As per Article 113 of the Constitution, the delineation exercise should be conducted every 8 years, and approved by 2/3 majority in federal parliament. Since the last one was in 2003, the EC is already late by two years, and by the time it is completed in 2014, it'll be 3 years. This delay has in fact denied some voters of their due rights in equal parliamentary representation.
One of EC's duties in revising the boundaries of the federal and state constituencies is to update its information and to also use the new information to ensure a fair representation of voters in each constituency. But one of the nasty bit in this is its 'exception' claim/clause which I strongly disagree with, namely:
- that the constituencies should be divided equally, with as far as possible an equal number of voters, except in taking into account difficulties caused by remoteness of certain areas, the EC may give certain 'weightage' in favour of rural constituencies over urban ones.
Why should the EC give certain 'weightage' in favour of rural constituencies over urban ones? And why should 'remoteness' of certain areas be favoured with far greater parliamentary representation than others, when in today's world, there are all sorts of convenient modern transportation and voting access (eg. helicopters, postal votes, electronic/internet means of voting in future)?
This is an outdated anachronistic and bullshit clause which should, nay, must be removed forever more!
This is an outdated anachronistic and bullshit clause which should, nay, must be removed forever more!
Thus the question begs to be asked again: why should a rural voter have more say than an urban one? I can think of no good reason on the issues of democratic equality, equity or chancery.
But alas, this has been what Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof the current EC chief muttered: “... the number of voters in each Parliament or state assembly (DUN) must take into account whether that area is urban, suburban or rural", seemingly ignoring the democratic principle of 'one person, one vote'.
The principle of 'one person, one vote' as per the doctrine of equality or more specifically, equal parliamentary representation, should not depend on whether a voter is in an urban, suburban or rural area, when each of the voters in these three domain should have an equal 'voice' (through their elected representatives) in our federal parliament.
The principle of 'one person, one vote' as per the doctrine of equality or more specifically, equal parliamentary representation, should not depend on whether a voter is in an urban, suburban or rural area, when each of the voters in these three domain should have an equal 'voice' (through their elected representatives) in our federal parliament.
Yes yes, I know about ketuanan this and that, and the NEP and 1Bumi whatever, but that has to do with economic affirmative action and I am not arguing against any of that.
 |
| was this before or after Ali Rustam blamed the Chinese? wakakaka |
But if we want to call our nation, Malaysia, a federal parliamentary democracy (with a federal constitutional elective monarchy), then let's leave aside the affirmative policies and programs, and demand that at the very least there has to be voting equality for our citizens on the basis they'll all enjoy equal parliamentary representation.
Thus, if we were to spread 13 million voters equally over 222 federal parliamentary seats, each federal constituency should have 58600 voters or roughly 60K, where each voter would then supposedly have an equal claim to parliamentary representation.
HOWEVER ...
... yes, however I accept that there should be exceptions for Sabah and Sarawak, which had politically merged with Peninsula Malaya as more than just being each a state equal to any of the 11 Peninsula/Malayan states but rather each as a politically domain on par with or equal to the entire Peninsula.
BUT BUT ... but it should be argued that the exception we make for Sabah and Sarawak is not so much because those two states have large tracts of remote, rural or non-urban districts, BUT MORE to ensure Sabahans and Sarawakians would be adequately represented in the federal parliament of Malaysia where then they would have a significant say in the making of national policies which may affect them and the two states.
And indeed they have that significant say ... as kingmakers, ... as Najib's 'fixed deposit' ... and .... as Anwar's & Azmin's wet dreams, wakakaka.
Okay, for this post, I'm going to make some fun calculations and fun assumptions, the latter of which of course could be wrong other than my commonsense insistence and assertion that in Semenanjung a rural voter should enjoy just equal parliamentary representation to that for an urban voter, & vice versa, and thus no extra 'weightage' should be given to any rural area as this could not be justified.
Hmmm, I've my fun electronic calculator out now, so here goes, wakakaka:
Based on the numbers of registered voters in those two states - Sabah approximately 1 million, Sarawak exact figures not available to me but I'm making an assumption from what have been available for my reading that it'll be 1.2 million if those eligible who haven't registered for GE-13 will eventually register in time for GE-14 - and assuming their federal constituencies remain at 25 and 31 respectively, then we have:
.. Sabah 1,000,000/25 = 40,000 per constituency
.. Sarawak 1,200,000/31 = 38,710, approx. 40,000 per constituency
... then each federal constituency in those two states should have 40,000 voters, allowing for a minor (and I stress 'minor') variation of +/- 5%.
