UN does not approve tear gas as a riot control agent

Dr Lin Mui Kiang
Letter
Free Malaysia Today
May 10, 2012

The United Nations in Malaysia would like to refer to the article published in The Star on May 7, 2012 titled ‘Police: Tear gas used at rally safe, UN-approved’. We very much regret that the UN in Malaysia was not consulted before the publication of this article as it contains serious inaccuracies.

The UN has consistently condemned the excessive use of force, including through the use of tear gas. Please also note that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council have on various occasions publicly expressed concerns about reliable reports indicating that civilians who died from tear gas suffered complications from gas inhalation, and that security forces have been firing metal tear gas canisters from grenade launchers into crowds.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression after his mission to the Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) in December 2011 noted that “while the use of tear gas to disperse a crowd may be legitimate under certain circumstances, tear gas canisters should never be fired directly at demonstrators.”

Moreover, unlike what is alleged in the article, the UN does not set international standards on different kinds of irritants, nor has the UN approved ‘CS Gas’ as a ‘riot control’ agent.

As far as the use of force is concerned, the relevant UN instrument is the Basic Principles on the use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which was adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1990, not the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) of 1993. I provide its general provisions below:

1 Governments and law enforcement agencies shall adopt and implement rules and regulations on the use of force and firearms against persons by law enforcement officials. In developing such rules and regulations, Governments and law enforcement agencies shall keep the ethical issues associated with the use of force and firearms constantly under review.

2 Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms.

These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons.

For the same purpose, it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof vests and bullet-proof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind.

3 The development and deployment of non-lethal incapacitating weapons should be carefully evaluated in order to minimise the risk of endangering uninvolved persons, and the use of such weapons should be carefully controlled.

4 Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.

5 Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall:

(a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved;

(b) Minimise damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life;

(c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment;

(d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are notified at the earliest possible moment.

6 Where injury or death is caused by the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials, they shall report the incident promptly to their superiors, in accordance with principle 22.

7 Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law.

8 Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.

We at the United Nations appeal to all journalists to correctly and accurately research and report all matters and procedures related to the UN. We believe that such professionalism should also extend to all public officials.

United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Protection_of_the_Rights_of_All_Migrant_Workers_and_Members_of_Their_Families

Irene Fernandez a true international champion of workers

Irene is the first human rights activist to voice the plight of foreign workers working in Malaysia

Her concern for exploited workers has prompted her to voice out, which no trade unionist has done has done

She might incur the wrath of local unionists, but her humanity and sense of justice has driven her to speak our for foreign workers.

Actually her attitude will win sympathy of countries which have workers here like Indonesia, Philippines, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Vietnam and Ceylon.

UN has formulated laws for countries which employ foreign workers prescribing rules for employers. Unfortunately, the government does not enforce the rules resulting in exploitation and maltreatment by employers and the whole chain of agents responsible in processing the foreign workers.

The concerns expressed by Irene Fernandez will hopefully result in better treatment of foreign workers, whose presence is vital for the construction, plantation and service industries.

Without foreign workers houses will not be built for our citizens. Without them, the oil palm plantations will stop producing palm oil which is a big money maker for our country, as 90 percent of workers come from Indonesia.

By speaking out for foreign workers Irene is now facing the wrath of MACC, die hard unionists and corrupt government officials.

Chen

Greetings for new DAP building in Penang

DAP PENANG STATE BUILDING IS A TRIBUTE TO PAST PARTY LEADERS WHO PAVED
THE WAY FOR DAP TO WIN IN PENANG

THE LAUNCHING OF A NEW BUILDING FOR STATE DAP IS A HISTORIC EVENT, AND
WILL BE AN INSPIRATION TO THE DAP MOVEMENT LED BY DEDICATED LEADERS TO
STRIVE HARDER AND ENSURE THAT THE DAP WILL HAVE A STRONG PRESENCE
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

It took many years of sacrifice and hard work to achieve put DAP to be in government of Penang.  the warriors of the early days  like PETER DASEN, GOOID HOCK SENG, TEOH TEIK HUAT and many others who shed tears and rivers of sweat to achieve the objective of capturing Penang.

