SPR sinks further into opacity and sluggishness

SPR transparency has deteriorated notably since mid 2008. Further, SPR slowed down quarterly gazetting of electoral rolls to 5 months.

These are the opacity, sluggishness, and oddities we have observed in SPR performance:

1. SPR no longer cites the specific gazette date for the electoral rolls to be used in the April 7 by-elections.

Regarding Bukit Selambau (P014N25) and Bukit Gantang (P059) by-elections, SPR informed Bernama (but without written statement on SPR's own Website) only in general quarterly. The SPR chairman said that "the electoral roll to be used was the Master Electoral Roll 2007 which had been merged with the supplementary electoral rolls for the first, second and third quarters of 2008." (See 3-in-1 By-Elections on April 7?)

When were these rolls officially gazetted? SPR didn't say.

We are left to dig and assume that, for the electoral roll ending third quarter (2008 Sep 30), the gazette date must be the latest gazette date 2009 February 19, displayed in the header on the voter look-up page at http://daftarj.spr.gov.my/daftarj/daftarbi.aspx (this is an already-gazetted, nationwide, roll for voters to look up on an individual basis). However, this is only an assumption, because SPR has previously used different by-election rolls than the latest-gazetted, nationwide, roll.

SPR's statement on Batang Ai to Bernama was even more opaque, failing to cite any data date or quarterly periods for the electoral roll to be used. See http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/bm/news.php?id=393934


2. SPR has failed to publicize official verification and gazetting processes since mid-2008:

1. the quarterly display and verification of supplementary rolls, and
   
2. the eventual gazetting of the quarterly changes to add to the nationwide electoral roll.

By law, quarterly (supplementary) changes to voter rolls must be displayed for the public to check before being gazetted.

But SPR seems to have kept an extremely low profile on these events in the second half of 2008, failing to make public statement about the displays or gazette. There has been no official SPR press statement on the SPR Web site or through the government mouth piece Bernama.

Why this secrecy in second half of 2008? Did SPR fear the inevitable confusion and protest by Permatang Pauh (P044) and Kuala Terengganu (P036) voters, due to the variances between those 2 by-election rolls (respectively dated 2008 July 31 and 2008 Dec 5) from the nearest nationwide gazetted rolls (respectively dated 2008 Jul 19 and 2008 Nov 28)? See "What's so complicated ..." and "surprises and guesses."

We are left to grasp at haphazard clues such as these:

• In December 2008 when we checked SPR's nationwide voter lookup page, the header revealed SPR has a gazetted version from 2008 November 28 (it has since been updated to the latest 2009 Feb 19). See our earlier post about "surprises and guesses."
  
• However, SPR statement to Bernama indicated it had also gazetted another by-election roll a few days later on 2008 Dec 5 for the KT by-election.
  
• We are again left to assume, that the KT roll was based on 2008 2nd quarter changes, meaning the changes were gazetted nearly 5 months after the close of the second quarter on 2008 Jun 30.

So far we learn a few things:

• a by-election roll may be gazetted (as in KT P036) or not gazetted (as in PP P044),
• a different by-election roll can be prepared only a few days after a nationwide roll has already been gazetted (especially in KT)
  
• A quarterly roll is recently being gazetted about 5 months after the quarter closes.
  

What did and did not the SPR publicize?

• SPR only publicized the SMS/Website by-election voter look-up on an individual basis. This is a very narrow announcement meant only for by-election voters, and only after gazette. An example of such an announcement is http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/news_lite.php?id=392795.
  
• In contrast, before mid-2008, SPR had faithfully announced that quarterly supplementary rolls for nationwide changes were available for verification at post offices and on the Web before they were gazetted. An example of such a broad announcement was made in January 2008 regarding 2007Q4 changes: http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=307312
• The by-election voter look-up page (post-gazette? non-gazette?) for Bukit Selambau and Bukit Gantang (http://daftarj.spr.gov.my/semakp59n25/prayakecil.aspx) does not display a gazette date. Why?
  
• Only the nationwide (post-gazette) roll for voter to look up (http://daftarj.spr.gov.my/daftarj/daftarbi.aspx) did display a gazette date of 2009 Feb 19.
  

Questions, phrased differently:

• Why weren't the pre-gazette verification of the 3rd and 4th quarterly changes of 2008 publicized in the media, newspapers, and post offices?
• Why wasn't there any media notice or official press statement about the November 28, 2008 (presumably 2008 second quarter changes) gazetted roll just before KT by-election, and the recently gazetted roll of Feb 19, 2009 (presumably 2008 third quarter changes)?

• If the nationwide roll is identified as gazetted on 2009 Feb 19, but the by-elections rolls are not identified as gazetted, does that mean there have been changes to the by-election rolls of Bukit Selambau and Bukit Gantang rolls compared to the gazetted nationwide rolls?
  

3. SPR has sharlply slowed down its quarterly voter verification and gazettes.

While it took only 36 days to gazette the December 2007 changes by 2008 Feb 5 for the 2008 March 8 GE12, verification and gazettes since mid-2008 have been sluggish and non-transparent, and took nearly 5 months. (Note the 2007 fourth quarter roll had included a rush of enthusiastic voter registrations and massive postal movements, anticipating GE12.)

• What about 2008's 4th quarter? Why are we still using 2008 third-quarter roll changes?
• The gazetting process seems to have stretched out to about 5 months by now, compared to about 1 month for early 2008.

• Register for 6 months before you can vote: A voter in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau who registered at the beginning of October 2008, eg, will not be able to vote in the by-elections, even more than 6 months after registration (from 2008 Oct 1 to 2009 Apr 7).
  

Table A shows that the pace of voter roll verification and gazette has slowed down to about 5 months.

Table A: Gazetting Process Slowing to 5 Months

Quarterly voter changes	2007Q4	2008Q1	2008Q2	2008Q3	2008Q4
Quarter closing	2007Dec31	2008Mar31	2008Jun30	2008Sep30	2008Dec31
Display on Web	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Gazette date	2008Feb5	2008Jun16	2008Nov28	2009Feb19	???
Days from quarter closing	36	107	151	142	???

4. Timing of by-election is dubious :

• KT's by-election had to wait for 51 days (out of the maximum 60 days allowed by law) because of the northeast monsoon rain in December, but Bukit Selambau and Bukit Gantang had to wait for 57 days for what?
• Why does by-election on a Tuesday, not on weekends, or even a Monday or Friday?
  
• Does Apr 4, Saturday, or 54 days make any difference in "security" except that minus 9 days means smack in the middle of UMNO party election?
  
• Why does nomination day on March 29 have to wait until just after UMNO's party election on March 28?

• Why create the longest-ever wait for by-election of 57 days, nearly the longest allowable by law, but the shortest allowable campaigning period of 9 days? Why not more campaigning days to accomodate the three differently-located by-elections?
  
• Why 3 by-elections on the same day, that will stretch all the media, opposition political parties, NGOs, volunteers, except the well-financed governing coalition which has never been ashamed or penalized for abusing government machinery and funds?

Also see:

• TheMalaysianInsider.com: EC fixes April 7 by-elections amid mixed reactions
• MalaysiaKini.com: Pakatan cries foul over polls date (subscription)
  
• Lim Kit Siang: Bukit Gantang/Selambau by-elections on April 7 - another example of craven subservience of Election Commission to serve Umno interests

More opacity:

• The online display of PDF copies of quarterly electoral changes on SPR Website has been discontinued since 2008Q2. see SPR becoming less transparent. Why?
  
• The official CD containing the roll only have a hand-writted "disahkan" (authenticated/confirmed) "18/2/2009," without details inside the CD.

• SPR seems to stop preparing any official announcement and stopped posting them on its website. As of 2009 March 8, we can only find press releases from 2008. Newspaper cutting is up to 2007. The latest statements on Bukit Selambau, Bukit Gantang, Batang Ai, are not carried on its website. It only contains an announcement to check voter roll for Bukit Selambau and Bukit Gantang, but not Batang Ali.
• Apparently the SPR is more interested in voters using SMS to check their status at RM0.35 extra charges per enquiry.
• Also see: http://www.spr.gov.my/index/pagemulabi.htm and http://www.spr.gov.my/index/news.htm
  

Read more! Full post may contain more data and tables.

90 Voters in a Big House in KT

90 voters live in the same big house at No. 1089-A of Kg Kuala Ibai in Kuala Terengganu. SPR's inconsistent house numbering format understates the number of voters in the same houses. Meanwhile, 453 voters are registered without house number (NoRumah) at a single locality, ie, Kg Gong Tok Nasek.

