3. 
Submission
1
also there --
http://ge-2004-2008.blogspot.
In the High Court At Kota Kinabalu Registry - 4th November 2008
Suit No. K21-10 of 2008
Joshua Kong Plaintiff:
Election Commission Chairman 1st Defendant:
National Registration Department 2nd Defendant
Government of Malaysia 3rd Defendant
1. Your honour, I as a Chartered Accountant with relevant practical experience in the conduct of general elections have analysed the Official results of General Elections 2004 in the Gazette after checking the official website as defective of the Election Commission on the polling day 21st March 2004 and found the grounds of the defective returns for the Governments (Federal and State) were declared near midnight on 21st March, 2004, hence this complain under Article 118A of the Federal Constitution and for electoral frauds as already stipulated in two Police Reports reference Karamunsing/Rpt/10281/06 of 26th December 2006 and Karamunsing/011997/07 of 10th August 2007 and my book titled “Malaysian General Elections March 2004 - A case of victory - landslide or rigslide” ISBN 978-983-2653-31-8 published in October 2007.
1.1 The grounds amongst others are as follows:-
1.1.1 Many discrepancies of the ballot papers issued (DBPI) of the Parliament and the State seats per schedules in the Writ marked “JK- 97” to “JK-103” for some states with a sample of major discrepancies (DBPI) ones in “JK-104” and “JK-107” with the highest one of 4,843 in P28 Pasir Puteh “JK-105” and now fully identified in “JKS-A1” and “JKS-A2” as per attached and discrepancies in ballot papers not returned in “JKS-A4” and “JKS-A5”. Any discrepancy is unacceptable and 68 of 161 Parliament seats (61 not comparable) have discrepancies of 51-200 ballot papers issued, affecting 216 of the 505 state seats (10 state seats no contest). JKS-A item 4.
1.1.2 Discrepancies of numbers of electorate (Parliament & State) as per “JKS-A3” item 1 in 6 seats indicating different Electoral rolls were used.
1.1.3 Errors and omissions in the Government’s Gazette 12th April, 2004 available in July 2004 -”JKS-A3” item 2 casting doubts on the reliability of the data of the Gazette.
Any subsequent amendments of the results after 21st March 2004 are meaningless and irrelevant if not verified independently and accordingly with the source documents. Such amendments only confirm the faulty or defective returns. How can proper and legal Governments (Federal & State) be justified by rigged General Elections? The tradition of fraudulent general elections was again repeated in General Elections 2008.
Page 1 of 2
1.1.4 Discrepancies of Ballot papers NOT returned as per “JKS-A4” and “JKS-A5”.
1.1.5 Error of ballot paper of Pahang’s N17 Sungai Lembing. “JK-82”
1.1.6 Extension of polling period by 2 hours in Selangor due to alleged faulty rolls ”JK-87.
2. For ease of reference, the faulty electoral rolls as illustrated in my Writ of Summon had been decided in a similar landmark case of N13 Likas 1999 and I append herewith a copy of the Full Judgement marked “JKS-C” and “JKS-C1” to “JKS-C19” which remains unchallenged.
3. Your honour, for fair and free election and natural justice of paramount importance for nation building, the three defendants especially Election Commission (EC) are jointly responsible for the electoral work done above all doubts especially on polling day that ended with proper counting of votes verifiable with the official records in their hands and disseminated them in professional manner so that we have legitimate Governments. The EC may have been doing its role for more than 46 years and the incumbent Chairman for 5 General Elections, this trial is desirable to clear all the allegations and accusations of electoral rigging including major election offence coming from many quarters recently. EC Chairman Tan Sri Rashid Abdul Rahman and the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi has repeatedly ‘ask for it’ to bring this alleged rigging case to the Courts. There are several major triable issues in this Writ and General Elections 2008 to be properly heard in this Court and results and conduct of general election properly verified with all official records, to resolve the legitimacy of the Governments (Federal and State) now deemed illegal. Hence my pleadings in paragraphs 12 to 14 items amongst others in my Writ of Summons must be properly dealt with by the Courts as soon as possible. This case with great academic values can contribute as a priority to the enhancement of proper conduct and address the shortcomings including the retention of voting records of the General Election in future - a win-win scenario for the nation.
Your honour
Please allow this case to go forward and consolidated with K21-14-2008 as it is like a national service by me for all.
Joshua Kong Plaintiff
NB: JKS mean Joshua Kong’s Supplement
Page 2 of 2
GE 2004 - Analysis of the 11th General Election based on the results as published in the His Majesty Government Gazette P.U. (B) 163 12 April 2004.
WORKING SCHEDULE: The following discrepancies and errors were detectd in the Gazette which is supposed to be free from faults implicating the General Elections were conducted irregularly resulting in faulty declaration of the Election Results for the formation of the Federal and State Governments on 21 st March 2004.
1. Nature of fault: Number of electorate discrepancies Parliament and State seats
Were different sets of Electoral rolls used for the same seats - Parliament & State
Seats P’ment State Gazette page JK - document
P2 Kangar, 40,516 N6 7,580 2833; 2834; “JKS-B1” to
N6, N7 N7 7,979 3071; 3072; “JKS-B8”
N9, N10 N8 9,314 3073; 3074;
N9 8,024 3075; 3076
N10 7,349
40,246
----------------
P80 Raub 44,523 N6 10,866 2923, 2924 “JKS-B21” to
N6, N7, N8 N7 19,314 3316, 3317 “JKS-B26”
N8 14,363 3318, 3319
44,543
------------------
P81 Jeruntut 46,059 N9 10,801 2924; “JK-50”
N9, N10, N10 18,373 3319, 3320 “JK-61” to
N11 N11 16,826 3321, 3322 “JK-64”
46,000
-----------------
P109 Kapar 104,185 N42 36,737 2954; 2955 “JKS-B27” to
N42, N43, N43 25,803 3396; 3397; “JKS-B33”
N44, N45 N44 24,514 3398; 3399;
N45 27,131 3400;
114,185
2. Items with misleading data
Such errors give implication whether the other data are correct in the Gazette
N28 Kemahang Error of data? 3151; “JK-135”
P11 Pendang Missing figure 2845; “JKS-B9”
N26 Padang Kota Error of data? 3231; 3232; “JK-55” & “JK-56”
3. Candidates, proposers and seconders
Identity of all candidates, proposers and seconders must be genuine Malaysians.
N 60 Sebatik Identity & Identity Card of candidates 3595; 3596 “JKS-B34” “JKS-B35”“JK-126” to “JK-131”
Police Report 008725/07 on Dr. Patawarie. “JKS-B36” to “JKS-B38”
NB: JKS means supplementary documents to the KK High Courts now attached.
“JKS-2”
SUBMISSION FOR K21-10-2008 of Kota Kinabalu High Court. 5th Nov 2008
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
SCHEDULE
1. GENERAL ELECTIONS 2004 - Discrepancies of Ballot papers Issued
(Parliament 222 & State seats 576)
Summary by states by ranges of ballot issued to show impact JKS-A2
1A Listing of Discrepancies of Ballot papers Issued (Parliament & State seats)
Identified by Parliament Number. JKS-A3
2. GE 2004 - Analysis of the 11th General Election based on the results
as published in the His Majesty Government Gazette P.U. (B) 163
12 April 2004 JKS-A4
1. Number of electorate discrepancies - Parliament & State seats
2. Items with misleading data
3. Candidates, proposers and seconders
3. GE 2004 - Ballot Paper Issued NOT RETURNED for Parliament and
State seats classified by state JKS-A5
3A. General Elections 2004- Ballot papers not returned including postal ballot papers.
Seats of major discrepancies > 100 while most seats have such discrepancies. JKS-A6
4. IMPACT OF DISCREPANCIES ON NUMBER OF SEATS
4.1 Discrepancies of Ballots issued / Numbers of electorate “JKS-A3” part 1
Particular P’ment P’ment >51 State related P Seats in 2 below State P’ment State
0 12 “JKS-A3”
1-50 86
51-200 37 37 120
201-350 9 9 28
351-750 8 8 22
751 and above 9 9 30
No comparison 61
63 200 5 16 68 216
Compared seats 161 495 161 495
222
4.2 Seats of the Discrepancies of Ballots Issued identified by Parliament seat No.
51 and above are listed below:
Range Numbers
51-200 P3, P9, P10, P14, P20, P23, P24, P26, P27, P33, P 35, P36, P37, P40, P42, P44, P49, P53, P64, P66, P72, P82, P 94, P96, P98, P101, P112, P128, P132, P133, P136, P138, P146, P147, P149, P153, P172 37
201-350 P1, P21, P74, P79, P101, P127 9
351-750 P11, P48, P88, P113, P141, P145, P160, P163 8
751 & above P6, P28, P39, P 56, P81, P85, P97, P130, P152 9
Total 63
also there --
http://ge-2004-2008.blogspot.