Sdr Lim Kit Siang was the brains behind the campaign to capture Penang.  He fought and lost three times and lost three ties. Yet he never gave up.

The last charge in 2008 was made by Sdr Lim Guan Eng.  He took the challenge and he won the first time. FINALLY DAP BECAME THE GOVERNMENT OF PENANG..

NEVER GIVE UP.  The road ahead for DAP is full of challenges. Sdr  Lim Guan Eng knew he had a tough task ahead, which was to make Penang the model state that will implement the polices of a Malaysian Malaysia

As Penang Chief Minister, LIM Guan Eng  has literally worked miracles for Penang. His government is clean, efficient, liberal and corruption free.

His open tender system and a free market system have made Penang the first state government to have s surplus budget. He has scrapped the NEP policy, and foreign investment is queuing up in droves to invest
in Penang.

THE FUTURE.  THE FUTURE OF DAP IS LARGELY TIED UP WITH THE FUTURE OF
PENANG.  Penang under DAP is a success story.  Its success has embittered UMNO and its cronies are    determined to undermine the DAP government with lies, threats and malicious untruths. Penang DAP
must remain strong, and must counter the lies and fabrications of UMNO.

Under the leadership of Sdr Lim Guan /Eng, Penang DAP will become a shining example for the people of other states to vote for DAP to form their government.

PENANG DAP BUILDING WILL BECOME THE SYMBOL OF SUCCESS. 

THE NEW DAP building will serve as an example of how state governments should be run for the benefit of the people.  THE DAP BUILDING WILL BECOME THE SYMBOL OF A NEW MALAYSIA


DR CHEN MAN HIN

NAJIB FACES WORLD CONDEMNATION FOR BRUTAL POLICE OPPRESSION OF PEACEFUL PROTESTORS

Immediately after the Bersih 3 demonstrations were over the government media tried to portray Bersih 3 demonstrators

As unruly and violent.

However, events have shown that it is the police officers who battered peaceful demonstrators without rhyme or reason;

Police in uniform also assaulted both local and foreign reporters who were covering the demonstrators.  These shamely police brutality were captured in films, and are being shown live over world TV channels

The display of police assaulting innocent reporters and peaceful demonstrators will damage the image of Malaysia, and Prime Minster will have to explain to the world and account for the demeaning behavior of the police officers.

The world will compare notes. How is it  Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen large gatherings of people could mass together in city squares like the famous Tahrir Square of Cairo. No permits required.  No harassment by police.

In Malaysia,  police harass demonstrators in Kuala Lumpur.  Dataran Merdeka is off limits to demonstrators. In Cairo,Tahrir Square is open to demonstrators the year round.

POLICE BRUTALITY AND SUPPRESSION OF BASIC RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY WILL DRIVE OFF INVESTORS. The irresponsible behaviour of the police will drive off foreign investors. They do not like to invest in countries where human rights are not respected.

PM Najib Rasak is urged to rethink his policies to freedom of assembly and the right to have freedom to clean, fair and free elections.  To condemn Bersih 3.0 is to deny the people the freedom to have clear, fair and free elections.

THE MESSAGE OF THE BERSIH 3.0 MASS RALLY IS THE RIGHT TO HAVE FREE, FAIR AND CLEAN ELECTIONS.  HE MUST IMMEDIATELY  CALL FOR THE ELECTORAL ROLL TO BE CLEANED UP, AND TO ENSURE THERE ARE NO PHANTOM VOTERS, NO FRAUDULENT FOREIGN VOTERS WITH VOTING RIGHTS, AND NO DOUBLE VOTING RIGHTS TO  ARMY AND POLICE PERSONNEL

HE MUST ALSO CALL FOR THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION CHAIRMAN TO RESIGN FORTHWITH AS HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING THE ELECTORAL ROLLS TO BE FALSIFIED WITH ILLEGAL VOTERS.

Dr Chen Man Him

Dap Life Advisor

EC credibility focal point of Ambiga-Khairy debate

By Clara Chooi

April 26, 2012

Source: The Malaysian Insider 

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/ec-credibility-focal-point-of-ambiga-khairy-debate/

KUALA LUMPUR, April 26 — The much-anticipated face-off between Datuk Ambiga Sreenavasan and Khairy Jamaluddin last night resulted in an unresolved dispute over the Election Commission’s (EC) credibility, with both parties taking turns to either trash or defend the country’s election regulator.

On the one hand, Ambiga insisted on the EC’s resignation, claiming the body’s lethargic efforts and “lame excuses” for true electoral reform were proof that it could not be trusted.

Ambiga (left) and Khairy in thoughtful poses during their debate on April 25, 2012. — Picture by Jack Ooi

In response, Khairy said it was Ambiga who could not be trusted, saying her stubborn refusal to accept any effort taken by the EC proved that the civil society leader has been “misrepresenting” the reasons to hold Bersih 3.0 this Saturday.

“I came here tonight expecting a spirit of co-operation and reasoning.

“But ultimately, if you have already said we cannot work with the EC and want their resignation, then it is a foregone conclusion,” he said.

The duo spewed countless figures and technical information to disprove one another, forcing the event into an exchange of reasons why the EC should or should not be believed.

They were perpetually interrupted by cheers and heckles from the highly-charged crowd of at least 1,000 spectators, many of whom were clear supporters of either contenders — Ambiga, the well-known civil society leader and Bersih co-chair, or Khairy, the fiery Oxford graduate and leader of the youths in the ruling Umno.

Neither, however, were announced the winner at the end of the intense 90-minute debate, the first such event to be held amid anticipation over Bersih’s impending rally for free and fair elections this Saturday.

During the verbal duel, Khairy accused the election watchdog group of being pre-emptive and prejudicial to the EC’s efforts for reform.

He disputed Bersih’s claim that the EC had failed to satisfy the prime minister’s reform pledges, insisting that at least seven out of the group’s eight reform demands have either been implemented or are in the process of implementation.

“I put it to you, unlike Ambiga, that of the eight demands, seven have been met or are being addressed,” he said.

“The electoral roll is being cleaned up, indelible ink implemented... the only thing is the 10-day campaign period.

“For free and fair access to media, as a Barisan Nasional (BN) MP, I support all parties given the same amount of time on all national media to tell the rakyat their policy platform and manifesto — let’s be fair about that,” he said.

Khairy added that many of the recommendations in the Parliamentary Select Committee’s (PSC) final report were “time-bound”, such as the three-month timeframe given for the EC to look into a suitable system for overseas voters.

“So why go out on the streets? I respect your right to go out but you are pre-judging and misrepresenting,” he said.

But Ambiga disagreed, citing the 10 major problems in the EC’s electoral roll as highlighted by academic Dr Ong Kian Ming in his Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (MERAP) preliminary findings.

She noted that according to the study, there are at least 3.1 million voters whose IC addresses show different voting constituencies from the one which they are actually voting in.

“Also, there are about 65,455 foreigners on the electoral roll. A total of 106,743 cases of deletions and 6,672 cases of additions without public display to the roll from Quarter 4 2010 to Quarter 3 last year.

“The 3.1 million is very troubling because this information was actually given to the EC by the National Registration Department (NRD) in 2002 but the EC did nothing,” she said.

“The 65,455 foreigners... some removed, some added without the rolls displayed... It leaves us with a lot of doubt over whether they are actually cleaning the roll,” she added.

The former Bar Council chairman, who earned hoots from the crowd as she spoke, pointed out that the EC has only been harping on the existence of some 42,051 “doubtful voters” in the roll, which it discovered after its registry was cross-checked with the NRD’s records.

“Don’t forget, they even downplayed this figure, saying 0.3 per cent margin of error is nothing... This is highly irresponsible, given that in the election, the margins between winning and losing is very small.

“You could knock over the state government of Selangor with 42,000 votes,” she pointed out.

In his rebuttal, Khairy said if the 42,051 were indeed fraudulent cases, the EC would not have put the voters’ names on public display for three months after discovering them.

He said the voters were not non-existent but were merely those who had failed to update their IC records with the NRD.

“But Bersih would have you believe they are fraudulent,” he charged, to loud applause.

Further to this, Khairy pointed out that during the three-month public display period, 1,248 cases came forward to confirm the names on the roll.

