Lim Guan Eng |
| How Can There Be Credible Polls Reforms When Both The EC Chair And Deputy Chair Remains? (en/cn) Posted: 09 Jun 2013 09:57 PM PDT Press Statement By DAP Secretary-General And MP For Bagan Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur On 10.6.2013. If Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr S Subramaniam can contradict Election Commission(EC) Chair Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof's claims that the EC consulted the Health Ministry regarding the safety of the indelible ink, how can there be credible polls reforms when both the EC Chair and Deputy Chair remains? And yet Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof still insists that he has consulted with the Health Ministry regarding the safety of indelible ink used at the May 5 general election contrary to Dr S Subramaniam’s statement that the Health Ministry had issued no such report. Tan Sri Abdul Aziz had previously told the Straits Times of Singpore in a May 12 interview that the Health Ministry had advised against adding more than one percent of silver nitrate to the ink, which would have made the ink last. The EC was indirectly blaming the Health Ministry for refusing to allow an extra 1% of silver nitrate and causing EC to waste RM6 million on purchasing the indelible ink fiasco that could be easily washed off. Tan Sri Abdul Aziz should immediately resign as EC Chair if he cannot produce the letter from the Health Ministry that stated putting more than one percent of silver nitrate in the ink could damage the kidney and cause cancer, a letter that the Health Minister himself denied ever issuing. If the Health Ministry cannot even trust the EC, how can the people trust the EC to be clean, fair and free in conducting elections? The fiasco of the indelible ink that could be easily washed off has destroyed what little integrity EC has left, plunging its credibility to its lowest depths in history. Never before has the EC adopted BN's political attacks against the opposition and had even threatened to sue PR leaders. Did PR Lose The Perak State Government Cleanly And Fairly? Wong said the EC’s version of the result, which has been gazetted, is highly unlikely because the DAP’s parliamentary candidate Batu Gajah that covered Jelapang state seat, V. Sivakumar garnered 373 votes in that stream, compared with BN’s 141 votes. In the other four streams at the SRJK (C) Lahat polling station, Teh garnered between 58 and 67 percent of the popular votes and won Jelapang with more than 70% of the votes. What is shocking is Wong's suspicion that one of the Borang 14 is likely to have been forged, because the handwriting for the figures in the copies of the form with the DAP and the EC are similar, but the signatures of the DAP, BN and Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) counting agents and the presiding officer are different on the two forms. DAP won Jelapang with 16,921 votes, a majority of 12,266 votes compared with the 4,655 votes received by BN and 2,568 votes won by PSM. Although the discrepancy will not cost DAP the