In the High Court At Kota Kinabalu Registry - 4th November 2008
Suit No. K21-10 of 2008
Joshua Kong Plaintiff:
Election Commission Chairman 1st Defendant:
National Registration Department 2nd Defendant
Government of Malaysia 3rd Defendant
1. Your honour, I as a Chartered Accountant with relevant practical experience in the conduct of general elections have analysed the Official results of General Elections 2004 in the Gazette after checking the official website as defective of the Election Commission on the polling day 21st March 2004 and found the grounds of the defective returns for the Governments (Federal and State) were declared near midnight on 21st March, 2004, hence this complain under Article 118A of the Federal Constitution and for electoral frauds as already stipulated in two Police Reports reference Karamunsing/Rpt/10281/06 of 26th December 2006 and Karamunsing/011997/07 of 10th August 2007 and my book titled “Malaysian General Elections March 2004 - A case of victory - landslide or rigslide” ISBN 978-983-2653-31-8 published in October 2007.
1.1 The grounds amongst others are as follows:-
1.1.1 Many discrepancies of the ballot papers issued (DBPI) of the Parliament and the State seats per schedules in the Writ marked “JK- 97” to “JK-103” for some states with a sample of major discrepancies (DBPI) ones in “JK-104” and “JK-107” with the highest one of 4,843 in P28 Pasir Puteh “JK-105” and now fully identified in “JKS-A1” and “JKS-A2” as per attached and discrepancies in ballot papers not returned in “JKS-A4” and “JKS-A5”. Any discrepancy is unacceptable and 68 of 161 Parliament seats (61 not comparable) have discrepancies of 51-200 ballot papers issued, affecting 216 of the 505 state seats (10 state seats no contest). JKS-A item 4.
1.1.2 Discrepancies of numbers of electorate (Parliament & State) as per “JKS-A3” item 1 in 6 seats indicating different Electoral rolls were used.
1.1.3 Errors and omissions in the Government’s Gazette 12th April, 2004 available in July 2004 -”JKS-A3” item 2 casting doubts on the reliability of the data of the Gazette.
Any subsequent amendments of the results after 21st March 2004 are meaningless and irrelevant if not verified independently and accordingly with the source documents. Such amendments only confirm the faulty or defective returns. How can proper and legal Governments (Federal & State) be justified by rigged General Elections? The tradition of fraudulent general elections was again repeated in General Elections 2008.
Page 1 of 2
1.1.4 Discrepancies of Ballot papers NOT returned as per “JKS-A4” and “JKS-A5”.
1.1.5 Error of ballot paper of Pahang’s N17 Sungai Lembing. “JK-82”
1.1.6 Extension of polling period by 2 hours in Selangor due to alleged faulty rolls ”JK-87.
2. For ease of reference, the faulty electoral rolls as illustrated in my Writ of Summon had been decided in a similar landmark case of N13 Likas 1999 and I append herewith a copy of the Full Judgement marked “JKS-C” and “JKS-C1” to “JKS-C19” which remains unchallenged.
3. Your honour, for fair and free election and natural justice of paramount importance for nation building, the three defendants especially Election Commission (EC) are jointly responsible for the electoral work done above all doubts especially on polling day that ended with proper counting of votes verifiable with the official records in their hands and disseminated them in professional manner so that we have legitimate Governments. The EC may have been doing its role for more than 46 years and the incumbent Chairman for 5 General Elections, this trial is desirable to clear all the allegations and accusations of electoral rigging including major election offence coming from many quarters recently. EC Chairman Tan Sri Rashid Abdul Rahman and the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi has repeatedly ‘ask for it’ to bring this alleged rigging case to the Courts. There are several major triable issues in this Writ and General Elections 2008 to be properly heard in this Court and results and conduct of general election properly verified with all official records, to resolve the legitimacy of the Governments (Federal and State) now deemed illegal. Hence my pleadings in paragraphs 12 to 14 items amongst others in my Writ of Summons must be properly dealt with by the Courts as soon as possible. This case with great academic values can contribute as a priority to the enhancement of proper conduct and address the shortcomings including the retention of voting records of the General Election in future - a win-win scenario for the nation.
Your honour
Please allow this case to go forward and consolidated with K21-14-2008 as it is like a national service by me for all.
Joshua Kong Plaintiff
NB: JKS mean Joshua Kong’s Supplement
Page 2 of 2
GE 2004 - Analysis of the 11th General Election based on the results as published in the His Majesty Government Gazette P.U. (B) 163 12 April 2004.
WORKING SCHEDULE: The following discrepancies and errors were detectd in the Gazette which is supposed to be free from faults implicating the General Elections were conducted irregularly resulting in faulty declaration of the Election Results for the formation of the Federal and State Governments on 21 st March 2004.
1. Nature of fault: Number of electorate discrepancies Parliament and State seats
Were different sets of Electoral rolls used for the same seats - Parliament & State
Seats P’ment State Gazette page JK - document
P2 Kangar, 40,516 N6 7,580 2833; 2834; “JKS-B1” to
N6, N7 N7 7,979 3071; 3072; “JKS-B8”
N9, N10 N8 9,314 3073; 3074;
N9 8,024 3075; 3076
N10 7,349
40,246
----------------
P80 Raub 44,523 N6 10,866 2923, 2924 “JKS-B21” to
N6, N7, N8 N7 19,314 3316, 3317 “JKS-B26”
N8 14,363 3318, 3319
44,543
------------------
P81 Jeruntut 46,059 N9 10,801 2924; “JK-50”
N9, N10, N10 18,373 3319, 3320 “JK-61” to
N11 N11 16,826 3321, 3322 “JK-64”
46,000
-----------------
P109 Kapar 104,185 N42 36,737 2954; 2955 “JKS-B27” to
N42, N43, N43 25,803 3396; 3397; “JKS-B33”
N44, N45 N44 24,514 3398; 3399;
N45 27,131 3400;
114,185
2. Items with misleading data
Such errors give implication whether the other data are correct in the Gazette
N28 Kemahang Error of data? 3151; “JK-135”
P11 Pendang Missing figure 2845; “JKS-B9”
N26 Padang Kota Error of data? 3231; 3232; “JK-55” & “JK-56”
3. Candidates, proposers and seconders
Identity of all candidates, proposers and seconders must be genuine Malaysians.
N 60 Sebatik Identity & Identity Card of candidates 3595; 3596 “JKS-B34” “JKS-B35”“JK-126” to “JK-131”
Police Report 008725/07 on Dr. Patawarie. “JKS-B36” to “JKS-B38”
NB: JKS means supplementary documents to the KK High Courts now attached.
“JKS-2”
SUBMISSION FOR K21-10-2008 of Kota Kinabalu High Court. 5th Nov 2008
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
SCHEDULE
1. GENERAL ELECTIONS 2004 - Discrepancies of Ballot papers Issued
(Parliament 222 & State seats 576)
Summary by states by ranges of ballot issued to show impact JKS-A2
1A Listing of Discrepancies of Ballot papers Issued (Parliament & State seats)
Identified by Parliament Number. JKS-A3
2. GE 2004 - Analysis of the 11th General Election based on the results
as published in the His Majesty Government Gazette P.U. (B) 163
12 April 2004 JKS-A4
1. Number of electorate discrepancies - Parliament & State seats
2. Items with misleading data
3. Candidates, proposers and seconders
3. GE 2004 - Ballot Paper Issued NOT RETURNED for Parliament and
State seats classified by state JKS-A5
3A. General Elections 2004- Ballot papers not returned including postal ballot papers.
Seats of major discrepancies > 100 while most seats have such discrepancies. JKS-A6
4. IMPACT OF DISCREPANCIES ON NUMBER OF SEATS
4.1 Discrepancies of Ballots issued / Numbers of electorate “JKS-A3” part 1
Particular P’ment P’ment >51 State related P Seats in 2 below State P’ment State
0 12 “JKS-A3”
1-50 86
51-200 37 37 120
201-350 9 9 28
351-750 8 8 22
751 and above 9 9 30
No comparison 61
63 200 5 16 68 216
Compared seats 161 495 161 495
222
4.2 Seats of the Discrepancies of Ballots Issued identified by Parliament seat No.
51 and above are listed below:
Range Numbers
51-200 P3, P9, P10, P14, P20, P23, P24, P26, P27, P33, P 35, P36, P37, P40, P42, P44, P49, P53, P64, P66, P72, P82, P 94, P96, P98, P101, P112, P128, P132, P133, P136, P138, P146, P147, P149, P153, P172 37
201-350 P1, P21, P74, P79, P101, P127 9
351-750 P11, P48, P88, P113, P141, P145, P160, P163 8
751 & above P6, P28, P39, P 56, P81, P85, P97, P130, P152 9
Total 63
4.
