Rejected Votes among Orang Asli community

In January 2013, a group of Orang Asli voters from Perak protested at the Orang Asli Development Department (JAKOA) Perak office over a voter education event that was held for the Orang Asli community in Tapah.

According to  Malaysiakini , Pakatan Rakyat Perak, who were part of the protest, claimed that the event attendees were forced to mark a dummy ballot in favour of Barisan Nasional (BN) in front of a JAKOA officer and a BN state assemblyperson. Samsudin Abu Hassan, then BN state assemblyperson of Air Kuning, explained that the event’s goal was to reduce rejected ballots among the Orang Asli.

Seven years later, Bersih’s Inclusive Electoral Reforms in Malaysia report highlighted poor voter education among the Orang Asli, with anecdotal evidence that voters from the community may not know how to cross the ballot correctly.

Both accounts point to an unfortunate fact — almost seven decades since the country’s first national election in 1955, rejected votes are still prevalent among the Orang Asli.

To gauge the severity of the issue, Tindak Malaysia, an NGO specialising in electoral reform, has  crunched the numbers  in the last three general elections and found that the polling districts with an Orang Asli majority had an median rejected vote rate (RVR) triple (3.15 times) that of non-Orang Asli majority areas for GE14 (2018). Not only that, the gap between these two demographics has widened over the last three general elections (Refer to Image 1).

For every 200 voters in Malaysia, there is only one voter from the Orang Asli community (0.66% of the total voting population) (refer to Image 2). The high RVR among the Orang Asli community can influence results in competitive seats, especially determining a winning candidate and potentially determining which coalition/political party can form a government.

One of the notable cases is the state constituency of Chenderiang (where Orang Asli community constitutes 21.95% of the GE14 voter population)(refer to Swipe Map 1) where Faizal Azumu, who later became Perak’s Menteri Besar under Pakatan Harapan rule, won by a razor thin majority of 39 votes — but the number of rejected votes recorded was 365. Two polling districts with Orang Asli majority in Chenderiang yielded 103 rejected votes, which is bigger than the winning majority of Faizal Azumu. As GE14 initially did not yield a single coalition with an outright majority to form a state government in Perak, unaddressed rejected votes of this community bears a lot of weight.

To appreciate the importance of this rarely discussed topic, we must understand some key concepts of our electoral system.

Since we practise First Past the Post System and have geographical constituencies, Malaysia is divided into parliamentary and state constituencies. Polling districts (daerah mengundi) are the subunits of a state constituency with one or more polling centres. In a given election, not only the public is made aware of the winner of the constituency (the one who wins the most valid votes), information about the rejected votes are shown. In a simplest sense, a rejected vote is a vote where the preference of the voter was not able to be determined or rejected due to election laws (refer to the section of Determining a rejected and spoilt vote). In a tight contest between two or more candidates, rejected votes can play a big factor in determining the winner of the constituency. Tindak Malaysia carried out two separate research works on the issue of rejected votes.

In his recent  research , Danesh (Director of Tindak Malaysia) discovered that rejected ballots made up around 1.32% of total votes issued to the voters (throughout Malaysia) in the 2018 general election. When the study was done to see rejected vote patterns based on ethnicity (refer to Map 1), Sabah bumiputera-majority constituencies comprised the highest average RVR (2.40%) in Malaysia. In comparison, ethnic Chinese-majority constituencies constituted the lowest average RVR (close to 1%). However, this statistics masked RVR of one community.

Through a separate research on the polling districts in Peninsular Malaysia from GE12 (2008) to GE14 (2018) by Danesh Chacko and Keng Hooi (data scientist of Tindak Malaysia), the highest rejected votes in Peninsular Malaysia took place in Orang Asli majority polling districts of Cameron Highlands for every election cycle. For example, the average rejected votes for Peninsular Malaysia (for all areas) was 1.4% in GE14 and Pos Lenjang - Orang Asli majority polling district - registered a rejected vote rate of 15.86%.

This study was repeated again to identify the number of Orang Asli majority polling districts found in top 20 polling districts with highest rejected votes for a given election cycle. Orang Asli majority polling districts constituted 15 out of top 20 polling districts with highest rejected votes in GE12, 10 out of top 20 in GE13 and 12 out of top 20 in GE14.

Further study was conducted to see the proportion of Orang Asli majority polling districts that had rejected vote rate greater than Peninsular Malaysia median rejected vote rate (for GE12 to GE14). Through this  focused study , Danesh Chacko and Keng Hooi, classified a polling district as high (or not high) RVR by comparing its RVR against the median RVR in polling districts across Peninsular Malaysia for a given election cycle.  The aim of this part of study is to measure the gravity of rejected vote prevalence among the Orang Asli voters.