Jelapang seat, Wong correctly said it would have made a difference in marginal seats such as Lubok Merbau, Manjoi and Pasir Panjang. Indeed this can change the final result as to which party forms the Perak state government as BN won Perak by 3 seats with 31-28 seats. Both EC Chair And Deputy Chair Must Leave There can be no politically and morally legitimate government when BN won the smallest 112 parliamentary seats that comprise a mere 20% of the voters to form the Federal government. What type of legitimacy is enjoyed by a government that only enjoys 47% popular support as compared to 51% by the opposition? The average parliamentary constituency size of a BN seat is 46,510 voters compared to PR's 77,655 voters. The striking contrast of PR's seat of Kapar with 160,000 voters with BN Putrajaya of around 16,000 voters highlights the unfair delineation of constituencies by EC that is weighted heavily in BN's favour. As Wan Ahmad was EC Secretary during the last constituency delineation exercise in 2002, how can the rakyat expect natural justice? For this reason, the resignations of both the EC Chair and Deputy Chair is a necessary condition, towards removing one important obstacle towards a fair and clean re-delineation of constituencies that fully respects the principle of "one-person, one-vote, one-value". Lim Guan Eng —–BM Version—- —–Mandarin Version —- 民主行动党秘书长兼峇眼区国会议员林冠英于2013年6月10日在吉隆坡发表声明： 如果拿督斯里苏巴玛廉可以与选委员会主席丹斯里阿都阿兹莫哈末的说法不一致，那就是选委会在采用不褐色墨水前咨询过卫生部关于其安全性，若选委会主席与副主席继续留任，哪里会有真正的选委会改革？ 如果拿督斯里苏巴玛廉可以与选委员会主席丹斯里阿都阿兹莫哈末的说法不一致，那就是选委会在采用不褐色墨水前咨询过卫生部关于其安全性，若选委会主席与副主席继续留任，哪里会有真正的选委会改革？而丹斯里阿都阿兹还坚持他曾咨询过卫生部关于5月5日全国大选不褪色墨水的使用安全，而苏巴玛廉却说卫生部从来没有发表相关报告。 丹斯里阿都阿兹之前于5月12日告诉新加坡《海峡时报》 说，卫生部曾反对增加1%的硝酸银（点墨维持久一点）。选委会间接责怪卫生部不允许使用硝酸银而导致选委会浪费600令吉的不褪色墨水采购费，并引发墨水一洗即脱的丑闻。 丹斯里阿都阿兹如果无法拿出卫生部关于增加1%硝酸银将导致肾脏损伤、致癌的信件，他应该马上辞去选委会主席， 就连卫生部长本身也已经否认该部曾发出有关信件。如果连卫生部不相信选委会，那么人民如何相信选委会能够干净、公平及自由的举行选举？ 不褪色墨水一洗即脱的丑闻已经毁掉了选委会仅剩的一点廉正度，也让它的声望降到有史以来最低点。从来没有选委会像国阵那样对在野党进行政治攻击，也从来没有选委会威胁要提控民联领袖。 民联是不是在干净、公平的情况下输掉霹雳州政府？ 我们还有许多选委会做错事的证据，包括对调国阵和民联的选举成绩，霹雳州行动党宣传主任黄家和所揭发的九洞州议席。在拿乞华小投票站三号票箱。行动党的表格14显示行动党候选人郑福基获得330张票，国阵获得137张票。但是，选委会宣布这个票箱时却将成绩对调，说国阵获得330张票，而行动党获得137张票，而选委会以另一张表格14来支持他们的做法。 黄家和说选委会已经在宪报上公布的版本看来不可能，因为九洞州选区所处的华都牙也国会选区行动党候选人西华古玛在上述票箱获得373张选票，而国阵只获得141张。在拿乞华小另外四个票箱，郑福基都获得58%至67%的多数票，以70%得票率赢得九洞。 最惊人的是，黄家和怀疑其中一张表格14已经被造假，因为在行动党及选委会各自所持的表格字体一样，但是行动党、国阵及社会主义党计票员及现场官员的签名却不一样。 行动党在九洞赢得1万6921张选票，多数票为1万2266张，国阵获得4655张，而社会主义党获得2568张。虽然上述差别并没有导致行动党失去议席，但是这种偷龙转凤的做法在一些票数微差的议席如：鲁博马坡、曼锐、巴锡班尖却能影响输赢。这甚至可以改变最后谁执政霹雳州政府的结果，因为国阵正好以3议席（31:28）赢得州政权。 选委会主席及副主席必须离职 选委会副主席旺阿末旺奥玛昨天在律师公会论坛上说，选委会已经完成他们主办选举的任务，任何投诉都只是"技术问题"不至于他们需要辞职。当民联赢得51%的多数票，却不能在布城组织政府，而国阵只赢得47%多数票却获得60%的国会议席，这些投诉怎么可能是"技术问题"？ 当国阵赢得史上最少的112个国会议席（20%的选民）来成立联邦政府时，这不会是政治上、伦理上合法的政府。当执政党只有47%的支持率，而在野党却有51%的支持率，这是什么合法政府？国阵所赢得的国会选区选民人数平均为4万6510人，而民联选区的选民人数平均为7万7655人。 最明显的差距是民联加埔国会选区选民达16万人，而国阵布城国会选区选民只有1万6000人，突显了选区划分多么不公平，严重地偏向国阵 。由于旺阿末在2002年选区重新划分时任职选委会秘书，人民还能相信这当中有自然公义吗？因此，选委会正副主席必须辞职，我们才能在追求干净、公平选区划分的努力上，除去绊脚石，实现"一人、一票、一价"原则 。 林冠英 |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Lim Guan Eng To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan