(Penang,
Friday): It is
really not a surprise that the Election Commission has not officially responded
to the seven questions which I had
posed two days ago about the fairness, objectivity, equity, transparency and legitimacy of
its 2002 electoral constituency redelineation
exercise, in particular my contention that on the basis of Johore’s
six new parliamentary seats, a
fair and equitable redelineation of the electoral constituencies based on
distribution of population will give Selangor ten new parliamentary
seats instead of the proposed five and one new seat each for Kelantan,
Terengganu and Kedah.
I had
in particular asked why the Election Commission had deviated from its own
previous redelineation principle in all previous redelineation exercises in the
past four decades that the state in
Peninsular Malaysia with the most
number of registered voters leads in having the most number of parliamentary
seats by giving Johore the
most number of parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia – 26 –with the
most number of six-seat increase, when Selangor with 1,368,693 voters has more
voters than Johore with 1,223,532
voters while Selangor had registered a 44.18% increase in voters since the 1994
redelineation as compared to 24.53% increase for Johore.
I
also asked what was the rationale for the Election Commission increasing the
state average of number of electors per parliamentary constituency for Perlis,
Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu while this is reduced for Penang, Pahang and
Johore in the proposed redelineation as compared to the 1994 exercise –
creating a situation where Johore, which had a higher state average of number of
electors per parliamentary constituency (49,100) than Terengganu (42,200) in
1993 has now a lower state average (47,000) than Terengganu (47,058).
Unless
the Election Commission can give convincing reasons, the 2002 redelineation is a most unusual and unprecedented exercise, and it
has only itself to blame if Opposition parties, NGOs and the civil society
conclude that this is a new form of constituency gerrymandering in Malaysian
electoral history, which is both
illegal and unconstitutional.
Although
the Election Commission has not officially responded to my queries, I have been
informed that the Election Commission Secretary Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar had
told a reporter who asked him about my media statement that the principle of
“one-man, one vote” is no more suitable or applicable for a multi-racial
society like Malaysia and that the principle which the Election Commission had applied
in the 2002 redelineation exercise is “one constituency, one
representative”.
The
principle of “one constituency, one representative” is utterly meaningless
and ridiculous unless it is
anchored on the principle of “one man, one vote”.
I
call on Wan Ahmad to confirm that the Election Commission had abandoned the
“one man, one vote” principle in the current redelineation exercise, for
this would be most unconstitutional, opening the whole exercise to be challenged
in court as was successfully done once
previously by the DAP in 1992.
The
“one man, one vote” principle is in fact entrenched in the Constitution as a
guideline for the redelineation of electoral constituencies, as Article 2© of
the Thirteenth Schedule of the Constitution provides that “the number of
electors within each constituency in a State ought to be approximately equal
except that, having regard to the greater difficulty of reaching electors in the
country districts and the other disadvantages facing rural communities, a
measure of weightage for area ought to be given to such constituencies.”
The
Election Commission would have violated the “one man, one vote” principle in
Article 2© of the Thirteenth Schedule if it takes the position that this
principle is no more suitable or applicable for a multi-racial society like Malaysia, and if this is the case,
DAP lawyers will be asked to consider a constitutional challenge to the
2002 redelineation as was done by the DAP with regard the 1992 redelineation,
which was finally revoked and withdrawn by the Election Commission to be
replaced by the 1994 redelineation.
Furthermore,
although Article 2(c) of the Thirteenth Schedule provided for “a measure of
weightage” to take into account the “disadvantages facing rural
constituencies”, this rural weightage cannot be so unreasonable as to
completely nullify the “one man, one vote” principle and the constitutional
guideline.
To
keep within the spirit and letter of the Constitutional guidelines of “a
measure of weightage” for rural areas, the variation or maximum deviation rule from the average electorate in
Parliamentary or State Assembly constituencies, particularly for each state,
should be in the region of 15%, 25% or in any event not exceeding 50%.
However,
the 2002 redelineation is more unfair, inequitable and undemocratic
than the 1994 exercise, as
it has given lesser regard to the “one man, one vote” principle when with
greater process of urbanization throughout the country over the decades, the
“rural weightage” and maximum deviation rule should be getting progressively smaller instead of the
reverse.
In
the 1994 redelineation, for instance, the disparity between the
biggest and smallest electorates among parliamentary constituencies in
Peninsular Malaysia was very much smaller than the current 2002
redelineation. In 1994 the parliamentary constituencies in Peninsular
Malaysia with the biggest and
smallest electorates were Klang
with 69,422 voters and Langkawi with 19,502 votes – a maximum variation of
255.97%, which is already very
undemocratic.
But
in the current redelineation exercise, the parliamentary constituencies in
Peninsular Malaysia with the biggest and smallest electorates are Johore
Bahru with 90,187 voters and Putrajaya with 85 voters – or a maximum variation
of an astronomical 106,002 per
cent! Even if we exclude Putrajaya, the next constituency with the smallest
electorate is Lenggong with 21,148 voters, which gives a maximum variation of 326.45%, which is much higher than the maximum variation of
255.97% in the 1994 redelineation.
Can
the Election Commission explain why the redelineation of electoral
constituencies is progressively becoming more, rather than less, undemocratic?
The
Election Commission should give proper and convincing answers to these queries
about the fairness, objectivity,
equity, transparency and
legitimacy of its 2002 electoral constituency redelineation exercise.
Malaysians
expect a prompt response from the Election Commission. DAP will challenge the
constitutionality of the 2002 redelineation if the Election Commission is
prepared to confirm that it had not applied the constitutional principle of
“one man, one vote” in the redelineation, and if it had, it should explain
why it had allowed the maximum deviation rule for the disparity of electorates
in Peninsular Malaysia constituencies to get even worse than the previous
redelineation when it should be the other way round.
(16/8/2002)