Disturbing questions surrounding GE13 polling


By Bridget Welsh | 12:05PM May 7, 2013
Malaysiakini

GE13 SPECIAL The GE13 results are in and the BN has managed to hold only power, winning by a 22-seat majority. This result is the worst performance for BN in Malaysia’s history.

For the first time, the incumbent government has lost the popular vote nationally (in 2008, it was only on the peninsula). The BN coalition has still managed to hold onto power. This piece, in a series analysing the election results, looks at the concerns raised regarding the electoral process and the potential impact these issues may have had on the final results.

In analysing the fairness of any polls, one asks whether the irregularities in the process could have affected the final outcome. Were the problems enough to change which coalition would have formed government? These issues will be debated and assessed in the days and weeks ahead. Let me share some preliminary observations that suggest that in this election, some things appear not to be quite right.

Integrity of electoral roll

This was the longest wait for an election, and both sides were extremely active in registering new voters, especially in the urban areas where the party machinery was well honed.

Even factoring in the more robust voter registration efforts, changes in electoral procedures to register people where they live rather than where they are from, population demographics, and possible housing developments in different seats, the increased numbers in the electoral roll are significantly not in line with historical patterns of voter registration. This out-of-line pattern is in every state, except Negeri Sembilan.

The figure that stands out in voter increase occurred from 2004 to 2008 in Sabah. The questions about the electoral roll in Sabah have been long standing, and are the subject of the ongoing Royal Commission of Inquiry into Immigrants.

These increases from 2004 through 2008 are by any measure – huge – in places such as Liburan, where caretaker Chief Minister Musa Aman state seat is located, in Semporna, the seat of Shafie Apdal and in Ranau currently held by Ewok Ebin.

Yet, after 2008, while the numbers have dropped, there is still on average 21% new voters in Sabah seats, a high number not in line with demographic trends. Migration appears to continue be a factor shaping voter numbers in Sabah in this GE13, despite calls to tighten the flows.

We also find that new voters have flooded states like Selangor, Pahang, Terengganu and Johor in GE13. The average increase in voters nationally between 2004 and 2008 was 8.2%. In the run-up to GE13, the voters registered doubled to 19.4%. The national and statewide averages however obscure the differences among different seats within states. It is clear that some seats have been special recipients of new voters.

Much has been made of the 28% of new voters in Lembah Pantai. This seat is actually on the low side compared to others. Consider the whopping 61.5% increase in Tapah, recently re-won by BN, or Subang with 52% new voters, won by Pakatan with a larger majority this election but shaped heavily by Pakatan’s registration of new voters.

A total of 90 seats, or 41% of all parliamentary seats, have more than 25% new voters. Many of these were in races with tight contests in 2008, and continued to have tight contests in GE13. The new voters has advantaged the opposition in urban areas, but benefitted the BN in rural and semi-rural areas or in states where the machinery of the opposition is comparatively weak, such as Johor.

Such races also won by BN that had large number of voters include Cameron Highlands (20%), Pasir Gudang (39%) and Tebrau (45%) in Johor. While some of the increase in the latter two seats might be explained in part by development, bizarrely there are sharp increases in voting populations in the remote interior state of Pensiangan (33%) and remote coastal seat of Kota Marudu (32%) in Sabah. These abnormal high increases raise questions.

The placement of new voters is even more intriguing when studying the actual polling stations results. Many new voters are concentrated in more less populated areas within constituencies, often in rural and semi-rural seats.

This is where the questions over the large number of unexplained voters grouped in bunches in places like Bachok (21% new voters and won by PAS with less than 1% margin) and Bukit Gantang (29% of new voters and won by PAS with 2% margin) come in.

It appears that the localised remote placements of new voters may have had an impact. For example, the placement of 3,600 new voters in a remote Felda schemes occurred in Segamat, which was won by the BN with a 1,217 majority. The voting in this Felda scheme was over 90%, with one stream at 99%. In 2004, the voter turnout in this area was much lower.

This spike pattern of voter turnout in particular polling stations was found in Terengganu in 2004, when the BN wrested back the state, and questions were raised at that time as well.

