Does live coverage prevent electoral fraud, according to Mafrel?

Question

Accepted Answer

Live Coverage's Role in Preventing Electoral Fraud is Questioned by Mafrel

Mafrel, represented by its president Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh, has expressed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of live coverage of ballot-counting processes in preventing electoral fraud. Instead, Mafrel suggests that the primary purpose of such coverage is for the government's "image-building" and that the focus should be on the integrity of the Election Commission (EC) and its adherence to established procedures. The organisation questions whether live coverage truly addresses the core issues that could lead to electoral malpractice.
Live Coverage Primarily for Image-Building, Not Fraud Prevention

Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh, president of Malaysians for Free and Fair Elections (Mafrel), stated that the proposed live coverage of ballot counting serves primarily as a tool for the government's "image-building." This perspective implies that while it might offer a visual of the process, its fundamental role in deterring or preventing fraudulent activities is not its main objective. He questioned the true purpose behind the live broadcasts, asking if they are merely for transparency or to genuinely ensure that no electoral malpractices occur.
Focus on EC Integrity Over Live Broadcasts

Mafrel's stance emphasizes that the critical factor in ensuring fair elections lies with the Election Commission's (EC) integrity and its execution of the election process, rather than the implementation of live coverage. Syed Ibrahim highlighted that the integrity of EC officers in correctly following counting procedures and providing necessary documentation, such as counting forms, to counting agents is the more pressing concern. He suggested that the government and the EC are overlooking these fundamental aspects by focusing on superficial measures like live broadcasts.
Core Electoral Processes Are the Real Issue

The organisation's concerns extend to the practical execution of polling day activities. Syed Ibrahim raised specific questions about whether EC officers are accurately following counting procedures and if they are indeed providing the required counting forms to the designated counting agents. This points to a belief that irregularities, if they occur, are more likely to stem from procedural lapses or intentional omissions at the counting station level, rather than from a lack of public visibility through live feeds. Complaints after previous elections, such as the May 5 polls, regarding counting agents being denied or given incorrect forms, lend weight to these concerns.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Does live coverage prevent electoral fraud, according to Mafrel?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends