Election Commission (EC) deputy chairperson Wan Ahmad Wan Omar reiterated that the EC is just a "management body" under the law to manage elections, rather than an enforcement agency.
"We are guided by the Attorney-General’s Office. The laws given to us are management laws," he said.
He was speaking today at a forum ‘The Election Laws, Election Commission and Electoral Reform’ organised by the Association for the Promotion of Human Rights (Proham).
Delivering the opening address at the forum, Wan Ahmad said that issues relating to money politics, vote-buying and dirty politics are under the purview of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
"EC can be called as a respondent or witness in court, but never in the history of the country has the EC taken a person to court over corruption," he said.
On the EC enforcement teams formed during election campaigns, Wan Ahmad said their role is merely to monitor posters put up during the campaign.
"What they (political parties) say during ceramah is handled by the police, according to the Police Act. It is the responsibility of the police to monitor the ceramah."
The forum is being held at the Dream Centre in Section 13, Petaling Jaya, this afternoon, in a much-anticipated second round of sparring between Wan Ahmad and Bersih 2.0 chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan.
The discussion will focus on whether the EC has adequate powers to act independently and the legal gaps empowering it to discharge its duties.
Ambiga crossed swords with Wan Ahmad earlier at a discussion on Tuesday in Shah Alam organised by Kumpulan Karangkraf, the media group that publishes Malay language daily Sinar Harian and a score of popular magazines.
That talk titled 'What's next after July 9?' saw a lively debate between Ambiga and Wan Ahmad, both of whom were cheered and jeered a boisterous, 600-strong audience.
However, the forum today, dubbed as a rematch between the two protaganists, appeared to be a rather tame affair.
'Untrue EC powerless'
Responding to Wan Ahmad, Ambiga as the second speaker cited section 27E of the Election Offences Act to prove that the EC has actually broader powers than it conceives.
According to Ambiga, the section empowers the EC enforcement team during the campaign to "ensure that written laws relating to election are being complied with".
She argued that the EC also has the power, under the current laws, to call other authorities to assist the commission in carrying out its duties.
Therefore, although the EC has no prosecution powers, it has the responsibility to lodge police reports or request other authorities to take action, when faced with cases of irregularities.
The former Bar Council president also quizzed Wan Ahmad on the issue of postal votes for Malaysians overseas, who are being denied a chance to vote.
"From the feedback we received, it is impossible for them to go to the Malaysian embassies to vote," said Ambiga.
She reminded Wan Ahmad that 50,000 to 200,000 Sarawakians in the peninsula were disenfranchised during the state election in April because they did not qualify as postal voters.
Automatic registration 'doable'
While on the subject, Ambiga also requested Wan Ahmad to explain whether the members of the territorial army (Wataniah), that the government has suggested to form in every parliamentary constituency nationwide, will be registered as postal voters.
On the issue of automatic registration, one of the Bersih 2.0 demands, Ambiga dismissed the EC’s excuse that it would force people to vote, and that it would lead to a low voter turnout rate.
She argued that if the people are automatically registered as voters when they reach 21 years of age, they still have a choice whether to vote or not.
As for the problem of lower turnout, Ambiga countered that the outcome of automatic registration would result in the opposite, as it overcomes people’s laziness in getting themselves registered under the current system.
She added automatic registration is highly doable if the National Registration Department (NRD) database, that is linked to the EC, is clean and has high integrity.
'Electoral defects do not favour any one party'
On the other hand, senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah - the third speaker in the panel discussion - said the defects in the election laws, if any, favour any one party.
Shafee (left) , who has taken up over 70 election petitions in the past, added that in his experience, the majority of the issue raised in courts are not related to the concerns raised by Bersih.
“Whether it is a problem with the ballot papers, as it was in case I handled in Terengganu or the issue of postal votes, I have witnessed it myself that the postal votes - in Sarawak - were for the opposition,” he argued.
It is no true, stressed Shafee, that the election processes are in favour of the ruling BN government.
However, he complained that most judges who hear election petitions are not interested in pursuing the “defects” in the election laws in detail so that lawmakers could be alerted on the need for changes.
“They resolve cases as though it is a mathematical equation. We could do with judges who are more alert on issues, (and then maybe) we wouldn’t have the trouble of outside forces making an issue out of it,” he noted.
No comments:
Post a Comment