja with 29% Indians, Sungai Siput (21%) and Teluk Kemang (21%).

Second, an analysis of the voting streams shows that most Indians actually voted for Pakatan. For example, the predominantly Indian streams in Cameron Highlands—such as those in Ladang Sungai Palas, Ladang Blue Valley and Kampung Raja—voted overwhelmingly for DAP’s M Manogaran. The Indian support for DAP in these streams was about 65%.

Finally, these constituencies share a unique characteristic in that the Orang Asli, a known vote bank for BN, form a sizeable proportion of the electorate. They represent 20% to 30% of voters in Cameron Highlands and Tapah. Their votes negated the Indian support for Pakatan candidates.

The Felda voters

In Hulu Selangor and Segamat, BN has another large community it can count on—the Felda settlers. It is estimated that the Felda streams gave 90% to 95% support to BN.

An analysis of the voting in the Kedah state constituency of Lunas gives a clear illustration of how even rural Indians rejected BN in GE13.

The electorate breakdown in Lunas is 46% Malays, 28% Chinese and 25% Indians. BN boasts that it has 55% to 60% Malay support in Kedah. If this figure is applied to Lunas, then the winner, PKR’s Azman Nasruddin, must have received 40% to 45% Malay support, along with 80% to 85% Chinese support. For him to have won with the huge majority of 9,084, his Indian support had to be between 75% and 80%.

The same argument can be applied to other rural or semi-urban constituencies with large Indian voting populations where MIC was defeated, namely Bukit Selambau (Kedah), Sabai (Pahang), Hutan Melintang (Perak) and Ijok (Selangor).

Indian candidates representing Pakatan fared extremely well in GE13, with solid Indian electorate support. Eight Indian MPs and 18 state assemblymen from Pakatan parties were victorious in GE13.

Constituencies with the highest number of Indian voters in the country, like Prai (36%), Seri Andalas (35%) and Buntong (48%) witnessed massive victories for Pakatan candidates.

P Ramasamy, one of Penang’s deputy chief ministers and the DAP candidates for Prai, won a whopping 78% of the votes and his rival, L Krishnan of MIC, was only about 900 votes away from losing his deposit.

In Sri Andalas, PKR’s Xavier Jayakumar smashed his rival from MIC, youth chief T Mohan, with a majority of 15,633 votes.

The Indian-majority voting streams in both Prai and Seri Andalas gave between 70% and 80% of their votes to Pakatan.

This analysis estimates the Indian support in urban areas for Pakatan to be between 70% and 80% and in rural areas between 60% and 70%. MIC’s few victories were due to the strong backing of either Felda settlers or Orang Asli.

GE13 has dispelled the false belief that Indian support has returned to BN.

The writer is political assistant to Penang Deputy Chief Minister (II) P Ramasamy

No significant cheating in Sungai Siput

Although doubts remain on the authenticity of the voters’ lists, PSM's winning candidate says there were no conclusive evidence of significant cheating during the polling process.

By Dr Michael D Jeyakumar

The sheer volume of complaints we received indicates how little trust the Malaysian public have in the EC. And it is good to see that the Malaysian public are prepared to monitor the polling process itself to ensure it is not hijacked by any party.

There were many complaints of electoral irregularities, if not fraud, during the course of the 13th general election campaign and during polling day.

As this seems to be a hotly debated issue, I would like to share my experience as the candidate for the Sungai Siput parliamentary constituency.

There were many voters who came claiming that their names were not on the Election Commission’s list of voters though they had voted in previous elections. We have recorded their names down and intend to take this up with the EC.

There were also others whose names were registered in the voting list of other constituencies though they had voted in Sungai Siput before, and had not applied for a change in constituency. This too we intend to follow up.

It was painfully obvious that the BN campaign was far exceeding the RM200,000 expenditure limit for a parliamentary seat. Their flags, banners and posters by itself would come to much more than that.

House-owners who allowed the BN to tie banners on the fronts or sides of their houses were paid RM300!

There were numerous programmes during the campaign period when the BN gave out hampers, gift vouchers, and conducted lucky draws with rice cookers and toasters as presents.

There were several programmes where government agencies launched projects, such as the ground breaking for a new Tamil primary school and the handing out of Tekun loans amounting to RM2.5 million to about 100 applicants.

The BN candidates (for the parliamentary and two state seats) were the guests of honour in these sort of events while the opposition candidates were not invited.

Buses to ferry voters

On polling day, our supporters found four tour buses parked in Sungai Siput.

When my team and I when to check, there were no passengers in sight – but the drivers said that they had brought Malaysians working in Singapore back to Perak to vote.

We made a police report and the police detained the four buses and took statements from the drivers.

We were given a list of 35 names by one of the bus drivers – young Malays and Chinese mainly. No foreigners!

When we contacted the handphone numbers recorded in this list, the people named confirmed that they had come on that bus from Johore to Perak on May 3.

We have not been able to identify the passengers from the other three buses yet, but intend to try and do so by contacting the companies. But we do not have any proof that these buses brought in foreign voters.

In any case, our people in the Pondok Panas did not notice foreign looking people trying to attend the voting centres.

Many voters also complained about the ink that washed off. I called the returning officer and he said that perhaps the bottle of ink was not shaken properly. We advised all those complaining to make police reports.

Ballot boxes by helicopter

There are video postings of a young SPR officer guarding two yellow ballot “bags” in a field. That field happens to be in Sungai Buloh in Sungai Siput.

They contained the 237 votes from Orang Asli voters in Kuala Mu. As was agreed, polling at Kuala Mu stopped at 2pm, and the votes were counted there in the presence of PAS counting agents.

The Borang 14 was given to these counting agents, and the ballot papers were then sealed in these two bags and flown by helicopter to Sungai Siput. All these arrangements were made known to us on the afternoon of nomination day.

So this is not evidence of any hanky panky here, but a crowd of about 500 Sungai Siput residents had surrounded the ballot bags and it was only after I arrived and assured them that it was okay that they allowed the SPR to take these bags to the main counting centre.

Another complaint filed to us is the wilful delay in announcing the results.We got the copies of the Borang 14 from most of our polling centres by 8pm. By 8.30pm we knew we had won by about 2,800 votes.

However it took the EC another five hours to announce the result. Painful, but there wasn’t anything sinister in this.

It was the process of tabulation – the EC required each of the 104 “Ketua Tempat Mengundi”to submit his Borang 14 to the Returning Officer, the ADO. This would be typed in and projected on to a screen to enable the candidates to cross-check against their own Borang 14.