I'm not sure why Sarawak has 31 federal seats (compared to Sabah's 25). Based on their numbers of registered voters, the Sabah and Sarawak seats should be 25 to 30 respectively. But let's leave it as is here.
Then, using nearest rough/round figures, if we assume the 13 million registered voters in 2013 will increase to 14 million by GE-14, then the Peninsula number of registered voters may be assumed to be:
.. 14 mil minus Sabah's 1 mil and Sarawak's 1.2 mil = 11.8 mil ...
... divided equally by (222 - the 56 Sabah & Sarawak seats =) 166 federal constituencies = 71,000 say 70K voters per federal constituency.
But 70K is almost double the 40K in Sabah and Sarawak, meaning Sabahans and Sarawakians have almost twice the say in parliament. Maybe this compensates for their states' supposedly equal status to the whole of Peninsula.
Alternatively, to slightly reduce that lop-sided parliamentary 'voice' of the two Eastern States, we could have 11.8 mil divided by 60K per constituency but which will give us 196 seats in Peninsula, an extra 30 seats, or ...
... 11.8 mil divided by 65K per constituency to give us 181 seats in Peninsula, an extra 15 seats.
To reiterate, there can be no reason to give 'weightage' to a rural seat in Peninusla for as mentioned, everyone regardless of being in a rural, urban or suburban constituency, should be a voter with equal representation in parliament, ...
... with 'weightage' only being allocated to Sabah and Sarawak on the basis of each of their domain being equal to the whole of Peninsula. Thus we needn't compensate the rural constituencies of any Peninsula states with extra 'weightage' as we should/would for Sabah and Sarawak.
Secondly, re above rough calculations/assumptions, if based on 11.8 mil registered voters in Peninsula by GE-14 where each constituency should comprise only 60K or 65K voters, giving us an extra 30 or 15 extra seats respectively, these extra seats will naturally have to stay within Peninsula because they will be based on population growth here, and where we cannot diminish these (future) voter's right to an equal 'voice' in parliament ...
... remembering of course that the so-called 'weightage' in favour of Sabah and Sarawak will be apparent in their parliamentary representation of one MP per every 40K of voters, while it may well be one MP per 60K or 65K in Peninsula, or if we retain the 166 Peninsula federal seats, one MP per 70K voters.
To summarize for the federal seats:
.. Sabah - 25 seats at 40K voters per ('weight-ed')
.. Sarawak - 31 seats at 40K voters per ('weight-ed')
.. Peninsula - 166 seats at 70K voters per, or 181 seats at 65K voters per, or 196 seats at 60K voters per
BUT BUT ... but it should be argued that the exception we make for Sabah and Sarawak is not so much because those two states have large tracts of remote, rural or non-urban districts, BUT MORE to ensure Sabahans and Sarawakians would be adequately represented in the federal parliament of Malaysia where then they would have a significant say in the making of national policies which may affect them and the two states.
And indeed they have that significant say ... as kingmakers, ... as Najib's 'fixed deposit' ... and .... as Anwar's & Azmin's wet dreams, wakakaka.
Okay, for this post, I'm going to make some fun calculations and fun assumptions, the latter of which of course could be wrong other than my commonsense insistence and assertion that in Semenanjung a rural voter should enjoy just equal parliamentary representation to that for an urban voter, & vice versa, and thus no extra 'weightage' should be given to any rural area as this could not be justified.
Hmmm, I've my fun electronic calculator out now, so here goes, wakakaka:
Based on the numbers of registered voters in those two states - Sabah approximately 1 million, Sarawak exact figures not available to me but I'm making an assumption from what have been available for my reading that it'll be 1.2 million if those eligible who haven't registered for GE-13 will eventually register in time for GE-14 - and assuming their federal constituencies remain at 25 and 31 respectively, then we have:
.. Sabah 1,000,000/25 = 40,000 per constituency
.. Sarawak 1,200,000/31 = 38,710, approx. 40,000 per constituency
... then each federal constituency in those two states should have 40,000 voters, allowing for a minor (and I stress 'minor') variation of +/- 5%.
I'm not sure why Sarawak has 31 federal seats (compared to Sabah's 25). Based on their numbers of registered voters, the Sabah and Sarawak seats should be 25 to 30 respectively. But let's leave it as is here.