In GE14, among the 79 polling districts with an Orang Asli majority, 71 of them had registered a RVR greater than the median Peninsular Malaysia RVR of 1.14%, ranging from 1.58% to 15.86%. This means nearly all or all the Orang Asli majority polling districts in Johor, Kelantan Pahang and Selangor were classified as having a high RVR. All these outcomes point to strong evidence of Orang Asli majority areas having higher RVR compared to other demographic settings in Peninsular Malaysia.

In Malaysia, it is easy to confuse between a rejected vote (Undi Ditolak) and a spoilt vote (Undi Rosak). The spoilt vote applies to ballot papers not placed in the ballot box between the start (e.g., 8 am) and end (e.g., 6 pm) during the polling day. It arises when in one of the four situations stated below:

• Ballot paper was torn before it was marked
• The Presiding Officer (Ketua Tempat Mengundi - KTM)* retrieves a ballot paper that was taken outside of the polling station
• The ballot paper is dirty and not useable
• The voters marked their ballot paper

*The Presiding Officer is appointed officially by the Returning Officer to carry out and monitor the polling and counting process on polling day. He or she is the leader of the voting stream (saluran), and three to four polling clerks (Kerani Pengundian) assist the Presiding Officer.

A rejected vote is classified during the counting process (after the polling process). The potential rejected ballot paper will be included in the doubtful ballot tray during the counting process. A ballot paper is rejected if:

• The ballot paper was not stamped or perforated with an official mark or not initialled by the KTM
• The ballot paper shows marking for more than one candidate
• The ballot paper has been marked or written in a manner where the voter can be identified
• The ballot paper was marked or unmarked other than the place or manner in which it was provided
• The ballot paper does not indicate the intention of the voter

Of 79 polling districts in Peninsular Malaysia that have an Orang Asli majority, 9 of them are located in the Cameron Highlands parliamentary constituency and they exhibited a very high RVR through the last three general elections. 21.56% of the electorate of Cameron Highlands in GE14 comes from Orang Asli background. This constituency is home to the polling districts with the highest RVR in Peninsular Malaysia for GE12 to GE14.

Although the RVR for both Orang Asli and non-Orang Asli communities has been declining since GE12 (refer to Image 3), the gap between Orang Asli, specifically the Semai community, and non-Orang Asli majority polling districts remains large.

When looking at the voter demographic by age within Cameron Highlands, the data showed positive signs that rejected votes are reducing, especially among the young Orang Asli voters.

From the graph above, it is clear that the RVR of Orang Asli voters is declining irrespective of the voter’s age*. The steepest decline occurred among first-time or young voters within the said community. Between GE13 and GE14, RVR was reduced by two and a half times (for youngest voters).

*Over the years, the number of voting streams (saluran) was added to accommodate the increasing volume in the voter. As the voting streams are divided by age, the addition of voting streams has made age study more detailed over the years. This explains for some elections, the voting age categories are quite comprehensive and for some elections, only limited age range is possible.

In a recent interview with Sivarajan Arumugam, the Secretary-General of Parti Sosialis Malaysia shared that the divide between younger and older Orang Asli generations may influence the rejected votes in specific Orang Asli communities. While the young are proactive in tackling issues surrounding the community, older voters tend to take a backseat as they are limited in terms of their physical capabilities and exposure to critical information, which will help them to vote correctly.

Further south of Cameron Highlands, the Chini state constituency in Pahang has 9% of its electorate categorised as Orang Asli (primarily Jakun with some Semai). Only three polling districts in Chini are Orang Asli majority areas. The analysis of RVR patterns between Orang Asli and non-Orang Asli majority areas also showed a significant gap.

In GE12 (referring to Image 5), the average RVR of Orang Asli majority areas within Chini was four times higher than non-Orang Asli majority areas. However, this gap has substantially narrowed since then. By the time the Chini by-election happened in 2020, the gap size for RVR was reduced to two times.

Tindak Malaysia further studied this RVR pattern for Chini, focusing on the voter age*. Similar to Cameron Highlands, the RVR of younger Orang Asli voters has been substantially reduced.

*Over the years, the number of voting streams (saluran) was added to accommodate the increasing volume in the voter. As the voting streams are divided by age, the addition of voting streams has made age study more detailed over the years. This explains for some elections, the voting age categories are quite comprehensive and for some elections, only limited age range is possible.

For more studies of other seats with different Orang Asli ethnic groups, click  here  to view more of Tindak Malaysia’s statistical research.

In the second part of this special report, the authors look at the reasons behind the high RVR in Orang Asli areas and the potential solutions.

From interviews with political workers and activists  who frequently interact with the Orang Asli community including Secretary-General of Parti Sosialis Malaysia Sivarajan Arumugam, Faribel Fernandez from Pusat Komas, Yusri Ahon from Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia and Chiong Yoke Khong, DAP state assemblyperson for Tanah Rata in Pahang, their answers share a common theme: Orang Asli communities have a low literacy rate.

Man bin Bakar,67, village head of Kampung Paya Lintah, an Orang Asli village in Jerantut parliamentary constituency, Pahang, echoed similar sentiments. "That's because they don't know who to vote for," the head shared when met at his village. "For those who have voted in a few elections, there are not too many issues. The problem lies with illiterate people — some even find it difficult to mark their ballot papers."

The village, 20 minutes drive from Jerantut town along the paved roads, houses 28 voters who have voted in two or more elections. There are approximately 30 voters will be voting for the first time in the upcoming general election.

In an interview with Sivarajan, he shares that the high illiteracy rate has not prevented younger Orang Asli generations from being involved with the challenges faced by their communities. For example, Orang Asli communities worked with Parti Sosialis Malaysia to review the Telom hydroelectric dam project in Pos Lanai (Cameron Highlands parliamentary seat, Pahang) that would potentially displace 400 families in the area. In fact, the data shows that RVR has dropped among young Orang Asli voters.

Chiong, the assemblyperson of Tanah Rata, agreed with this observation. He believed that the younger generation is more aware of external parties' outreach efforts. Still, Chiong shares that the older generation may not be aware or lack the motivation to engage with these efforts that are directed to improve voter education in these communities.

As a former polling and counting agent, Yusri had experience in conducting campaigns about voter education among the Orang Asli communities. 

"Before the (2018 general election), I conducted a workshop titled "Mari Mengundi" (Let's Vote) to improve voter awareness and voter education," Yusri shared in an interview. "I just wanted to see if their votes were (valid) or not. When I asked if they knew how to vote, specifically the older voters, they noted that they know how to vote."

Yusri also shared that poor voting practices can be challenging to remedy, especially among the older Orang Asli voters, due to a strong sense of respect for elders within the Orang Asli communities.

Abu Libut, a local in Kampung Sungai Kiol (Jerantut parliamentary constituency, Pahang), shares that Orang Asli voters also learn to vote through experience and not necessarily through voter educational campaigns. Even when campaigns are hosted in the village, these voters may be confused by the instructions; naturally, the Orang Asli community are sceptical of the campaigns that are held by political parties.

Bob Manolan Mohd, a Orang Asli from Pahang who was a PKR senator from 2018 to 2021, suggested that rejected ballots among the community reflect the Orang Asli’s frustration against the establishment and political parties.

“Among the Orang Asli communities, they are (fed up) with voting … There have issues within their villages and they want to show their anger through voting through improper voting methods by spoiling the votes,” shares Manolan Mohd.

This view was brought forward in a discussion session with another local from Kampung Sungai Kiol. "As individual voters, we are responsible for who we vote for," shared the local who has voted in two general elections. "Some may choose to spoil the vote for a rebellious cause, and they know this. We do our best to satisfy our duties for those who want to vote responsibly."

From surveys, interviews and statistical research, it can be seen that younger Orang Asli voters are more aware of the political issues surrounding their communities and who they will vote for.

Scott Edwards, a PhD candidate in international relations at the University of Birmingham’s Institute for Cooperation, Conflict, and Security (ICCS), wrote that there is a need for Pakatan Harapan to improve its grassroots campaign among local Orang Asli communities. This sentiment is equally shared by Chiong when he explained the Impian Malaysia project, one of DAP’s efforts to reach local Orang Asli communities in Pos Sinderut, Pos Titum, Pos Betau and Pos Lenjang in Cameron Highlands.

The first-time assemblyperson compared DAP’s outreach efforts to those by the previous BN government who could reach out to these communities easily. This is likely because Orang Asli constituencies may not be an area the opposition would “want to focus on”, according to Sivarajan. He further adds that low chances of victory for the opposition demotivated them to pull their resources to politicise and educate the Orang Asli voters.

In conclusion, it is clear that there is high correspondence of RVR with Orang Asli majority areas.. As one of the researchers behind this study, Danesh believes that a close collaboration with non-government organisations (NGO) that frequently liaise with these communities, JAKOA, and Orang Asli groups headed by the local communities is critical to resolving the RVR crisis in Malaysia.