Background: Many voters in the same address

• We need to differentiate between two types of "large addresses":
  


1. Many voters in a locality without house number.
   • These are also listed and discussed in Table C of article "8,388 or 10% of KT Voters Have No NoRumah".
   • This type involves many large cases, and usually involves a village address registered with up to a few hundreds of voters.
   • An example is the 453 voters registered at " [Blank NoRumah] Kg Gong Tok Nasek."
   • This type is difficult to verify, because they have only a village name, no street name, no house numbers, and there are many such voters in one address.
   
   
2. Many voters in the same house with a house number.
   • This type involves relatively fewer voters per address, and a specific house number, that may be easier to verify.
     
   • An example is the 12 voters registered at "352 Kg Gong Tok Nasek" - the same village as the above example.
   • However, there is widespread inconsistency in SPR address formats, hiding many voters in the same house.
     
   • An example is the 90 voters registered at "1089-A Kg Kuala Ibai," including these variations of the address:
   • 1089-A Kg Kuala Ibai: 56 voters
   • 1089 A Kg Kuala Ibai: 23 voters
   • 1089A Kg Kuala Ibai: 7 voters
     
   • 1089 - A Kg Kuala Ibai: 4 voters
   • These are 90 voters all in the same house!
     

• But the above two types are intertwined, because the same locality can contain voters both with and without house numbers.
• In the example above, Kg Gong Tok Nasek contains 453 voters without house number. But Kg Gong Tok Nasek also contains 12 voters with house numbers 352, and 9 voters with these house numbers - 144, 173, 212, 214, etc.
• This shows that voters at Kg Gong Tok Nasek could have been registered with more specific address, only that NRIC Department or SPR have not registered these voters properly.

• There are three possible, half-legitimate, reasons for such large and vague addresses, although they all reflect badly on either the SPR, NRIC Department, or the government's economic development credential:
• Some large addresses (not the village type typical in KT) may be apartments, and SPR or NRIC Department failed to register the complete apartment information.
• SPR or NRIC Department may have skipped the details about street name, even when given.
• Rural development is so poor that 1/3 voters in Terengganu still do not have a proper street name and house number.
  

• Again, if election observers can prove (by photocopied ICs that are safely crossed and cancelled) that there is a large number of voters whose ICs indeed show detailed address such as house numbers and street names, but whose voter registrations do not show house numbers or street name, then we can make a strong case to make all voter registrations automatic, based on MyKad and NRIC database, instead of SPR's haphazard registration and input procedure.

• To protect voter privacy, the tables here will not list the full IC, name, and address details living in the large addresses that will be required to check these "big addresses." Rather, we will provide these details to MAFREL field verification teams.
  

Table A lists address WITHOUT house numbers, and shows:

• 10 of the largest addresses, which are localities without house numbers.
• This issue has been discussed in the article "8,388 or 10% of KT Voters Have No NoRumah"
• For a more detailed table, see Table C of the above article NoRumah"

• In searching for house numbers (NoRumah), we have partially cleaned up the data by eliminating confusing variations such as "-" (which also means a blank), "No. " (with a space), "No." without space, "N0." (with a zero), etc. See this table for more details. Therefore, our search for blank house number and similar house numbers will turn up more cases than without the clean-up effort.
• The tables below also exclude postal voters, almost all of whom are registered without house number. Police and army postal addresses are public information, and we do not count them as "missing" house number or large addresses.
  

Table A: Top 10 Cases of Many Voters in the Same Address WITHOUT House Number

Kodlokaliti	NamaDUN	NamaDM	NamaLokaliti	NoRumah	Count
036/16/03/001	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek		453
036/16/02/001	Batu Buruk	Kampung Nibung	Kg Nibung		381
036/16/06/008	Batu Buruk	Cendering Pantai	Kg Pantai Pendek		364
036/16/09/001	Batu Buruk	Mengabang Tengah	Kg Mengabang Tengah		309
036/16/03/002	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Pak Maseh		291
036/16/05/002	Batu Buruk	Kuala Ibai	Kg Kuala Ibai		245
036/16/10/005	Batu Buruk	Kampung Kolam	Kg Kolam		234
036/16/07/001	Batu Buruk	Cendering	Kg Raja Barang		225
036/13/06/001	Wakaf Mempelam	Seberang Baruh	Kg. Seberang Baruh		205
036/16/10/007	Batu Buruk	Kampung Kolam	Kg Teluk Tok Adis		192

Table B lists houses WITH house numbers, and shows:

• Addresses (Locality WITH House Number) where 15 or more voters are registered.
• Most localities are village (kampung) address; some are more specific street addresses (eg, "Jln. Banggul")
  
• The highest number of voters is 56, at 1089-A Kg Kuala Ibai, but ...
  

• This table also illustrates the problem of SPR address format inconsistencies.
  
• For example, "1089-A Kg Kuala Ibai" (56 voters) and "1089 A Kg Kuala Ibai" (23 voters) are essentially the same address.
  
• At the bottom are at least 2 other variations (1089A with 7 voters and 1089 - A with 4 voters).
• In total, there are 90 (=56+23+7+4) voters in the same house number!
  
• In Table B, we have not yet cleaned and consolidated these SPR address format inconsistencies.
• Such inconsistencies significantly understate the number of voters per house address.
  
• These "1089-A" cases are highlighted in blue and red.