Then, using nearest rough/round figures, if we assume the 13 million registered voters in 2013 will increase to 14 million by GE-14, then the Peninsula number of registered voters may be assumed to be:
.. 14 mil minus Sabah's 1 mil and Sarawak's 1.2 mil = 11.8 mil ...
... divided equally by (222 - the 56 Sabah & Sarawak seats =) 166 federal constituencies = 71,000 say 70K voters per federal constituency.
But 70K is almost double the 40K in Sabah and Sarawak, meaning Sabahans and Sarawakians have almost twice the say in parliament. Maybe this compensates for their states' supposedly equal status to the whole of Peninsula.
 |
| I've a BIGGER voice, wakakaka |
Alternatively, to slightly reduce that lop-sided parliamentary 'voice' of the two Eastern States, we could have 11.8 mil divided by 60K per constituency but which will give us 196 seats in Peninsula, an extra 30 seats, or ...
... 11.8 mil divided by 65K per constituency to give us 181 seats in Peninsula, an extra 15 seats.
To reiterate, there can be no reason to give 'weightage' to a rural seat in Peninusla for as mentioned, everyone regardless of being in a rural, urban or suburban constituency, should be a voter with equal representation in parliament, ...
... with 'weightage' only being allocated to Sabah and Sarawak on the basis of each of their domain being equal to the whole of Peninsula. Thus we needn't compensate the rural constituencies of any Peninsula states with extra 'weightage' as we should/would for Sabah and Sarawak.
Secondly, re above rough calculations/assumptions, if based on 11.8 mil registered voters in Peninsula by GE-14 where each constituency should comprise only 60K or 65K voters, giving us an extra 30 or 15 extra seats respectively, these extra seats will naturally have to stay within Peninsula because they will be based on population growth here, and where we cannot diminish these (future) voter's right to an equal 'voice' in parliament ...
... remembering of course that the so-called 'weightage' in favour of Sabah and Sarawak will be apparent in their parliamentary representation of one MP per every 40K of voters, while it may well be one MP per 60K or 65K in Peninsula, or if we retain the 166 Peninsula federal seats, one MP per 70K voters.
To summarize for the federal seats:
.. Sabah - 25 seats at 40K voters per ('weight-ed')
.. Sarawak - 31 seats at 40K voters per ('weight-ed')
.. Peninsula - 166 seats at 70K voters per, or 181 seats at 65K voters per, or 196 seats at 60K voters per
In TMI's In upcoming redelineation, EC seeks to balance unequal-sized election seats we also read of EC chief Abdul Aziz saying that 'the number of voters in a constituency should not be too high, and hamper elected representatives in carrying out their duties.'
For this man who over-sighted the 2013 elections, one in which we have the federal parliamentary constituencies of Kapar and Putrajaya respectively having 144,159 and 15791 voters, an obscene ratio of 9 to 1, it's lamentable he could only talk about 'hamper[ing] elected representatives in carrying out their duties' which, while a correct statement per se, has actually masked the far greater issue, one he conveniently left unstated, that of undemocratic injustice in the violation of the principle of 'one person, one vote' as per the doctrine of equality.
 |
| like Putrajaya |
 |
| like Kapar |
 |
| like Kapar, wakakaka |
But then, that's the terrible Malaysian EC, one who has disgraced and discredited itself in GE-13 by its notorious serial bullshit in the very delible so-called indelible ink, one where even the holy sacred religion of Islam was brought into play (making the so-called indelible ink washable so to enable Muslims to undertake ablution prior to prayers).
Its already soiled reputation or notoriety was plunged deeper into lamentable opprobrium when its previous chief (Abdul Aziz predecessor) Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman had the shameless gall to boast on joining Perkasa that the three delineation exercises conducted during his term as EC chief had ensured continued political dominance of the Malays.
Recall, Abdul Rashid was the man who in December 2007 had prior to GE-12 shamefully (for a supposedly impartial public figure) said:
“A lot of people are anxious to determine the type of regime that is going to handle Malaysia in the coming years. They are always talking about regimes. I never talk about regimes. There is only one regime in this country that is capable of running (the country).”
“People get angry with me whenever I say this (but) people don’t seem to understand the critical scenario in the country. What is it that can (take) over from the present one given the political scenario we are in?