Seats with
BIG discrepancies in Ballot papers Issued
GENERAL ELECTIONS OF MALAYSIA IN MARCH 2004 - an analysis by seat
1. KEDAH
P006 Kubang Pasu-bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 49594 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 40,602 605 20,333 1,020 695 86.66 6,972
Not Returned (B) 81 606 21,269 59 372 81.39 5,756
rejected ballots (C) 919 Total 41,602 1,079 1,067 168.05 12,728
% (D) 81.87 ==== ===== ==== ==== ====
majority (E) 13,712 605 Bukit Kayu Hitam 23,463 bn
discrepancies (F) 606 Jitra 26,131 bn
% (F1) 1,068 Total 49,594
Ballots (F2) 1,000
N Ret (F3) 998
2. KEDAH
P009 Alor Star - bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejectedb % majority
No of Voters 57313 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 43,257 912 16,369 33 191 75.72 6,037
Not Returned (B) 186 913 11,232 27 235 69.3 7,218
rejected ballots (C) 828 914 15,545 0 182 79.7 2,827
% (D) 75.48 Total 43,146 60 608 224.72 16,082
majority (E) 14,515 Av ==== ==== ==== 74.9 ===
discrepancies (F) 912 Bakar Bata 21,617 bn
% (F1) 332 913 Kota Darul A,man 16,207 bn
Ballots (F2) 111 914 Alor Mengkudu 19,489 bn
N Ret (F3) 128 total 57,313
3. KEDAH
P011 Pendang - bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 57180 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 49,193 1,118 25,642 19 222 87.65 4,179
Not Returned (B) 0 1,119 24,084 53 385 86.24 -4,250
rejected ballots (C) 383 total 49,726 72 607 173.89 -71
% (D) 86.03 Av ==== ==== ===== 86.94 =====
majority (E) 50 1,118 Tokai 29,254 pas
discrepancies (F) 1,119 Sungaai Tiang 27,926 bn
% (F1) 523 total 57,180
Ballots (F2) 533
N Ret (F3) 72
4. Kelantan
P021 Kota Baru -bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 61409 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 46,707 2,108 13,375 0 134 77.43 2,789
Not Returned (B) 0 2,109 18,543 0 269 74.81 34
rejected ballots (C) 768 2,110 15,017 144 124 77.61 1,931
% (D) 76.06 total 46,935 144 527 229.85 4,754
majority (E) 1,723 Av === === === 76.62 ==
discrepancies (F) 2,108 Tanjung Mas 17,273 pas
% (F1) 342 2,109 Kota Lama 24,787 pas
Ballots (F2) 228 2,110 Bunut Payong 19,349 pas
N Ret (F3) 144 total 61,409
Discrepancies in term of %, Ballots Issued and Not returned ballots in F1, F2 and F3 respectively.
GENERAL ELECTIONS OF MALAYSIA IN MARCH 2004 - an analysis by seat
5. KELANTAN
P028 Pasir Puteh -pas 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 57308 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 51,676 2,829 11,348 0 177 81.1 -187
Not Returned (B) 266 2,830 13,744 0 210 79.6 646
rejected ballots (C) 1,184 2,831 11,672 0 387 83.41 -699
% (D) 90.17 2,832 10,069 17 157 83.41 42
majority (E) 3,810 total 46,833 17 931 327.52 -198
discrepancies (F) === ==== average 81.9 ====
% (F1) 4,740 2,829 Selising 13,993 bn
Ballots (F2) 4,843 2,830 Limbongan 17,251 pas
N Ret (F3) 249 2,831 Semarak 13,993 bn
2,832 Gaal 12,071 pas
total 57,308
6. TERENGGANU
P039 Dungun- bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejectedb % majority
No of Voters 55711 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 50,206 3,925 9,039 1 100 88.87 2,290
Not Returned (B) 1,598 3,926 11,583 0 194 88.52 945
rejected ballots (C) 708 3,927 12,439 26 134 84.29 169
% (D) 90.12 3,928 15,604 34 148 88.18 1,444
majority (E) 4,896 total 48,665 61 576 349.86 4,848
discrepancies (F) ==== ==== ==== == ====
% (F1) 1,480 3,925 Bukit Besi 10,171 bn
Ballots (F2) 1,541 3,926 Rantau Abang 13,085 bn
N Ret (F3) 1,537 3,927 Sura 14,757 bn
3,928 Paka 17,698 bn
total 55,711
7. PENANG
P048 Bukit Bendera -bn bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters -65126 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 48,843 4,822 12,306 274 286 73.33 6,224
Not Returned (B) 0 4,823 8,779 14 161 71.15 1,018
rejected ballots (C) 998 4,824 13,612 0 240 72.16 3,198
% (D) 71.93 4,825 11,425 22 283 66.66 6,106
majority (E) 10,717 total 46,122 310 970 283.3 16,546
discrepancies (F) =====
% (F1) 723 4,822 Tanjung Bunga 16,782 bn
Ballots (F2) 721 4,823 Air Puteh 12,342 bn
N Ret (F3) 310 4,824 Kebun Bunga 18,863 bn
4,825 Pulau Tikus 17,139 bn
65,126
Discrepancies in term of %, Ballots Issued and Not returned ballots in F1, F2 and F3 respectively.
8. PERAK
P056 Larut -bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 40150 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 31,393 5,605 10,130 28 209 75.25 2,053
Not Returned (B) 78 5,606 8,336 15 174 73.3 1,403
rejected ballots (C) 795 5,607 11,668 39 298 76.19 3,927
% (D) 78.19 total 30,134 82 681 224.74 7,383
majority (E) 7,608 === === === == ==
discrepancies (F) 5,605 Selama 13,462
% (F1) 1,316 5,606 Kubu Gajah 11,373
Ballots (F2) 1,259 5,607 Batu Kurau 15,315
N Ret (F3) 4 total 40,150
9. PAHANG++
P081 Jeruntut - 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 46059++ (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 36,444 8,109 8,478 14 170 78.4 1,528
Not Returned (B) 1,427 8,110 13,548 38 623 73.74 2,239
rejected ballots (C) 776 8,111 13,542 27 169 80.48 3,522
% (D) 79.12 total 35,568 79 962 232.62 7,289
majority (E) 8,457 Av ===== 77.54
discrepancies (F) 8,109 Tahan 10,801 bn
% (F1) 727 8,110 Damak 18,373 bn
Ballots (F2) 876 8,111 Pulau Tawar 16,826 bn
N Ret (F3) 1,348 46,000 ++
10. PAHANG
P083 Kuantan- bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejectedb % majority
No of Voters 45935 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 34,290 8,314 16,149 189 322 71.04 8,362
Not Returned (B) 246 8,315 11,934 35 147 77.74 3,808
rejected ballots (C) 543 8,316 6,245 58 86 79.54 1,167
% (D) 74.65 total 34,328 282 555 228.32 13,337
majority (E) 9,147 Av ==== 76.11
discrepancies (F) 8,314 Teruntum 22,733
% (F1) 669 8,315 Tanjung Lumpur 15,351
Ballots (F2) 38 8,316 Inderapura 7,851
N Ret (F3) 38 total 45,935
11. PAHANG
P084 Paya Besar - 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters -37440 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 29,001 8,417 6,642 4 145 56.34 5,405
Not Returned (B) 7 8,418 8,629 20 136 77.67 4,881
rejected ballots (C) 564 8,419 11,487 31 149 79 3,747
% (D) 77.46 26,758 55 430 213.01 14,033
majority (E) 12,518 Av ==== 71
discrepancies (F) 8,417 Sungai Lembing 11,790
% (F1) 2,417 8,418 Lepar 11,110
Ballots (F2) 2,243 8,419 Panching 14,540
N Ret (F3) 48 37,440
Discrepancies in term of %, Ballots Issued and Not returned ballots in F1, F2 and F3 respectively. ++ the Electoral Roll differs by 59 votes (Parliament 46,059 & State seats -46,000).