After a few minutes, an assistant to the Returning Officer would announce over the mike that vote results from such and such school had been accepted, and it would be added to the cumulative total. Openness and transparency can be time-consuming!

Entrance of 8 EC bags at 11.30pm

Many people in the hall were alarmed when this happened. I was already about 5,000 votes ahead when this happened and many supporters were anxious that extra votes were being brought in to cheat us of our victory! Again, nothing sinister.

The votes from three interior Orang Asli villages were not counted at site, though the process of voting was observed by our PACA.

These votes were brought out by four-wheel drives to the District Office where they were counted under observation of my and PAS’ counting agents.

The “Undi Awal” were also counted then. Apparently it was all done one by one which is why it took several hours to complete. These arrangements were made known to all parties contesting on nomination day itself.

PRU 13 was not a fair one. The mainstream media and government agencies supported the BN shamelessly and openly. And the BN spent far more than the legally permitted limit for each constituency.

There are serious lingering doubts about the authenticity of the voters’ lists. However in Sungai Siput, we were not able to find conclusive evidence of significant cheating during the polling process.

The sheer volume of complaints we received indicates how little trust the Malaysian public have in the EC. And it is good to see that the Malaysian public are prepared to monitor the polling process itself to ensure it is not hijacked by any party.

There is a much higher level of citizen activism to preserve the sanctity of the polling process compared to before. This is good for a democracy and we must say our thanks to the Bersih movement.

And Syabas to the general public. If we want a better system we have to put some effort into creating it.

Dr Michael D Jeyakumar is PSM’s winning candidate for Sungai Siput. He defeated MIC’s SK Devamany and an independent by a majority of 2,793 votes to retain this seat.

Racism

Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin

The word ‘racism’ is currently being very freely used to describe what happened last Sunday. DAP accuses Umno of being racist while Umno accuses DAP of the same thing. The problem is some of these people do not understand what the word ‘racism’ means.
In fact, many Chinese readers have accused me of being a racist mainly because they do not understand what the word means. Maybe this is because there is no equivalent word in Chinese -- as there is none in Bahasa Malaysia as well. What is the Bahasa Malaysia word for racist anyway (other than ‘rasis’)?
(Utusan Malaysia, 12 May 2013) -- UMNO bukan parti rasis – PM: Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak menegaskan, UMNO bukan parti rasis kerana ia sentiasa memberi keadilan kepada rakyat tanpa mengira kaum di negara ini.
Many people are confused about the meaning of racism (the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others -- or discrimination/prejudice based on race), parochialism (narrowly restricted in scope or outlook such as provincial) and nationalism (devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation).
For example, during World War II, the Americans thought that Japanese pilots would never be able to beat American pilots because of the way the Japanese are ‘built’. Due to their short body and slit eyes, they make poor pilots. Or so the Americans thought until the Japanese whacked them good and proper.
This would be racism. The Americans considered the Japanese inferior to the ‘whites’ because the Japanese were not built like the ‘whites’.
For a long time, the European Christians (plus the Vatican) considered the natives of the Americas, in particular those of Latin America, as not human -- a sort of animal on two legs that could talk. Hence it was not wrong to kill the Native Americans (or what they used to call the American Indians) because these people, just like animals, do not have a soul.
You only need to look into the eyes of the American Indian to know that they do not have a soul, said the Pope in Rome. And this, too, was why it was considered okay to capture and sell the black Africans as slaves and kill them like pigs if they resisted or tried to escape. It is because they are not white so that would mean they are not really human beings.
Now, what happens if Kelantanese want a ‘local’ political party to rule their state (such as PAS, as opposed to Umno, which is a ‘Kuala Lumpur’ party)? This would not be called racism. That is parochialism. It is not that the PAS candidate is Malay while the Umno candidate is Chinese. Both are Malay. But one Malay is from a ‘Kelantan’ political party while the other Malay is from an ‘outsider’ political party.
In Terengganu, if a person from Besut contests in, say, Kemaman, this Besut candidate would most likely lose. The voters may be Umno members but if the Umno candidate is from Besut while the PAS candidate is a local Kemaman chap, then there is a strong possibility that the Kemaman voters will vote PAS rather than Umno even if these voters are Umno members. Hence it is not party loyalty but the spirit of daerah (district/province) that prevails. ‘Anak Kemaman’ (a child of Kemaman) is more important to the Kemaman voters than keahlian Umno (Umno membership).
A Chinese born in Melaka can contest in Penang or a Chinese born in Penang can contest in Johor and would most likely win because the Chinese support the party. This may not work on the Malay voters. Only in rare cases can a Malay candidate cross state boundaries (or even district boundaries) and still win. The Malay candidate who crosses boundaries must be an extremely ‘strong’ personality to win in another kawasan (area). 
But don’t think that the Chinese are not sometimes parochial as well. I have known DAP to get a ‘headache’ because the Hakka voters insisted that the DAP candidate must be Hakka. If not then they will vote MCA (who fielded a Hakka candidate) instead of DAP. Is this racism? How can it be racism when both candidates are Chinese? The only thing is he or she must be Hakka Chinese and not a non-Hakka Chinese.
As I said, there are ‘exceptions to the rule’, even amongst the more parochial Malays. For example, Onn Jaafar from Johor won in Kuala Terengganu and Mat Sabu from Penang won in Kelantan. Then we have Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, the PKR Sec-Gen, who was born in Singapore and yet won in both Kedah and Kelantan on a PKR and not PAS ticket (but lost this time around in Kedah against a ‘local boy’).
Finally, there is nationalism. Japanese will only buy Japanese products even when they travel to Singapore or Kuala Lumpur to shop. The Japanese are not racist for buying Japanese products. They are nationalistic in wanting to support Japanese industries. Some Malaysians only fly MAS even if they have to pay more or buy fuel from Petronas even if they have to drive farther to find a Petronas petrol station for the same reason.
I whack the Chinese. And for that I am being called a racist. But do I think that the Chinese are not ‘real’ citizens of Malaysia and therefore do not deserve equal treatment or I think that the Chinese are inferior people? Far from it! In fact, I think the opposite.
But I also whack the Malays (and have been doing so for a long time). So does that make me a racist when I am also Malay? A racist is supposed to be someone who discriminates or looks down on another race. You may argue that for the last two years I have not been whacking the Malays much whereas for the 20 years before that I was whacking the Malays kau-kau.
Well, what more can I say about the Malays that I have not already said? I have already repeated so many times the same criticism and anything more I can say about the Malays will just be more of the same thing, which I have already said hundreds of times (yes, hundreds of times at hundreds of articles a year over the last almost twenty years since 1994).
For 20 years I was never called a racist for whacking the Malays. In fact, I was called a ‘towering Malay’. Only when I started whacking the Chinese am I suddenly a racist.
The bottom line is you can whack your own race as much as you want, and the more the better, but you must never ‘touch’ the other race. In that case, should we criticise the Arab extremists for killing innocent Jewish schoolchildren when we are not Arab? Should Australians criticise the Umno Malays for what the ‘whites’ view as fraudulent general elections in Malaysia?
You can only whack someone of your own race but not someone from another race even if there is cruelty and injustice involved. So that would mean non-Malays or foreigners should not criticise Umno or the Arabs unless you are Malay or Arab. Is that how it works? And if you do not follow this ‘rule’ does that make you a racist?
Okay, let us now talk about the so-called Chinese Tsunami last Sunday, 5th May 2013. Never mind whether it was or was not a Chinese Tsunami. Umno says it was. DAP says it was not. However, even if it was a Chinese Tsunami, what is wrong with that? Is that racism? That is called parochialism. So you voted for your community. So what? That does not make you a racist.
Let’s go to another example. Would a Chinese win if he/she contested in, say, Besut? Let’s say a PAS Chinese candidate born in Bagan, Penang, contested in Besut against an Umno Malay candidate born in Jertih, Terengganu. Would the PAS members in Besut vote for PAS or for Umno?
Hence both PAS and Umno would not only field Malay candidates in Besut but the Malay must also be local born. Even Anwar Ibrahim may lose against a local boy like, say, Idris Jusoh. So this is not about race. This is about ‘good politics’. And it is not race that decides but parochialism. And that is the same reason why Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail will never win a seat in Singapore even though she was born in Singapore and even if Singapore laws allow her to contest. She is not Singaporean. Period.
Racism is foul. Parochialism is normal. Nationalism is commendable. Just don’t confuse one with the other. And do not label everything as racism. If not then the ‘Malay’ government of Malaysia will have no business to protest if one day the US attacks China. Umno is neither Chinese nor ‘white’.
************************************************
Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.
The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't constitute discrimination. Critics argue that the term is applied differentially, with a focus on such prejudices by whites, and defining mere observations of racial differences as racism. Some definitions would have it that any assumption that a person's behaviour would be influenced by their racial categorization is racist, regardless of whether the action is intentionally harmful or pejorative. Other definitions only include consciously malignant forms of discrimination. 
Among the questions about how to define racism are the question of whether to include forms of discrimination that are unintentional, such as making assumptions about preferences or abilities of others based on racial stereotypes, whether to include symbolic or institutionalized forms of discrimination such as the circulation of ethnic stereotypes through the media, and whether to include the socio-political dynamics of social stratification that sometimes have a racial component. Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviours and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.
Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to the United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination, and superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere.
In history, racism has been a major part of the political and ideological under-pinning of genocides such as The Holocaust, but also in colonial contexts such as the rubber booms in South America and the Congo, and in the European conquest of the Americas and colonization of Africa, Asia and Australia. It was also a driving force behind the transatlantic slave trade, and behind states based on racial segregation such as the USA in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and South Africa under apartheid. Practices and ideologies of racism are universally condemned by the United Nations in the Declaration of Human Rights.

