FREE and Fair Elections - The abuse of government power and monies to 'improve' the chances of candidates from government parties is WRONG because this power and monies belong to the PEOPLE, and shall not be used for the promotion any political party/candidate during any democratic elections or upcoming elections. For a FAIR elections, every candidate must have EQUAL chances - and Government(be it Federal or State government) should not do ANYTHING that promotes any candidate, especially candidates from government parties. Was the RM6 billion announcement, after the EC made announcement on 7/3/2025 wrong...or should not be allowed - an election offence or an 'illegal practice'. 

The announcement of more than RM6mil for projects in Tapah was done before the announcement of the candidates for the Ayer Kuning by-election, said Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

"It was done before the nomination of candidates. "If it was to be done after the nominations, we would have issued a warning that it is not permitted," the Prime Minister told reporters after addressing the Finance Ministry's monthly morning assembly here on Monday (April 14).

PM Anwar Ibrahim is WRONG to say it was OK if the announcement of the RM6 million for projects was done before 'nomination day' - NOPE, it is WRONG if the announcement or the decision to spend that money is made after the day the incumbent passed away, which will naturally lead to a by-elections.

The incumbent Ishsam Shahruddin, 59, of Barisan passed away on Feb 22, so the question is whether the decision to spend RM6 million in the said Constituency made before 22/2/2025 - if it was made after that date, it is WRONG - it was possibly done to improve the chances of the government party candidate..

Housing and Local Gov­ernment Minister Nga Kor Ming for announcing that more than RM6mil would be spend on 33 infrastructure and housing projects for residents in Tapah. His announcement was made on April 10 during a press conference at the ministry’s 3.0 Touch of Love Programme in Tapah, two days before nomination day on April 12.

Note that in Malaysia, to ensure a FREE and Fair election, there is a SPENDING LIMIT for every candidate, and the reason for this is to ensure a FAIR ELECTION - so that no candidate(or others acting to ensure the candidates success in the election) can spend more than RM200,000 (when it is a MP's election), or in the case of State Legislative Elections, it is RM100,000 > so, this why the RM6 million ought to be considered a VIOLATION against free and fair elections? But the problem now, is that the maximum expenses provision NOW starts to calculate expenses from the date of is that is after the date of publication of the notice of the election in the Gazette. Should this be AMENDED to make the beginning date be the date the date the State Assembly/Parliament be dissolved, or an incumbent dies/disqualified which will certainly result in a ELECTIONS

Section 19 Expenses in excess of maximum to be illegal practice - ELECTION OFFENCES ACT 1954

(1) Subject to such exception as may be allowed in pursuance of this Act, no sum shall be paid and no expense shall be incurred by a candidate at an election or by his election agent, after the date of publication of the notice of the election in the Gazette, during or after an election, on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of such election, in excess of-

(a) two hundred thousand ringgit in the case of an election to the Dewan Rakyat;

(b) one hundred thousand ringgit in the case of an election to a Legislative Assembly;

(c) ten thousand ringgit in the case of an election to a local authority other than a local council;

(d) three thousand ringgit in the case of an election to a local council:

Provided that paragraphs (c) and (d) shall have no application in Sabah and Sarawak.

(2) Any candidate or election agent who knowingly acts in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an illegal practice.

The Election Commission (EC) today announced April 26 for polling in the Ayer Kuning state by-election in Perak. EC chairman Datuk Seri Ramlan Harun said nomination for the by-election has been set for April 12 and early voting, on April 22.[Malaysian Reserve, 7/3/2025]

Section 8  Treating [ELECTION OFFENCES ACT 1954]

Every person who, corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides or causes to be given or provided, or is accessory to the giving or providing, or pays or engages to pay wholly or in part, the expense of giving or providing any food, drink, refreshment or provision, or any money or ticket or other means or device to enable the procuring of any food, drink, refreshment or provision, to or for any person for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to give or refrain from giving his vote at such election or on account of any such person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting or being about to vote or refrain from voting at such election, and every elector or voter who corruptly accepts or takes any such food, drink, or refreshment or provision or any such money or ticket or who adopts such other means or device to enable the procuring of such food, drink, refreshment or provision shall be guilty of the offence of treating.

Section 10  Bribery[ELECTION OFFENCES ACT 1954]

The following persons shall be deemed guilty of the offence of bribery:

(a) every person who, before, during or after an election, who directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure, any money or valuable consideration to or for any elector or voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector or voter or to or for any other person, in order to induce any elector or voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act as aforesaid on account of such elector or voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election;

(b) every person who, before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives or procures, or agrees to give or procure, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure, any office, place or employment to or for any elector or voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector or voter, or to or for any other person, in order to induce such elector or voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act as aforesaid on account of any elector or voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election;

(c) every person who, before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement, or agreement as aforesaid to or for any person in order to induce such person to procure or endeavour to procure the election of any person, or the vote of any elector or voter at any election;

(d) every person who, either before, or during an election, upon or in consequence of any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement, procures or engages, promises or endeavours to procure, the election of any person, or the vote of any elector or voter at an election;

(e) every person who, either before, or during an election, advances or pays or causes to be paid any money to, or to the use of, any other person with the intent that such money or any part thereof shall be expended in bribery at any election or who knowingly pays or causes to be paid any money to any person in discharge or repayment of any money wholly or in part expended in bribery at any such election;

(f) every elector or voter who, before or during any election directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, receives, agrees, or contracts for any money, gift, loan, or valuable consideration, office, place or employment, for himself or for any other person, for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting at any such election;