GENERAL ELECTIONS OF MALAYSIA IN MARCH 2004 - an analysis by seat
12. PAHANG
P085 Pekan -bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 52687 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 41,046 8,520 10,794 812 167 80.98 4,491
Not Returned (B) 0 8,521 15,204 41 266 80.49 4,163
rejected ballots (C) 56 8,522 7,011 19 231 77.01 3,247
% (D) 77.91 8,523 9,539 26 190 83.93 4,005
majority (E) 22,922 total 42,548 898 854 322.41 15,906
discrepancies (F) Av ===== 80.6
% (F1) 1,418 8,520 Pulau Manis 13,329
Ballots (F2) 1,502 8,521 Peramu Jaya 18,889
N Ret (F3) 898 8,522 Bebar 9,104
8,523 Chini 11,365
total 52,687
NB: the ballot issued discrepancies were (42,548 - 41.048) = 1,500 and the discrepancies of majority of BN votes were (22,922- 15,906) =7,016
Submitted in GE 2004’s Writ of Summons by Joshua Kong
13. SELANGOR
P097 Selayang- 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 71152 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 51,033 9,713 11,667 212 288 76.12 4,865
Not Returned (B) 129 9,714 13,929 23 382 68.3 7,544
rejected ballots (C) 1,444 9,715 26,416 597 422 74.56 7,625
% (D) 71.72 total 52,012 832 1,092 218.98 20,034
majority (E) 23,226 Av ===== 72.99
discrepancies (F) 9,713 Kuang 15,328
% (F1) 906 9,714 Rawang 20,393
Ballots (F2) 979 9,715 Tmn Templer 35,431
N Ret (F3) 703 total 71,152
14. SELANGOR
P113 Sepang- 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejectedb % majority
No of Voters 58296 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 43,054 11,354 13,896 0 295 76.71 6,077
Not Returned (B) 0 11,355 17,730 13 421 74.83 8,308
rejected ballots (C) 315 11,356 12,166 64 515 73.8 4,107
% (D) 73.85 total 43,792 77 1,231 225.34 18,492
majority (E) 18,837 Av ==== 75.11
discrepancies (F) 11,354 Tanjung Sepat 18,116
% (F1) 736 11,355 Dengkil 23,695
Ballots (F2) 738 11,356 Sungai Pelek 16,485
N Ret (F3) 11 total 58,296
Discrepancies in term of %, Ballots Issued and Not returned ballots in F1, F2 and F3 respectively.
GENERAL ELECTIONS OF MALAYSIA IN MARCH 2004 - an analysis by seat
1. KEDAH
P006 Kubang Pasu-bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 49594 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 40,602 605 20,333 1,020 695 86.66 6,972
Not Returned (B) 81 606 21,269 59 372 81.39 5,756
rejected ballots (C) 919 Total 41,602 1,079 1,067 168.05 12,728
% (D) 81.87 ==== ===== ==== ==== ====
majority (E) 13,712 605 Bukit Kayu Hitam 23,463 bn
discrepancies (F) 606 Jitra 26,131 bn
% (F1) 1,068 Total 49,594
Ballots (F2) 1,000
N Ret (F3) 998
2. KEDAH
P009 Alor Star - bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejectedb % majority
No of Voters 57313 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 43,257 912 16,369 33 191 75.72 6,037
Not Returned (B) 186 913 11,232 27 235 69.3 7,218
rejected ballots (C) 828 914 15,545 0 182 79.7 2,827
% (D) 75.48 Total 43,146 60 608 224.72 16,082
majority (E) 14,515 Av ==== ==== ==== 74.9 ===
discrepancies (F) 912 Bakar Bata 21,617 bn
% (F1) 332 913 Kota Darul A,man 16,207 bn
Ballots (F2) 111 914 Alor Mengkudu 19,489 bn
N Ret (F3) 128 total 57,313
3. KEDAH
P011 Pendang - bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 57180 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 49,193 1,118 25,642 19 222 87.65 4,179
Not Returned (B) 0 1,119 24,084 53 385 86.24 -4,250
rejected ballots (C) 383 total 49,726 72 607 173.89 -71
% (D) 86.03 Av ==== ==== ===== 86.94 =====
majority (E) 50 1,118 Tokai 29,254 pas
discrepancies (F) 1,119 Sungaai Tiang 27,926 bn
% (F1) 523 total 57,180
Ballots (F2) 533
N Ret (F3) 72
4. Kelantan
P021 Kota Baru -bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 61409 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 46,707 2,108 13,375 0 134 77.43 2,789
Not Returned (B) 0 2,109 18,543 0 269 74.81 34
rejected ballots (C) 768 2,110 15,017 144 124 77.61 1,931
% (D) 76.06 total 46,935 144 527 229.85 4,754
majority (E) 1,723 Av === === === 76.62 ==
discrepancies (F) 2,108 Tanjung Mas 17,273 pas
% (F1) 342 2,109 Kota Lama 24,787 pas
Ballots (F2) 228 2,110 Bunut Payong 19,349 pas
N Ret (F3) 144 total 61,409
Discrepancies in term of %, Ballots Issued and Not returned ballots in F1, F2 and F3 respectively.
GENERAL ELECTIONS OF MALAYSIA IN MARCH 2004 - an analysis by seat
5. KELANTAN
P028 Pasir Puteh -pas 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 57308 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 51,676 2,829 11,348 0 177 81.1 -187
Not Returned (B) 266 2,830 13,744 0 210 79.6 646
rejected ballots (C) 1,184 2,831 11,672 0 387 83.41 -699
% (D) 90.17 2,832 10,069 17 157 83.41 42
majority (E) 3,810 total 46,833 17 931 327.52 -198
discrepancies (F) === ==== average 81.9 ====
% (F1) 4,740 2,829 Selising 13,993 bn
Ballots (F2) 4,843 2,830 Limbongan 17,251 pas
N Ret (F3) 249 2,831 Semarak 13,993 bn
2,832 Gaal 12,071 pas
total 57,308
6. TERENGGANU
P039 Dungun- bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejectedb % majority
No of Voters 55711 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 50,206 3,925 9,039 1 100 88.87 2,290
Not Returned (B) 1,598 3,926 11,583 0 194 88.52 945
rejected ballots (C) 708 3,927 12,439 26 134 84.29 169
% (D) 90.12 3,928 15,604 34 148 88.18 1,444
majority (E) 4,896 total 48,665 61 576 349.86 4,848
discrepancies (F) ==== ==== ==== == ====
% (F1) 1,480 3,925 Bukit Besi 10,171 bn
Ballots (F2) 1,541 3,926 Rantau Abang 13,085 bn
N Ret (F3) 1,537 3,927 Sura 14,757 bn
3,928 Paka 17,698 bn
total 55,711
7. PENANG
P048 Bukit Bendera -bn bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters -65126 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 48,843 4,822 12,306 274 286 73.33 6,224
Not Returned (B) 0 4,823 8,779 14 161 71.15 1,018
rejected ballots (C) 998 4,824 13,612 0 240 72.16 3,198
% (D) 71.93 4,825 11,425 22 283 66.66 6,106
majority (E) 10,717 total 46,122 310 970 283.3 16,546
discrepancies (F) =====
% (F1) 723 4,822 Tanjung Bunga 16,782 bn
Ballots (F2) 721 4,823 Air Puteh 12,342 bn
N Ret (F3) 310 4,824 Kebun Bunga 18,863 bn
4,825 Pulau Tikus 17,139 bn
65,126
Discrepancies in term of %, Ballots Issued and Not returned ballots in F1, F2 and F3 respectively.
8. PERAK
P056 Larut -bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 40150 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 31,393 5,605 10,130 28 209 75.25 2,053
Not Returned (B) 78 5,606 8,336 15 174 73.3 1,403
rejected ballots (C) 795 5,607 11,668 39 298 76.19 3,927
% (D) 78.19 total 30,134 82 681 224.74 7,383
majority (E) 7,608 === === === == ==
discrepancies (F) 5,605 Selama 13,462
% (F1) 1,316 5,606 Kubu Gajah 11,373
Ballots (F2) 1,259 5,607 Batu Kurau 15,315
N Ret (F3) 4 total 40,150
9. PAHANG++
P081 Jeruntut - 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 46059++ (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 36,444 8,109 8,478 14 170 78.4 1,528
Not Returned (B) 1,427 8,110 13,548 38 623 73.74 2,239
rejected ballots (C) 776 8,111 13,542 27 169 80.48 3,522
% (D) 79.12 total 35,568 79 962 232.62 7,289
majority (E) 8,457 Av ===== 77.54
discrepancies (F) 8,109 Tahan 10,801 bn
% (F1) 727 8,110 Damak 18,373 bn
Ballots (F2) 876 8,111 Pulau Tawar 16,826 bn
N Ret (F3) 1,348 46,000 ++
10. PAHANG
P083 Kuantan- bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejectedb % majority
No of Voters 45935 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 34,290 8,314 16,149 189 322 71.04 8,362
Not Returned (B) 246 8,315 11,934 35 147 77.74 3,808
rejected ballots (C) 543 8,316 6,245 58 86 79.54 1,167
% (D) 74.65 total 34,328 282 555 228.32 13,337
majority (E) 9,147 Av ==== 76.11
discrepancies (F) 8,314 Teruntum 22,733
% (F1) 669 8,315 Tanjung Lumpur 15,351
Ballots (F2) 38 8,316 Inderapura 7,851
N Ret (F3) 38 total 45,935
11. PAHANG
P084 Paya Besar - 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters -37440 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 29,001 8,417 6,642 4 145 56.34 5,405
Not Returned (B) 7 8,418 8,629 20 136 77.67 4,881
rejected ballots (C) 564 8,419 11,487 31 149 79 3,747
% (D) 77.46 26,758 55 430 213.01 14,033
majority (E) 12,518 Av ==== 71
discrepancies (F) 8,417 Sungai Lembing 11,790
% (F1) 2,417 8,418 Lepar 11,110
Ballots (F2) 2,243 8,419 Panching 14,540
N Ret (F3) 48 37,440
Discrepancies in term of %, Ballots Issued and Not returned ballots in F1, F2 and F3 respectively. ++ the Electoral Roll differs by 59 votes (Parliament 46,059 & State seats -46,000).