“If not a single one came forward, then I’d go with Ambiga... Strike them off. But they came forward, over 1,000 names,” he said.

He pointed out that if the EC had decided to strike off the names of the 42,051 voters from the roll, they would have been denying these citizens their constitutional right to vote.

Ambiga, however, called this a “lame excuse”, pointing out that election laws state that the EC must revise the supplementary roll once every three months by making house-to-house calls or sending notices requiring updated information from the voters.

“If no information is returned, they are entitled to strike out these names. Why not use it?

“On the one hand, they are violating the Constitution but when it comes to removing voters, they are suddenly coy and respectful of the Constitution,” she said.

Both leaders also clashed in their views on overseas voting, with Khairy pointing out that the EC has three months to find a formula for the best voting system while Ambiga said this should have been done years ago.

“We have had Malaysians overseas for years. Why only now? And what is this about it being a logistical nightmare? They must have this sorted before the polls,” she said.

Ambiga later agreed with Khairy to engage with the EC further on all outstanding issues regarding electoral reforms but said the discussion must be attended by MPs from both sides of the political divide.

But the leader repeatedly stressed on the need for reforms to be implemented before the coming polls or if this could not be done within months, then the election should be delayed.

Bersih is holding its third rally for free and fair elections at Dataran Merdeka from 2pm this Saturday.

Imperative for clean, free and fair elections in Malaysia

Media statement by Dr Chen Man Hin, DAP Life Advisor in Serem ban on 25th April 2012

THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING MALAYSIA TO SEE THERE IS CLEAN, FREE AND FAIR GENERAL ELECTIONS DUE TO BE HELD BEFORE 2013

It is with dismay that Bersih 3 gathering on April 28th is meeting obstruction from the Kuala Lumpur city council, and has refused to allow Bersih 3 to have its meeting at Dataran Merdeka.

Bersih 3 is organised by peaceful citizens who are keen to see that there will be clean, free and fair elections when general elections is called.

The KL City Mayor has lost touch with developments in other parts of the world where protests by citizens are allowed to he held, unhampered by the authorities.  He should know that the Arab Spring has swept countries in the Middle East, and protests, demonstrations and marches are as common as football matches.

The KL City government by refusing to allow Bersih to use Dataran Merdeka, show that it is out of touch with the rest of the world. Other countries would have the impression that MALAYSIA IS A DICTATORSHIP, AND THIS WILL DRIVE TOURISTS AND VISITORS AWAY. KL WILL ALSO LOSE ITS REPUTATION AS ONE THE MODERN PROGRESSSIVE CITIES IN THE WORLD.

Keep in mind that world reacted strongly when PM Najib treated Bersih 2 by launching tear gas and water cannons at the protesters in KL streets last year. If Bersih 3 is also suppressed this time again, expect the international outcry would be even worse.

Foreign investors will stay away from countries which are not democratic. Tourists will also keep away

Our advice to KL City government and to the ministers of Barisan National would be to be civilised like Arab countries, and let protestors demonstrate freely and peacefully, in their sacred task to have clean, free and fair general elections.

Dr Chen Man Hin

Dap Life Advisor

The death of civil liberties

by Malik Imtiaz Sarwar

 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2012/04/23/the-death-of-civil-liberties/

Though the Government has said much about the repeal of the infamous Internal Security Act, little has been said to explain how its so-called replacement, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill (SOA), will impact on our lives. Even less has been said about the bill tabled to amend the Penal Code that went hand in hand with the SOA. I think there was a reason for this.

To say that the two bills are draconian would be a gross understatement. They brutally curtail the constitutional freedom of Malaysians to dissent. It seems that we have been made the victims of a sleight of hand. While we were being distracted by the song and dance that attended the termination of the ISA, Parliament was being harnessed to diabolical purpose. The passing of the two bills has sounded the death knell of civil liberties.
I am not given to hyperbole. The facts speak for themselves.


The SOA is more a procedural instrument. It puts in place the legal framework for the investigation and prosecution of what are described as “security offences”. It allows for the kinds of invasive measures that we have come to understand are needed for governments to combat terrorism effectively. Government tells us that terrorism is the raison d’etre of the legislation.

