tatau collisionA riverine accident between an express boat and a timber barge has been reported in Ulu Tatau, in remote Sarawak. 20 are missing and fear dead. This could be the worst express boat in accident in recent history of Sarawak waterway transportation. And what was the timber barge doing in remote Sarawak anyway.

The body of a baby girl was recovered and about 20 are feared dead after an express boat collided with a timber barge and sank, pitching more than 30 passengers into the Ulu Tatau River in central Sarawak, between Bakun and Bintulu.

Eleven people managed to swim to shore and were rescued but the rest are believed to be trapped underneath the boat.

Search and rescue is ongoing in the remote location near a timber concession camp called Kem Kelubuk even though nightfall has turned the place pitch dark.

The body of the five-month-old baby has been sent to the Bintulu Hospital for post-mortem.

Survivors have also been sent to the hospital.

The incident, which is said to have happened at about 2pm, is the worst river tragedy in Sarawak.

The Sarawak police, the Fire and Rescue Department, the Fisheries Department, the Marine Police and a local community organisations and longhouse folks are now involved in a frantic search and rescue operations.

The nearest settlement is Rumah Ado, a Punan longhouse located at least two hours by timber track from Tatau Bazaar which is some 120kms from Bintulu town, 220kms from Miri.

Police in Bintulu, which is the nearest urban centre, have rushed dozens of men, vehicles and equipment to help their counterpart in the Tatau district police station, said Bintulu Police Chief, Supt Sulaiman Abdul Razak.

"All government departments, voluntary groups and community associations from here and Tatau are helping out in the search and rescue efforts,'' he said.

The place gets very dark by 6.30pm.

Former Catholic priest of Belaga, Michael Jok, who is now a social activist, said he heard from his contacts in Tatau that those missing could be trapped beneath the capsized boat that had rammed into the timber-barge.

It is learnt that aside from native villagers, the express boat was also carrying government officers who were carrying out site survey in the remote interior.

As at 7.30pm on Monday, confirmed reports coming out from Tatau said that the 11 rescued - eight adults and three children - were being rushed to the Bintulu Hospital.

Recommended reading:
* Excessive logging in Sarawak caused Rajang River log-jam

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Malaysia Budget 2011

The Prime Minister has called it “A Budget by The Rakyat” because it will for the first time incorporate the views of Malaysians who have sent their comments to his blog.

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said Budget 2011, to be unveiled today, would set the pace for the transformation of Malaysia into a developed and high-income economy by the year 2020.

Transformation is certain to be the key message in his speech starting at 4pm at the Dewan Rakyat. He is expected to outline various measures to improve the rakyat’s lives, especially those in the lower income group.

Recommended reading:
* Penang recorded a budget surplus of RM77million for 2009

The 50-km long log-jam that blocked Malaysia’s biggest river shows the scale of unchecked deforestation in the highlands of Borneo and raises fresh concerns about how the state of Sarawak manages its natural resources, . This is Malaysia’s mighty Rajang River as it has never been seen before, choked from side to side — for kilometre after kilometre — by thousands upon thousands of dead trees. Source: Malaysia’s million dollar question — where did the logs come from?

Environment and Public Health Minister Wong Soon Koh declared the log-jam to be a “natural calamity of gigantic proportion” and blamed landslides in highland logging areas. He said: “The wooden debris which was swept away could have been accumulated there for the past 40 or more years.” Pure bullshit from WSK.

Land Development Minister James Masing blamed unscrupulous timber companies and said that whoever caused the problem should be punished. Another hypocrite talking. JM is the assembly of Baleh (where the incident started) and he is the Land Development Minister. Things happen right under his nose and he make don't know.

One blogger called Tbsbidayuh summed up the mood when he wrote: “Thank you to the monsoon rain for revealing state government ignorance on taking care of environment.”

River transport at standstill as debris clog rivers: It has never occurred over the past 50 years that such a large amount of debris flowed down to completely cover the river, blocking any navigable passage.

CM: We will probe cause of logjam: “I have asked the people to investigate the cause as this is the first time we have such a thing. So we should not just jump to conclusions. When pressed on what he thought would be the cause of the massive clogging, Taib said he did not know as he was not a scientist. Taib, is also Minister of Planning and Resource Management.

Soil erosion, eh: BorneoPost, the government's mouth piece reported that many attribute the logjam at Rajang River to soil erosion at Baleh. BorneoPost is diverting the issue and failed to report on the root of the problem.