Wake-up call in Malaysia

BN under pressure to dismantle race-based policies as opposition draws more support from all sides, lifting popular vote above 50%. 

Newspaper section: Asia focus

History was supposed to have been made on May 5, the day Malaysians came out in record numbers to vote for a new government.

Some pundits predicted the country’s 13th general election — GE13 in the local shorthand — would be a defining moment that ended the grip on power by the Barisan Nasional (BN). Many were preparing for opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim to be ushered in as prime minister the next day.

The huge interest in the contest for 222 Parliamentary seats and 505 state seats was reflected in the record turnout — 84.84% or 11.25 million of the 13.2 million registered voters. Of the total, 2.3 million were new voters.

Since independence from Britain in 1957, Malaysians have known no other government than BN, a coalition of the United Malays National Organisation (Umno), MCA and Gerakan representing the Chinese, and MIC representing Indians.

The opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) comprises the new and predominantly Chinese Democratic Action Party (DAP), PAS (Parti Islam Se-Malaysia) and PKR (Parti Keadilan Rakyat) led by Anwar.

Anwar was quick to declare victory via Twitter early on election night, five hours before the official announcement at midnight by the Election Commission. The results showed the BN returning to power, but not without bleeding more seats at both the federal and state levels compared to 2008. As well, its share of the popular vote fell to 48.7% against 51.3% for the PR.

But in Malaysia, where the government for years has been accused of skewing electoral boundaries to favour candidates in its rural heartland, losing the popular vote is no bar to winning the House.

BN won 133 federal seats, just one less than in 2008, and 274 out of the 505 state seats. PR won 89 parliamentary seats, six more than in 2008. The opposition retained control of Malaysia’s two wealthiest states — Penang and Selangor. PAS held on in Kelantan but lost Kedah to BN. Anwar’s party also caused hairline cracks in BN’s once “fixed deposit” states — Johor and Sabah.

The opposition continues to insist that it was robbed of victory, that the polls were rigged and the process marred by fraud. The poll watchdog Bersih has also refused to recognise the BN government until it verifies reports of electoral fraud.

Reports from southern Thailand, to cite just one example, said that BN was paying 400 to 500 ringgit in “travel expenses” to each voter holding Malaysian nationality to travel south to cast ballots. International observers, however, said the polling process on the whole was fair and transparent.

A group of young voters in Sabah participated in a silent walk on Tuesday to express their disappointment over the results, which they felt did not reflect the nation’s desire for a change in government.

Addressing some 60,000 supporters at a rally last Wednesday night, Anwar vowed that PR would challenge the results in at least 30 seats.

Prime Minister Najib Razak, who was sworn in on Monday, conceded that his party had some work to do to regain voters’ trust.

The clear winner among the political parties that contested the election was the DAP, which engineered what Najib ruefully called “the Chinese tsunami” of votes that abandoned the BN. That left the BN’s Chinese-based parties including MCA and Gerakan as the biggest losers.

Chinese voters increasingly are expressing their disapproval of decades of race-based development policies that favour ethnic Malays. They claim the policies have not promoted equality but have simply entrenched corruption.