Table B: Many Voters in the Same Address - A Locality, WITH House Number

Kodlokaliti	NamaDUN	NamaDM	NamaLokaliti	NoRumah	Count
036/16/05/002	Batu Buruk	Kuala Ibai	Kg Kuala Ibai	1089-A	56
036/13/10/004	Wakaf Mempelam	Sungai Rengas	Kg Sungai Rengas	935	28
036/14/09/012	Bandar	Pantai Terengganu	Kg. Tanjung Nisan Empat	783	28
036/14/04/003	Bandar	Losong Masjid	Kg. Losong Masjid	33	24
036/14/01/002	Bandar	Tok Ku	Kg Tok Ku	1064	23
036/14/04/003	Bandar	Losong Masjid	Kg. Losong Masjid	26	23
036/14/09/012	Bandar	Pantai Terengganu	Kg. Tanjung Nisan Empat	755	23
036/16/05/002	Batu Buruk	Kuala Ibai	Kg Kuala Ibai	1089 A	23
036/14/06/005	Bandar	Kampung Cina	Kg. China	229	22
036/14/07/008	Bandar	Pejabat Bandaran	Kg Dalam Kota	37	22
036/16/05/002	Batu Buruk	Kuala Ibai	Kg Kuala Ibai	1063	22
036/14/03/002	Bandar	Hiliran Masjid	Kg. Hiliran Masjid	146	21
036/16/06/008	Batu Buruk	Cendering Pantai	Kg Pantai Pendek	514	21
036/14/01/005	Bandar	Tok Ku	Kg Tok Kaya	1012	20
036/14/03/002	Bandar	Hiliran Masjid	Kg. Hiliran Masjid	135	20
036/14/04/003	Bandar	Losong Masjid	Kg. Losong Masjid	22	20
036/14/06/001	Bandar	Kampung Cina	Jln. Banggul	19	20
036/15/04/002	Ladang	Gong Kapas	Jln. Panji Alam	1712	20
036/13/03/003	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Datok Amar	Kg Losong Ferry	523	19
036/13/10/005	Wakaf Mempelam	Sungai Rengas	Kg Pulau Musang	692	19
036/14/01/003	Bandar	Tok Ku	T Lot Makam Lama	44	19
036/14/02/004	Bandar	Cabang Tiga	Kg Losong Hj. Su	170	19
036/14/06/005	Bandar	Kampung Cina	Kg. China	218-2/5	19
036/14/07/017	Bandar	Pejabat Bandaran	Jln. Bandar	235-D	19
036/14/08/003	Bandar	Paya Bunga	Jln. Petani	105	19
036/15/05/002	Ladang	Pasir Panjang	Kg Pasir Panjang	1358	19
036/13/10/004	Wakaf Mempelam	Sungai Rengas	Kg Sungai Rengas	823	18
036/13/10/005	Wakaf Mempelam	Sungai Rengas	Kg Pulau Musang	717	18
036/14/01/002	Bandar	Tok Ku	Kg Tok Ku	60	18
036/14/01/002	Bandar	Tok Ku	Kg Tok Ku	1060	18
036/14/01/003	Bandar	Tok Ku	T Lot Makam Lama	66	18
036/14/02/004	Bandar	Cabang Tiga	Kg Losong Hj. Su	100	18
036/14/03/002	Bandar	Hiliran Masjid	Kg. Hiliran Masjid	183	18
036/14/06/001	Bandar	Kampung Cina	Jln. Banggul	23	18
036/14/06/007	Bandar	Kampung Cina	Kg. Tiung	105	18
036/15/05/002	Ladang	Pasir Panjang	Kg Pasir Panjang	1345	18
036/16/05/002	Batu Buruk	Kuala Ibai	Kg Kuala Ibai	1064	18
036/13/04/009	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Penglima Perang	Kg Losong Penglima Perang	128	17
036/14/02/003	Bandar	Cabang Tiga	Kg. Cabang Tiga	48	17
036/14/02/003	Bandar	Cabang Tiga	Kg. Cabang Tiga	49	17
036/14/04/003	Bandar	Losong Masjid	Kg. Losong Masjid	59	17
036/14/05/002	Bandar	Pulau Kambing	Kg. Bandar Baru	245	17
036/14/08/009	Bandar	Paya Bunga	Kg Dalam Bata	29	17
036/15/01/004	Ladang	Ladang	Kg Ladang Sekolah	927	17
036/15/04/003	Ladang	Gong Kapas	Jln. Kamaruddin	1774	17
036/13/04/004	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Penglima Perang	Kg Losong Megat Hussin	227	16
036/13/04/009	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Penglima Perang	Kg Losong Penglima Perang	352	16
036/13/04/009	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Penglima Perang	Kg Losong Penglima Perang	423	16
036/13/04/009	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Penglima Perang	Kg Losong Penglima Perang	712	16
036/13/05/001	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Hj Mat Shafie	Kg Losong Ebeng	631	16
036/13/11/009	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Mempelam	Kg Gong Pauh	E-7	16
036/14/01/002	Bandar	Tok Ku	Kg Tok Ku	84	16
036/14/01/002	Bandar	Tok Ku	Kg Tok Ku	85	16
036/14/01/002	Bandar	Tok Ku	Kg Tok Ku	1057	16
036/14/02/003	Bandar	Cabang Tiga	Kg. Cabang Tiga	42	16
036/14/03/002	Bandar	Hiliran Masjid	Kg. Hiliran Masjid	168	16
036/14/05/001	Bandar	Pulau Kambing	Kg. Balik Bukit	45	16
036/14/06/003	Bandar	Kampung Cina	Jln Sultan Ismail	22	16
036/14/06/005	Bandar	Kampung Cina	Kg. China	166	16
036/14/08/003	Bandar	Paya Bunga	Jln. Petani	50	16
036/14/09/001	Bandar	Pantai Terengganu	Jln. Sultan Zainal Abidin	135	16
036/15/04/001	Ladang	Gong Kapas	Kg. Gong Kapas	291	16
036/16/09/001	Batu Buruk	Mengabang Tengah	Kg Mengabang Tengah	1433	16
036/13/03/005	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Datok Amar	Kg Losong Pasir	431	15
036/13/04/009	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Penglima Perang	Kg Losong Penglima Perang	35	15
036/13/04/009	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Penglima Perang	Kg Losong Penglima Perang	315	15
036/13/05/002	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Hj Mat Shafie	Kg Losong Hj Mat Shafie	753	15
036/13/07/002	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Beruas	Kg Melintang	1304	15
036/14/01/002	Bandar	Tok Ku	Kg Tok Ku	91	15
036/14/01/002	Bandar	Tok Ku	Kg Tok Ku	1059	15
036/14/01/004	Bandar	Tok Ku	Kg. Simpang Tok Ku	1022	15
036/14/02/003	Bandar	Cabang Tiga	Kg. Cabang Tiga	26	15
036/14/03/002	Bandar	Hiliran Masjid	Kg. Hiliran Masjid	60	15
036/14/03/003	Bandar	Hiliran Masjid	Kg Kuala Hiliran	164	15
036/14/04/003	Bandar	Losong Masjid	Kg. Losong Masjid	88	15
036/14/09/012	Bandar	Pantai Terengganu	Kg. Tanjung Nisan Empat	593	15
036/14/09/012	Bandar	Pantai Terengganu	Kg. Tanjung Nisan Empat	756	15
036/15/02/002	Ladang	Mengadang Akar	Kg Ladang Sahat	8	15
036/15/05/002	Ladang	Pasir Panjang	Kg Pasir Panjang	58	15
036/15/05/002	Ladang	Pasir Panjang	Kg Pasir Panjang	1437	15
036/15/05/002	Ladang	Pasir Panjang	Kg Pasir Panjang	1441	15
036/16/02/001	Batu Buruk	Kampung Nibung	Kg Nibung	1399	15
036/16/06/008	Batu Buruk	Cendering Pantai	Kg Pantai Pendek	1770	15
...
036/16/05/002	Batu Buruk	Kuala Ibai	Kg Kuala Ibai	1089A	7
...
036/16/05/002	Batu Buruk	Kuala Ibai	Kg Kuala Ibai	1089 - A	4

Table C shows that:

• A locality can contain addresses both WITH AND WITHOUT house number.
• In this example below, the address of "Kg Gong Tok Nasek" without house number contains 453 voters.
• But the same address with house number "12" contains 1 voter, and house number "20" contains 2 voters, etc.
• In total (not fully listed in Table C), this locality (Kodlokaliti 036/16/03/001), including all its house numbers, make up 809 unique addresses (809 table rows of locality+ house number) and 2,143 voters.
• Table C selectively lists only 10 of the 809.
• Many of these "unique addresses" are variations of the same address because of SPR's inconsistent house number format, such as house no. "1008 C" and "1008-C" (highlighted in red).

Table C: Related Addresses - Selected Unique Addresses (House Number At Kodlokaliti 036/16/03/001) and Voter Count, Including Blank House Number

Kodlokaliti	NamaDUN	NamaDM	NamaLokaliti	NoRumah	Voter count in this unique address
036/16/03/001	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek		453
036/16/03/001	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek	12	1
036/16/03/001	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek	20	2
036/16/03/001	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek	21	1
…	…	…	…	…	…
036/16/03/001	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek	1008 C	1
036/16/03/001	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek	1008-C	3
036/16/03/001	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek	1008-L	1
…	…	…	…	…	…
036/16/03/001	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek	LOT 946	2
036/16/03/001	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek	LOT 995	1
036/16/03/001	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek	LOT 995-G	1
Total voter count in this locality 036/16/03/001					2,143
Total unique addresses (Kodlokaliti+NoRumah) in locality (10 listed above)					809

Table D shows that:

• KT (P036) parliamentary seat contains 35,729 unique addresses (locality plus a house number or blank house number).
• For example, 1 Jalan Besar, 1A Jalan Besar, [no house number] Jalan Besar, and 1 Jalan Bukit are four distinct and unique (fictitious) addresses.
• Of the 35,729 unique addresses in KT, 256 are localities without a house number.
• This type tends to have a high voter count in the same address, because this is a general address, such as a village address.
• For example, the table shows 1 address without house number in KT contain voters in the range of 400-499 voters (It is actually "[Blank house number] Kg Gong Tok Nasek")
• The other 35,473 are localities with a house number.
• The fact that they have a house number make them more specific locations, containing fewer voters in the same address.
  
• For example, there is one address with voter count in the range of 50-59, and 17 addresses with voter count in the range of 20-29.

Table D: Count of Unique Addresses (Locality+House Number or Blank)

Voter count		Cout of unique addresses ...
From	To	WITHOUT house number	WITH house number	Total Cases
400	499	1	-	1
300	399	3	-	3
200	299	5	-	5
100	199	14	-	14
80	99	6	-	6
60	79	12	-	12
50	59	3	1	4
40	49	6	-	6
30	39	10	-	10
20	29	17	17	34
10	19	46	371	417
8	9	15	430	445
6	7	18	994	1,012
4	6	23	2,736	2,759
3	3	20	3,168	3,188
2	2	27	6,685	6,712
1	1	30	21,071	21,101
Total		256	35,473	35,729

Read more! Full post may contain more data and tables.

8,388 or 10% of KT Voters Have No NoRumah

10.5% of voters in Kuala Terengganu are registered without a house number (NoRumah), even after excluding postal voters. SPR's voter address registration seems archaic, with 35% voters nationwide without house numbers, and without ZIP code. Why not automatically register voters and use MyKad address?

Background:

• Nation-wide, 35% of voters were registered with the SPR without a house number (NoRumah) for GE12 electoral roll gazetted on 2008 Feb 5. See NoRumah? No Rumah? More than 1/3 voters homeless?
• Sabah led the blurry pack, with 92% of voters not registering their house number.
• Terengganu state overall had 35.2% voters without house numbers.
• The relatively urbanized Kuala Terengganu (P036) in 2008 Feb 5 had 10.6% voters without NoRumah.
• Using the latest KT roll of 2008 Dec 5, we found only slight improvement to 10.5% voters without NoRumah.

• In Permatang Pauh by-election roll dated 20080731, 1,020 or 1.8% voters were without house numbers. See this report.
  