Debris in river push water treatment up 119 pct. Sibu Water Board (SWB) forked out an additional RM19,000 (119 per cent increase) on water treatment as a result of the debris and muddy water in the river. By now the log are at the sea, so who will make complaints.

Ecological disaster along Rajang in Sarawak: It is a major disaster - disrupting navigation, causing structural damages as well as adversely impacting aquatic life. Thousands and thousands of logs and associated debris have been floating down river and have reached the sea. The actual total damage caused will be hard to tell but it will be pretty high. The fate of the thousands of logs in the open sea is anyone's guess. A tree floating down the river may be caused by natural causes but thousands of neatly cut logs are not caused by nature.

What is Taib response to this environmental disaster? All timber businesses are control by the Chief minister. But the disaster in the mighty Rejang river hopefully open his eyes, that is if the Chief Minister still can process in his brain what his eyes are seeing. Power and corruption not only blind a man but make a person insensitive to reality. This some truth here.

Recommended reading:
* Siltation in Rajang River due to heavy deforestation
* Siltation killed fish at Batang Rajang
* Who's protecting Sarawak virgin jungles

Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) pledged to bring the Federal Government and the British Government to Court for dishonouring the Malaysia Agreement once getting the mandate from the people.

President Datuk Seri Panglima Yong Teck Lee said that among others, the clear breach of agreement was on the Borneonisation of the federal public service in Sabah in pursuant to the Malaysia Agreement that was signed in London on July 9, 1963.

He said SAPP’s legal team had studied the matter for quite a long time and after researching the speeches of leaders from all parties and relevant documents, especially the agreement’s contents itself, they opined that the Malaysia Agreement was enforceable in the court of law.

“The promise of Borneonisation of the public service is very well documented in the many memoranda submitted by the leaders of North Borneo and Sarawak, in the Memorandum of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee, the Cobbold Report, and the Inter-Governmental Report.

“Finally, it became a legally binding enforceable right of Sabah and Sarawak in the Malaysia Agreement,” he said when opening the annual general meeting for branches in SAPP Petagas CLC at its chief, Dullie Mari’s residence in Kampung Muhibbah here on Friday.

“Many Malaysians do not realise that Malaysia itself is a creation of the Malaysia Agreement signed in London on July 9, 1963. The parties to this international treaty were the United Kingdom, Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo (now Sabah),” he said.

He said that the Agreement contained 10 articles, which are clear and easy to understand.

On the other hand, everybody knew that those promises stipulated in the Agreement had been broken by both the Malayan and British governments.

“Until now, 47 years later, all we have been hearing are empty promises. It is no wonder that even the Federal Minister of Information found it so casual to “re-assure” Sabah on the Borneonisation of the public service during the last Malaysia Day,” he said.

On this note, he said SAPP was not talking about the Armed Forces and security personnel, medical, scientific other high-tech services that Sabah needs, but tens of thousands of officers and clerical staff in many federal departments and agencies in Sabah.

“It is as though there are no capable Sabahans,” he said, adding that an example of this was the posting of 76 computer technicians to Sabah schools in April, which was objected by the teachers’ unions in the state.

“The education minister does not even bother to explain. It is now learnt that more than 400 computer technicians are being posted to various schools in Sabah with costs of living and transport allowances, taking up the teachers’ quarters and depriving local staff. Is this job too difficult for Sabahans?” he asked.

Yong claimed that previous employment and promotions of locals had been reversed with a stroke of the pen and that even recently at the mini Putrajaya (Sabah Federal Administrative Complex) even clerks and drivers were sent from the Peninsula Malaysia.

“We want to make it clear that Malaysians in Sabah, known as Sabahans, have nothing against our fellows Malaysians from the Peninsular. We share their predicament caused by the failures of the BN-Umno government in the country.

“But, we worry also about the job opportunities of young Sabahans, increasing in numbers of whom face a bleak future. If even computer technicians are posted from the Peninsular what hope do the locals have?” he asked.

Yong said that as true Malaysians, the people of Sabah sincerely believed that the Federal Government must honour the letter and spirit of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, including the promise of Borneonisation of the public service.

The Inter-Governmental Report of 27 February, 1963 had referred to the famous Cobbold Report dated 21 June, 1962, which in Chapter 4, Para 148 (i) of the recommendations of the Cobbold Commission clearly stated that the Borneonisation of the public services should proceed as quickly as possible, he said.