However, BN’s weaker showing points to a strong wave of rejection from all Malaysians and not just from the minority Chinese. A major swing in the urban and middle-class electorate shows that Malaysia’s urban-rural rift is widening.

Experts analysing the results say there has been a political awakening in the country, which in the longer term will be beneficial. The evolution will continue, with the restlessness of the younger generation wanting to have a say in their future ensuring that the politics of race will sooner rather than later be put out to pasture.

Rather than blaming the Chinese for voting for the opposition, the BN should admit that it has failed to heed the new political reality. MCA and MIC had failed to serve the community they were created to serve and they no longer appeal to the younger voters.

Though Najib has made a lot of changes since he came to power four years ago, he has to do more. His government must continue to dismantle bumiputera policies and also introduce the Goods and Services Tax (GST) to make Malaysia more competitive and lift it out of a middle-income trap.

As well, a total review of the education system can no longer be avoided, a social security system needs to be in place, and exorbitant higher education fees addressed. The rising crime rate is also a serious matter.

Now it is time for reconciliation, as unity is the key in diverse Malaysia. However, equality for all, regardless of gender, race or religion is a critical factor. For unity to work, Malaysians should not longer be judged based on their race.

The government has five years to undo past mistakes and bring change or else the next battle — GE14 — will be won by the party that can present a better united front.

Face the law, married or not

The Star
by WONG PEK MEI


PETALING JAYA: The man who plans to marry a 13-year-old girl he allegedly raped should still face the law, said the Malaysian Bar.

Its president Christopher Leong said the statutory rape charge should still stand.

“The two getting married does not resolve the issue of alleged statutory rape by a 40-year-old.

“We cannot send the wrong message to society that statutory rape is acceptable if the alleged culprit subsequently marries the alleged underage victim,” he said yesterday.

On May 9, it was reported that the restaurant manager had agreed to marry the teen who then decided to withdraw her accusation against him in a police report lodged on April 18.

The man had allegedly raped the student inside a parked car at a roadside in Inanam, near Kota Kinabalu, at 10am on Feb 18.

DPP Ahmad Nazmeen Zulkifli told Sessions Court judge Ummu Kalthom Abd Samad the prosecution had no objection to the case being withdrawn but the man needed to first settle the matter with the Syariah Court.

Sisters in Islam executive director Ratna Osman concurred that the charge for statutory rape should proceed.

“There is a criminal charge here. An accused does not get the privilege of escaping criminal charges by deciding to marry the victim he is accused of raping,” she said.

Ratna called on the Syariah Court to reject any application for marriage to a minor under 18, especially since there is a pending criminal charge against the applicant in this case.

Association of Women Lawyers' president Meera Samanther questioned the consent allegedly given by the girl to marry the man.

“Does this young girl have the mental and physical capability to consent to such an important decision like marriage?,” she asked.

“We have to act in the best interests of the child as stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that Malaysia has ratified.”

Meanwhile, Sabah police commissioner Datuk Hamza Taib said any decision lies with the Attorney-General's Chambers.

“We have completed our investigations and submitted the findings.

“It is up to the A-G on the next move,” he said.

What more does Kit Siang want? At least five things – clean, free and fair elections; Malaysia as a normal democratic country; restoration of rule of law; world-class education and a safe, green, healthy and united Malaysia

Utusan Malaysia today carried its campaign to demonise me as an ogre and monster to a new height when in its main article on its editorial page by its senior editor Zulkiflee Bakar, posed the question: “Apa lagi Kit Siang mahu?”, launched a series of baseless attacks and insinuations against me.

Let me first answer the Utusan question: “Apa lagi Kit Siang mahu?”

My answer is: At least five thing – a clean, free and fair elections; Malaysia as a normal democratic country; restoration of rule of law; world-class education and a safe, green, healthy and united Malaysia.

If there is a clean, free and fair elections system, the Prime Minister in Malaysia today after the 13th general elections is Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and not Datuk Seri Najib Razak, as Pakatan Rakyat would have no difficulty in winning 125 parliamentary seats distributed among PKR 45, PAS and DAP 40 each with a comfortable majority of 28 out of 222 parliamentary seats.

Even despite the dirtiest election in the nation’s history, with UMNO/BN resorting to three main dishonest and unscrupulous strategies of “Money Money Money”, “Lies Lies Lies” and “Fear Fear Fear”, Najib is a minority Prime Minister winning only 47% of the popular vote while Anwar and Pakatan Raykat won the majority of the 51% popular vote, first time in the nation’s 56-year history of 13 general elections.

As a result, for the first time in the nation’s history, the nation and Parliament will have a Prime Minister whose legitimacy is under a cloud as he does not command majority popular vote as compared to Anwar.

Can Najib and the Elections Commission blame substantial sections of the Malaysian people, in particular the new young generation of Malaysians who feel cheated in the 13GE when their clear choice who should be Prime Minister and who should form the new Malaysian government had been stolen from them as a result of the dirtiest general elections in the nation’s history?

Secondly, like all patriotic Malaysians, I want Malaysia as a normal democratic country, where all political parties and candidates accept the cardinal principle that voters have the fundamental democratic right to choose the elected government for the next five years, where there is peaceful and democratic transition of power through the ballot box, and where a change of government is regarded as a routine democratic exercise and not a national catastrophe, justifying the most dire and threatening of scenarios, like chaos, mayhem and a repeat of May 13 Incidents.

Thirdly, the restoration of the rule of law, where the law is no respecter of persons but would be upheld with no immunity or impunity because of a person is ensconced in the group of cronies protected by the powers-that-be.

If there is a restoration of the rule of law, where the law is no respecter of persons, the former Court of Appeal judge Mohd Noor Abdullah would have been arrested, charged, prosecuted and jailed for making the most reckless, irresponsible, seditious and racist of speeches in the past 44 years!

Why is Mohd Noor getting immunity and impunity for making the most seditious and racists speeches in the past 44 years?

Similarly, why is the Perkasa Vice President Zulkifli Noordin enjoying immunity and impunity for his seditious lies and falsehoods, such as accusing me as the cause of the May 13 riots in 1969?

Yesterday, on the eve of the 44th anniversary of the May 13 riots in 1969, Zulkifli sent out a series of criminal and seditious tweets, such as:

“Tomorrow is May 13… the 44th anniversary of race riots in Malaysia which was the atrocity of chauvinists including Kit Siang’s party which used the slogan Malai-Seh or Die Malay.”