(g) every person who, after any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, receives any money or valuable consideration on account of any person having voted or refrained from voting or having induced any other person to vote or to refrain from voting at any such election;

(h) every person who, after an election directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, on account of and as payment for voting or for having voted or for agreeing or having agreed to vote for any candidate at an election, or on account of and as payment for his having assisted or agreed to assist any candidate at an election, applies to such candidate, or to his agent or agents, for the gift or loan of any money or valuable consideration, or for the promise of the gift or loan of any money or valuable consideration or for any office, place or employment or for the promise of any office, place or employment; and

(i) every person who, either before, or during an election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any person on his behalf, in order to induce any other person to agree to be nominated as a candidate or to refrain from becoming a candidate or to withdraw if he has become a candidate, gives or procures any office, place or employment, or agrees to give or procure or offers or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure any office, place or employment, to or for such other person, or gives or lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure any money or valuable consideration to or for any person or to or for such other person, or to or for any person on behalf of such other person.

Sec. 27 (2) ELECTION OFFENCES ACT 1954 - A prosecution for an illegal practice shall not be instituted without the sanction of the Public Prosecutor. 

WHY? Because there is a loss of faith in the Public Prosecutor - who many believes can be influenced by the Prime Minister or the Government of the Day. In past elections, there have been so many complaints/reports lodged against various alleged election offences - but sadly there has been SO FEW prosecution - so few persons being charged in court...Maybe the Election Commission have reported crimes - but the Public Prosecutor DID not agree to commence prosecution. 

In Malaysia today, we have seen so many discontinuance of criminal trial by the Public Prosecutor - Zahid Hamidi, Riza Aziz, Ahmad Mazlan, etc - What did the AG tell the King during Anwar's and Najib's Pardon? Now, the Public Prosecutor loss his SECURITY OF TENURE and a very difficult removal process when the Federal Constitution was amended in 1963, and today, it seems like the Prime Minister has the power to appoint/remove Public Prosecutor/Attorney General as he pleases, and the King has no choice but to do as advised by the Prime Minister. The recent removal of former AG/PP Terrirudin by appointment as Judge is still an issue? 

HENCE, maybe we need to remove the Prime Minister from the process of appointment/removal of the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - then maybe, we will see Independent Public Prosecutors prosecuting more election crimes?

PM Anwar Ibrahim - had 3 different Public Prosecutors/AG [A Malaysian Record?] - INDEPENDENCE of PP/AG, and preventing PM's ability to remove as he pleases? A PM also may commit crimes..

Would the current Public Prosecutor CHARGE Nga Kor Ming, Anwar Ibrahim and the Government of Malaysia for the election crimes involving the said RM6 billion development? 

 Would the PP/AG even take the matter to Court to determine whether it is a CRIME considering that the announcement comes 'after the date of publication of the notice of the election in the Gazette' that happened on or about 7/3/2025, and also noting that many of the election offences like TREATING, BRIBERY, are offences if committed  'before, during or after an election' ... OR will the current AG/PP simply stay silent and do nothing? It is for the COURTS to determine whether it is an OFFENCE or wrongdoing - not the AG/PP, Prime Minister Anwar, etc...

This is a VERY IMPORTANT issue about FREE and FAIR elections, and it is time for the Court to look into it, and make a determination of whether such government promises/decisions/announcement about development or funds to a Constituency about to have a election a wrong that undermines free and fair elections OR whether there is NO WRONG in government so doing. 

Many, who served as Election Agents and others, get disappointed with this LACK of Prosecution of those who committed election offences - those who gave bribes, those who impersonated a voter and cast votes on behalf of registered voters(the later real voter's vote end up not being counted, and worse the impersonator is not even arrested,charged and persecuted).

Sometimes, the blame lies with CANDIDATES - if they win, they may not submit the complaints and evidence of election crimes to the relevant authorities. Some losing candidates also do the same - That is why, I believe the one who discovered the crimes should personally make a report to the Election Commission and/or relevant authorities directly - do not just give it to candidates and agents of candidates, hoping that will lodge the needed complaints. ALAS many candidates are just interested in winning, and if they lose interested in using gathered evidence to file a Election Petition to challenge the results. This is SO WRONG because what needs to be prioritized is the prosecution of election offenders.

Someone used your Identity Card, and voted as you - a serious criminal offence, and evidence can be obtained through CCTV,etc in identifying the face or identity - so, why no prosecution? 

The fake IC is a serious issue too - this must be a serious crime that cannot be ignored - who forged the identity card that convinced the EC officers to hand him/her a ballot paper?  

It is sad that many a candidates that stand for elections are sometimes SELF-CENTERED concerned only about winning elections - hence, they subsequently do not push for the prosecution of those who committed election offences? We should really not VOTE for such persons - because they simply not interested in eradication of crime, prosecution of offenders, ...working towards a JUST MALAYSIA free of such crimes that are in violation of a FREE and FAIR Elections.. 

I believe that it is VERY wrong for Government or persons in Government to ABUSE their power to maybe convince people to vote for Government Candidates... It is also wrong for them to use government facilities/funds - when they are out there campaigning? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

We should have specific election offences that CRIMINALIZES such actions of persons linked to government from the date a seat becomes vacant by reason of death/disqualification until election is completed. Our Minister of Communication is also so concerned about internet in the area...Did other Ministers also schedule and make visits before nomination date? 

By MARTIN CARVALHO