He said Article VIII of the Agreement stipulated that “the Governments of Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak will take such legislative, executive or other action as may be required to implement the assurances, undertakings and recommendations in Chapter 3 of, and Annexes A and B to, the Report of the Inter-Governmental Committee signed on 27 February 1963, is so far as they are not implemented by express provision of the Constitution of Malaysia”.

Yong said Lord Cobbold had recommended that “the Federal Services in the Borneo territories should be regionalised and officers should be appointed in the territories with sufficient authority to deal with local matters. I add a personal recommendation that, when expatriate officers are no longer needed for these posts, they should normally be filled by officers from the Borneo territories”.

“But where are all these promises?” he asked. Based on all these documents and evidence, it is clear that the people of Sabah can sue those involved in the Malaysia Agreement based on this legal binding commitment, he said.

Nonetheless, Yong said legally the only party that can represent the people of Sabah in the litigation is the State Government, while others even SAPP in its present state now doesn’t have enough locus standi to do so because they are not the State Government.

“So, I would like to state here that once SAPP form the new State Government after the 13th General Election, we will issue a six-month notice to the Federal Government to implement Borneonisation as agreed upon in the Malaysia Agreement 47 years ago,” he said.

Yong said that if after six months the Federal Government failed to make any substantial change, then the SAPP State Government would seek legal recourse.
“What is there to discuss? It is not like the Agreement was only signed today but it has already been for 47 years, so what else is there to negotiate,” he said to thunderous applause from the delegates.

To internationalise the matter, he said SAPP would go to London where the treaty was signed and sealed and take similar action against the British Government.

“They (British government) have to be responsible for what they have done,” he said.
In fact, the transfer of sovereignty of Sabah from the United Kngdom to Kuala Lumpur in Article IV of the Malaysia Agreement included thecondition that such transfer of sovereignty is in accordance with the Malaysia Agreement and the constitutional instruments that form part of the Agreement, he said.

Yong told the delegates here that the local leaders in the State cabinet who most of them are lawyers knew about this.

“But, they will not dare to voice it out because they are worried of losing their positions, projects and so on … they are answerable to Kuala Lumpur but for SAPP, no. We want an autonomous State Government that answers to no one but the people of Sabah,” he said.

The former Chief Minister pointed to the foresight of Lord Cobbold who in his words in the report said:

“It is a necessary condition that, from the outset, Malaysia should be regarded by all concerned as an association of partners, combining in the common interest to create a new nation but retaining their own individualities. If any idea were to take root that Malaysia would involve a “take-over” of the Borneo territories by the Federation of Malaya and the submersion of individualities of North Borneo and Sarawak, Malaysia would not, in my judgement, be generally acceptable or successful.”

Also on hand were deputy president Datuk Liew Teck Chan, former Finance Minister Datuk Mohd Noor Mansoor, vice president Amde Sidek, Wanita chief Melanie Chia, Youth chief Edward Dagul, Information chief Chong Pit Fah and supreme council members as well as the candidates for the upcoming SAPP party election.

Nurul Izzah Anwar described the true meaning of Malaysian Constitution. via MalaysiaChronicle.

As I spoke in Penampang, Sabah last night, I am reminded that we have just celebrated Malaysia Day.

I am also reminded that the original intent of the constitution is to serve as the protector for all Malaysians, not just for the selected few.

Decisions and events made in the past are being felt today, and what we decide today as the people will indeed shape our tomorrow.

With that in mind, I am happy to note that the effort to create a culture of constructive engagement with all concerned Malaysians for a better Malaysia, has received wide response of all types; whether in support or in opposition to the arguments set forth in the past two previous articles.

I see this as a healthy beginning, as all opinions must be accepted and considered constructively in the spirit of a true democracy.

Both my previous articles touched on framing a much-needed understanding of our constitution.

I highly recommend that all these articles are read together with the Malaysian Constitution.

Therefore, this third article focuses on searching for the true meaning of a constitution, as the constitution is the primary reference document of a legitimate and sovereign nation.

It is crucial for any citizen of any nation to understand their legitimate rights, especially in light of the need to clarify and reconcile a constitution, when facing with the challenges and contradictions in the context of nation building, where democracy and an open society is a prerequisite, to continue developing in a globalised and competitive world.