• Our analysis exclude postal voters. Had postal voters been included, the percentage will be even higher by about 1% to 3%.
• Our analysis also tries to standardize variations of entries, such as "-" and other text that denotes blank, such as "tiada","null","*", etc.

Table A provides the overview that:

• 8,388 or 10.5% of voters in KT are registered without a house number, only a "locality" such as a village or kampung address.
• Batu Buruk has the most cases in KT, with 4,611 voters without house numbers.
• All Tables A, B, C are constructed after excluding postal voters.
  

Table A: Count of Voters Without NoRumah By DUN
20081205 - Excluding Postal Voters

Parl/DUN	NamaDUN	Voters Without NoRumah
03613	Wakaf Mempelam	2,451
03614	Bandar	415
03615	Ladang	911
03616	Batu Buruk	4,611
036	Kuala Terengganu	8,388
	All voters	80,229
		10.5%

Questions: (also see this article):

• Is it National Register of IC Department or SPR who omitted the house numbers?
• If NRIC have specific address details, why not automatically register voters with MyKad info?
• Why allow SPR procedure to introduce another hard-to-detect and hard-to-correct, and widespread, error?
• Is rural development so backward 51 years after national independence that most rural voters have no specific house address?
• Why do some voters in the same village have specific house numbers, when others do not?

• If election observers can prove (by photocopied ICs that are safely crossed and cancelled) that there is a large number of voters whose ICs indeed show detailed address and house numbers, but whose voter registrations do not show house numbers, then we can make a strong case to make all voter registrations automatic, based on MyKad and NRIC database.

Table B lists those voting districts (DM, Daerah Mengundi) that have 20 or more voters registered without a house number. It shows:

• Cendering Pandai (036/16/06) has 916, the highest number of voters with blank house numbers.
• There are 14 DMs, each with more than 200 voters without house numbers.
  

Table B: Voting Districts With the Most Voters Without NoRumah
20081205 - Excluding Postal Voters

Parl/ DUN/DM	NamaDUN	NamaDM	Voters
036/16/06	Batu Buruk	Cendering Pantai	916
036/16/10	Batu Buruk	Kampung Kolam	832
036/16/03	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	744
036/13/02	Wakaf Mempelam	Kampung Paluh	469
036/15/06	Ladang	Bukit Bayas	449
036/16/07	Batu Buruk	Cendering	423
036/16/02	Batu Buruk	Kampung Nibung	394
036/13/11	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Mempelam	375
036/13/10	Wakaf Mempelam	Sungai Rengas	358
036/16/04	Batu Buruk	Bukit Depu	331
036/16/09	Batu Buruk	Mengabang Tengah	309
036/13/08	Wakaf Mempelam	Merbau Patah	289
036/16/05	Batu Buruk	Kuala Ibai	247
036/13/06	Wakaf Mempelam	Seberang Baruh	205
036/13/07	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Beruas	198
036/16/08	Batu Buruk	Taman Permint Jaya	176
036/13/01	Wakaf Mempelam	Pulau Rusa	158
036/13/09	Wakaf Mempelam	Durian Burung	156
036/15/05	Ladang	Pasir Panjang	135
036/16/01	Batu Buruk	Pantai Batu Buruk	125
036/16/11	Batu Buruk	Kenanga	114
036/13/05	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Hj Mat Shafie	102
036/15/02	Ladang	Mengadang Akar	90
036/14/09	Bandar	Pantai Terengganu	87
036/13/04	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Penglima Perang	73
036/15/07	Ladang	Bukit Besar	72
036/13/03	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Datok Amar	68
036/14/08	Bandar	Paya Bunga	64
036/15/01	Ladang	Ladang	64
036/15/04	Ladang	Gong Kapas	64
036/14/05	Bandar	Pulau Kambing	62
036/14/01	Bandar	Tok Ku	54
036/14/07	Bandar	Pejabat Bandaran	44
036/14/02	Bandar	Cabang Tiga	38
036/15/03	Ladang	Batas Baru	37
036/14/06	Bandar	Kampung Cina	25
036/14/04	Bandar	Losong Masjid	21
036/14/03	Bandar	Hiliran Masjid	20
	P036 Kuala Terengganu		8,388

Table C shows that:

• A locality is meant to be a street, village general address, police quarters, army camp, or a representation of absentee voters.
• But some localities contain hundreds of voters without house number.
• 23 localities in KT contain more than 100 voters without a specific house number.
• Most are a village (kampung) general address. But there is a hospital address, and even a street address (Jln Sultan Mahmud) with 33 voters registered without a house number.

Table C: Count of Voters Without NoRumah By Locality
Showing Only Localities with 30 or More Voters Without NoRumah
20081205 - Excluding Postal Voters

Kodlokaliti	NamaDUN	NamaDM	NamaLokaliti	Count of voters
036/16/03	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Tok Nasek	453
036/16/02	Batu Buruk	Kampung Nibung	Kg Nibung	381
036/16/06	Batu Buruk	Cendering Pantai	Kg Pantai Pendek	364
036/16/09	Batu Buruk	Mengabang Tengah	Kg Mengabang Tengah	309
036/16/03	Batu Buruk	Gong Tok Nasek	Kg Gong Pak Maseh	291
036/16/05	Batu Buruk	Kuala Ibai	Kg Kuala Ibai	245
036/16/10	Batu Buruk	Kampung Kolam	Kg Kolam	234
036/16/07	Batu Buruk	Cendering	Kg Raja Barang	225
036/13/06	Wakaf Mempelam	Seberang Baruh	Kg. Seberang Baruh	205
036/16/10	Batu Buruk	Kampung Kolam	Kg Teluk Tok Adis	192
036/16/06	Batu Buruk	Cendering Pantai	Kg Batu 6 Cendering	187
036/16/08	Batu Buruk	Taman Permint Jaya	Kg Kubang Ikan	152
036/16/04	Batu Buruk	Bukit Depu	Kg. Masjid Hj. Kadir	146
036/16/10	Batu Buruk	Kampung Kolam	Kg Gong Kemunting	141
036/13/08	Wakaf Mempelam	Merbau Patah	Kg Kubang Parit	141
036/13/10	Wakaf Mempelam	Sungai Rengas	Kg Sungai Rengas	139
036/15/06	Ladang	Bukit Bayas	Kg Bukit Bayas	135
036/15/06	Ladang	Bukit Bayas	Kg. Gelung Bilal	124
036/16/04	Batu Buruk	Bukit Depu	Kg Bukit Depu	119
036/13/09	Wakaf Mempelam	Durian Burung	Kg. Durian Burung	117
036/15/05	Ladang	Pasir Panjang	Kg Pasir Panjang	116
036/15/06	Ladang	Bukit Bayas	Kg Sungai Derhaka	111
036/13/02	Wakaf Mempelam	Kampung Paluh	Kg Kuala Bekah	102
036/13/07	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Beruas	Kg Wakaf Beruas	98
036/13/01	Wakaf Mempelam	Pulau Rusa	Kg Pulau Rusa	97
036/13/05	Wakaf Mempelam	Losong Hj Mat Shafie	Kg Losong Hj Mat Shafie	91
036/13/10	Wakaf Mempelam	Sungai Rengas	Kg Pulau Musang	90
036/13/10	Wakaf Mempelam	Sungai Rengas	Kg Kubang Tangga	88
036/13/11	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Mempelam	Kg Wakaf Mempelam	84
036/13/08	Wakaf Mempelam	Merbau Patah	Kg Merbau Patah	78
036/16/10	Batu Buruk	Kampung Kolam	Kg Padang Luar	78
036/16/10	Batu Buruk	Kampung Kolam	Kg. Banggul	77
036/16/06	Batu Buruk	Cendering Pantai	Kg Simpang Empat	76
036/16/07	Batu Buruk	Cendering	Kg Raja	74
036/13/11	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Mempelam	Kg. Gelugur Raja	73
036/16/01	Batu Buruk	Pantai Batu Buruk	Kompleks Hospital Besar K. Tr	73
036/13/08	Wakaf Mempelam	Merbau Patah	Kg Panji	70
036/13/11	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Mempelam	Kg. Teluk Paku	70
036/13/02	Wakaf Mempelam	Kampung Paluh	Kg Bukit Kubang Jambu	65
036/16/06	Batu Buruk	Cendering Pantai	Kg Pengkalan Raja Wali	63
036/15/06	Ladang	Bukit Bayas	Kg. Seberang Baruh	60
036/13/11	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Mempelam	Kg Tok Jamal	59
036/15/07	Ladang	Bukit Besar	Kg Bukit Besar	59
036/16/10	Batu Buruk	Kampung Kolam	Kg Lembah	58
036/16/06	Batu Buruk	Cendering Pantai	Kg Teluk	48
036/13/07	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Beruas	Kg Melintang	45
036/13/11	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Mempelam	Kg. Pak Pa	44
036/16/07	Batu Buruk	Cendering	Kg Ketapang	41
036/13/02	Wakaf Mempelam	Kampung Paluh	Kg Paluh	40
036/16/10	Batu Buruk	Kampung Kolam	Kg Hujung Jambatan	40
036/13/02	Wakaf Mempelam	Kampung Paluh	Kg Paluh Hj Daud	39
036/15/02	Ladang	Mengadang Akar	Kg Ladang Sheikh Ibrahim	37
036/16/07	Batu Buruk	Cendering	Kg Bukit Batu Putih	37
036/16/04	Batu Buruk	Bukit Depu	Kg. Gelung Gajah	37
036/13/09	Wakaf Mempelam	Durian Burung	Kg. Bukit Kubang Jambu	36
036/16/11	Batu Buruk	Kenanga	Kg. Batu Buruk	36
036/13/07	Wakaf Mempelam	Wakaf Beruas	Kg Pak Bang	35
036/13/02	Wakaf Mempelam	Kampung Paluh	Kg Paluh Sungai Kiat	34
036/16/11	Batu Buruk	Kenanga	Jln Sultan Mahmud	33
036/16/06	Batu Buruk	Cendering Pantai	Kg Pantai Teluk	30