Spike patterns out of line

This GE13 spike in voter turnout at the local level is being witnessed in specific places across the country. With the national level of turnout at 80%, the spike patterns that are well out of line with historic patterns of voting behaviour raise questions, even accounting for the overall rise in participation and voter turnout.

Another pattern in the placement of new voters beyond tight races involves prominent leaders getting large shares of new voters, such as Najib Razak’s own seat Pekan with 38% new voters, or Rompin represented by Jamaluddin Jarjis at 29% new voters. It remains unclear why these largely rural constituencies would have such large voter increases.

Generally out-migration areas such as Perak and Pahang receiving large numbers of new voters does not conform with population patterns. Why are places with people leaving to work outside get sharp increases in voters?

The lack of clear transparent explanations on why voters are registered in some areas in such high numbers this election, compared to past patterns in these areas, understandably raises questions.

Many seats that were lost by the opposition or were in tight races have large number of new voters, including, including Tanah Merah (24%) and Balik Pulau (25%), although in some cases the opposition picked up or retained seats with large voter increases in these seats, such as Kota Raja (47%) and Kuala Nerus (25%), among others.

This issue of voter registration and voter turnout levels needs further study, with more information on who are these new voters and their pattern of voting. The fact is that the polling station results will show the spikes at the local level and careful study will tell us statistically the impact of these new voters on electoral outcomes.

The Electoral Commission (EC) and electoral administration as a whole are facing a real trust deficit. A reliable electoral roll is essential for any fair elections. Repeatedly questions have been raised about the veracity of many new voters.

Election watchdog Merap and others have time and again drawn to the questions of electoral roll integrity. Before the polls, these matters were essentially ignored or dismissed. To date, the scope of phantom voters and questionable placement was not fully known. Now the results themselves will show the impact at the local level.

This is why the sharing of all results through the Borang 14 is essential in order to make a systematic and thorough assessment. Preliminary reviews of results are already raising red flags as they have shaped the outcomes at both the parliamentary and state levels.

Early and postal voting

Queries about the early and postal voting have also emerged. Here the question is about double voting, with individuals having the opportunity to vote twice. Postal voting numbers increased in this election. Historically, there have always been questions about the veracity of postal voting, with reports questioning that this voting is secret and others arguing over the accuracy of the results.

There have been improvements in recent years over postal voting involving polling agent access to this process in many locations. Yet, even with these improvements, questions about whether postal voting is fair and accurate remain.

In this election, further questions emerged over the numbers and placement of these postal voters in different constituencies. Many tight races, such as Sibu, had increases in postal voters. In some cases, the list of names of new postal voters were reportedly not provided openly.

Early voting, an estimated 240,000 people, is also a new addition for this election and being queried. Early voting includes many Malaysians within Malaysia, such as the wives of army officers and journalists who can vote before polls.

There was not a clear distribution of the list of early voters provided nationally, and in some cases even individual candidates were not able to access the names of who were the postal and early voters.

No clear explanation was given to why some constituencies received early voters and others did not. Importantly, this information was not properly shared so that it could be verified. Furthermore, there were unexplained instances when the numbers of early and postal voters increased. In Lembai Pantai, for example, the number stated was 200, but 600 showed up. How did this happen?

Given the reality that the indelible ink was in many cases not indelible, the possibility of double voting exists. On voting day there are numerous reports of individuals finding out that someone had voted fraudulently using their name, leading to concerns also about electoral disenfranchisement.

There were also reports of non-Malaysians being transported to the polling stations by buses and even flown in, some of these believed to be phantom voters. The scale and impact of these on the results is not yet clear, but given the combination of a non-transparent early and postal voting process in various locations and non-indelible ink issues on election day, and sightings of non-Malaysians in contentious seats, troubling questions are being raised.

The close results make these issues and questions more salient. A total of 72 of seats (or 32%) were won by less than 10% margins of turnout. Twenty percent of seats, 44 seats, were won with less than a 5% margin. The closeness of these races could easily have come down to a few voters. These razor-thin margin seats were won by both sides, but given the questions raised about the process of voting in these close seats, they need to be carefully reviewed.

To date, the total number of seats affected by either non-transparent new voter increases and early voting allocations and unexplained incidents of disenfranchisement appears to be more than the actual margin of victory for the BN. These reports need to be properly vetted and verified, but fundamental questions remained.