Unless the citizens of a democratic nation truly understand the meaning of a constitution, the constitution can never be the foundation of a nation, which will only allow tyranny and injustice by the ruling elites to reign supreme.

The prime minister recently stated that we will be a failed state if we do not transform the nation, only confirms that we need a Political Contract. I had suggested the need to add a fifth pillar to the existing four pillars of the National Transformation Agenda, which is Political Reform.

I have also alluded that Political Power without a Political Contract based on the spirit and letter of the original constitution is akin to playing football without rules. The “game” would be unfair and unjust as it would only serve the interest of those in power and not the people.

The questions posed in this article are applicable universally to any democratic nation in the world, while certain examples are specific to our country for illustrative and educational purposes only.

The Purpose of a Constitution

A constitution is essentially the written supreme law of a nation that can be viewed as a form of a contract between a representative government and the governed (citizens).

The supreme law means it is the primary governing law that sets the legal golden standard (benchmark) of which any introduced law is determined to be either in conformance (consistent) or otherwise.

For example, the Malaysian Constitution states in Article 4(1) “that the constitution is the supreme law of the federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this constitution shall, to the maximum extent of inconsistency, be void.”

However, for 50 out of our 53 years as an independent nation, this fundamental principle of Article 4(1) has been superseded with Part XI — Special Powers, Articles 149 and 150 (amended in 1960) that allows for laws that are inconsistent or contradictory to the constitution be made.

Since independence, we have had five emergency proclamations, including the 1964 Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation and the racial riots of 1969, of which most of it has yet to be repealed.

The laws passed and still in force stemming from these Article includes, the Internal Security Act (1960), the Sedition Act (1948), the Printing Presses & Publications Act (1984), the Universities and University Colleges Act (1971), the Societies Act (1966), the Police Act (1984) and the Official Secrets Act (1972).

Therefore, how can citizens of any democratic nation reconcile the existence of draconian anti-democratic laws and the continued enforcement of emergency ordinances that subjugates a constitution with inconsistencies and contradictions from its mutually agreed original form?

Constitution as a Contract

A nation is a sovereign entity guided by a constitution that is a form of a contract between a legitimate representative government and the governed (citizens).

A contract is an instrument to bind an agreement between parties. In regards to a constitution, it then can be deconstructed into the key elements of a contract which are:

• The Offer – to be a lawful citizen of a country.

• The Terms – articles or laws establishing the rules, rights and responsibilities which are used in defining the relationship between the government and the governed (citizens).

• The Acceptance – to agree and accept the offer and terms unconditionally.

• The Consideration – citizenship rights in exchange for affiliation and delegation of specified powers to the government.

• The Capacity of Contracting Parties – competence and free will to enter into a contract.

• The Intent of the Parties to Contract – mutual assent or a “meeting of the minds” of the parties on all proposed terms and essential elements of the contract.

• The Object of the Contract – must be legal, binding and enforceable to all citizens.

Therefore, how can any citizen of any democratic nation reconcile between other forms of “contracts,” established by the few, which may be in breach of an existing “constitutional contract”?

Constitution as a Delegation of Political Powers Instrument

The constitution is in essence the granting (delegation) of legitimate political powers from the citizens through the following levels of governing structures, from the people to a local government to a state government to a central or federal government, based on mutually agreed terms and by a “legitimising” selection process of free and fair elections.

The governing pillars of a nation can be in the form of a Constitutional Monarchy with a democratically elected parliament to form a legitimate government.

Free and fair elections are the foundation of a democratic nation that votes a legitimate three-tiered form of representative government (local, state and federal governments) with a specified tenure.

Therefore, how can citizens of any democratic nation accept the withdrawal of free and fair elections to appoint either a “legitimate” local, state and federal government?

How can citizens of any democratic nation call for restoring elections that were originally in a constitution but for specific reasons were later withdrawn?

How can citizens of any democratic nation ensure that all elections are indeed free and fair without any forms of discriminatory practices and undue advantage for only selected incumbent political parties?

How can any citizens of any democratic nation call for the sanctity of a balanced and equitable relationship between states in a federal system that could have avoided the current Kelantan oil royalty claim issue or the implementation of the 20-point agreement for Sabah and 18-point agreement for Sarawak?

Principles of “Legitimate” Political Powers

The legitimate political powers are defined by the “limits of power” and “separation of powers” principles.