GENERAL ELECTIONS OF MALAYSIA IN MARCH 2004 - an analysis by seat
12. PAHANG
P085 Pekan -bn 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 52687 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 41,046 8,520 10,794 812 167 80.98 4,491
Not Returned (B) 0 8,521 15,204 41 266 80.49 4,163
rejected ballots (C) 56 8,522 7,011 19 231 77.01 3,247
% (D) 77.91 8,523 9,539 26 190 83.93 4,005
majority (E) 22,922 total 42,548 898 854 322.41 15,906
discrepancies (F) Av ===== 80.6
% (F1) 1,418 8,520 Pulau Manis 13,329
Ballots (F2) 1,502 8,521 Peramu Jaya 18,889
N Ret (F3) 898 8,522 Bebar 9,104
8,523 Chini 11,365
total 52,687
NB: the ballot issued discrepancies were (42,548 - 41.048) = 1,500 and the discrepancies of majority of BN votes were (22,922- 15,906) =7,016
Submitted in GE 2004’s Writ of Summons by Joshua Kong
13. SELANGOR
P097 Selayang- 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejected b % majority
No of Voters 71152 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 51,033 9,713 11,667 212 288 76.12 4,865
Not Returned (B) 129 9,714 13,929 23 382 68.3 7,544
rejected ballots (C) 1,444 9,715 26,416 597 422 74.56 7,625
% (D) 71.72 total 52,012 832 1,092 218.98 20,034
majority (E) 23,226 Av ===== 72.99
discrepancies (F) 9,713 Kuang 15,328
% (F1) 906 9,714 Rawang 20,393
Ballots (F2) 979 9,715 Tmn Templer 35,431
N Ret (F3) 703 total 71,152
14. SELANGOR
P113 Sepang- 2 State -N Ballots I Not Ret rejectedb % majority
No of Voters 58296 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ballot Issued (A) 43,054 11,354 13,896 0 295 76.71 6,077
Not Returned (B) 0 11,355 17,730 13 421 74.83 8,308
rejected ballots (C) 315 11,356 12,166 64 515 73.8 4,107
% (D) 73.85 total 43,792 77 1,231 225.34 18,492
majority (E) 18,837 Av ==== 75.11
discrepancies (F) 11,354 Tanjung Sepat 18,116
% (F1) 736 11,355 Dengkil 23,695
Ballots (F2) 738 11,356 Sungai Pelek 16,485
N Ret (F3) 11 total 58,296
Discrepancies in term of %, Ballots Issued and Not returned ballots in F1, F2 and F3 respectively.
5.
Seats with
BIG discrepancies in Ballot papers Issued
(the tabulation is not clear and I can send them by facsimile0
MALAYSIA
In the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak at Kota Kinabalu
Suit No. K21-10 of 2008
Between
Joshua Kong Yun Chee Plaintiff
and
Election Commission Chairman 1st Defendant:
National Registration Department 2nd Defendant
Government of Malaysia 3rd Defendant
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
I, Kong Yun Chee @ Joshua Kong (NRIC 480823-12-5003) of 26 0Taman Iramanis, Lorong 5, off Jalan Lintas, Kolombong, 88450 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, a Malaysian citizen of full age do affirm and say as follows:-
1. I am the above-named Plaintiff of the Writ herein referred to as “my Writ” and the matters deposed herein are within my personal knowledge and belief unless otherwise stated.
2. I am a Chartered accountant.
3. I crave leave to refer to my Writ, and my submission on 4th November 2008 and in this affidavit in support, I would like to draw attention of the Courts some of the relevant fact with the purchase of the Election Commission’s book titled “Report of the General Election Malaysia 2004” published in 2006 herein after referred to as the Report 2004.
4. The Return of the results on 21st March 2004 according to Regulation 27 of Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981 (PU (A) 386/81) herein referred to as the Regulation 27 of Elections Regulations with only one set of result would be returned on the night of polling after counting hence the results in the newspapers the next day and the Official Website of the Election Commission herein after referred to as the Official Website should be considered correct and valid although the Official Website was incomplete for General Election 2004. Chapter 4.19 in page 103 of the Report 2004 made reference of approval for the Official Website.
5. The said Return as per paragraph 4 as the basis of the formation of the Federal and State Governments had been found to be defective hence the complaint under Federal Constitution 118A as per observation of facts and figures in the misconduct of the General Election 2004 by the defendants especially the 1st defendant as more than one set of results prevailed as illustrated in paragraph 6 below because the first set of results was on the night of polling and counting as published in the mass media, the Official website, then Return certified by the Election Commission on 2nd April, 2004 and published in the Official Gazette dated 12th April, 2004 herein after referred to as the Gazette and another set of official results with a varied format published in the Report 2004 under Appendix II for Parliament seats and Appendix III for State seats as stipulated in chapter 9.6 (page 131) Gazetting of Election Results via P.U (B) 163 on 12 April, 2004.
6. Two incidences of three sets of results are illustrated as examples here as follows:-
Particulars of the two results:-
6.1 P81 JERUNTUT PARLIAMENT SEAT and State seats N9, N10, N11.
6.1.1 For the P81 Jeruntut Parliament seat as shown in the Gazette page 2924 as marked in “JK-50”, the number of voters in the Roll was 46,059. When the three state seats N9 Tahan marked “JK-61” and “JK-62”, (Gazette 3319-3320); N10 Damak marked “JK-62” and “JK-63” (Gazette 3320-3321) and N11 Pulau Tawar marked “JK-63” and “JK-64” (Gazette 3321-3322), the number of voters in Roll (10,801+18,373+16,826) respectively was 46,000. The Report 2004 showed the respectively figures of voters as 10,860, 18,373, and 16,826 which added up to 46,059 to agree with the Parliament seat. In the Gazette, the percentage of voting of N9 Tahan in marked “JK-61” and “JK-62” was listed as 78.40% while the actual percentage of E/A X100, (formula used) that is 8,478 divided by 10,801 is 78.49%. So there was a discrepancy of 0.09%. If the amended figure of 10,860 for the Roll used in N9 Tahan as listed in the Report 2004 also deemed the Gazette was correct, then the percentage of voting should be 78.07%. But the Report 2004 showed the percentage of voting as 78.40%. Was it simply amending the figure of 10,801 to 10,860 to make up for the discrepancy of 59? Attachment of page 239 of the Report 2004 is enclosed as marked “JK10-1”. So the defective system to arrive at the Return on 21st March 2004 was exposed by the manipulation of some figures in the discrepancies of percentage of voting. For ease of comparison, I show them in the columns below:-
Particular Official Gazette % of voting Report 2004 % of voting
No. Voters Total No. Voters
P 81 Gaz pg 2924 46,059 46,059 Pg 161 46,059
-------- --------
N9 Gaz pg 3319-3320 10,801 78.4 Pg 239 10,860 78.07
N10 Gaz pg 3320-3321 18,373 Pg 239 18,373
N11 Gaz pg 3321-3322 16,826 Pg 239 16,826
Total - state 46,000 -46,000 46,059
Discrepancy 59 0
6.2 P171 SEPANGGAR PARLIAMENT SEAT and state seats N12 and N13
6.2.1 For the P171 under Regulation 27 of the Election Regulations, Sepanggar Parliament seat as shown in the Official Website of the Number of voters at 34,527 with issued ballot papers of 10,439 representing percentage of voting of 30.23%, the winner secured 7,143 and the loser secured 2,935 with a majority for the winner of 4,208 votes and spoilt votes of 361 as shown in page marked “JK-77” of my Writ. I have a copy of the webpage.
6.2.2 The Bernama’s online website for the results also based on same source under Regulation 27 of the Election Regulations in page marked “JK-75” of my Writ showed that percentage of voting of 30.23% with the winner securing 16,420 and the loser 5,201 and a majority of 4,208 and rejected ballot papers of 361. The discrepancy of 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 is in the number of votes obtained by the candidates.