A spoilt-vote victory

Finally, this brings up the questions on the election night itself. There are queries surrounding the recounts and spoilt votes. How many recounts which overturned the results at the last moment were there? In Perak, for example, three state seats – three is a famous number in Perak – Alor Pongsu, Manjoi and Pangkor results were overturned at the last minute. Questions were also raised at Kamunting as well.

The need for transparency at the final count is essential for a fair election. When the EC asks people to leave and there are new ballot boxes seen outside of a polling station, as was reported in Lembah Pantai, there are questions. It is not fully clear what exactly happened with the recounts in Perak and elsewhere – as there were numerous recounts nationally this election – but the climate of distrust that has permeated the assessment of the election process raises doubts.

In the days ahead, a better sense of the numbers and recounts will emerge. With reports of sudden changes in the voting results such as Bentong and Labis, questions are being raised. Many people cannot understand how a result that was statistically a large margin ahead could be overturned. These need to be clarified, particularly in Bentong where the margin was larger.

Part of the problem is that in some cases, the number of spoilt votes exceeded the actual majority in places where recounts took place. Here are some of the seats at the parliamentary level where this happened: Kuala Selangor, Cameron Highlands, Bachok, Bentong, Sungai Besar, Kota Merudu and Baram won by the BN and Sepang and Kuala Nerus won by the opposition. Another seat with high spoilt votes is Segamat, at 950.

What distinguishes these close recounts from the famous cases of Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh losing in 1999 with more spoilt votes than the majority, is the process of the administration of the indelible ink in this election – before marking the ballot paper – thus staining the papers and contributing to higher spoilt votes.

This pattern of higher spoilt votes than actual margins of victory was also replicated at the state level as well in many areas, where only a few seats mattered for who should win state power. The process of administering the ink appears to have had an impact on the results in some areas.

It is important to be careful when reviewing the election results and not rush to judgement about what happened and why. It is also important to see the election holistically. The focus here has not touched on the use of money in the campaign, which was rampant, labeled ‘bombing’ in Sabah, or the mainstream media reporting.

The aim has been to raise the preliminary questions revealed in the results and the impact actual numbers of voters associated with the election. As the evaluation of the election moves forward, the call to answer these questions will only increase and intensify. Further study and analysis is essential.

Nevertheless, from the non-indelible ink and spikes in voter turnout to being not allowed to vote, concerns with the electoral process itself are not sitting right with many in the public, and this is not just supporters on one side or another. Transparent and truthful answers are both needed and welcomed.

__
DR BRIDGET WELSH is associate professor of political science at Singapore Management University. She is travelling around Malaysia to provide her GE13 analyses exclusively to Malaysiakini. Bridget can be reached at [email protected]

Print Friendly

  1. #1 by worldpress on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 - 2:24 pm

    Those dump self-fish short sighted voters interest personal short little finance gain less than 3k, voted for corrupted politicians

    They can only wake up after MALAYSIA declare BANKRUPT

    They can only wake up after thousands illegal immigrants gain MyKad

  2. #2 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 - 4:10 pm

    Najib has defended UTUSAN.

    Here we go again:

    Baa, baa, black sheep,
    Have you any brains?
    No sir, no sir, it’s gone down the drain….

  3. #3 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 - 4:12 pm

    There are a lot of issues about the election that need answers and should be demanded. But after its all said and done, the priority is STILL to govern the states of Penang and Selangor and Kelantan.. Only if PR can out perform the other states, and not just marginally but necessary to be by a wide margin, does it have a legitimate future.

    Penang, Selangor and Kelantan need to take the seige mentality like Singapore was when it was kicked out of Malaysia – perhaps EVEN MORE so because much cannot be done without Federal approval even if financing can be found.. Penang and Selangor must embark on MASSIVE affordable housing program, interfer in the funding of schools and fix the water issues. Only by HEADS ABOVE SUPERIOR performance can PR legitimate stay in contention..

  4. #4 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 - 4:54 pm

    There he goes again…..

    “Mahathir blames ungrateful Chinese and greedy Malays…”

    Ungrateful…. to Mahathir? Please-lah, this tune is so badly overworked, it sounds like a wok slammer.