These are downright lies and falsehoods, as I was never in Kuala Lumpur on May 11 – 13, 1969, and was never involved in any processions through the streets of Kuala Lumpur, not to mention the alleged slogans like “Malai-See”.

In fact, former Umno member Tamrin Ghafar, who is son of former Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Ghafar Baba, had spoken at ceramahs during the 13GE, clearing me of any involvement in the May 13 riots, saying that it was a mini-coup in Umno itself to topple the first Malaysian Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman.

The sources quoted by Tamrin was Tunku himself and the former Home Minister, Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie.

Fourthly, world-class education, whether primary, secondary or university for all Malaysians. At present, Malaysia lagged behind other countries in educational standards for science and mathematics subjects, whether at the primary or secondary levels Our universities also trail behind universities in other countries, as we fail to be ranked even in the World’s Top 400 Universities.

Fifthly, a safe, green, healthy and united Malaysia. I need only mention Johor Baru which is the capital of crime in Malaysia, where no person feels safe and everyone is haunted by the fear of crime – a totally unacceptable state of affairs which must be corrected without any delay whatsoever.

I am prepared to have a rational debate with Utusan Malaysia or anyone on what is best for the future of the country, but Utusan Malaysia is not interested in any such rational debate but only in carrying out the Umno agenda to demonise me.

For instance, Mingguan Malaysia yesterday carried a front-page report about rumours that a DAP official had tried to bribe the Registrar of Societies to get the DAP deregistered – when there is no totallyt truth or basis whatsoever.

But what is shocking is that Utusan could put such a rumour on its front page, creating the most disgraceful record in Malaysia and world journalism, where rumours become front page news.

How low can the Utusan editors plumb to in their scraping the bottom of the barrel to placate and please their Umno masters in the campaign of demonisation against DAP leaders and me?

Utusan Malaysia also carried a report and a commentary on my describing Najib as a “shaitan” (devil”) when I had never done such a thing.

Utusan has violated all ethics and journalistic standards. Can it descend further?

'Transformation' Cabinet To Meet People's Aspirations

KUALA LUMPUR, May 13 (Bernama) - After fielding a 'transformation' team in the 13th general election (GE13), Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak is expected to form a 'transformation' Cabinet.

He needs a strong team with new ideas to continue the national transformation agenda towards making Malaysia a high income and developed nation by 2020.

The new Cabinet should hear the pulse of the people after the message delivered by voters in GE13 as well as strengthen national unity.

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) Centre for Technology Policy and International Studies director, Prof Dr Azmi Hassan said the Cabinet members should be qualified and not because of other factors.

Based on the GE13 results, voters want a new Cabinet line comprising more new faces and young leaders willing to speak for the people's interest, especially youths.

"Malaysian society has become more critical. Sometimes, those appointed as ministers have to buck the trend to meet the needs of the people," he said.

Chinese leaders should be in the Cabinet and they need not necessarily be political leaders but technocrats, business people and leaders of non governmental organisations (NGO).

The MCA and Gerakan had decided to decline government posts due to their disastrous showing in GE13.

Meanwhile, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) Politics and International Studies lecturer Md Shukri Shuib felt it is time many young people join the Cabinet to draw support to BN.

Since many urban voters rejected BN, he proposed a ministry for urban development be established and focus should not be only on Kuala Lumpur.

The 25 ministries should be retained but some need to be revamped to suit Najib's transformation agenda in politics, economic, administration, management and implementation.

The Ministry of Information Communications and Culture should be broken up as it consisted of many agencies to give focus more on specific areas.

Md Shukri said 'regional political dimension' should also be avoided when making the Cabinet although some states contributed more seats to BN in GE13.

"It is important to appoint ministers who can work and put them in ministries based on expertise such as an engineer as Minister of Public Works."

The new cabinet will hopefully help the prime minister bring change to the people and nation and deliver promises (Aku Janji) made in the BN manifesto.

This is important because their performance will be judged by the people who will vote for the party in the 14th general election (GE14).

13th General Elections of Malaysia – A Fraud Analysis

This article can be downloaded as a PDF.
Download the PDF here.
Please note that this analysis is done for academic interest only.
Please do not parade the results for your propagandas
The media landscape of 2013 is a very new one. The 13th General Elections of Malaysia had taken on its own life on social media websites like Facebook and Twitter, what with hashtags like #ubah and catchphrases like ‘ini kalilah”. This author had watched the Malaysian General Election with a certain perverse obsession, despite having nothing to do with it.
There were rhetorics abound, made by supporters of both parties. Ridiculous claims and promises – objectively unsustainable ones – were made by the ruling party. Slogans were shouted on traditional media and on social media. There were ceramahs and there were concerts. Then came Election Day. By Election Day, the situation had turned out to be what I consider fairly ugly. Look out for fraud, people were told. Look out for phantom voters, such as Bangladeshis, derogatively called ‘Banglas’, who were hired by the ruling party, Barisan National to play phantom voters. Many allegations and rumours of citizen arrests circulated around Facebook and Twitter.
As with any election, comes the counting. During the counting period, there were again, many anecdotal stories about blackouts followed by sudden increase in ballot boxes; stories about vote swapping; and stories about new ballot boxes being ferried in. Naturally, people cried foul over such activities, once again claiming fraud. This situation was exacerbated by the announcement that Barisan National had won the elections and would remain government.
People were not happy, and for a period of two to three days, social media was flooded with “evidence” to fraud. In this author’s opinions, they were hardly evidence of fraud, merely anecdotal evidence. To quote Michael Shermer, Editor in Chief of Skeptic Magazine: “Anecdotal thinking is natural. Science requires training.”
And so, this author decided to perform some analysis to determine if fraud had happened.

Affiliation Disclaimer

This author has no affiliations with any political party in Malaysia. The analysis was done mainly out of academic curiosity. However, considering rather racist and segregationalist claims made by the leaders of Barisan National, the results of the analysis has presented an ethical dilemma to the author.
The ethical dilemma is this: Should this analysis ever be discovered by a political party, it would most definitely be paraded around. By the ruling party, this analysis will most definitely be misconstrued as the General Elections were conducted fairly; by the opposition party, this analysis will most definitely be misconstrued as propaganda from the ruling party.
And yet, this author owes it to the enlightened peoples of Malaysia, to present a analysis that is not fraught with emotions, nor side: A factual analysis, so to speak.
As such, the data and source code used in this analysis will be open source and available to all.

