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This is an outdated anachronistic and bullshit clause which should, nay, must be removed forever more!
This is an outdated anachronistic and bullshit clause which should, nay, must be removed forever more!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 |
You're again writing an old issue. Weved had this argument plenty of times. First lets establish some principle. Even in UK and the US there's no equal vote for everyone. Why is this? Its a historical product captured in the constitution. So please read again from the original constitution of malaya, rural area has always been given greater weightage. To top it all, don't forget state balance of power which also form the crux of the constitution determines the powers between the state. Please remember we are a federation lah.
ReplyDeleteI repeat there is nothing wrong in giving more weightage to certain constituency. You cannot find anywhere under the law of US ke or UK ke its illegal or even undemocratic.
Secondly, how can you separate a constituency. Putrajaya is a capital and not connected with any kl territory. It is a right by itself to be a constituency. In fact I will argue its ludicrous to have various disjointed constituency. Can you even give an example in foreign jurisdiction in UK or US where there's such a thing?
Thirdly, lets be blunt. People who want urban similar weightage with rural has never been based on principles. Its based on who they want to win. And this is the problem with this argument.
The issue to this is simple. We cannot have a wide disparity because its unfair. Lets close the gap on the ratio. As in all our past, rural has more weightage. We must recognise this. We should develop on a better ratio rather than denying the rural weightage.
The EC head is correct and constitutional in regards to the weightage. Those who condemn him based on this please go read your constitutional history. A constitution has always been based on traditions everywhere worldwide. You seek to change you prove your case but to call others who defend the constitutional practice as dumb shows how dumb the person is.
In Australia the Jervis Bay Territory, surrounded by the state of New South Wales (NSW) and 190 km from the Australian Capital Territory (ACT - more commonly referred to as Canberra) is part of the ACT.
DeleteElectorally it forms part of the Fraser federal parliamentary constituency in the ACT. For purpose of senate representation it is also part of the ACT.
So tell me why Putrajaya which is mere km from T.B.R cannot be part of a new section hived from from T.B.R. It is grossly obscene that it stands as a federal constituency by itself with its mere 16K voters, endowing it with an obscenely over-inflated over-representation in parliament where it has 9 times more say than the people in Kapar. What kind of democracy, what kind of EC are we having?!!
And on your point about rural constituency being given extra weightage, is Putrajaya a rural constituency? Isn't Putrajaya an aberration to your so-called historical context?
The fact is the UMNO-controlled EC buat syiok sendiri saja whenever it wishes, saying it's white when it's black, and vice versa when it suits them. It was allegedly said that Dr M, when PM, told the EC he wanted more mixed ethnic federal seats, supposedly to prevent encroachment by DAP and PAS. I wonder how he now views such seats of his alleged making, now that DAP and PAS have an 'understanding' to cooperate. Will white now become black?
KT,
DeleteWhy r u bother to educate this CBMF about democratic rights?
He has mastered his selective amnesia from that sifu mamak, while hiding behind his pseudo-righteousness mask.
This egregious racist deserves to be snappered point blank, so that he could be laughed at without his knowing! Let him syiok-sendiri for a writing that proved his low-life mentality!
He earns that for the close of 2013.
I have to disagree. But please allow my write to be published and Ill be civil (unless to cbmf and others who attack me without basis).
DeleteFirst I thank you for jervis bay example. It was an interesting anomaly you gave. I've checked other electoral divisions of Australia and they are contiguous. This follows a prime criteria in demarcating an electoral division like everyone else in the world ie having a contiguous area. There shouldn't be another electoral division separating one electoral division.
The question was how did this anomaly happen. Now for those unaware of Jarvis bay history, please note it was ceded by NSW because they believe a capital city (Canberra or ACT) must have a port. Strange but true. So jarvis was carved out. It now has a population of merely 400 people now. I believe its much lesser when it was ceded. Originally jarvis forms under one electoral division with canberra but has since been under Fraser division when the ACT electoral division was split. It is split by 100 km plus by other electoral divisions.