Read more! Full post may contain more data and tables.

SPR Improves Voter Name Consistency, With Mixed Results

In the KT electoral roll gazetted on 2008 Dec 5, SPR has improved voter name consistencies by changing backquote (`) to single quote ('), and made some standardization of "Bin" and "Binti" formats, etc. But there were reversals, and accidental addition of double spaces into 121 names, etc.

Background:

• Previously, we had criticized the SPR for inconsistent input in voter names, such as "B," "Bn," and "Bin," that had contributed to difficulty even for SPR itself to catch duplicate registration mistakes.
• We observe SPR has improved some voter name formats.
• However, there remain inconsistencies, and accidental additions.
  

Table A shows that, between the 2008 Feb 5-gazetted roll for GE12, and the 2008 Dec 5-gazetted roll for the KT by-election:

• SPR has reduced 505 uses of backquotes(`) to 11 incidences.
  
• But added 121 names with double spaces within the names.
• The incidences of " B " in names have been reduced by 88, mostly standardized to " Bin ".
• The incidences of " Bt " in names have been reduced by 276, mostly standardized to " Binti ".
• There were other improvements and problems, with examples in Table B.
• Table A shows only the net change. For example, many "B" were standardized to "Bin," but a few "Bin" were reverted to "B."
  

Table A: Comparison of some name format changes in KT

Roll gazetted	20080205	20081205	Net Change
`	505	11	-494
Double spaces	0	121	121
BT	1228	952	-276
BT.	29	29	0
BTE	11	10	-1
B	777	689	-88
BN	1	0	-1

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back. We have found 2,434 voters in KT whose IC remain the same, but whose names have been modified. Most of the changes were to update spelling mistakes in names. Table B shows examples of other changes, which includes improvements and new problems.

Table B: Examples of Improvements and New Problems in the Latest KT By-Election Electoral Roll

Older, 20080205 GE12 Electoral Roll	Newer, 20081205 By-Election Electoral Roll
Improvement: backquote to single quote
JUNAIDAH BINTI SEMAN @ JA`AFAR	JUNAIDAH BINTI SEMAN @ JA'AFAR
NOORA`AINI BINTI JA`AFAR	NOORA'AINI BINTI JA'AFAR
Problem: Addition of double spaces in names
AZLINA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM	AZLINA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM
PATRICIA WEE CHWEE LIEW	PATRICIA WEE CHWEE LIEW
Improvement: deletion of army IC number from name
WAN ASMIDAR BINTI WAN AHMAD I/K T1076796	WAN ASMIDAR BINTI WAN AHMAD
ZAHANI BINTI ISMAIL I/K T1077955	ZAHANI BINTI ISMAIL
Improvement: Standardization of BINTI
NOROSZITA AYU BT MOHAMED	NOROSZITA AYU BINTI MOHAMED
ROHANI BT MUSTAFFA	ROHANI BINTI MUSTAFFA
NAFISAH BTE ABDULLAH	NAFISAH BINTI ABDULLAH
TUAN SHARIFAH AZURA BT. TUAN KUNING	TUAN SHARIFAH AZURA BINTI TUAN KUNING
Improvement: Standardization of BIN
ROS ISFENDI B ABDULLAH	ROS ISFENDI BIN ABDULLAH
MOHD KAMAL B OMAR	MOHD KAMAL BIN OMAR
Improvement: Addition of needed space
SURAILY BINTI SULONG @HASHIM	SURAILY BINTI SULONG @ HASHIM
WAN AHMAD ANUAR BIN W.EMBONG	WAN AHMAD ANUAR BIN W EMBONG
Problem: Deletion of needed space
CHE KU NAPISAH BINTI CHE ENGKU A. GHANI	CHE KU NAPISAH BINTI CHE ENGKU A.GHANI
KAMARIAH BINTI AB. ROSHID	KAMARIAH BINTI AB.ROSHID
WAN MOHD HAIRIE BIN WAN MOHD HANIF	WAN.MOHD.HAIRIE BIN WAN.MOHD.HANIF
Problem: Variation and deletion of BIN, BINTI
AZUWA @ NOR AZUWA BINTI MOHD NOOR	AZUWA @ NOR AZUWA BT MOHD NOOR
NORLIZA BINTI OMAR	NORLIZA BT OMAR
SHARIFAH AINUL FARIHAH BINTI SYED ABDULLAH	SHARIFAH AINUL FARIHAH
MOHD RAHIM BIN ISMAIL	MOHD RAHIM B ISMAIL

Read more! Full post may contain more data and tables.

Were 900+ Voters Deleted and Replaced in Permatang Pauh?

The numbers are about right - 951 voters were deleted from Permatang Pauh and replaced by another 961 since the 12th GE. But the reasons were technical and not too sinister. Still, the whole confusing affair highlights the needs for SPR transparency and voter registration reform.

Background: PKR has complained that about 900 voters were "missing." SPR is indignant.

PKR complained that (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/88268): "The names of 900 voters are missing from the electoral roll for the Permatang Pauh parliamentary constituency. The names were in the last electoral role and the voters were eligible to cast their ballots in the 12th general election." SPR's reply (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/88553): "Explaining on the 868 names which went ‘missing' in the ‘updated' roll, Kamaruzaman [of SPR] clarified today that there were only 158 names which were removed in the latest roll. The reasons why these names were removed among others include ‘wrong' voters registration, deaths, those who aged above 100 and deemed fit by the EC to remove their names from the roll on the presumption that they have passed away." More: "SPR Can't Explain 949 Missing Voter Names," Chinese language article by MerdekaReview.com. (Machine translation. Please note that machine translation provides only a "gist" translation; the result will contain funny translation mistakes.)

Our investigation did find that 951 voters were "deleted" after the 12 GE in Permatang Pauh, while another 961 voters were "added" to the by-election roll dated 2008 Jul.

But we also found that these changes were due to three not-too-cynical reasons and minor SPR mistakes:

1. The technicality of modifying police IC numbering scheme,
2. Regular voter registrations, inward and outward movements, and
3. SPR's dead-voter deletion overdrive.

Although the reasons are not sinister, there are lessons for the SPR: How can SPR avoid such public confusion and distrust in the future?

1. First, let police and military voters switch to a 12-digit civilian IC to simplify verification, update, and avoid duplicate registrations.
   
   
2. Second, make voter registration automatic with MyKad status at the NRIC Department. Meanwhile, make NRIC accountable to the parliament, to prevent Sabah-like IC mess,
   
   
3. Third, make SPR more transparent with the gazetted and quarterly electoral rolls. SPR has recently stopped the online publication of the quarterly rolls in PDF format.Given adequate data, NGOs and the media can actually help SPR avoid unnecessary confusion.
   

What's so complicated about the electoral rolls?

• First, we need to clarify which versions of electoral rolls are being bandied about.

• We believe the confusion arises from comparing these versions:

• the 2008 Feb 5 gazetted roll used in the 12th GE, with data up to 2007 Dec 31 (=2007Q4),
  
• The 2008 Jun 19 gazetted roll, with data up to 2008 Mar 31 (=2008Q1),
• The ungazetted supplementary roll with data from 2008 Jun 30 (=2008Q2),
  
• The 2008 Jul 31 ungazetted roll for Permatang Pauh, based on the 2008 Jun 19 gazetted roll, adjusted for subsequent deletions, but not additions, ie, deletion-type changes between 2008 Apr 1 and 2008 Jul 31.
  