    Greedy Malays….. are you talking about Daim, Syed Albukhari or yr son?

    Abracadabra…… this old man, he plays one, he plays knick-knack on his thumb…..

  5. #5 by Loh on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 - 5:48 pm

    PUTRAJAYA, May 7 – Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said today he was shocked by Barisan Nasional’s poor performance in Election 2013, and laid the blame on ‘ungrateful’ Chinese and ‘greedy’ Malay … /–Malaysian insider

    The Chinese are grateful that BN allows voting to satisfy democracy in form so that they can tell BN directly how they do not agree with UMNO policies directed at them. This proves that What Mamakthir said at the BBC forum that MCA represented Chinese Interest in the government is totally false.

    5.7 million votes cast for Pakatan Rakyat could not have come entirely from Chinese. Else with Malay votes PR would have gotten 70 per cent of the votes, and have a simple majority to form federal government.

  6. #6 by Bunch of Suckers on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 - 6:26 pm

    This snaky sucker, Bakkuthair, chicken out himself from contesting Gelang Patah, where LKS challenged him… Not only he ran with tail tuck between legs, he bragged about BN would end LKS’s decades of political career.

    Snaky sucker, now, you come of your closet to brag, bullsh*t and criticize others’ performances. It’s time for you to RIP, dude! Without you, Malaysia could have attracted more Western investors. Your bad mouth shun them away, snaky sucker!

  7. #7 by undertaker888 on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 - 7:09 pm

    mamak kutty said ungrateful?he should be grateful for having his billions stolen from us.

  8. #8 by good coolie on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 - 7:38 pm

    Dr. Mahatir touched my heart when he gave this sound advice to his son upon being sworn Menteri Besar – that his son should not be corrupt when carrying out his duties.
    How they hugged each other with pride and hope. I think the whole country should take note of the saga of becoming a PM and (billionaire) by selling goreng-pisang. (Aside: I refuse to say “pisang goreng”).

  9. #9 by cinaindiamelayubersatu on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 - 8:15 pm

    banglaku,
    indonku,
    filipku,
    terima kasih kerana undiku…

  10. #10 by lee tai king (previously dagen) on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 - 10:22 pm

    Umno robbed the ppl of perak a second time.
    And umno cheated agung again.

  11. #11 by ablastine on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 12:16 am

    Unless and until the election boundaries are redrawn it will be almost impossible for PR to take Putrajaya from BN. The existing Gerrymandering sees to it whether or not there were phantom voters or other fraudulent practices in the election. So all these ‘disturbing’ findings are no more than distractions because whether or not they exist the final outcome will still be the same. That is why Najis was so cock sure he could easily win. It is estimated even if PR gets 80% popular votes it will still not be able to enter Putrajaya because the urban votes are worth only a fraction of the rural votes which BN depended on. Rural voters are so much easier to buy and ignorance is so pervasive that even if you rob them dry they will still vote for you. One could easily exploit their emotion with talk of religion and race which BN is of course an expert in.

  12. #12 by Noble House on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 2:14 am

    The results from GE13 did not reflect the true mandate of the Rakyat. It was the choice of the EC with the helping hands from the banglas and other “instant” citizens with stolen identities.

  13. #13 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 7:13 am

    GE13 polling not only raises disturbing questions. The fall out/implications are disturbing. The polling results disappoint and threaten the political positions of both the head of govt and the head of opposition- for different reasons. Both are unhappy and look for their own reasons and justifications to head towards a face-off. It also gives fodder to the country’s most influential power broker to say he is also equally disappointed. It signals the impending intensified factionalism within ruling party vying for top position to come. And there’s a sudden burst of intensified racial baiting and scapegoating of one community in public domain, which is traditionally a way to unify and thwart factionalism within. Against this backdrop and across the other side of political divide, the opposition head leverages on these disturbing questions surrounding GE13 to question the legitimacy of the polls outcome, vows to lead a “fierce movement” to reform electoral system and calls for a rally that authorities have already called illegal. Post polls, we are definitely heading for disturbing and troubled times…

    .

  14. #14 by worldpress on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 7:51 am

    Is it a question? Now current government got only 48% votes while PKR hold over 51% votes.

    Who should be the government?