I had then blogged that he should resign if he had any honour. He didn't resign wakakaka.
He made his next stupid statement by asking for the power to sue critics who made allegations against the EC. Basically he wanted to silence anyone who raised complaints against him and the several unexplained decisions and actions of the EC.
In my post Chairman of EC should resign I gave him a piece of my mind for accusing his critics, who had complained of vote-rigging, as “… traitors (for hurting the image of the country).”
“A lot of people are anxious to determine the type of regime that is going to handle Malaysia in the coming years. They are always talking about regimes. I never talk about regimes. There is only one regime in this country that is capable of running (the country).”
“People get angry with me whenever I say this (but) people don’t seem to understand the critical scenario in the country. What is it that can (take) over from the present one given the political scenario we are in?
I had then blogged that he should resign if he had any honour. He didn't resign wakakaka.
He made his next stupid statement by asking for the power to sue critics who made allegations against the EC. Basically he wanted to silence anyone who raised complaints against him and the several unexplained decisions and actions of the EC.
In my post Chairman of EC should resign I gave him a piece of my mind for accusing his critics, who had complained of vote-rigging, as “… traitors (for hurting the image of the country).”
I blogged: 'Whether those critics are traitors or not is not for you, Abdul Rashid a public servant, to open your big mouth to say. You should immediately apologize for your reckless slandering of members of the Malaysian public.'
This was also also the man who was called a LIAR by wakakaka Chua Soi Lek.
In November 2007 Malaysiakini informed us that CSL (then Health Minister) lambasted Abdul Rashid for daring to claim he knew when the polls would be held though keeping mum about the date. Chua said it would be only PM AAB who knows.
In fact Chua was so outraged that he publicly called Abdul Rashid 'a liar'.
But the bloke kuai kuai remained silent despite that public insult by CSL, wakakaka.
In fact, CSL added unrepentantly: “He (Rashid) is just looking for some exposure. You can write that. I stand by it.”
Leaving aside that humongous boast of a sleazy slimy scandal, that of Abdul Rashid's part in three EC delineation exercises to ensure continuedMalays UMNO political dominance, something we've suspected for years and now confirmed straight from the horse's arse as no bullshit wakakaka, what is far more worrying is the perception of the current EC chief's other statement (as reported by TMI), namely:
In fact Chua was so outraged that he publicly called Abdul Rashid 'a liar'.
But the bloke kuai kuai remained silent despite that public insult by CSL, wakakaka.
In fact, CSL added unrepentantly: “He (Rashid) is just looking for some exposure. You can write that. I stand by it.”
Leaving aside that humongous boast of a sleazy slimy scandal, that of Abdul Rashid's part in three EC delineation exercises to ensure continued
“We do it based on the provision in the Constitution, if the number of voters exceed 100,000 people in a Parliamentary constituency, we have to study and reduce.”
I must ask him how he could even have the brazen nerve to talk about such a situation where he would only take action if/when a constituency is seen to have voters exceeding 100,000 when he knows and we all know Putrajaya has only 15,791 voters, an abysmally paltry number for a federal constituency which has a snowflake's chance in hell of increasing to a more respectable figure unless Indonesia sends its transmigration loads to populate Tengku Adnan's constituency!
Why must he even f* consider/contemplate such an unacceptable number of 100,000 voters, let alone this number being exceeded, when he should be thinking of each federal constituency in Peninsula having only at most 70,000 if not 65,000 or better still 60,000 voters?!
As for the constituencies in the Federal Territories, just look at the following:
Look at the grossly deprived parliamentary representations of voters in Batu, Seputeh and Bandar Tun Razak and to a certain extent, Segamut.
I must ask him how he could even have the brazen nerve to talk about such a situation where he would only take action if/when a constituency is seen to have voters exceeding 100,000 when he knows and we all know Putrajaya has only 15,791 voters, an abysmally paltry number for a federal constituency which has a snowflake's chance in hell of increasing to a more respectable figure unless Indonesia sends its transmigration loads to populate Tengku Adnan's constituency!
Why must he even f* consider/contemplate such an unacceptable number of 100,000 voters, let alone this number being exceeded, when he should be thinking of each federal constituency in Peninsula having only at most 70,000 if not 65,000 or better still 60,000 voters?!