• PKR members are probably comparing versions (a) with (d), because they are most likely to have the MS Access soft copies for these two. Version (c) is most widely available in hard copy printed from PDF files, and reflects a "flow," or change, data, not a "point-in-time," cumulative, data.

• In contrast, the SPR probably thinks in terms of versions (b) vs (d), since (b) is a gazetted version. Version (c) is an intermediate version, that is to be gazetted. If and when (c) is gazetted, the Permatang Pauh section can lead to further confusion, because its data are dated 20080630, and is a "prequel" to the by-election version (d).
  

• We will focus on versions (a) and (d), because these are the most accessible to the public, and also from where the questions likely arise. We will supplement the information with version (b) which we have built into a "pro forma" version.
  

If you haven't been completely confused, read on!

---

So what happened? We will explain our finding in 8 points:


Finding 1. The difference of only 10 voters between the 12th-GE and by-election rolls hides larger changes beneath.

Table A below shows that Permatang Pauh:

• contained 58,449 voters at the time of 12th GE roll gazetted on 2008 Feb 5,
  
• but now contains 58,459 voters at this by-election roll, dated 2008 Jul 31.
  
• On the surface, the roll has simply increased by 10 voters.
  
• But the underlying picture is a bit more complicated.

Table A: Comparing 20080205 and 20080731 Data

Date of publication	Gazetted	Data date	voter count	Comment
20080205	20080205	20071231	58,449	Used in 12th GE
20080619	20080619	20080331	58,761	Pro forma version estimated by Malvu.blogspot.com based on 2008Q1 changes
20080731	Not gazetted	20080731?	58,459	Used in this by-election

Finding 2. 951 voter ICs were deleted after the 12th GE roll, while 961 voter ICs were added to the by-election roll, netting the superficial increase of only 10 voter ICs.

Table B below shows that, between the times of the 12th GE and the by-election:

• 951 voter ICs were deleted. In other words, these voters existed in the 12th GE roll, but are now "missing" from the by-election roll.
  
• 961 new voter ICs were added. In other words, this many IC numbers were in the newer by-election roll, but had not existed in the 12th GE roll.
  
• Net result is the addition of only 10 voters (=961-951) on the surface.
  
• Meanwhile, 57,498 voter IC numbers exist in both the newer and older rolls. In other words, they remain valid voters both during the 12th GE and today's by-election.
• The number of 949 missing names cited in the MerdekaReview.com article above likely refers to the 951 deleted ICs (not names), less the 2 easily-explained police retirement cases,
  

• Our question is then: Were the deletion of 951 voters and addition of the other 961 voters reasonable and kosher?
  

Table B: Cross-Checking IC Numbers Between the 12th GE and By-Election Rolls

	Postal & non- postal		Postal Voters		Non- postal Voters	Comment
IC found in 20080205 but not in 20080731	951	=	491	+	460	These IC numbers were in the 12th GE roll, but now "gone" from by-election roll
IC found in 20080731 but not in 20080205	961	=	489	+	472	These IC numbers were not in the 12th GE roll, but are now in the by-election roll
IC found in both versions	57,498	=	1	+	57,497	These were in both the 12th GE and by-election rolls

Finding 3. Nearly half the changes involved an identical group of police postal voters, who have not actually moved, but have only had their police IC numbers slightly modified. This is enough to confuse the public, even apparently the SPR itself.

• Overall, there were 492 police postal voters in Permatang Pauh as of the 12th GE.
• One of them (G6014602) already had the "most updated" IC numbering format, and hence this IC number was not changed, "deleted" or "added back."
  
• Another two (I0013148 and R0071611) were permanently deleted after the 12th GE, probably due to retirement.
  

• The remaining 489 (=492-1-2) police postal voters had their IC numbers modified slightly, as we will explain later.
• This IC number change causes these 489 postal voters to appear to have gone "missing" en masse.
  
• The "missing" voters would total 491 if we count the 2 retirement cases mentioned above.
  
• Meanwhile, the same 489 postal voters' newly modified IC numbers make them look like 489 newly "added" voters. This likely happens because PKR, and even SPR itself, have no choice but to search the database by relying on the unique IC numbers, known in database parlance as the "primary index".

• This apparent and illusory "deletion" of 491 and "addition" of 489 postal voters account for about half the 951 "missing" and 961 "replacement" voters in the by-election roll.

Finding 4. The proof is in the detail: Let us look at all 489 pairs of slightly-changed police IC numbers.

From Table C below, we can see that the 489 pairs of old and new police postal IC numbers are nearly identical, having only these 2 feature changes:

1. All police IC # starting with "R0" or "R" in 2008 Feb 5 roll have been changed to "RF" in the by-election roll. For example, R0117812 has been changed to RF117812.
   
2. All police IC # starting with "G0," "I0," or "RT0" have been changed to "G," "I," or "RT" eliminating preceeding zeros. For example "RT007013" and "I0013642" have been changed to "RT7013" and "I13642" respectively.
   

Table C: Permatang Pauh's 489 Police Postal Voters' ICs as Formatted in Electoral Rolls Dated 2008 Feb 5 and 2008 Jul 31