This is a strange historical product. When the first electoral division for ACT was created I believe jervis bay was almost unhabitable. It is illogical then to create another constituency which there is almost no one. They had been administered then by a department.
Now an interesting thing to note is that when ACT was created and parliament was opened in Canberra the population of Canberra was below 20000. There was no fuss by Australians on misapportionment. Everybody understood that when you have a new area carved out you definitely need to have a separate representation.
Thus the jervis Bay Area is not a good example to apply in malaysia but merely an anomaly. In fact the tried and tested principle of a contiguous area is still maintained by electoral commission of Australia. Why? Because it doesn't make sense to split electoral division with another division. It is also arbitrary unfair and administratively hard to govern.
That's why when selangor ceded Putrajaya it must necessarily form another constituency. Putrajaya is not connected to any part of Wilayah. Neither can it be under sepang.
Putrajaya population of 16000 may be the lowest now but it will grow fast with all the developments. Many there are still registered elsewhere. Canberra or ACT also started the same and there was no issue at all by the Aussies.
To include Labuan with Putrajaya is itself an arbitrary gerrymandering. Anywhere in the world no one electoral commission will combine two far off area into one constituency. Labuan has much more population than Putrajaya and deserves a rep.
So lets get back to the issue. Its one of narrowing the urban rural weightage. An argument that in every democracy one must have an equal vote and weightage is a fallacy. Even liberal democracies do not practice this principle. Why? Because of history, tradition and social condition. The best example is of course US. Wyoming which has a population of 500k has a collegiate votes of 3. While Arizona which has 6.5 million has 10 votes. A voter in Wyoming is worth 4 times than a voter in Arizona? Is US then undemocratic?
So don't jump to conclusion. Its a historical product and of social construct. If you want to really go for proportional representation, everything must be relooked. That itself require another posting.
Dear CBMF,
DeleteKahkahkah. You're really funny and disconnected. I thank you again for confirming time and again that you have no clue or knowledge to rebut or answer. As a result you had no choice but to result in imbecile personal comment. Anyway Its always a "pleasure" to encounter a racist DAPspter who has nothing upstairs. Wish you have a good CBMF year ahead. Tata!!
Ellese,
Deletefirstly it's not correct and in fact obfuscating to attempt to equate the US Electoral College to our Westminster-style (federal) parliamentary representative system as they are totally different systems especially when the College electors comprise those 'pledged' and 'un-pledged' - I' not going into that here.. A more equitable comparison would be our MP with US Congressmen.
Secondly, notwithstanding your obfuscating attempt, each US State's number of electors in the US Electoral College is in fact reflective of the number of senators and congressmen it has. Since every US sovereign State has 2 senators each, the State's number of electors is thus representative of its number of congressmen.
Thirdly, you were totally wrong in saying Arizona has only 3 electors when it has 12, having gained 1 extra since the 2010 census - in which obviously population growth endowed the State the right to one more congressman -something for our EC to be aware of, wakakaka.
Many US States with smaller population (<1 mil) like Montana, Wyoming, Delaware, N Dakota etc have only 3 electors while the biggies like California has 55, Florida and New York (State, not city) 29 each. But to repeat, your Arizona has 12, not 3 as you incorrectly claimed. Sorry to disabuse you with a fact.
Fourthly, there is no difference between Putrajaya and the case of Jervis Bay as both came into being as a result of governments desiring to have a separate capital territory independent of the sovereign states. Putrajaya in fact has lesser justification for its existence as Wilayah Persekutuan (KL region) already existed as a separate & independent-of-the-States (to wit, Selangor) capital territory. It seems someone with a chip on his shoulder felt the need to show the world Malaysia has a city worthy of the Arabian 1001 nights, wakakaka, and thus billions of public/taxpayers' money were thrown into that hole called Putrajaya.
But nonetheless, both Jervis Bay and Putrajaya were each integral part and parcel of the federal or capital territories, regardless of their non-contiguousness from the parent territory. Both have very small population unworthy of being a federal parliamentary constituency by itself. That UMNO saw it as a political advantage to gazette Putrajaya as another of its 'fixed deposits' does not justify its status, hence the current delineation revision must take this into account though I won't hold my breath waiting for the UMNO-led government to ever agree. A status quo, unworthy as it is, would be hard to change as we saw in the decades of perpetuating the evil Adorna case precedent.