  15. #15 by worldpress on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 7:59 am

    It is a question…

    Now current government got about only 48% votes while PKR hold about 51% votes.

    Who should be the government?

    Legal?

  16. #16 by cseng on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 8:52 am

    The fact still PR win the election, the victory, however, was stolen by EC.

    Gerrymandering of constituent boundaries stands out like a sore thumb. That alone amplfied the fraud, in case of perak, PR won my 10% of majority, yet the lost the state gov.

    Bersih 4.0 should initiate a force to counter ther gerrymandering with ‘gerrymander’ the voters locality. Not sure if this is legal, but it is a way to restore democracy, when we win election, we became gov.

  17. #17 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 9:06 am

    Its legal because our electoral system as inherited from Britain and sanctioned by constitution is seat rather than population based so that how the constituency lines is drawn by EC becomes decisive. For example rural areas are given 6-1 weightage over urban areas. The argument for eg is that Terengganu is big, remote and does not have many people. But it is time-consuming for one representative to serve the whole area. So you have to break it up. You need more elected representatives to take care of the entire Terengganu whereas an urban area like Penang or Selangor, the argument is that the physical infrastructure is more integrated, efficient, communication and transportation are easier and therefore easier to be looked after by fewer representatives. That of course does not explain why constituency size varies so much between 16,000 voters in Putrajaya to be looked after by one as compared to (say) to 140,000 in Kapar by 1 where Putrajaya could easily be merged into one with nearby adjoining constituency whose majority are Opposition inclined. This logic of geographical territorial representation upon which our electoral system is premised makes a mockery of the one-man-one-vote and mandate based on majoritarian principle and representative democracy based on majority mandate.

  18. #18 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 9:16 am

    This leads to an anomalous situation that when an elected government puts forward certain policies it can no longer argue that all have to support because its sanctioned by majority since any one not wanting to follow and in particular the Opposition opposing the policies can rebut by saying that the govt only has the minority support of 47.38% of the popular vote whereas the Opposition has 50.87%, and therefore represent the majority voice of the voters/rakyat. This undermines the moral legitimacy (as distinct from separate issue of legal legitimacy) of the govt to push for policies which majority oppose. The mandate based on time honoured democratic of rule by majority consent is thrown in question every time, and this is the problem for the ruling party.

  19. #19 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 9:30 am

    Today is different world with power of social media: the moment you try to cheat the opposing side captures the whole scene, some from handphone cameras with some bringing the whole video camera and then post it on facebook that goes viral! You put forth one dishonest interpretation or argument on election results you have many posting their cogent rebuttal of the dishonest argument in social media, whether face book twitters blog or alternative media. How to get away with it? One ends up having to maintain power from every poor and remote rural areas of poor literacy where the headman with the boats and financial incentives supplied by you deliver your support when the cities, the centres of real power, wealth, literacy, commerce, social and cultural influence are arrayed against you.

  20. #20 by lee tai king (previously dagen) on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 9:56 am

    The mother of all questions today is this: What is the true extent of pakatan’s performance in GE13 had umno not cheated?

    Selangor and penang voters turned decisively against umno. In both these states pakatan secured significant improvement. So the issue is whether the performance in these two states could be taken as pakatan’s yardstick to measure its real strength – at least, as a gauge of pakatan’s true support in the peninsular?

    One more thing. Can the idiot called jibby jib pls shut the phaaaark up! Having already cheated, he still wants to be arrogant and talk big. He is lucky. We malaysians are peace loving, law abiding, calm and rational people. We may be disgusted by the cheating nevertheless, we maintain our rationality and plan our course of actions according to the laws. Imagine, if the same election result (complete with evidence of cheating) was presented to the thais or the filipinos or the africans or the middle-eastern ppl. I am sure we could be seeing riots in the streets already. So pls shut up jib.

  21. #21 by raven77 on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 10:02 am

    It doesnt take a rocket scientist that BN is in power today because it grossly cheated. And the cheating was so gross and open literally thumbing at the public’s nose..” So what are you going to do about it “.

    The real question is PR has still not told all those who supported them and depend on them what is your strategy to rid Malaysia of these illegitimate thugs who call themselves our govt.