As for the constituencies in the Federal Territories, just look at the following:
FT Constituency
|
2013
registered voters
|
If based on 65K,
excess or deficient voters
|
Kepong
|
68,035
|
3,035
|
Batu
|
85,402
|
20,402
|
Wangsa Maju
|
67,775
|
2,775
|
Segambut
|
75,631
|
10,631
|
Setiawangsa
|
62,309
|
minus 2,601
|
Titiwangsa
|
55,282
|
minus 9,718
|
Bukit Bintang
|
55,721
|
minus 9,279
|
Lembah Pantai
|
72,396
|
7,396
|
Seputeh
|
85,976
|
20,976
|
Cheras
|
72,551
|
7,551
|
Bandar Tun Razak
|
90,993
|
25,993
|
Putrajaya
|
15,791
|
minus 59,209
|
Labuan
|
24,474
|
minus 40,526
|
excess
|
98759
|
|
deficient
|
121,333
|
|
Total deficient
|
22,574
|
Look at the grossly deprived parliamentary representations of voters in Batu, Seputeh and Bandar Tun Razak and to a certain extent, Segamut.
Then examine the obscene over-representation of Putrajaya and Labuan.
I believe Putrajaya, Labuan and the excess 25K from Bandar Tun Razak should be rolled into one constituency of around 65K to be consistent with the principle of equal representation.
But will this be legal?
Let's look at another of the clause when revising the boundaries of constituencies, namely:
- that in the act of delineation of a constituency, the EC must ensure that the constituency should not run across two states, or cross state lines.
Putrajaya, Labuan and Bandar Tun Razak are all part of the Federal Territories, so the proposed amended delineation should not cross two states (not territories). Even if one wants to present a weak argument that the Federal Territory of Labuan lies on the other side of the country, we could omit it and continue with the absorption of the little Putrajaya-dot into a section of the Bandar Tun Razak constituency to form a new FT constituency.
But will this be legal?
Let's look at another of the clause when revising the boundaries of constituencies, namely:
Putrajaya, Labuan and Bandar Tun Razak are all part of the Federal Territories, so the proposed amended delineation should not cross two states (not territories). Even if one wants to present a weak argument that the Federal Territory of Labuan lies on the other side of the country, we could omit it and continue with the absorption of the little Putrajaya-dot into a section of the Bandar Tun Razak constituency to form a new FT constituency.
Whichever, the exercise should still leave an excess of some 65 to 70K for one more FT seat.
To summarize, eliminate Putrajaya and Labuan as federal constituency on their own. Create two new seats out of the above suggested amalgamation (Labuan, Putrajaya and a section of B.T.R) and the excess 65K to 70K FT voters, and we will still get 13 FT federal seats.
This will send Tengku Adnan crying, wakakaka.
But then he is not only a poor performing FT Minister (like Hishamuddin he has two left feet masquerading as his mouth) but one who is grossly unrepresentative to be FT Minister as he is only the representative of the electorally-puny Putrajaya constituency.
Anyway, the above is only kaytee's dream list for the electoral delineation exercise and I'm realistic enough to realize it's unlikely to eventuate, wakakaka.
But Bersih issued a statement that it wanted 'all constituency re-delineation exercises stopped until the electoral rolls are cleaned up and new Election Commission (EC) members are appointed', the latter thanks to the arrogant boast by Abdul Rashid, the former EC chief and new Perkasa member, wakakaka.
And our dear wakakaka Anwar Ibrahim has 'warned the BN government that Pakatan Rakyat will not allow the re-delineation of constituencies to be debated in Parliament unless it is done with transparency and fairness.' Wakakaka.
But then he is not only a poor performing FT Minister (like Hishamuddin he has two left feet masquerading as his mouth) but one who is grossly unrepresentative to be FT Minister as he is only the representative of the electorally-puny Putrajaya constituency.
Anyway, the above is only kaytee's dream list for the electoral delineation exercise and I'm realistic enough to realize it's unlikely to eventuate, wakakaka.
But Bersih issued a statement that it wanted 'all constituency re-delineation exercises stopped until the electoral rolls are cleaned up and new Election Commission (EC) members are appointed', the latter thanks to the arrogant boast by Abdul Rashid, the former EC chief and new Perkasa member, wakakaka.
And our dear wakakaka Anwar Ibrahim has 'warned the BN government that Pakatan Rakyat will not allow the re-delineation of constituencies to be debated in Parliament unless it is done with transparency and fairness.' Wakakaka.
 |
| man man lai with the delineation exercise, wakakaka |