This research should spur NGOs to call on the Election Commission to strengthen voter education for this community. If left unaddressed, the prevalence of rejected votes could be a decisive factor in forming a government.

This story was produced with the financial support of the European Union in the form of a grant from Internews Malaysia. The contents are the sole responsibility of Internews and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

The study started as a preliminary study of Rejected Vote patterns found in DUN Chini (Pahang). Subsequently, the study was expanded to cover the whole of Peninsular Malaysia (as most Orang Asli voters live in this region). Due to the availability of the data that belongs to /sourced by Tindak Malaysia, an electoral reform NGO, our research focused on a few dataset types:

• GE12, GE13 and GE14 parliamentary results at the voting stream level (Saluran). Sourced from PKR and Election Commission
• Electoral Roll/ Summary Electoral Roll Statistics of GE13 and GE14. Sourced from PKR and Election Commission
• Electoral Roll and Results (at the voting stream level) of Cameron Highlands by election (2019), Chini by election (2020) and Johor state election (2022). Sourced from DAP and Election Commission
• Felda and non Felda polling districts. Sourced from Tindak Malaysia
• Urban-rural classification list. Sourced from Tindak Malaysia
• Spatial boundaries of polling districts. Sourced from Tindak Malaysia

Data analysis and restructuring are done jointly by Danesh Prakash Chacko, the Director of Tindak Malaysia and Keng Hooi Teoh, the Data Scientist volunteer of Tindak Malaysia.

Studies were initially done to find the rate of rejected votes in Peninsular Malaysia, both at the stream level and polling district level. Tindak Malaysia established the evolution of summary statistics for rejected ballots for GE12 to GE14. It observed the common recurrence of Orang Asli majority area polling districts as the highest occurrence of rejected votes.

To confirm our hypothesis whether high rejected vote areas have a high overlap with Orang Asli majority areas, we studied the rejected vote rate (%) of all polling districts (including Orang Asli and non-Orang Asli regions). Each polling district was checked against the median rejected vote rate for GE12, GE13 and GE14. The district was visually marked for every Orang Asli majority polling district that registered a rejected vote rate higher than the median of a given election year. A visual assessment eventually concluded that the proportion of the Orang Asli majority area fell in the bracket of having a rejected vote rate greater than the median of GE12 to GE14.

Subsequently, the top twenty polling districts with the highest rejected votes in Peninsular Malaysia from GE 12 to GE 14 were produced, and common occurrences of Orang Asli majority areas were determined. Using Tindak Malaysia analysed ethnic information*, urban-rural classification* and Felda location, a comparison of Rejected Vote rate was made across different demographic attributes. This laid the case for more substantial evidence that Orang Asli majority areas have a higher rejected vote rate than any non-Orang Asli majority areas (irrespective of other ethnic, urbanisation and Felda status)

*Due to the lack of ethnic and urbanisation data for GE12, we assumed the Orang Asli majority polling districts of GE12 are the same as GE13. No comparison between urban and rural rejected vote prevalence was made for GE12

To deepen the study, case studies of rejected votes were done in selected parliamentary seats/ DUN Seats. They are as follows:

• Parliamentary constituency of Mersing and DUN Endau (Jakun voters)
• DUN Chini (Jakun with some Semai voters)
• Parliamentary constituency of Cameron Highlands and DUN Tanah Rata (Semai voters)
• Parliamentary constituency of Gerik (Temiar and Jahai voters)
• Parliamentary constituency of Kuala Langat (Mah Meri and Temuan voters)

For all these case studies, Tindak Malaysia analysed the data using the following method:

• Visual assessment (maps) of Orang Asli electorate proportion and prevalence of rejected votes of GE14
• Average rejected to vote for Orang Asli majority and non-Orang Asli majority areas since GE12 (inclusive of any recent by-elections or state elections in the post GE14 era)
• For Cameron Highlands and Chini seats, average rejected votes by age groups in Orang Asli majority areas were assessed since GE13. This was done through a combination of electoral roll (median age of voting stream) and election results at the stream.

For selected open datasets made available by Tindak Malaysia, check out the following links:

1.  2019 Cameron Highlands By Election Results (at Voting Stream level) 
2.  2019 Cameron Highlands By Election Voter Demographics (at Polling District Level) 
3.  2020 Chini By Election Results (at Voting Stream Level )
4.  2020 Chini By Election Voter Demographics (at Polling District Level)