    Its been 3 days. The public wants to know. Everyone is looking up to their leaders right from Alor Star to Gelang Patah. What are you going to do to make this right.

  22. #22 by Loh on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 10:07 am

    There are three state seats in Perak where the number of majority votes was less that spoilt votes. It means that the spoilt votes if accepted could possibly change the results Of the three state seats, and also the party that forms the government.

    Ec is the sole authority that determines the acceptability of the votes, but the voters have the right to express whom they want. As EC is given the authority as a referee to facilitate vote counting, when in doubt, the function performed by the referee needs independent confirmation.

    The number of spoilt votes in the three DUNs in Perak were in the hundreds. Since the results are important, the criterion established to classify them should give way to the intention of voters; for example a dote appearing on the ballot paper should not be equate to a cross marked where the intention of the voters is clear. A review of such spoilt votes would be needed to convince Malaysians that a win by even one vote counts.

  23. #23 by Bunch of Suckers on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 10:22 am

    The playboy sucker, shut all your gaps! You sit on this position is because of your dad Premiership.

    Chinese never vote those Mother Cums A$$ suckers who dare not fight for the community. In fact, those suckers only fight for their own benefits and their own families! Got this right into you brain instead of two nuts

  24. #24 by sheriff singh on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 10:52 am

    Cheated ? Cheated ?

    You have evidence, hard evidence ? Then lodge the relevant reports and get the results overturned. Otherwise, live with your opinions and suspicions.

    The Opposition knew what the conditions and structure were and have to live with these, warts and all. It had 5 years to strategise and work around it but it failed to do so. It failed to break into the rural areas where most of the seats are. Did they break decisively into rural Pahang, Sabah, Sarawak or even Johor?

    PKR and PAS targeted 45 and 40 seats respectively but failed to make any headway. They have themselves to blame for their poor planning and strategies and consequently bombed. Anwar always said ‘We are ready’ but actually were not. All talk.

    They should have planned and targeted their seats carefully to ensure wins – not hope for the best. They should select their candidates carefully taking into consideration local circumstances and sentiments – not parachuting strangers everywhere thereby inviting disaster.

    Both PKR and PAS suffered image problems and suffered from intense internal fightings and bickerings and sabotage. Both had factions aplenty. This accounted for their big losses.

    Emulate the DAP which had better discipline and stronger networks. The party was well organised and focused and could engage and rally the voters.

    PKR was really a comedy of bad actors and prima donnas while PAS believed erroneously that Al Pak Lah will see them through and received mixed blessings. Both parties did not consider their targets well and chose bad seats and wrong leaders and candidates, trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Up till the last minute they were still squabbling over seats and candidates. When things were very obvious e.g. in Kedah, they chose to ignore the warning signs. Both then deserve to fail. Blame yourselves.

  25. #25 by cseng on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 3:55 pm

    The fact is we won the election, we have 51% of votes. PR won over BN, the next hurdle would be win over EC, then we form gov. We knew EC stolen the victory, delivered it to BN thru gerrymandering.

    To win over EC, what it takes is, put the right amount of voters at selected constituencies, next win we became goverment. OKM did a reseach and concluded 20% of voters decide the fate of other 80%.

  26. #26 by cseng on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 3:58 pm

    Like what superman say ‘it is not dictator that kill the democracy, but stupid voters’

  27. #27 by on cheng on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 - 8:40 pm

    Why got no stand by power like battery powered light or diesel standby generator,
    why vote boxes are not labelled or have signature of candidates on a label tag or label paper.
    The vote box look too simple, and can be duplicate (with full of dubious votes) when needed as it has no proper label !
    bn got less than 47.5% vote at parliament election
    and less than 43.5% vote at Perak state election, yet they win , where is the fairness ?

  28. #28 by on cheng on Thursday, 9 May 2013 - 8:55 pm

    from the start, the seats are haphazardly organized, putrajaya 15770 voters, Kapar 144,150 voters, ratio 1 to 9+, what kind of fairness is this ? most seat in sabah/sarawk hv less than 25,000 voters, whereas many seats in peninsular hv more than 75,000 voters (esp. selangor, penang, etc)
    knowing impossible to have equal voters number in each seat, but other countries which practice similar election system surely have no such high ratio !

You must be logged in to post a comment.