|
Dear Tan Sri Rashid, First and foremost, let me congratulate you and your team (The SPR) on ensuring that the 2008 GE will be a more transparent election. The SPR decision to use the indelible ink and the use of transparent boxes shows sincere appreciation on the part of the SPR to ensure that a fair election will be conducted this time around.
As you are fully aware, Tan Sri, the people trust in the ruling government very much is reflected by the performance of SPR. When there is problem, immediately the people with creative mind will say that there is a conspiracy between SPR and the ruling government. This is a norm and it happens in every country in the world. Issue No 1 - Stamp Duty Validation It would be the role of SPR to show that it is truly independent and protect the image of Malaysia. This is best demonstrated by a concerted and transparent action. After a good start in the last few months, where SPR attempts to improve it’s image, I was shocked to read a short write up in Malaysia Today (25 Feb 2008) about the issue of the use of Stamp Duty under the following heading “ Duti setem: Demi selamatkan BN, tindakan SPR dikecam”. Immediately after reading the article, I search the morning newspaper and for any official statement from SPR in the local media as well on the SPR website on whether there is any response from SPR on the cancellation of the use of Duty Stamps. It is indeed sad to note that I did not find any? Why is that? If SPR has insisted on the use of Stamp Duty and duly informed everyone about it, why the sudden change of thoughts? Even Tan Sri Rashid came out on TV several times and remind all contestant about the use of stamp duty usage several days before nomination day. I don’t quite get it. Why the sudden change of decision at the 11th hour.? What made SPR change it’s own ruling? Why did SPR did it in the first place? Now there appears to be more questions than answers. Why are embarrassing the BN and the country in this way? I was a government servant once, where my experience in matters related to gazette of regulations is probably useful to be shared here. I have never had the chance to work with SPR but being an independent body like SPR, I believe, for it to introduce a new regulation it has to go trough a series of process where it involves some research, meetings after meetings, and logical reasoning . Once it has been deliberated a few times and after many meetings, it has to be published (or the civilians use the term “gazette”) . Similarly if it has been gazetted and need to be de-gazetted, it has to go trough a similar process. In my experience being a government servant this cannot be done within hours. It takes several months? How did the SPR manage to do this in a matter of hours on a public holiday? If indeed the allegation made in the article that appears on Malaysia Today and the announcement is true than the credibility of SPR is suddenly being marred by it’s own action. They just threw mud at their face. This is very sad. It should not have happen. SPR must issue a statement to explain. Otherwise the credibility of SPR will be affected and if that happens, the credibility of the government and the relationship between SPR and the government will then be scrutinize under the microscope. There will be more rumours and my worry is that this will affect the position of BN in the coming election As such in the best interest of the image of Malaysia, I would appreciate if SPR can give an official statement on this effect. MAFREL must look into this matter and make a statement as well. We must have the GE 2008 as one GE without incident and will be the one that we can be proudest in the history of the nation. The GE 2004 was really bad and it really dented the image of SPR. If in the beginning of the year, you have tried to improve your image, why damage it now? Issue No 2 - Phantom Voters? On the same note lastly, I would like to mention here that my name is still listed as a registered voter in Chemor (Hulu Kinta and Tambun) and in Bukit Antarabangsa despite many attempts I have made to get SPR to my name from the Perak database . Up to yesterday my name still appears in both constituency. I am tired of complaining to SPR since the year 2000. A simple thing like this cannot even be resolve. If during the Election Day, someone actually turn up with an IC bearing my number in Chemor and he goes to vote and if the opposition party checks on that day and found that it is indeed true that such a person voted in Bukit Antarabangsa and in Chemor, then I believe the election result for both parliament and state can be declared null and void (for both Bukit Antarabangsa and Tambun). This is what I am worried about. It may again affect the image of BN. Why is that this simple matter cannot be resolve after so many years? Where do we Malaysian put our face when when people question us. I do hope that SPR can do something about it.
Shown below is what I meant. 
Image A: This is the correct one. I am registered here and a resident here. The name, the old and new IC number is mine.
Image B: This is the wrong one. The address is my old hometown. The old IC number is mine. I dont know where the new IC number comes from.
Issue No 3 - Unsigned Nomination Form
I was shocked to read in the papers that a minister, Rafidah Aziz had forgotten to sign her nomination form. Apparently the form was on display during the nomination day and the candidates and its agent has noticed that Rafidah Aziz did not sign the form. The form was apparently signed after the objection period was over. The SPR HQ must look at this matter and see whether the Returning Officer has breached any of its rules and regulations. I read and listen on the news yesterday where Dato Kamarulzaman issued a statement that candidates that wish to withdraw must filled form 6 or 6A in person in front of SPR officials if they wish to withdraw. They are not allowed to send a representative. Here we see the disparity in the use of the signature and the regulations. I have not seen the election rules and regulations and my comment is made based on what has transpired. If signature is important in withdrawing to contest, wouldn’t it be equally important for you to contest. The Kuala Kangsar RO, I believe has not shown fairness. The SPR HQ must come out with a statement on this issue. As for Rafidah, I believe the failure to sign was an oversight. She indeed wanted to contest. Now the issue in hand is showing the conduct of professionalism. In a football game, if the ball touched a person’s hand and it was a foul, then the person will be cited and the kick is given to the opponent team. In the same manner, Rafidah you must also make a stand here and be professional about it. If you have done something wrong then admit it. It will make you a more respectable person. I am worried that your action and the so called suspicious relationship with the RO in Kuala Kangsar, may just become a political issue that will drag BN down. Rafidah, please do the right thing.
Below is an extract of the relevant Act that I downloaded from the SPR website (www.spr.gov.my) Going by item 4, 5 and 6 it is quite clear that Rafidah cannot contest and the RO has erred in his decision. SPR HQ must make a stand on this. Rafidah, please be a professional - withdraw .. that is the right thing to do.
ELECTIONS ACT 1958
ELECTIONS (CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS)
REGULATIONS 1981
NOMINATION
Nomination papers 4. (1) Any person eligible for election as a member of the Dewan Rakyat, or of the Legislative Assembly of a State, in accordance with the Constitution of Malaysia, or the Constitution of a State, as the case may be, may be nominated as a candidate for election.
(2) The nomination of any other person shall be void.
(3) Candidates shall be nominated by means of nomination papers which shall be as set out in Form 4 or 4A, as the case may be, in the First Schedule. Such nomination papers shall be submitted in triplicate.
(4) Each namination paper shall be completely and correctly filled in the national language and shall state -
(a) the name of the constituency in which the candidate seeks election;
(b) in the case of election to a State Legislative Assembly, the name of the State concerned;
(c) the full name, other names, if any, identity card number, occupation, if any, and residential address of the candidate, and the candidate’s correspondence address to which documents relating to the election may be sent;
(d) the name and identity card number of the proposer and seconder, whose names must appear in the electoral rolls for the time being in force for the constituency for which the candidate seeks election; and
(e) the name, identity card number and address of the witness in the presence of whom the candidate affixes his signature.
(5) Each namination paper shall also bear the signature of the candidate and all the persons mentioned in paragraphs (4)(d) and (e).
(6) Failure to comply with subregulation (3), (4) or (5) shall render the nomination paper liable to be rejected by the returning officer.
Dr Mohamed Rafick Khan bin Abdul Rahman
MD MMed (OM) MBA (IT) Dip Ae Med CTM AME (17)
www.rights2write.wordpress.com
 |
The Blogs 