The 13th General Elections of Malaysia: A statistical analysis

In this study, we shall analyse the results of the 13th General Elections of Malaysia through the lens of a statistician. We will do so with a rough framework of answering the various questions of fraud that had been floating around social media websites. With the big question in mind: DID FRAUD OCCUR?, and we will begin by investigating the allegations of how such frauds might occur. We will finally return to the question at the end of the analysis.
We will acquire data from official figures released by the SPR (both from The Star and the compilation by James Chong.
Both data from The Star and James Chong have been matched up and no discrepancies were found.

A General Overview

We begin with a general overview of the question: Did fraud occur? with a cursory glance at the numbers of the elections. A very popular technique to discover evidence of fraud is to apply a Benford’s Law analysis on the numbers of the elections.
Benford’s Law refers to a specific form of frequency distribution of digits in many real-life data. Many people have defined this as data from naturally-occuring processes. The idea is that the first (and/or) second digit of numbers generated from naturally-occuring processes would fall into this sort of distribution: ’1′ in the first digit would appear more often than ’2′; ’2′ will appear more often than ’3′; ’3′ will appear more often than ’4′ and so on and so forth. Specifically, ’1′ would appear in the first digit about 30% of the time, and ’9′ will appear in the first digit about 5% of the time. Mathematicians are still trying to figure out why this happens.
We would expect that if a process generates the numbers naturally (i.e. the numbers have not been tampered with), the numbers will follow the distribution of Benford’s Law. However, if the numbers have been tampered with, one would expect aberrations in the distribution, with spikes in other numbers.
An election is a naturally-occuring process that generates numbers in terms of votes, and turnouts. We would expect, if the election numbers have not been tampered with – such as with ballot stuffing – would follow a distribution that is quite similar to Benford’s Law. It should be noted that some deviation is to be expected.
Without much further ado, we shall analyse the distribution of the numbers generated by the 13th General Elections of Malaysia. The Benford’s Law distribution is plotted for both vote counts for each party (BN vs PR) and for turnout vs registered voters.
Benford Law Distribution vs Votes for BN and PR
Benford Law Distribution vs Votes for BN and PR
This chart shows the distribution of first digits of votes for each party, as compared to the Benford’s Law distribution (pink line). Note that both PR and BN lines do follow the Benford’s Law distribution quite closely (it does in fact fit quite well)
Benford's Law Distribution vs Registered Voters and Voter Turnout
Benford’s Law Distribution vs Registered Voters and Voter Turnout
This chart shows the distribution of first digits of the turnout and the number of registered voters, as compared to the Benford’s Law distribution. Do note that the registered voters count is slightly off the Benford Law distribution, for the number 2.
What does this imply? It does imply that the election is fairly natural and the election numbers were generally not tampered with. The distribution of ’2′ in the registered voters could be concerning, but it’s not much to stand on.

Alleged Discrepancies

The use of Benford’s Law in election data has been widely disputed. Deckert et. al. (2011) asserts that it is like flipping a coin to determine if fraud had occurred, and ‘…at best a forensic tool’ – which is what precisely we treated the results as. With a skeptical mind, we pursued further.
Perhaps one of the more easily verified allegations floating around social media is that the numbers do not add up (such as in this picture). To achieve this, we combed through the data for discrepancies.
We approached the discrepancy problem with a rather novel method due to the data. We had noticed that the turnout numbers for both data from The Star and James Chong were actually sums of the actual votes for each party and the number of rejected votes. They were not actually reported number of total votes. As such a simple analysis for discrepancy (i.e. taking the sum of actual votes for each party and the number of rejected votes, and then comparing it to the reported total votes) would be a useless affair. Instead, a different method had to be used:
The election was split into two parts, and most people in most states had two ballots: one for state level (N) and one for parliament level (P). If there were to be any discrepancies, it would most likely show up in the differences between the State level and the Parliament level, due to logistics involved in ballot stuffing.
We computed a table of the total number of votes for the N level and the P level elections, and computed their discrepancies. We define an acceptable error margin of 1% to account for human and systemic error (because humans do make mistake, both in counting and entering data into a spreadsheet).
Below is the resulting table:
State-Parliament Discrepancies
State-Parliament Discrepancies
As can be noted – the discrepancies are very minute – and most definitely within acceptable error margin. Were we to reduce the acceptable error margin to 0.5%, all of the data would still be within acceptable range.
Observant readers will notice that Sarawak as well as the Federal Territories is missing from this list. This is because of the way the discrepancies were counted: they require both N and P level vote counts. Due to the unique history of Sarawak, the state elections will be held much later, and the Federal Territories are not states, therefore do not contribute to the N level votes. They were therefore omitted from analysis.
One might also notice that this does not actually answer the question of discrepancies as listed in the allegation above. The reason is simple: a per-electorate turnout ratio was computed for further analysis below, and no electorates were found to have turnout rates higher than 91%. This completely dispels the allegations of higher-than-100% turnout/voting rates

Systemic Election Irregularities

Astute readers would have noticed that the phrase “ballot stuffing” has been thrown about a few times thus far. Indeed, the whole exercise of this analysis is to figure out if fraud had happened by ballot stuffing. The state-of-the-art method of detecting election fraud was created by Klimek et. al (2012). In their paper, Klimek et. al. had defined two form of voting fraud: a) Incremental fraud; b) extreme fraud. We have taken their approach, and adapted it to the Malaysian general elections.

Incremental Fraud

Incremental fraud is defined as fraud that causes increases the vote count for the winning party. Ballot stuffing is a common method, and was described by Klimek et. al. in their paper. In the Malaysian context, we take the allegations of fraud and consider them one by one.
  • Phantom voters – phantom voters are voters that do not exist on the electoral roll, and yet have their votes counted in. This is the traditional ballot stuffing. Here are a few ways to perform a phantom voters fraud: i) a bunch of new ballots from unknown origin for the defrauding party are added to the ballot box before or during counting (such as after a blackout); ii) after counting, increment the result count for the defrauding party, per channel (saluran)
  • Dirty electoral roll – a dirty, or tainted electoral roll simply has the people who are not supposed to be on the electoral roll be on the electoral roll and voting. Here are a few ways to perform this fraud: i) pre-register a bunch of foreign workers as citizens eligible to vote – perhaps with financial incentives – and have them vote for the defrauding party; ii) have one person be registered to vote and vote at multiple electorates; iii) have one person vote multiple times per electorate (holding fake ICs and removing the indelible ink, for example)
  • Default votes – default votes are votes that default to the defrauding party. An example of this kind of fraud is as such: change all incoming postal/military/police votes to default to the defrauding party.
All these fall under the purview of Incremental Fraud. In every way, it is essentially robbing the non-defrauding parties of votes.
According to Klimek et. al., incremental fraud can be modeled as such: ‘[W]ith probability fi, ballots are taken away from both the nonvoters and the opposition, and they are added to the [defrauding] party’s ballots.’
To detect incremental fraud then, is simple. If any one of the methods were used, we would expect the number of total votes to increase, in relation to the actual number of people. If the electoral roll is dirty, we would also expect the number of registered voters to increase.
Therefore, if incremental fraud had happened, we should expect to see a correlation between the percentage of people who voted for the defrauding party, and the percentage of people who turned up – in essence, because these extra people who turn up, we expect them to vote for the winning party.