20080205	20080731		20080205	20080731		20080205	20080731		20080205	20080731
R0117812	RF117812		I0016525	I16525		R0150393	RF150393		R0115049	RF115049
R0083450	RF83450		R0121314	RF121314		R0156472	RF156472		R0122015	RF122015
R0075343	RF75343		I0015495	I15495		RT017150	RT17150		R0075600	RF75600
R0110379	RF110379		R0106264	RF106264		R0121553	RF121553		R0117609	RF117609
R0066165	RF66165		R0144589	RF144589		R0099644	RF99644		R0082847	RF82847
R0094340	RF94340		R0147646	RF147646		R0116111	RF116111		R0125958	RF125958
RT007013	RT7013		R0116861	RF116861		R0072226	RF72226		R0114448	RF114448
R0084073	RF84073		R0136943	RF136943		R0119542	RF119542		R0129824	RF129824
R0117802	RF117802		R0087700	RF87700		R0147791	RF147791		R0154684	RF154684
R0116501	RF116501		R0070383	RF70383		R0064730	RF64730		I0017421	I17421
R0075162	RF75162		R0106695	RF106695		R0122041	RF122041		R0118150	RF118150
R0104241	RF104241		R0119208	RF119208		R0066504	RF66504		R0096855	RF96855
R0081895	RF81895		R0098386	RF98386		R0152192	RF152192		R0150957	RF150957
R0064863	RF64863		R0092672	RF92672		R0120416	RF120416		R0155317	RF155317
R0133195	RF133195		R0105778	RF105778		R0160854	RF160854		R0106314	RF106314
I0013642	I13642		R0086517	RF86517		R0096185	RF96185		R0090262	RF90262
R0110443	RF110443		R0072837	RF72837		R0109868	RF109868		R0087460	RF87460
R0150829	RF150829		R0146826	RF146826		G0016759	G16759		R0070168	RF70168
R0104462	RF104462		G0010340	G10340		R0016140	RF16140		R0120817	RF120817
R0098522	RF98522		R0118270	RF118270		R0150851	RF150851		R0138717	RF138717
R0157454	RF157454		R0098446	RF98446		R0152253	RF152253		R0123647	RF123647
R0126342	RF126342		R0087746	RF87746		R0146804	RF146804		R0118151	RF118151
R0147641	RF147641		R0088872	RF88872		RT017092	RT17092		R0209015	RF209015
R0148019	RF148019		R0069129	RF69129		I0015669	I15669		R0122707	RF122707
R0111866	RF111866		R0082303	RF82303		R0074986	RF74986		R0127487	RF127487
R0109440	RF109440		R0059576	RF59576		R0102538	RF102538		R0135769	RF135769
RT009714	RT9714		RT009593	RT9593		R0121104	RF121104		R0104206	RF104206
R0092824	RF92824		R0104216	RF104216		I0016952	I16952		R0118437	RF118437
R0090872	RF90872		R0083428	RF83428		R0092461	RF92461		R0100972	RF100972
R0120704	RF120704		R0066678	RF66678		I0010102	I10102		R4068948	RF4068948
R0066493	RF66493		R0096059	RF96059		RT013524	RT13524		I0013105	I13105
R0103016	RF103016		R0007020	RF7020		R0119522	RF119522		R0087568	RF87568
R0115002	RF115002		R0101088	RF101088		G0015784	G15784		R0118571	RF118571
R0069264	RF69264		R0084978	RF84978		R0150373	RF150373		R0094393	RF94393
R0096808	RF96808		R0075855	RF75855		R0075364	RF75364		R0089600	RF89600
R0072849	RF72849		R065263	RF65263		R0117352	RF117352		R0157902	RF157902
R0122428	RF122428		R0118501	RF118501		R0099634	RF99634		R0146815	RF146815
R0075559	RF75559		R0094191	RF94191		R0156050	RF156050		R0127383	RF127383
G0009929	G9929		R0101759	RF101759		I0013498	I13498		R0082005	RF82005
R0099581	RF99581		R0112305	RF112305		R0115735	RF115735		R0084519	RF84519
R0161034	RF161034		R0110411	RF110411		R0059422	RF59422		R0118524	RF118524
R0071196	RF71196		I0015858	I15858		R0085050	RF85050		R0139560	RF139560
R0086272	RF86272		R0117385	RF117385		R0118247	RF118247		R0081950	RF81950
R0058643	RF58643		R0087723	RF87723		R0150756	RF150756		R0071496	RF71496
I0017140	I17140		R0073939	RF73939		I0009048	I9048		R0092831	RF92831
R0111890	RF111890		R0121980	RF121980		R0112759	RF112759		R0094451	RF94451
R0158318	RF158318		R0082276	RF82276		R0124857	RF124857		R0085785	RF85785
R0122429	RF122429		R0117288	RF117288		R0110132	RF110132		R0090295	RF90295
R0101127	RF101127		R0104469	RF104469		R0065091	RF65091		R0141877	RF141877
R0109306	RF109306		R0111437	RF111437		R0074980	RF74980		RT012073	RT12073
R0139177	RF139177		I0016109	I16109		R0159393	RF159393		I0016795	I16795
R0153224	RF153224		R0138304	RF138304		R0074313	RF74313		R0138322	RF138322
R0154666	RF154666		R0152268	RF152268		RT017098	RT17098		R0141991	RF141991
R0067147	RF67147		R0138920	RF138920		R0144493	RF144493		R0069164	RF69164
R0106936	RF106936		R0120262	RF120262		R0111938	RF111938		I0010825	I10825
R0103900	RF103900		R0075173	RF75173		R0145358	RF145358		R0094306	RF94306
R0113253	RF113253		R0108918	RF108918		R0118325	RF118325		I0008287	I8287
R0102111	RF102111		R0089312	RF89312		R0116414	RF116414		R0121418	RF121418
R0137757	RF137757		R0097853	RF97853		R0150400	RF150400		RT007425	RT7425
R0125261	RF125261		R0084200	RF84200		R0106883	RF106883		R0127275	RF127275
R0117266	RF117266		R0090007	RF90007		R0100604	RF100604		R0090619	RF90619
R0110136	RF110136		R0138733	RF138733		R0102610	RF102610		R0119829	RF119829
R0089976	RF89976		RT007021	RT7021		R0069725	RF69725		R0111099	RF111099
I0015980	I15980		R0085327	RF85327		R0092344	RF92344		R0101869	RF101869
R0092005	RF92005		R0072814	RF72814		R0085523	RF85523		I0014237	I14237
R0115609	RF115609		R0073548	RF73548		R0075596	RF75596		R0069567	RF69567
R0129826	RF129826		R0120282	RF120282		G0010593	G10593		R0086808	RF86808
R0095077	RF95077		R0107024	RF107024		R0102663	RF102663		R0102645	RF102645
R0098789	RF98789		I0011269	I11269		R0068305	RF68305		I0013908	I13908
R0075212	RF75212		I0016783	I16783		R0073304	RF73304		R0069521	RF69521
R0066339	RF66339		R0089026	RF89026		R0106103	RF106103		R0148427	RF148427
R0116504	RF116504		R0102937	RF102937		R0094390	RF94390		R0116417	RF116417
R0060135	RF60135		R0123190	RF123190		R0119640	RF119640		R0131568	RF131568
R0106581	RF106581		R0110041	RF110041		I0014965	I14965		G0016185	G16185
R0090416	RF90416		R0103029	RF103029		R0119068	RF119068		R0110449	RF110449
R0066610	RF66610		R0098627	RF98627		R0138208	RF138208		R0070173	RF70173
R0113312	RF113312		R0099137	RF99137		R0138214	RF138214		R0105197	RF105197
R0097230	RF97230		R0069353	RF69353		R0075774	RF75774		R0160886	RF160886
I0017068	I17068		R0114111	RF114111		R0137764	RF137764		R0121142	RF121142
R0127064	RF127064		R0155827	RF155827		R0111484	RF111484		R0136263	RF136263
R0118159	RF118159		R0067825	RF67825		R0102302	RF102302		R0068361	RF68361
R0054978	RF54978		R0104197	RF104197		R0138212	RF138212		R0126897	RF126897
R0092037	RF92037		R0055360	RF55360		R0115649	RF115649		R0109539	RF109539
R0115637	RF115637		R0102590	RF102590		R0105562	RF105562		R0106522	RF106522
R0088651	RF88651		R0092888	RF92888		R0118252	RF118252		R0114994	RF114994
RT015000	RT15000		R0092114	RF92114		R0068148	RF68148		R0097692	RF97692
R0116711	RF116711		R0118351	RF118351		R0105909	RF105909		RT009716	RT9716
R0094465	RF94465		R0054938	RF54938		R0103137	RF103137		RT007026	RT7026
R0069476	RF69476		RT011990	RT11990		R0129943	RF129943		R0093626	RF93626
R0088717	RF88717		RT011958	RT11958		R0137820	RF137820		R0064917	RF64917
R0124440	RF124440		RT011988	RT11988		I0016516	I16516		R0098125	RF98125
R0072179	RF72179		R0073400	RF73400		R0155013	RF155013		R0116034	RF116034
I0013491	I13491		RT007035	RT7035		R0069136	RF69136		R0117340	RF117340
R0091444	RF91444		R0058175	RF58175		R0101891	RF101891		R0132520	RF132520
R0098521	RF98521		R0066078	RF66078		R0107972	RF107972		R0104387	RF104387
R0059415	RF59415		R0102961	RF102961		R0066208	RF66208		R0091382	RF91382
I0016226	I16226		R0122779	RF122779		R0087491	RF87491		R0113831	RF113831
R0090962	RF90962		R0082794	RF82794		R0059684	RF59684		R0085849	RF85849
R0063770	RF63770		R0067988	RF67988		I0014150	I14150		R0122598	RF122598
R0090810	RF90810		I0014091	I14091		R0100837	RF100837		R0116364	RF116364
R0092038	RF92038		R0138088	RF138088		RT012082	RT12082		R0104209	RF104209
R0095087	RF95087		R0118936	RF118936		R0098885	RF98885		R0117549	RF117549
R0137143	RF137143		I0015279	I15279		R0068460	RF68460		R0139473	RF139473
R0088718	RF88718		G0010459	G10459		R0105514	RF105514		R0125742	RF125742
I0012513	I12513		R0116946	RF116946		R0102949	RF102949		R0126530	RF126530
G0009068	G9068		R0139514	RF139514		R0157897	RF157897		R0094339	RF94339
R0092019	RF92019		R0108885	RF108885		RT007037	RT7037		R0113963	RF113963
R0108073	RF108073		I0016617	I16617		R0090997	RF90997		R0072823	RF72823
R0085982	RF85982		RT016618	RT16618		R0091885	RF91885		R0133525	RF133525
R0089495	RF89495		G0010714	G10714		R0088438	RF88438		R0100831	RF100831
R0139568	RF139568		R0118710	RF118710		R0064739	RF64739		R0110553	RF110553
RT015968	RT15968		R0101581	RF101581		R0092126	RF92126		I0013880	I13880
R0094405	RF94405		R0146589	RF146589		R0085474	RF85474		R0124820	RF124820
R0100609	RF100609		R0094259	RF94259		R0071032	RF71032		R0139594	RF139594
R0150986	RF150986		R0085635	RF85635		R0069950	RF69950		R0116477	RF116477
R0090113	RF90113		RT016106	RT16106		R0075273	RF75273		R0082136	RF82136
R0105635	RF105635		R0152652	RF152652		R0118573	RF118573		R0070484	RF70484
R0127580	RF127580		R0110021	RF110021		R0138188	RF138188		R0063476	RF63476
R0091637	RF91637		R0111843	RF111843		R0067341	RF67341		R0072256	RF72256
R0119628	RF119628		R0139485	RF139485		R0105516	RF105516		R0136959	RF136959
R0089897	RF89897		R0145798	RF145798		R0131432	RF131432
R0072131	RF72131		I0016650	I16650		R0130748	RF130748
R0106937	RF106937		I0012250	I12250		R0107051	RF107051

Note: If you can't see the whole table width, reduce your browser text size (Menu>View>Text Size). You can also click, drag, highlight the table, copy, and paste special, value, into your Excel spreadsheet for easier viewing.