The SOA could arguably be justified on this basis, though I question the need for such extreme anti-terrorism legislation in light of our not having been subjected to terrorist attacks or even threats. Curiously, the preamble to the SOA states that action has been taken and further action is threatened by a body of persons both inside and outside Malaysia to cause organized violence against Malaysians, to excite disaffection against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and to procure the alteration though unlawful means of legal institutions in the nation. This is news to me. These are matters of great significance to us; they suggest that we are virtually in a state of war or that we are in the midst of an insurgency.

The truth of the matter is that we have not been made the subject of such scurrilous action and we have not been threatened with such action. The bill recites this so the Government can invoke a provision of the Federal Constitution, Article 149, that allows for Parliament to enact laws that contravene certain constitutional guarantees including those that prohibit detention without trial and guarantee a fair trial. The SOA allows, amongst other things, detention without trial for a period of twenty-eight days, and empowers the Attorney General to take extraordinary measures including the interception of all forms of communication where he has reason to believe a Security Offence (this is explained below) has been committed.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the ISA was enacted under Article 149 to address the guerrilla insurgency we faced in the 1960s. I have been made to understand that the Opposition’s unwillingness to associate with an obvious untruth is one of the main reasons it does not support the bill. The fact that Government has resorted to Article 149 gives credence to suggestions that the ISA has merely been repackaged and that the Government is not ready to give up the political advantages that such legislation gives it. As one Minister has observed, there were abuses under the ISA and no law is beyond abuse.

The SOA could perhaps be stomached if it was confined to terrorism. It however is not. In fact there is no mention of the word terrorism or terrorist in the legislation at all. Instead the SOA applies to what is referred to as “Security Offences” which is defined by newly introduced offences, hence the amendments to the Penal Code. This is where the real evil is.
The new offences fall within three categories: activity detrimental to Parliamentary democracy, espionage and sabotage. What is immediately apparent is that the three offences, and the various permutations the amendments allow for, are so widely defined so as to capture almost any form of conduct deemed undesirable by the powers that be. This is extremely alarming in light of trends on the part of the authorities where civil liberties are concerned.

Take the offence of activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy. It is defined to mean “an activity carried out by a person or group of persons designed to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by violent or unconstitutional means”. This is worry in light of the way in which we have heard accusations of unconstitutional behaviour being hurled at diverse persons from opposition members to activists. Consider also the way in which the members of Parti Sosialis Malaysia were arrested prior to the Bersih 2.0 demonstration last year for the alleged offence of “waging war” against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

This point is further illustrated by the offence of “possession of documents and publications detrimental to parliamentary democracy” which carries a jail term of up to ten years. This offence is defined to include documents or publications that have a tendency to, amongst other things, counsel disobedience to the law pertaining to public order. It would clearly impact of demonstrations like those organised by Bersih 2.0 and other activist groups which were deemed by the police to be unlawful. Under this offence, any notices concerning such an event would be a document or publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy.

It does not stop there. Such offending documents or publications include any invitation or request for contributions or donations for the use of persons who counsel disobedience to the law, amongst others. Persons receiving such offending documents or publications are required now to deliver the same to a police officer failing which that person may be convicted and sentenced to a jail term of ten years as well. This would be the case if those offending documents or publications were republished. So, the net would widen to include any bloggers who author or publish material deemed undesirable.

In the same vein, espionage means “an activity to obtain sensitive information by ulterior or illegal means for the purpose that is prejudicial to the security or interest of Malaysia”. What that means is not clear. “Sensitive information” is defined to include any information that concerns, amongst other things, public order and the “essential public interest of Malaysia”. The scope of these provisions become a little clearer when we consider how it is our leadership has a tendency to label activities detrimental to its political standing as being aimed at undermining the Government. It seems to me that whistleblowers might also be caught by this provision as well, a point worth noting in light of the numerous scandals the Opposition have been disclosing recently.