6.2.3 The Gazette at pages 3027 and 3028 showed the number of voters at 34,527 with issued ballot papers of 22,083 representing percentage of voting of 63.96%, rejected ballot papers of 727 and ballot papers issued not returned of 32, and the winner securing 16,226, loser securing 5,098 with a majority of 11,128. The Report 2004 at page 184 showed the same data.
6.2.4 To highlight the discrepancies in 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 with 6.2.3 supposedly from the same source of Regulation 27 of the Election Regulations, the Official Website and the Bernama’s website had shown the same percentage of voting of 30.23% and the same number of spoilt votes of 361 on the night of polling and counting. The votes secured by the winner and loser in 6.2.1 were 7,143 and 2,935 making a total of 10,078. The votes secured by the winner and loser in 6.2.2 were 16,420 and 5,201 making a total of 21,621. The votes secured by the winner and loser in 6.2.3 were 16,226 and 5,098 making a total of 21,324. The discrepancy of 21,621 and 21,324 (297) was partly due to the difference of rejected ballot papers or spoilt votes of 727 - 361 (366) but still left with a discrepancy of [366 - 297] or 69 which remains unexplained.
Particulars Official Website Bernama’s website Gazette pg3027 Report 2004 pg 184 Discre-pancies
No. Of voters 34,527 Not available 34,527 34,527 /
Issued ballot papers 10,439 n/a 22,083 22,083 /
% of voting 30.23 30.23 63.96 63.96 /
---------------- --------------- ------------- ---------------- /
Winner votes 7,143 16,420 16,226 16,226 / 21,621
Loser votes 2,935 5,201 5,098 5,098 / -21,324
Total votes 10,078 21,621 21,324 21,324 / 297
Majority 4,208 4,208 11,128 11,128 / ---------
Spoilt votes 361 361 727 727 / 727
Ballot paper not returned n/a n/a 32 32 / -361
/ 366
1 2 3 4 5 6
6.2.5 We have three sets of results despite a single source under Regulation 27 of Elections Regulations. Earlier in the day of Polling, the radio’s regular updates did mention that the turnout in Sepanggar was extremely low. The discrepancies in these two glaring examples in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 and other discrepancies in the issued ballot papers marked “JKS-A1” and “JKS-A2” prevailed although there was an Internal Election Audit Committee - Chapter 11.2 in page 137 of the Report 2004.
6.2.6 The State seats under P171 Sepanggar namely N12 Karambunai and N13 Inanam in Daily Express marked “JK-79” showed the percentages of votes casts as 62.64% and 65% respectively. The Bernama’s website marked “JK-70” showed the percentage of votes cast as 62.64% (N12) and 64.97% (N13) when the Gazette showed 62.64% (N12) and 65.25% (N13). The return of percentage of voting of 30.23% in paragraph 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 and the return of over 60% in paragraph 6.2.6 gave a big discrepancy not investigated on 21st March, 2004.
7. I regret for the technical errors on two Parliament seats out of six listed in paragraph 1 of “JKS-A3” namely P12 Jerai and P29 Machang which had been checked again to be free from discrepancies in the number of Voters in the Roll used for Parliament and state seats concerned.
8. We have to examine all the electoral records of Datuk Dr. Patawarie with code 71 and sometimes with code 12 as how he was not disqualified from election as per documents marked “JK-126” to ”JK-131” and “JKS-B36” to “JKS-B38”. This challenge over his status of citizenship must be cleared. Similarly all other candidates, proposers and seconders at Elections should be true Malaysians under the provisions of Federal Constitution.
9. The Returns of General Election 2004 on 21st March 2004 for the Federal and State Governments were defective for all the discrepancies, irregularities, electoral frauds, electoral offence and misconduct by the defendants under Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981 and Election Offence Act 1954 [Act 5] especially the first defendant as illustrated by me in the Court documents on the official documents and this AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT further strengthens my Writ for appropriate declarations.
Affirmed by the said )
)
Kong Yun Chee @ Joshua Kong )
)
At the Kota Kinabalu, in the state )
)
of Sabah , )
)
This ...2nd..., day of December 2008 ) .................................................
Before me
.................................................................
This Affidavit in Support affirmed to on .. ....2nd....December 2008 and filed on ......2nd....December 2008....Is taken out by the Plaintiff acting in person whose address for service is at Taman, Lorong 5, off Jalan Lintas, Kolombong 88450 Kota Kinabalu or preferable at P. O. Box 11923, 88821 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.
(the tabulation is not clear and I can send them by facsimile0
MALAYSIA
In the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak at Kota Kinabalu
Suit No. K21-10 of 2008
Between
Joshua Kong Yun Chee Plaintiff
and
Election Commission Chairman 1st Defendant:
National Registration Department 2nd Defendant
Government of Malaysia 3rd Defendant
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
I, Kong Yun Chee @ Joshua Kong (NRIC 480823-12-5003) of 26 0Taman Iramanis, Lorong 5, off Jalan Lintas, Kolombong, 88450 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, a Malaysian citizen of full age do affirm and say as follows:-
1. I am the above-named Plaintiff of the Writ herein referred to as “my Writ” and the matters deposed herein are within my personal knowledge and belief unless otherwise stated.
2. I am a Chartered accountant.
3. I crave leave to refer to my Writ, and my submission on 4th November 2008 and in this affidavit in support, I would like to draw attention of the Courts some of the relevant fact with the purchase of the Election Commission’s book titled “Report of the General Election Malaysia 2004” published in 2006 herein after referred to as the Report 2004.
4. The Return of the results on 21st March 2004 according to Regulation 27 of Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981 (PU (A) 386/81) herein referred to as the Regulation 27 of Elections Regulations with only one set of result would be returned on the night of polling after counting hence the results in the newspapers the next day and the Official Website of the Election Commission herein after referred to as the Official Website should be considered correct and valid although the Official Website was incomplete for General Election 2004. Chapter 4.19 in page 103 of the Report 2004 made reference of approval for the Official Website.
5. The said Return as per paragraph 4 as the basis of the formation of the Federal and State Governments had been found to be defective hence the complaint under Federal Constitution 118A as per observation of facts and figures in the misconduct of the General Election 2004 by the defendants especially the 1st defendant as more than one set of results prevailed as illustrated in paragraph 6 below because the first set of results was on the night of polling and counting as published in the mass media, the Official website, then Return certified by the Election Commission on 2nd April, 2004 and published in the Official Gazette dated 12th April, 2004 herein after referred to as the Gazette and another set of official results with a varied format published in the Report 2004 under Appendix II for Parliament seats and Appendix III for State seats as stipulated in chapter 9.6 (page 131) Gazetting of Election Results via P.U (B) 163 on 12 April, 2004.
6. Two incidences of three sets of results are illustrated as examples here as follows:-
Particulars of the two results:-
6.1 P81 JERUNTUT PARLIAMENT SEAT and State seats N9, N10, N11.
6.1.1 For the P81 Jeruntut Parliament seat as shown in the Gazette page 2924 as marked in “JK-50”, the number of voters in the Roll was 46,059. When the three state seats N9 Tahan marked “JK-61” and “JK-62”, (Gazette 3319-3320); N10 Damak marked “JK-62” and “JK-63” (Gazette 3320-3321) and N11 Pulau Tawar marked “JK-63” and “JK-64” (Gazette 3321-3322), the number of voters in Roll (10,801+18,373+16,826) respectively was 46,000. The Report 2004 showed the respectively figures of voters as 10,860, 18,373, and 16,826 which added up to 46,059 to agree with the Parliament seat. In the Gazette, the percentage of voting of N9 Tahan in marked “JK-61” and “JK-62” was listed as 78.40% while the actual percentage of E/A X100, (formula used) that is 8,478 divided by 10,801 is 78.49%. So there was a discrepancy of 0.09%. If the amended figure of 10,860 for the Roll used in N9 Tahan as listed in the Report 2004 also deemed the Gazette was correct, then the percentage of voting should be 78.07%. But the Report 2004 showed the percentage of voting as 78.40%. Was it simply amending the figure of 10,801 to 10,860 to make up for the discrepancy of 59? Attachment of page 239 of the Report 2004 is enclosed as marked “JK10-1”. So the defective system to arrive at the Return on 21st March 2004 was exposed by the manipulation of some figures in the discrepancies of percentage of voting. For ease of comparison, I show them in the columns below:-
Particular Official Gazette % of voting Report 2004 % of voting
No. Voters Total No. Voters
P 81 Gaz pg 2924 46,059 46,059 Pg 161 46,059
-------- --------
N9 Gaz pg 3319-3320 10,801 78.4 Pg 239 10,860 78.07
N10 Gaz pg 3320-3321 18,373 Pg 239 18,373
N11 Gaz pg 3321-3322 16,826 Pg 239 16,826
Total - state 46,000 -46,000 46,059
Discrepancy 59 0
6.2 P171 SEPANGGAR PARLIAMENT SEAT and state seats N12 and N13
6.2.1 For the P171 under Regulation 27 of the Election Regulations, Sepanggar Parliament seat as shown in the Official Website of the Number of voters at 34,527 with issued ballot papers of 10,439 representing percentage of voting of 30.23%, the winner secured 7,143 and the loser secured 2,935 with a majority for the winner of 4,208 votes and spoilt votes of 361 as shown in page marked “JK-77” of my Writ. I have a copy of the webpage.
