"I can't be political - for my kids" Pt 1

Bersih is apolitical. What this means is that it has no allegiance to any political organisation. And it serves no direct political purpose. What it does serve though is social justice. This is a basic tenet of a democracy so ultimately, Bersih serves a democratic purpose.

Now although Bersih has no political allegiance, political organisations may agree with and align themselves to Bersih’s goals. And why shoudn’t they?

To examine that question, we need to look at some of the goals again and address some of the responses I have received in my emails out encouraging people to join our positive action.

1. Clean the electoral roll
Simple enough really. There are more than a handful of cases where multiple people are registered in one address - an address they do not reside at even. Cases of phantom voters also include a disproportionate number of names of people over 100 years old (including one aged 118!)

Then there are migrated Malaysians who have given up their MyKads and passports at foreign embassies and still have their names registered as voters. And many more stories - just do a quite internet search for ‘Phantom Voters malaysia’ and see what comes up. In my case it was 2,210,000 search matches.

If you still haven’t figured out the problem yet, consider what would happen when phantom voters actually turn up to vote. Anyone who has control of or access to the system can abuse this issue by letting imposters (‘phantoms’) turn up on polling day and vote for a particular party.

Now I ask - what’s the point of taking the trouble to turn up to vote when your legitimate vote can be wiped out by 20 phantom ones? 

To be fair, no one I have spoken to has disputed this as a good, just and fair demand.

The full text of this demand is:
“The electoral roll is marred with irregularities such as deceased persons and multiple persons registered under a single address or non-existent addresses. The electoral roll must be revised and updated to wipe out these ‘phantom voters’. The rakyat have a right to an electoral roll that is an accurate reflection of the voting population.
In the longer term, BERSIH 2.0 also calls for the EC to implement an automated voter registration system upon eligibility to reduce irregularities.”

So let’s move on to number 3 and get it dispensed with as it is linked to this. I’ll get back to No 2 in a moment.


3. Use of indelible ink

Indelible ink is used elsewhere in the world to prevent, among others, phantom voters from turning up and casting the same vote 10, 20, 30 times, using different identities each time. It is simple, affordable, effective, and more importantly, it has been used elsewhere including Afghanistan, Benin, Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Mauritania, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tchad, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

There really is very little argument against the use of the ink. It gets the job done, and done well.

The full text of the demand:
“Indelible ink must be used in all elections. It is a simple, affordable and effective solution in preventing voter fraud. In 2007, the EC decided to implement the use of indelible ink. However, in the final days leading up to the 12th General Elections, the EC decided to withdraw the use of indelible ink citing legal reasons and rumours of sabotage.
BERSIH 2.0 demands for indelible ink to be used for all the upcoming elections. Failure to do so will lead to the inevitable conclusion that there is an intention to allow voter fraud.”


2. Reform postal ballot
Due to various reasons I will not get into here, many, many, many Malaysians live abroad. And most cannot make it back to vote. They are, however, entitled to vote and a reform of the postal vote allows them the chance to exercise their democratic right.

Besides this, there have been claims of abuse of voting where uniformed personnel have had their votes cast by their superiors. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what’s wrong with that, and the full text here then becomes quite clear.

Note that the reform means some who have not been able to vote before will now be able to do so, while others will experience tighter controls on their postal voting.

‘The current postal ballot system must be reformed to ensure that all citizens of Malaysia are able to exercise their right to vote. Postal ballot should not only be open for all Malaysian citizens living abroad, but also for those within the country who cannot be physically present in their voting constituency on polling day. Police, military and civil servants too must vote normally like other voters if not on duty on polling day.
The postal ballot system must be transparent. Party agents should be allowed to monitor the entire process of postal voting.”

Again, not much objection here from anyone I wrote to or spoke with.


OK, No 4 is interesting and some can’t understand the need for this.

4. Minimum 21 days campaign period
Malaysia isn’t small and in some areas we’re not any closer to being a developed country now or in 2020 than years ago when the objective was first mooted. There are parts of Sabah and Sarawak where it takes more than just a short drive to get to. 21 days means even the remotest villages get access to all the information they need to make informed choices.

There are well over 1600 polling stations for 71 seats in Sarawak alone - with ballot boxes sometimes being transported by helicopter and boat. Just imagine how remote some of these places are. The residents deserve to vote as much as any Peninsular-based Malaysian. And to vote, they need to know as much as they can about the choices they have, including, hopefully, meeting the people hoping to represent them.

21 days doesn’t seem that long now does it?

I did get a response which puzzled me. The writer claims that 21 days is too long and can lead to social unrest. I can’t figure this one out. On the one hand I can see some of the logic in that, but then I immediately think of the lead-in to the US presidential elections and how long that takes and can see no social unrest resulting from the protraction.

Therefore, the ‘unrest’ must come from somewhere else. Wait a minute… what about law-enforcement? I mean, the guys in blue who are supposed to keep law and order. What if they didn’t do the job they were supposed to, such as standing idly by while people threaten to burn down buildings and so on. Isn’t that more likely to be a potential cause of social unrest?

I say that if the guys whose job it is to maintain public order did the jobs they swore to do, we wouldn’t even be talking about this point.

Oh, and if they failed to do so (which, frankly, has been the case for too long) then I reckon it’s only going to take a day for ‘social unrest’ to happen.

Full text of demand:

“The EC should stipulate a campaign period of not less than 21 days. A longer campaign period would allow voters more time to gather information and deliberate on their choices. It will also allow candidates more time to disseminate information to rural areas. The first national elections in 1955 under the British Colonial Government had a campaign period of 42 days but the campaign period for 12th GE in 2008 was a mere 8 days.”

OK, more about the 8 points and our positive action in my next post.