Extreme Fraud

In the Klimek et. al. paper, extreme fraud was characterized as “…[W]ith probability fe, almost all ballots from the nonvoters and the opposition are added to the winning party’s ballots.”. Here, we differ from the Klimek paper. Instead of defining extreme fraud as one where nearly all of the opposition’s votes are swapped into votes for the defrauding party, we define extreme fraud as swapping results of counts, as per this allegation.
Although it is more than likely that the allegation were the results of clerical error, it would be nonetheless interesting to simulate what would happen.
Extreme fraud in our case is modeled as such: with probability fe, if the count of votes for the opposition part(ies) is higher than the count of the defrauding party, switch the counts so that the defrauding party has the count of the opposition party.
Both Klimek et. al.’s modeling of extreme fraud as well as this author’s own modeling of extreme fraud were performed. However, in interest of brevity of this article, only our modeling will be shown. The Klimek modeling of the election data will be provided in a link next to the caption of the images. Interpretation will be left as an exercise to the reader.

The Analysis

Now that Incremental Fraud and Extreme Fraud , as well as examples of those fraudulent activities are defined, we proceed to detect irregularities. Because we are only concerned with Barisan National defrauding the election process to win the government, we will restrict our analysis to the P-level elections.
First, we look at the logarithmic vote rate for Barisan National at the P level. As in the Klimek paper, we assume that the vote rate can be represented by a Gaussian distribution, with mean and SD taken from actual samples.
Logarithmic Vote Rate for BN
Logarithmic Vote Rate for BN
The logarithmic vote rate. From this figure, it can be observed that the vote rate is roughly Gaussian in nature, albeit not centered at 0, and is probably bimodal
The skewness for Barisan National at P level elections is 0.697269; while the kurtosis is 4.237479. One data point (PASIR MAS) was removed because BN had not competed in that electorate.
These numbers are relatively in line with the data from countries with ‘cleaner’ elections such as Austria, Canada or Finland. In fact, the distribution of logarithmic vote rates is remarkably similar to Sweden’s 2010 elections (also included in the Klimek et. al. paper).
Next we compare the distribution of the correlation between the Winning Ratio and Turnout Ratio. To do this, we follow in the footsteps of Klimek et. al – see the paper for model information.
Let fi be the probability that incremental fraud had happened; and let fe be the probability that extreme fraud had happened. We start by simulating the General Elections with a variety of fi and fe values. We then compare the distribution of the simulated resultant matrix of Winning Ratio vs Turnout Ratio to the matrix of the actual results.
An fi and fe of 0 means that the election is fair, and an fi and fe of 1 each means that the election is extremely corrupted. The figure below shows the distribution of votes for Barisan National, compared with simulated values of different fi and fe:
Comparisons of actual election data with different values of fi and fe.
Comparisons of actual election data with different values of fi and fe.
This figure shows The Winning Ratio vs Turnout Ratio of various levels of fi and fe. This is the result of our own model. Results following the original Klimek et. al. model can be found here.
Here, we temporarily return to the Benford Law distribution. While the Benford Law distribution has been established as not a very good measure for detecting election frauds, it would still undoubtedly be interesting to note the distribution of the first digits of fraudulent and non-fraudulent voting behaviours.
Benford Law Distribution vs simulations with various fraud parameters
Benford Law Distribution vs simulations with various fraud parameters
Benford’s Law on simulated election data. Note that even with fraud parameters of (0, 0), the simulations do not really follow Benford’s Law. It is however, less irregular than the simulation with high fraud parameters. Whilst this author has some ideas as to why this is the case, it will be left as an exercise to the reader.
Do note that in Figure 4, that the actual data looks more like simulations with low fraud parameters than simulations with high fi and fe. This is true for both our model and the original Klimek et. al. method of modeling. The main idea is to find the fi and fe values that fits best with the original data. This process is repeated for 1000 times to then find the range of fi and fe that best fit the election data. The original Klimek modeling process was repeated for 500 times due to time constraints
After searching for the best fit for 1000 times, we find the sector of (fi, fe) that appears the most often. We can then say that it is most likely those were the ranges of (fi, fe) of which the Malaysian General Elections happened in.
The best fit after 1000 iterations was: (fi, fe) = (0.03471, 0.01275). Here is the comparison between the simulated best fit and the actual data:
Best Fit vs Actual Data
Best Fit vs Actual Data
This figure shows comparison between simulated and actual results. Results following the Klimek et. al. model can be found here.
This means that the best simulation could provide shows that with a probability 0.03471, Barisan National engaged in incremental fraud; and with a probability of 0.01275, Barisan National engaged in extreme fraud. A further analysis can be done, as the figures below show, on the distribution of the votes for Barisan National. We expect that if the simulation results make sense, the distribution of simulated votes would closely match the distribution of actual votes for the winning party.
Distributions of votes for BN: Best fit vs actual
Distributions of votes for BN: Best fit vs actual
The ascertained figure of (fi, fe) = (0.03471, 0.01275) is the mean of all (fi, fe) of best fit of the 1000 simulations. Simply put, for each round of simulation, we acquire the (fi, fe) of the best fit. Then we repeat the simulation 1000 times, which results in 1000 pairs of (fi , fe). We then take the mean of fi and fe, which is 0.03471 and 0.01275 respectively. However there remains some amount of variances to the range (fi, fe) can take. The figure below shows the ranges of fi and fe that fits best with the actual election results after 1000 simulations:
Distribution of Best-Fits by S. Since the lower S, the better the fit is, we simply inverted it in order to plot this chart
Distribution of Best-Fits by S. Since the lower S, the better the fit is, we simply inverted it in order to plot this chart
S is the sum of squares fit. The smaller S is, the better. To plot this chart, we used a simple inverse to find the sectors with the highest amounts of best-fits.
Finally, as mentioned by Klimek et. al., a chart showing the cumulative number of votes as a function of turnout is a good way to spot fraud as well. According to the authors, it is plotted as such “…[f]or each turnout level, the total number of votes from [electorates] with this level or lower is shown.”. Russia and Uganda did not show plateaus in such charts, which are indicative of fraudulent behaviour.
Here, we show a similarly plotted cumulative vote as a function of turnout for the Malaysian General Elections. Do note the plateau at a little bit past 90% turnout rate.
Cumulative votes as a function of voter turnout
Cumulative votes as a function of voter turnout