6.2.2 The Bernama’s online website for the results also based on same source under Regulation 27 of the Election Regulations in page marked “JK-75” of my Writ showed that percentage of voting of 30.23% with the winner securing 16,420 and the loser 5,201 and a majority of 4,208 and rejected ballot papers of 361. The discrepancy of 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 is in the number of votes obtained by the candidates.
6.2.3 The Gazette at pages 3027 and 3028 showed the number of voters at 34,527 with issued ballot papers of 22,083 representing percentage of voting of 63.96%, rejected ballot papers of 727 and ballot papers issued not returned of 32, and the winner securing 16,226, loser securing 5,098 with a majority of 11,128. The Report 2004 at page 184 showed the same data.
6.2.4 To highlight the discrepancies in 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 with 6.2.3 supposedly from the same source of Regulation 27 of the Election Regulations, the Official Website and the Bernama’s website had shown the same percentage of voting of 30.23% and the same number of spoilt votes of 361 on the night of polling and counting. The votes secured by the winner and loser in 6.2.1 were 7,143 and 2,935 making a total of 10,078. The votes secured by the winner and loser in 6.2.2 were 16,420 and 5,201 making a total of 21,621. The votes secured by the winner and loser in 6.2.3 were 16,226 and 5,098 making a total of 21,324. The discrepancy of 21,621 and 21,324 (297) was partly due to the difference of rejected ballot papers or spoilt votes of 727 - 361 (366) but still left with a discrepancy of [366 - 297] or 69 which remains unexplained.
Particulars Official Website Bernama’s website Gazette pg3027 Report 2004 pg 184 Discre-pancies
No. Of voters 34,527 Not available 34,527 34,527 /
Issued ballot papers 10,439 n/a 22,083 22,083 /
% of voting 30.23 30.23 63.96 63.96 /
---------------- --------------- ------------- ---------------- /
Winner votes 7,143 16,420 16,226 16,226 / 21,621
Loser votes 2,935 5,201 5,098 5,098 / -21,324
Total votes 10,078 21,621 21,324 21,324 / 297
Majority 4,208 4,208 11,128 11,128 / ---------
Spoilt votes 361 361 727 727 / 727
Ballot paper not returned n/a n/a 32 32 / -361
/ 366
1 2 3 4 5 6
6.2.5 We have three sets of results despite a single source under Regulation 27 of Elections Regulations. Earlier in the day of Polling, the radio’s regular updates did mention that the turnout in Sepanggar was extremely low. The discrepancies in these two glaring examples in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 and other discrepancies in the issued ballot papers marked “JKS-A1” and “JKS-A2” prevailed although there was an Internal Election Audit Committee - Chapter 11.2 in page 137 of the Report 2004.
6.2.6 The State seats under P171 Sepanggar namely N12 Karambunai and N13 Inanam in Daily Express marked “JK-79” showed the percentages of votes casts as 62.64% and 65% respectively. The Bernama’s website marked “JK-70” showed the percentage of votes cast as 62.64% (N12) and 64.97% (N13) when the Gazette showed 62.64% (N12) and 65.25% (N13). The return of percentage of voting of 30.23% in paragraph 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 and the return of over 60% in paragraph 6.2.6 gave a big discrepancy not investigated on 21st March, 2004.
7. I regret for the technical errors on two Parliament seats out of six listed in paragraph 1 of “JKS-A3” namely P12 Jerai and P29 Machang which had been checked again to be free from discrepancies in the number of Voters in the Roll used for Parliament and state seats concerned.
8. We have to examine all the electoral records of Datuk Dr. Patawarie with code 71 and sometimes with code 12 as how he was not disqualified from election as per documents marked “JK-126” to ”JK-131” and “JKS-B36” to “JKS-B38”. This challenge over his status of citizenship must be cleared. Similarly all other candidates, proposers and seconders at Elections should be true Malaysians under the provisions of Federal Constitution.
9. The Returns of General Election 2004 on 21st March 2004 for the Federal and State Governments were defective for all the discrepancies, irregularities, electoral frauds, electoral offence and misconduct by the defendants under Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981 and Election Offence Act 1954 [Act 5] especially the first defendant as illustrated by me in the Court documents on the official documents and this AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT further strengthens my Writ for appropriate declarations.
Affirmed by the said )
)
Kong Yun Chee @ Joshua Kong )
)
At the Kota Kinabalu, in the state )
)
of Sabah , )
)
This ...2nd..., day of December 2008 ) .................................................
Before me
.................................................................
This Affidavit in Support affirmed to on .. ....2nd....December 2008 and filed on ......2nd....December 2008....Is taken out by the Plaintiff acting in person whose address for service is at Taman, Lorong 5, off Jalan Lintas, Kolombong 88450 Kota Kinabalu or preferable at P. O. Box 11923, 88821 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.
6.
Affidavit
in Support 2 for Writ 1 -GE 2004
MALAYSIA
In the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak at Kota Kinabalu
Suit No. K21-10 of 2008
Between
Joshua Kong Yun Chee Plaintiff
and
Election Commission Chairman 1st Defendant:
National Registration Department 2nd Defendant
Government of Malaysia 3rd Defendant
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT 2
I, Kong Yun Chee @ Joshua Kong (NRIC 480823-12-5003) of Taman, Lorong 5, off Jalan Lintas, Kolombong, 88450 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, a Malaysian citizen of full age do affirm and say as follows:-
1. I am the above-named Plaintiff of the Writ of Summons filed on 25th February, 2008 hereinafter referred to as my Writ and the matters deposed herein are within my personal knowledge and belief unless otherwise stated.
2. I am a Chartered accountant.
3. I crave leave to refer to my Writ, my submission on 4th November 2008 hereinafter referred to as my submission, the AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT on 2nd December 2008 hereinafter referred to as SUPPORT and in this AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT 2 hereinafter referred to as SUPPORT 2, I would like to draw attention of the Courts some new discrepancies in the Election Commission’s book titled “Report of the General Election Malaysia 2004” published in 2006 hereinafter referred to as the Report 2004 and also to provide further detailed schedules of analysis of the discrepancies mentioned in my Writ in paragraphs 7 and 8; Schedule 1, 1A and 4 of “JKS-A”; “JKS-A1” and “JKS-A2” of my submission.
4. The ballots issued also known as ballot papers issued for each Parliament seat and those State seats under that particular Parliament seat when all seats are contested should be equal when such ballots for the State seats are added up. Given that some of such discrepancies including 6 Parliament seats into a thousand and more with the highest one at 4,843 (P28), any discrepancies including 1 - 50 are questionable. Even a zero case can be suspected of irregularities when manipulation can be perfected when small discrepancies can be due to voters coming to cast their votes in the last few minutes before closing on polling day. For this purpose and to assist the Courts, I have prepared the comparison schedules for each State where there are Parliament and State seats contests as per exhibits marked “JK10-A1” to “JK10-A10”. These schedules of 10 pages are details of the summary of schedule in “JKS-A2” in my submission.
5. There were various discrepancies of the results in the official website, in the press, the Official Gazette, and the Report 2004 as I have illustrated in my Writ, my submission, SUPPORT and now more discrepancies of data are observed in the Report 2004 deemed to be also the data of the Official Gazette according to Chapter 9.6 of the Report - Gazetting of Election Results in Appendix II and III page 131. The data in the Report 2004 and the Official Gazette differ in a few examples namely:-
Particulars of discrepancies-
5.1 In Table 4.1 of the Report 2004 page 91 titled Nomination Centres, Polling Centres and Vote Tally Centres, there was a total polling stations of 19,833. But in Chapter 4.7.2 Polling Centres, it was 19,843 polling stations (streams) in page 92 of the Report 2004. The differing numbers give the serious implication of misconduct as the poling stations would be supplied with different number of ballot boxes.
5.2 The discrepancies in State seat N3 Jertih of Terengganu in the percentage of ballot issued against the number of voters in the Roll were 85.32% in the Official Gazette page 3174 and 85.23% in the Report 2004 page 213 are significant in the distorted parameters of the seat concerned.
5.3 For the Parliament seat P53 Balik Pulau in Penang, the ballots issued was recorded in the Official Gazette in page 2893 as 29,885 while the number given in the Report 2004 was recorded as 29,825 in page 156 (refer to “JK10-A4”). The quality of the conduct of General Election 2004 is questionable.