I could go on but the point has, I think, been demonstrated. The scope of these offences leaves no room for doubt. They are self-evidently geared towards far more than terrorism. The question I have is this: why has the Government led us to believe that these laws are intended to combat terrorism when in fact they do far more. Parliament has created a monstrous law that defies legal logic as much as it flies in the face of promise of reforms towards a more inclusive and participatory democracy.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is a practising lawyer and the President of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)

Shocking polls amendments bulldozed through

Sunday, 22 April 2012 Super Admin

Ambiga Sreenevasan, The Malaysian Insider

On 19 April 2012, many Bills were rushed through Parliament. One of them, which appears to have escaped the attention of the public, was a Bill that sought to amend the Election Offences Act 1954. The amendments are, to say the least, shocking and have far reaching consequences upon the voting process. They are designed solely for the purpose of making the voting process less transparent. Needless to say this Bill was passed.

1. Those that publish defamatory, racist and sexist remarks may do so with impunity

Section 11(c) which had required any print materials to have the names and addresses of its printer and publisher is DELETED IN FULL.

This means that anyone can now put up anonymous defamatory, racist or sexist posters without identifying the publisher or printer. Poison posters will now become standard fare. This goes completely against Bersih 2.0’s demand to end dirty politics.

2. Election monitoring at EC’s discretion

s14 1(A) is replaced with a clause which allows the Election Commission to appoint time slots to determine when polling agents or counting agents of a candidate may be present. Therefore the time when an agent of a candidate is allowed into the Polling Station is no longer fixed and is now left to the discretion of the EC to decide. They are free to remove Agents from Polling Station at will.

The reality is that polling and counting agents are usually appointed by the candidate and this ensures a more transparent process. However, with the new amendment there are possibilities of abuse. The time schedule is best understood by the candidates as they organise their agents according to their time availability, as most of them are volunteers. If the time schedule is at the discretion of the EC, this may mean that different persons are being rotated and this does not allow the agents to observe inconsistencies systematically. Worse, when such a time schedule is applied during vote counting, as it again may open up opportunities for mis-counting.

3. Curbing candidates and their staff from checking on identity of voters

S26 1(e) which allowed for checking of the identity of any person entering a polling centre is DELETED IN FULL.

The implication is that candidates and its election staff are not allowed to check on the identity of voters to establish if they are genuine or even to help them to identify if they are at the correct polling station. This also means that phantom voters or multiple voters will not be detected. The 50m exclusion zone outside the polling centre is now extended to 100m or more, depending on what the EC to decide. This makes it impossible for election monitors to see anything illegal going on.

It will also make it impossible to see if a voter is marked with indelible ink thus minimising its effect.

4. Election agent or candidate disallowed at election booths (barong) S26A Sub-section (2) and (3) are DELETED IN FULL. 

This means that all channels of election observation are sealed off as it now does not allow election candidates and staff to observe the registration of voters during polling day. Such an amendment opens up possibilities of abuse and fraud. There will be no more Barung Observers who were previously the only non-EC people able to look at the IC of the voter and pick up discrepancies. This is a major blow to the plans to weed out phantom voters. They can now walk in freely and the polling agent (even if he is allowed into the polling station) will have no opportunity to look at the IC of the voter. The same point about indelible ink made above, will apply

These amendments which have been introduced so late and bulldozed through Parliament makes a mockery of our electoral process. More importantly it makes a mockery of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) as it appears that these amendments were hidden from them. What does the PSC have to say about this?

Today, Bersih 2.0 reiterates its call for the Election Commissioners to resign immediately as it has failed to uphold the rakyat’s demand for a clean, fair and democratic electoral system. In fact it is unashamedly doing the opposite.

If anyone had any doubt that Bersih 3.0 is necessary, that doubt is now dispelled with this latest move. These amendments confirm our worst fears that the 13th GE will be the dirtiest yet.

The audacity with which these amendments are proposed and the speed with which they were passed reflects the utter contempt being shown for the rakyat’s call for clean and fair elections.
The EC must resign for allowing such amendments to be proposed.

We urge members of the public to read the amendments for themselves and then to fax the EC at 603-88889117 to express their views and if seen fit to call for their resignation.


Salam Bersih 2.0!

DUDUK BANTAH! — aliran

* Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan is Co-chairperson of the Steering Committee for the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih 2.0)

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.