Voter Growth

Another allegation that was made was the sudden increase of voter counts in various electorates. While such a factor would already be considered in the previous analysis, this author has decided to single out this issue and perform additional analysis on it. If fraud were to happen by means of voter growth, we would expect to see correlations between growth and votes for the winning party.
The figure below shows correlation between the proportion of population who voted for Barisan National and voter count growth per electorate. Both axes are in percentages.
Correlation between Winning Ratio and Growth of Electorate
Correlation between Winning Ratio and Growth of Electorate
A few negative-growth electorates were removed from the analysis, as is one electorate that had a growth rate above 100% (PUTRAJAYA).
A few data points were interesting: Barisan National lost in about half of the highest growing electorates – this gives credence to the theory that the opposition party, PR has managed to mobilize voters to their advantage in those electorates; the largest growth (outside PUTRAJAYA) was SUBANG. The Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s own electorate of Pekan, being hotly debated as a prime location for fraud had the 11th largest growth.
All in all, however, the data did not have any indication of suspicious activity.

Marginal Analysis

One final analysis that can be done is the same as above, except only performed with seats that were won by BN with a small margin (say, under 2%).
A cursory analysis indicated nothing suspicious. However it must be admitted that the analysis was incomplete for the lack of time.

Making Sense of All of This

What does this all mean? This author has failed to find evidence of fraud. From the numbers and statistics alone, it is indicative that the elections are quite clean and fair. It is likely some very tiny amounts of fraud did occur. It is however, in this author’s belief, not significant enough to change the results of the election.
To manipulate the number of votes in favour of Barisan National and yet not show up on a statistical analysis such as this would require tremendous amounts of knowledge.
For example, in order to perform any of the incremental fraud activities, the would-be defrauders would have to have perfect information about the position at every polling station in the country when the extra votes are brought in. Any slight change to tip the favour of Barisan National would skew a) the Benford Law distribution (as shown above); b) the distribution of Turnout Ratio and Winning Ratios.
If the would-be defrauders were to rig the count in one polling station, they would skew the distributions of the votes, leading to detection. To avoid detection, they would have to adjust the count at every polling station.
A better way to do it would be to rig the numbers on Borang 14 (again, with perfect information of what the other polling stations have reported).
Another method that was brought up was to have prepared the ballots in advance. Let us examine the two ways this can be done:
  1. Prepare additional ballot boxes with results in advance. Switch the ballot boxes before counting begins.
  2. Prepare two sets of ballots – one for BN and one for PR. Top up to the desired numbers.
The first method would be a logistics nightmare. The required amount of pre-prepared ballot boxes with the results would be a very large number. In order to rig the vote counts in one station, the other stations and other electorates would have to have their vote counts rigged as well, lest it be discovered by statistical techniques such as the ones above.
The second method would appear more plausible, but would require again, a network of constant communications across the country’s counting stations. The counting process is being watched by observers, so this is as well, unlikely.
There is one final method of fraud that will elude detection. The implications that come with it is also very massive. The method simply requires a group of highly sociopathic individuals who are very good at mathematics. Their job is to generate the fake votes in a convincing manner as to elude statistical detection. With an extension of method #1 above, it can be performed.
The implication, as previously mentioned, is massive. If that is happening, it means that one’s votes no longer matters. However, there is consolation that such an idea is so ludicrous that it never has a snowball’s chance in hell of happening.

Further Analysis

No statistical analysis is without weaknesses. Here, we list some of those weaknesses down. We leave them as suggestions for future work as an exercise to the reader.
  • The resolution of the data is extremely poor. Higher levels of aggregation tend to mask irregularities at the lower level. In the Klimek paper, the resolution of data goes to polling station level. This cannot be done for Malaysia. However, Borang 14 data, should they be uploaded on to the internet, could act as a lower level of aggregation.
  • The analysis concerns itself with only P-level elections due to time constraints. Further analysis could be done, on the N level as well as a combined analysis.
  • As stated above, marginal analysis could potentially be revealing, however not much was done. Future analysis should also be aware of the small sample sizes involved and take that into account.
  • Proper variance analysis was also not done. One would expect a binomial variance, and if the variability of votes for Barisan National were to be significanly less than binomial variability, it would be suggestive of fraud. However, cursory analysis from above indicates that variance is indeed binomial.
  • Scacco and Baber (2008) and (2012)‘s hypothesis that human generated numbers tend to end in 7s and 5s could also be used to test the distribution of vote counts.

Conclusion

From the data, the 13th General Elections of Malaysia can be concluded to be quite fair. This author has failed to detect any irregularities through means of statistics. However, this does not mean to say that fraud did not happen, given leaked evidence of such fraud in form of communiques between high-up officials. If this election is fraught with fraud, it is not through means of incremental voting (ballot stuffing, “bangla” voters, extra ballot boxes and the like), or extreme fraud (swapping of results).
There were allegations of voter intimidation and blackmail (with what is known as the 13th May event). This author is unable to account for such activities within this analysis as the data arising from such events will probably fall in line with our model. This is to be left to any Royal Commission of sorts to figure out.
Here this author would also like to comment upon malapportionment and gerrymandering. Malapportionment and gerrymandering are very much tied to the bedrocks of modern representational democracy, and can often be considered as rules of the game. To fix this would require some massive upheaval of the democracies we’re used to. Whilst this author has some ideas as to what could be done with regards to malapportionment and gerrymandering (an idea is to rid of apportionment all together and return to Greek-style democracy, but that’s just crazy), it is very much outside the scope of this analysis and hence only a passing remark.
PR had won the popularity vote in this General Election. Were this author to give political advice, it would be to stop chasing on electoral fraud, and start campaigning on actual issues that matter to seats that do not represent many people. Win by the fringes, just like what Barisan National did.