5.4 For the Parliament seat P81 Jeruntut in Pahang and in the State seat under it namely N9 Tahan, the Report 2004 recorded the number of voters in the Roll as 10,860 (page 239) as exhibit attached to SUPPORT marked “JK10-1”. This data is shown in SUPPORT 2’s exhibit marked ”JK10-A6”. The Official Gazette page 3319 in exhibit marked “JK-61” recorded the number of voters as 10,801.
6 The Return of the results on 21st March 2004 according to Regulation 27 of Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981 (PU (A) 386/81) with only one set of results would be returned on the night of polling after counting and the declaration of winning party by Election Commission Chairman also the first defendant in Chapter 9.3 of the Report 2004 at 12 midnight of polling day. The same Return of results was presented to the DYMM SPB Yang Di Pertuan Agong at 10 a.m., on 22nd March 2004 at Istana Negara, Kuala Lumpur.
7. The said Return as per paragraph 6 as the basis of the formation of the Federal and State Governments had been found to be defective due to arithmetic discrepancies hence the complaint under Federal Constitution 118A as per observation of material, significant and fundamental facts and figures in my writ, my submission, SUPPORT and this SUPPORT 2.
8. The defective returns due to several factor can be explained and identified to the Election Offences 1954 [Act 5]. When the substance of my Writ, my submission, my Affidavit in Opposition against the Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of High Court 1980, my SUPPORT and my SUPPORT 2 is examined by the Court, relevant Election Offence would emerge and linked to certain items under Act 5 in particular Part II section 3 and 4 that had given rise to the arithmetical discrepancies of the Issued Ballot papers. Also grievous implications of Section 32 (c) of Act 5 need to be scrutinised with an alleged corruption of the first defendant in exhibit marked “JK-D3-2” in my Affidavit in Opposition..
9. I pray that this case of paramount importance in public interest and free and fair elections for true justice to prevail and that this AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT 2 further strengthens my Writ, my submission, SUPPORT when reading Federal Constitution Articles 118 and 118A together for proper hearing so that the Court make appropriate declarations promptly.
Affirmed by the said )
)
Kong Yun Chee @ Joshua Kong )
)
At the Kota Kinabalu, in the state )
)
of Sabah , )
)
This ..9th.. day of December 2008 ) .................................................
Before me
.................................................................
This Affidavit in Support 2 affirmed to on .. .....9th.....December 2008 and filed on ...9th......December 2008, is taken out by the Plaintiff acting in person whose address for service is at Taman , Lorong 5, off Jalan Lintas, Kolombong 88450 Kota Kinabalu or preferable at P. O. Box 11923, 88821 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.
MALAYSIA
In the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak at Kota Kinabalu
Suit No. K21-10 of 2008
Between
Joshua Kong Yun Chee Plaintiff
and
Election Commission Chairman 1st Defendant:
National Registration Department 2nd Defendant
Government of Malaysia 3rd Defendant
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT 2
I, Kong Yun Chee @ Joshua Kong (NRIC 480823-12-5003) of Taman, Lorong 5, off Jalan Lintas, Kolombong, 88450 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, a Malaysian citizen of full age do affirm and say as follows:-
1. I am the above-named Plaintiff of the Writ of Summons filed on 25th February, 2008 hereinafter referred to as my Writ and the matters deposed herein are within my personal knowledge and belief unless otherwise stated.
2. I am a Chartered accountant.
3. I crave leave to refer to my Writ, my submission on 4th November 2008 hereinafter referred to as my submission, the AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT on 2nd December 2008 hereinafter referred to as SUPPORT and in this AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT 2 hereinafter referred to as SUPPORT 2, I would like to draw attention of the Courts some new discrepancies in the Election Commission’s book titled “Report of the General Election Malaysia 2004” published in 2006 hereinafter referred to as the Report 2004 and also to provide further detailed schedules of analysis of the discrepancies mentioned in my Writ in paragraphs 7 and 8; Schedule 1, 1A and 4 of “JKS-A”; “JKS-A1” and “JKS-A2” of my submission.
4. The ballots issued also known as ballot papers issued for each Parliament seat and those State seats under that particular Parliament seat when all seats are contested should be equal when such ballots for the State seats are added up. Given that some of such discrepancies including 6 Parliament seats into a thousand and more with the highest one at 4,843 (P28), any discrepancies including 1 - 50 are questionable. Even a zero case can be suspected of irregularities when manipulation can be perfected when small discrepancies can be due to voters coming to cast their votes in the last few minutes before closing on polling day. For this purpose and to assist the Courts, I have prepared the comparison schedules for each State where there are Parliament and State seats contests as per exhibits marked “JK10-A1” to “JK10-A10”. These schedules of 10 pages are details of the summary of schedule in “JKS-A2” in my submission.
5. There were various discrepancies of the results in the official website, in the press, the Official Gazette, and the Report 2004 as I have illustrated in my Writ, my submission, SUPPORT and now more discrepancies of data are observed in the Report 2004 deemed to be also the data of the Official Gazette according to Chapter 9.6 of the Report - Gazetting of Election Results in Appendix II and III page 131. The data in the Report 2004 and the Official Gazette differ in a few examples namely:-
Particulars of discrepancies-
5.1 In Table 4.1 of the Report 2004 page 91 titled Nomination Centres, Polling Centres and Vote Tally Centres, there was a total polling stations of 19,833. But in Chapter 4.7.2 Polling Centres, it was 19,843 polling stations (streams) in page 92 of the Report 2004. The differing numbers give the serious implication of misconduct as the poling stations would be supplied with different number of ballot boxes.
5.2 The discrepancies in State seat N3 Jertih of Terengganu in the percentage of ballot issued against the number of voters in the Roll were 85.32% in the Official Gazette page 3174 and 85.23% in the Report 2004 page 213 are significant in the distorted parameters of the seat concerned.
5.3 For the Parliament seat P53 Balik Pulau in Penang, the ballots issued was recorded in the Official Gazette in page 2893 as 29,885 while the number given in the Report 2004 was recorded as 29,825 in page 156 (refer to “JK10-A4”). The quality of the conduct of General Election 2004 is questionable.
5.4 For the Parliament seat P81 Jeruntut in Pahang and in the State seat under it namely N9 Tahan, the Report 2004 recorded the number of voters in the Roll as 10,860 (page 239) as exhibit attached to SUPPORT marked “JK10-1”. This data is shown in SUPPORT 2’s exhibit marked ”JK10-A6”. The Official Gazette page 3319 in exhibit marked “JK-61” recorded the number of voters as 10,801.
6 The Return of the results on 21st March 2004 according to Regulation 27 of Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981 (PU (A) 386/81) with only one set of results would be returned on the night of polling after counting and the declaration of winning party by Election Commission Chairman also the first defendant in Chapter 9.3 of the Report 2004 at 12 midnight of polling day. The same Return of results was presented to the DYMM SPB Yang Di Pertuan Agong at 10 a.m., on 22nd March 2004 at Istana Negara, Kuala Lumpur.
7. The said Return as per paragraph 6 as the basis of the formation of the Federal and State Governments had been found to be defective due to arithmetic discrepancies hence the complaint under Federal Constitution 118A as per observation of material, significant and fundamental facts and figures in my writ, my submission, SUPPORT and this SUPPORT 2.
8. The defective returns due to several factor can be explained and identified to the Election Offences 1954 [Act 5]. When the substance of my Writ, my submission, my Affidavit in Opposition against the Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of High Court 1980, my SUPPORT and my SUPPORT 2 is examined by the Court, relevant Election Offence would emerge and linked to certain items under Act 5 in particular Part II section 3 and 4 that had given rise to the arithmetical discrepancies of the Issued Ballot papers. Also grievous implications of Section 32 (c) of Act 5 need to be scrutinised with an alleged corruption of the first defendant in exhibit marked “JK-D3-2” in my Affidavit in Opposition..
9. I pray that this case of paramount importance in public interest and free and fair elections for true justice to prevail and that this AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT 2 further strengthens my Writ, my submission, SUPPORT when reading Federal Constitution Articles 118 and 118A together for proper hearing so that the Court make appropriate declarations promptly.
Affirmed by the said )
)
Kong Yun Chee @ Joshua Kong )
)
At the Kota Kinabalu, in the state )
)
of Sabah , )
)
This ..9th.. day of December 2008 ) .................................................
Before me
.................................................................
This Affidavit in Support 2 affirmed to on .. .....9th.....December 2008 and filed on ...9th......December 2008, is taken out by the Plaintiff acting in person whose address for service is at Taman , Lorong 5, off Jalan Lintas, Kolombong 88450 Kota Kinabalu or preferable at P. O. Box 11923, 88821 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.
No comments:
Post a Comment