Finding 5: SPR did a poor and confusing job in modifying these police IC numbers, and in explaining the changes.

While we now understand that 489 police postal voters really did not move in or out of Permatang Pauh, there remain other questions and expected problems:

• SPR should have expected this IC number confusion, should have been ready to explain the changes, thereby preempting a loss to its own credibility.
• This postal IC number modification occurred in a rush, only after the 2008 Jun 19 gazetted roll, in which we can find the old-formatted IC numbers. Confirming this timing is that we cannot find these "deletion" or "addition" in the 2008Q1 supplementary roll.
  
• The changes do not look permanent. Any further changes will again invite confusion. Some of the "new format" police IC numbers are too short or too long to be a standardized, permanent, format:
  
• Most of the IC#s are preceded by one or two alphabets, followed by 6 digits,
• But there are IC#s followed by only 4-5 digits, for example, RT9714, G9929, and I13642.
  
• There is an IC# followed by 7 digits, ie, RF4068948. With the "RF" prefix, this IC# has 9 characters in all, and is a non-standard occurrence.
• With the above oddities, we would expect SPR at anytime to add back the zeros to the shorter IC#s make them a standard length, reigniting confusion.
  
• A separate matter is that about 404 of the "Bukit Mertajam" police HQ/station officers have probably been gerrymandered into the "Permatang Pauh" seat. We will deal with the geographical question another time.

Why did SPR risk confusion to modify the police IC numbers? We believe SPR "shortened" the police IC numbers to preempt any embarrassing discovery of duplicate registrations of postal voters, as reported earlier:

• MalaysiaKini.com reported just before the 12th GE that computer programmer Ong Guan Sin had found 278 pairs of such double-registered voters that differ by a leading zero.
• With a complete database, we later found 771 such doppelgängers that differ by a leading zero, or only different by the initial "R0" and "RF."

Obviously, the SPR didn't anticipate that this IC-shortening move itself would cause new internal and external confusions.

The solution to this and future problems? Switch to using 12-digit civilian ICs for all postal (police and military) voters. Aren't they exercising their civilian duties when voting? Aren't they born civilian? Haven't they received the MyKad and 12-digit IC numbers by the age of 12 - before they enter the police and army? Aren't they going to retire as civilians?

Moreover, we feel the SPR also does not fully realize that many of the duplicated postal registration also involve input mistakes and variations in names (Nama) and year of birth (Tahunlahir), albeit not in P044. See Tables B and C in "771 doppelgängers." It is these second and third layers of input mistakes at SPR's voter registration procedure that caused the errors to be so difficult to trace.

The solution to this and future problem? Make voter registration automatic, as they attain their MyKad and 12-digit ICs.


Finding 6: The deletion of 460 non-postal voters after the 12th GE is more dicey. We can only trace 218 of the 460 deletions - given SPR's lack of transparency. The remaining 242 could have contained the 5 embarrassing cases of "alive-and-well but deleted-as-dead" voters documented by the media and NGO.

Table D tells us that:

• 460 of the 951 voter ICs deleted were non-postal voters
• Our investigation of the 2008Q1 supplemental roll revealed that 84 voters were deleted because they moved out of P044, and 89 deceased voters were deleted. SPR was going through an aggressive campaign to clean up cumulated dead voters across the country.
• In total, SPR deleted 173 (=84+89) voters from Permatang Pauh in 2008Q1. We have recorded this finding in our earlier blog "Pro Forma Electoral Roll for P044 for 2008Q1."

• That means SPR deleted the remaining 287 (=460-173) during 2008Q2 (April, May, June), and also in July.
• We cannot trace what happened then because SPR stopped publishing supplemental roll for 2008Q2, and only displayed the hard copies in post offices.

• Further, we can tell by manually checking SPR's P044 by-election voter verification Web page, that SPR deleted all voters age 100 or more across the board, which account for 25 voter deletion after the 2008 Jun 19 gazetted roll. We have documented this apparent "stroke-of-a-pen deletion of centenarians here."
• Further, SPR deleted a total of 20 voters aged 86 to 89 years old.

• In all, we can trace 218 (=84+89+25+20) of the 460 deletions of non-postal voters so far.
• That leaves 242 deletions of non-postal voters to be explained.

Table D: Accounting for deletion of 951 voters after the 12th GE

Voter changes	Number of Voters	Number of Voters
Number of voter ICs deleted after 12th GE		951
Number of postal voter IC deleted/modified		491
Number of non-postal voter IC deleted		460
2008 Jun 19 gazetted list (data as of 2008 Mar 31, we calculate from our pro forma version)
Deletion of voters for moving out reported in 2008Q1	84
Deletion of voters due to death reported in 2008Q1	89
Subtotal - Deletion reported in 2008Q1		173
Number of deletions to explain for 2008Q2 and 2008 July		287
SPR deletion of all voters 100 or older in April, May, June, July	25
SPR deletion of voters 86 to 99 years old in April, May, June, July	20
Subtotal - Deletion of 86+ year voters in 2008Q2 and up to July 31		45
Number of non-postal deletion we can trace	218
Number of deletions to explain		242

From recent pattern of a special SPR campaign to delete dead voters, we figure it is reasonable to expect about 200 deletions of moved-out and dead voters per quarter, for April, May, and June, a period that should overlap with the above 86+ voter deletion (25+20).

• Any registration changes for July 2008 (after 2008Q2), however, have not even been publicly displayed - not to mention gazetted. It would be imprudent for SPR to delete from July changes, although it could account for perhaps 100 or more missing voters.

• SPR's lack of transparency and unwillingness to make 2008Q2 supplementary roll easily available means we cannot trace the last 242 deletions. We can only make partial, manual, checking and guesses.
• These 242 untraced deletions could easily contain mistakes created in a rush. If so, SPR would have embarrassed itself by trying to avoid embarrassing itself.

• MalaysiaKini.com and MerdekaReview.com have reported a total of 5 cases of voters, who are alive and well, who were told by SPR staff on polling day that they had been considered dead and deleted from the rolls.
• We can confirm one case (Ang Kean Tatt, born 1983) where the voter did exist in the 2008 Feb 5 roll, is alive and well, but is not found in the 2008 Jul 31 roll, and was told he was dead in the voters roll.
  
• We suspect other cases may involve long-dormant voters who have suddenly found themselves gerrymandered away from Permatang Pauh even before the 12th GE.
  
• See various reports:
• Four names missing from electoral list
• 选民册上宣报死亡 真正幽灵选民显现？ Machine translation (will contain funny machine translation mistakes).

Finding 7: The "addition" of 961 voters in the by-election roll was also inflated by 489 new-formatted police postal voter IC numbers

As we explained above in Finding 2, 489 police voters remained in Permatang Pauh so far this yea. But their newly-formatted IC numbers have made these 489 look like "new additions" to the roll.


Finding 8: The remaining 472 (=961-489) new non-postal voters can be traced to normal new voters and moved-in voters in 2008Q1, gazetted in 2008 Jun 19.

• SPR press release indicated that SPR did not add new voters after the 2008 Jun 19 gazetted (2008Q1 data) rolls, and that SPR only deleted voters found to have moved out or to have died.
• The 2008Q1 supplementary roll revealed that 485 new voters were added to Permatang Pauh in 2008Q1, gazetted on 2008 Jun 19:
• 373 voters were added due to new registration, and
• 112 voters were added because they moved into Permatang Pauh.


• Earlier we calculated that 472 non-postal voters were added, which is fewer than 485 reported in 2008Q1.
• This means we can account for almost all the addition to the by-election roll.
• As a result, we had not been too worried about "phantom voters" being imported into the electoral roll. (Although bused-in phantoms using other valid voters' ICs is another matter to worry about.)
• Still, the difference of 13, between 485 non-postal voters added in 2008Q1 and 472 additional non-postal voters found on the by-election roll, is a small mystery. Some 13 voters were somehow deleted or not included somewhere.

With the above 8 points of finding, and the confusion created by SPR changes, we repeat these three recommendations for improving SPR and the electoral rolls:

1. First, let police and military voters switch to a 12-digit civilian IC to simplify verification, update, and avoid duplicate registrations.
   
   
2. Second, make voter registration automatic with MyKad status at the NRIC Department. Meanwhile, make NRIC accountable to the parliament, to prevent Sabah-like IC mess,
   
   
3. Third, make SPR more transparent with the gazetted and quarterly electoral rolls. SPR has recently stopped the online publication of the quarterly rolls in PDF format.Given adequate data, NGOs and the media can actually help SPR avoid unnecessary confusion.
   

Read more! Full post may contain more data and tables.