The constitution under the “limits of powers” principle recognizes the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties of the individual citizens such as equality, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and right to property among others.

Therefore, how can citizens of any democratic nation accept in any form the denial of their fundamental rights and liberties without recourse or judicial review as defined by the “limits of power” principle?

And the constitution, under the “separation of powers”, principle organises government into three branches: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

The amendment to the constitution and forming of laws is done by tabling, debating and passing a majority vote by members of the legislature.

The interpretation of the constitution and laws is delegated to the judiciary.

The administration of the constitution and laws is delegated to the executive.

Therefore, how can citizens of any democratic nation accept the centralisation and interference by one branch over another in contradiction of the “separation of powers” principle?

And, apart from having the judiciary interpret the constitution, a parliament to amend the constitution and an executive to administer the constitution, why not add a fourth “element” to decide on the constitution which is a people’s referendum mechanism to exist?

Malaysian Constitution as a “Tree of Democracy” metaphor

Finally, I want to poetically frame the Malaysian constitution using the “Tree of Democracy” as a metaphor, which was inspired by a constitutional crisis in Perak, that allows us to see the entire constitutional framework, that permits us to clarify and reconcile any constitutional contradictions that may exist that unless resolved, may do more harm than good to our beloved nation.

The roots of the tree is the Malaysian “National Principles and Philosophy” or Rukun Negara.

I believe that the Rukun Negara is our “lost contract” for Malaysians. If we had been guided by the Rukun Negara which is comprehensive and equitable, then we would have been a better nation than what we are today.

The Rukun Negara should be read and understood by all Malaysians which is as follows;

Our nation, Malaysia, is dedicated:

to achieve a greater unity of all her peoples; to maintain a democratic way of life;

to create a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably shared;

to ensure a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions; and to build a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology;

We, her peoples, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends, guided by these principles:






If we do not protect the “roots” of our nation, then shouldn’t we fear that our “Tree of Democracy” will wilt soon?

The trunk of the tree is our Malaysian Constitution.

The Constitution is divided into 15 parts and 13 Schedules with 230 articles.

The Constitution has been amended 42 times with over 675 individual amendments.

If we do not protect the “trunk” that makes our nation stand, then shouldn’t we fear that our “Tree of Democracy” will fall soon?

The three branches of the tree are the Malaysian Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. This would include local, state and federal governments.

If we do not protect the “branches” that supports and serve our people, then shouldn’t we fear that our “Tree of Democracy” will rot soon?

The leaves of the tree are the individual Malaysian citizens.

These are the 26 million ‘leaves’ that are attached to the tree equally and provides nourishment (and taxes, if I may add) through honest hard work, sacrifices and loyalty.

If we do not protect the “leaves” that nourishes our nation, then shouldn’t we fear that our “Tree of Democracy” will be leafless soon?

The flowers and fruits of the tree are the many achievements and benefits of nationhood.

These are the countless small and big achievements and benefits that have been produced that must rightfully be enjoyed by all Malaysians.

If we do not protect the “flowers and fruits” produced by our people, then shouldn’t we fear that our “Tree of Democracy” will be barren soon?

And the two main impediments for our “Tree of Democracy” to continue growing tall among other trees in the forest of nations are:

Parasitic “Money” plants, that selfishly saps the nutrients of the tree and;

the unfertile soil of corruption, anti-democratic laws, racism and institutional abuse.

Therefore, let us protect our “Tree of Democracy” by continuing to remove parasites and rejuvenate a fertile soil through Political and Civil Reforms.

In Conclusion

So what will be our path, which is either to live by the spirit and true meaning of our constitution for a better Malaysia or to live in the shadow of a constitution in Malaysaja?

The time to decide is now.

(Nurul Izzah is the Lembah Pantai MP and the daughter of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim)

The Chinese should not be seen as kaum pendatang (migrant folk) and have been loyal citizens of Malaysia for the past three to five generations, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. via TheStar

“We should not look behind with sentiments of the past. We must look forward because we are building a Malaysian nation that is progressive and successful on the global stage,” he said when opening the 57th MCA general assembly on Sunday.

“We should not look behind with sentiments of the past. We must look forward because we are building a Malaysian nation that is progressive and successful on the global stage,” he said when opening the 57th MCA general assembly on Sunday.

Najib urged the public to focus on how the Chinese and Indian communities could work with the Malay and other communities to create a fair society despite differences in interpreting what constituted a fair society.

“There can be a big polemic on what is a fair society. A Malay leader’s definition of fair can be different than your definition of fair but eventually we must converge,” he said.

Najib said there was a need to develop the economy equitably to have a fair distribution of wealth depending on the size of the community.

“It is a conventional wisdom and rational thinking that if the majority of a country has a very small percentage of the wealth, that is not equitable. I think MCA would also agree.

“So, we need to have a nice balance that the Malay feels they have a bigger share in economic wealth but the Chinese also feel they are growing economically in our system,” he said.

He added that was the reason to aim for a 6% economic growth in the next 10 years to ensure the economic pie grew.

“When you expand the pie, in absolute terms, we are getting better. We must look for a fine balance. Malays also have their aspirations and their fears, the other communities have their wishes. In all these things, let us look at it from the Malaysian context,” he urged.

He also urged the country to find ways to work together to bring to fruition policies contained in 1Malaysia, Government Transformation Programme, Economic Transformation Programme and 10th Malaysia Plan.

“We must be realistic, not emotional. Not racist but realistic. Embrace the need to work together like how our forefathers have shown the way,” he said.

Najib also reminded that the 1Malaysia concept was a work in progress to create an equitable and fair society.

“When I announced 1Malaysia, it cannot be that at the stroke of a pen, everything is perfect, it is a work in progress, a journey, leading us to something better,” he added.

He said even after 22 years in as Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted his failure in trying to change the mindset of Malaysians.

Najib stressed that the Government did not condone racist remarks made by its officers but due investigative process must be taken before action could be taken.

“One officer made a racist remark, we take action. We don’t condone racism, I assure you. But proper investigation must be done with due process. But the issue has been amplified because of information communication technology,” he said.

He said that racist remarks should be taken in its cultural context to be sure it did not carry a derogatory connotation.

He gave the example of him being able call his Northern Malay friend with dark skin Non Tok Yu (dark soy sauce) without it being taken as an insult.

“If they made remarks, you must understand the cultural setting. Of course, if applied in the context of Malaysian Indian, it’s derogatory. I don’t use that to describe my friends in MIC,” he said.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Election result for N45 Galas

This page is reserved for the upcoming polling result (slated on Nov 04) for N45 Galas. Read also P185 Batu Sapi election result.

08:30pm: Official result: Barisan Nasional regains Galas. Ab Aziz Yusoff (BN) 5324 votes, Dr Zulkefli Mohamad (PAS) 4134; Majority: 1190
07:23pm: Unofficial results BN leads by slim majority midway in the tallying process
06:45pm: Final voter turnout 9,555 voters or 82.71%.
04:20pm: EC: Voter turnout as at 4pm is 7,561 or 66.23%.
01:30pm: Voter turnout is 55.75% or 6,441 voters, EC announces.
10:15am: Voter turnout as at 10am is 24.02% or 2,775 voters. The figure does not include turnout in six orang asli polling stations.

The Election Commission (EC) has set Nov 4 as polling day for the Galas state assembly seat, if there is a contest, while nomination day is Oct 26, its deputy chairman, Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar announced.

He said the election would use the Master Electoral Roll (DPI) 2009 which was merged with the First Quarter and Second Quarter Supplementary Electoral Roll 2010, which had been updated up to Sept 27.

He said the EC had also set Wednesday as the day of issuing the writ and Thursday for the notice of election.

“The EC had received the official notification from the Kelantan state assembly speaker on Sept 28 regarding the vacancy in the State Assembly seat N45 for Galas, Kelantan following the death of the incumbent Assemblyman Chek Hashim Sulaima on Sept 27.

“Subsequently, the EC had a special meeting on the matter and decided that a by-election would be held within 60 days of the date of vacancy to fill up the vacant seat,” he said at a media conference at the EC headquarters, here.

Chek Hashim, 46, from PAS, died of cancer.

In the 2008 general election, Chek Hashim wrested the Galas state seat located in the Gua Musang parliamentary constituency from the Barisan Nasional with a majority of 646 votes.

Wan Ahmad said Galas had 11,553 registered voters comprising 11,426 ordinary voters and 127 postal voters.

He said of the total, 7,125 voters were Malays, while 2,317 voters were Chinese, Indians (185), Sarawak Bumiputera (10), Orang Asli (1,889) and others (27).-Bernama

Related Posts with Thumbnails