Lastly, the bloated parliamentary representation in the weightage of rural areas was another UMNO perception of these being its 'fixed deposits', hence its deliberate violation of the democratic principle of equality in the doctrine of 'one person one vote'.
But like Dr M's belief that mixed ethnic constituencies would be BN's 'fixed deposits' (denied to both DAP and PAS), these areas can change their political allegiance because UMNO may be able to fool some people all of the time, and all people some of the time, but not all people all of the time, wakakaka.
Dear KT thank you for publishing and hope you can continue to publish.
DeleteOne, the was no obfuscating if you compare the US collegiate system. If one look at the debate of collegial system it has similar debates. They argued that the system is disproportionate. They argued that it favours the rural states which always back republican. They also argued its undemocratic as it doesn't reflect popular votes. In fact whatever arguement raised here is similar. It has federalism and historical context as an issue. We can go deeper.
On Arizona I was basing on 08 stats which comes with the population number and analysis of the disproportionment of the votes. It was true then it had 10 votes as I wrote above. As population moves up the figures will change and they have another rule to apply for increase. It now has 11. However the argument and debate now still remains the same why an elector of one state has 3 times the weightage from an elector in another state.
I need to disagree with you big time on this issue. The jervis bay incident of 400 people is an extreme anomaly. Putrajaya though smallest but its not the only small constituency. There is another at 17k and a number at 20k. I believe there is no whatsoever justification you can give to create another constituency of 400 like jervais and the aussies had join it. But Putrajaya and Canberra (ACT) demarcation has many similarities. Even though its small it needs a representation.
You can have a last say as I'm not responding unless there's new facts. I do think you seemed reasonable and independent. We should at least work on developing principles to narrow down the urban rural weightage for everyone to have a fair balance of things. I don't expect pr and bn can agree to anything. Both have interests of how to win at all costs only. Thus we get nowhere and lot of time wasting.
uk oso face the same issue of urban rural weightage, but the diff in weightage is not that huge, moreover their history on democracy is a little bit long, usa have much shorter history, 3 is sort of minimum, they always base on latest banji.
Deletethus in msia case, do we have an election system as far back as the uk n us one? what is wrong to limit the 20% max diff, who change that? why my puchong constituencuy have 107k registered voter while the one next to us putrajaya start with 5k, n now still only 15k? i agree rural shd have a higher weightage especially sabah sarawak, but i dun think it is fair to justify with history in this case, it doesnt rationalise what democracy is about.
again Ellese, you're being obfuscating. As I said the US Collegial system is to elect the US president, not a congressman (MP). Here in Malaysia we're talking about delineation of federal (and state) constituency for its voters to elect their parliamentary representative (MP or ADUN). Why should voters in Putrajaya have 9 times the parliamentary representation (thus the say in Parliament) compared to the voters in Kapar?
DeleteAnd to remind you, in the US Collegial system there are such electors as 'pledged' and 'unpledged' which has nothing to do with the Westminster-styled parliamentary system, so stop bringing in oranges to compare with our buah bangsat, wakakaka.
And whatever you might wish to say, Arizona has 12 electors, not 3 or 10 or 11 as you mentioned. The 12 is a number which is reflective of the number of its two senators and 10 congressmen, the latter of which is reflective of its number of registered voters.
Please don't attempt to say that Putrajaya is like Canberra in terms of voter-numbers-constituency-demarcation because Canberra's population varies between 200K to 300K (there is a highly mobile work force there), unlike Putrajaya's mere 15K to 16K (which is more the numbers for a state but not federal constituency).
Canberra's parliamentary constituencies varies from 3 to 2 to 3 etc depending on its population or voter numbers as assessed by the Censor Department and EC. Each constituency represents around 80K citizens (which has been why those living in Jervis Bay is absorbed into the Fraser constituency in the ACT), so unlike the small numbers in that dot which the UMNO-controlled EC created into a federal constituency to (in the infamous words of its former chairperson) "ensure the continued political dominance of the Malays" (change the last word to mean UMNO as PAS would not agree, wakakaka).
And the Australian EC would never compromise its impartial integrity to ever stoop down into the gutters like the Malaysian EC, so don't even mention the thought (hypothetical as it might have been) of it ever considering the creation of Jervis Bay into a federal parliamentary constituency. That sort of gerrymandering lies in the bailiwick of the Malaysian EC as in the case of a 16K-strong Putrajaya wakakaka.
In fact, in a previous election, the Aus EC re-delineated PM John Howard's Bennelong constituency, supposedly a Coalition blue-ribbon seat (stronghold) which saw PM Howard lost the election to Labor's Maxime Mackew, a political newcomer, wakakaka.
In my post I have already stated my stand on how I see where the delineation exercise should look at to ensure (not political dominance of a particular party but) democratic fairness, without sacrificing the weightage for Sabah and Sarawak.
HY, leaving aside Sabah and Sarawak for reasons of their historical merger with Malaya, can you tell me why the rural areas should enjoy weightage?
DeleteThe US minimum of 3 is with regards to their electors for the US College of Electors to choose the US president. In the US, each and every sovereign State (eg. not Guam or Puerto Rico) has 2 senators. The figure three is based on a sovereign (US) State's 2 senators and a minimum of 1 congressman, and NOT 3 congressmen. This is why small rural states like Wyoming, Montana etc has only 3 electors (not congressmen) each.
HY agree with you. I think we should size down all above 100 k first. But yet to do the numbers. The Sabah Sarawak legacy creates a huge discrepancy problem.
Deletekt, the us founding fathers priority is to balance the power btw president, senate n congress, they wary about the likes of lky n mahathir more than anything else. our senate is a bunch of useless echo not even dare to fart parasite.
Deleteback to yr question, pray tell why every state have 2 senate regardless of number of registered voter? the answer is obvious right? tyranny of the majority. i assert my point limited to 20% which is in line with the constitution, or ealier constitution bec we have a band of thief that can just change anything as long as it suit them.
i further assume that rural is more disadvantage in every aspect, lack education and not informative, relatively poor and require more assitance, they need affirmative action similar to nep, on a qualification (i am dreaming?) that we could develop ways to kick the butt of that bunch of theft, robber and murderer.
there is no perfect model, but i stilll think higher weightage for rural is justifiable at this point of time.
HY,
DeleteLKY is not as ultimate dictatorial as you portray him to be. You simply don't have enough knowledge of PAP itself. Likewise, DAP took shape from PAP. For all you know, Anwar is lagi more dictatorial in PKR than LKY in PAP.
To a certain extent, I got to agree with you it's regarding the balance of power but it's actually the balance of power between state sovereignty & popular vote. That slimy Ellese has tricked this kaytee into engaging a debate that doesn't actually highlight the actual problems.
Yes, there is no perfect model. However, I disagree with the need of having an outrageously higher weightage towards the rural folks. The problem would have been solved by calling for REAL ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Kaytee should use this to whack Ellese if this slimy cibai dare to give the power back to pakciks & makciks.......Hahahahaha
Kaytee,
DeleteYou should fly to USA to meet up with another elusive melayu called Mark Husny Shaibuddin, who called Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tok Yam. This guy will give you the full history of how USA political system comes about. He can even give you a refresher course on the love of Christ & his escapades in THAILAND. Who is your sifu RPK when Daim came to his residence with slippers during his not so famous days. Hahahaha.
It's kinda joke when this slimy Ellese wanna use USA as an example. Come to think of it.......USA is a union kah or conderacy. Each states got its own courts. Highly decentralised......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court
Some of the judges are elected one lei......Ask Ellese, wanna grab wholesale
Kaytee,
DeleteObfuscating! Wow, that's a very powderful word. I expect This slimy Ellese, a lawyer. I am wondering if he's this fella who involved in the Teoh Beng Hock case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maQK3jNrg9E
Kaytee,
ACT was started with less than 20K registered voters. So does Northern Territory Division. It has 1300 voters when it started. See, THE FUCKING PROBLEM of playing by the rules of the likes of Ellese.
The whole point doesn't lie on the exercise of demarcation according to the size of population. More insidiously is the arbitrary transfer of folks from one constituency to another without even consulting any parties except BN. The case is actually the trustworthiness of EC. I dare to say since Tunku's time, it's never been fair. In fact, surprise, surprise even singapore is much fairer than malaysia or even australia even though the election department is under PM. I know Ellese would disagree.
It's tiring to fight in a political game without any level playing. This is the tactic employed extremely successful by UMNO all these years. The only way would be to the streets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5GV8SbofgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AY2xxNU28U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0PIUhcrA5c
Kaytee,
Me admire good old england because UK gave us (Malaysian students including RPK, Hisham Rais, KJ & me) votes without prejudice. My constituency is Guildford.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies
Too bad, kaytee used australia ones. Should yingeland ma.
weightage for rural areas in a couple of Western countries originated with rich landowners, cattle ranchers etc - they wanted protection from the poor masses. It had nothing to do with them being more disadvantage in every aspect, or that they lacked education or were relatively poor etc. In fact they were the rich.
DeleteThe US Collegial system also had to do with the South fearing the votes of the Negroes in the North, who today are called African Americans
ok looes, I'll apply for yingland kewarganegaraan tomorrow wakakaka
DeleteAn urban voter can also argue that his vote deserves greater weight because the greater complexity and multitude of issues associated with urban living demands more effective representation. End of the day, all these arguments go against the basic principle of one-man-one-vote which should not be compromised. As it is, ruling parties already enjoy built-in advantages when it comes to rural votes. Enhancing the value of the rural vote would only serve to further tilt the playing field. The only reason for allowing a small tolerance of say 10% is simply because it would be quite impractical to expect a perfect delineation.
Deletekt, shd we not look at the weightage from a race angle, do u find it unfair to give rural folks (of course not the owner of ioi plantation, kl kepong, sime n the likes) some advantage, let say 20%? we know voting rights was not given to the poor, woman n color in usa until recently, it take time to develop a progressive democratic system, but like i said, some countries have long history, they explore without guidance n seek improvement, we malaysia r relatively young, but that is not an excuse to reinvent the wheel, r we saying young cannot learn science thus regress to read baguwen bec we r young?
Deletei dun expect everyone to share my view, i particularly abhor with those who believe a universirty graduate entitle 2 votes compare to commoner, only dictator like lky with absurd mind can develop such an idea. so looes, did anwar put u or your dad in prison for 30 years for political difference? or u always have an interesting definition and fantastic logic when the topic of discussion is lky, pap n spore?
HY,
DeleteBefore you whack the man, kindly read the context in entirely. Please do not get me wrong that I am agreeing to the man. But rather looking at the way his placing down the facts. Anyway, kaytee has highlighted the so called dictatorial stances exhibited by Anwar. For me, I don't care because whichever cat that catches mouse is a good cat.
Why not we look at the graduate mother policy? The man is looking at it from the holistic point of view. The issue is......Poor folks tend to have more kids than rich ones. Generally speaking, poor folks doesn't have as better capability as the rich ones to provide conducive environment for the kids to grow. That's his view. Anyway, his views was shot down terang2 by old guards including SR Rajaratnam. (Kindly read the Man in White la)
As regarding to votes, LKY is placing down facts again why families with 2 kids (husband & wife aging 35 - 55) should be given 1.5 votes. It has nothing to do with whether those guys got degree or no degree. The reason LKY portray is simple. Those (aged above 55) whose children fully grown up has nothing to worry except for pension. Young ones definitely nothing to worry because no commitment ma.....So? See, you abhor it but he has a point. For me, I can disagree with that man but just like din merican, I respected him because he stood up for his believe.
HY,
But then Kaytee has mentioned so many times about Anwar, he never admit that he has done wrong on the chinese education thingy. The difference between me & kaytee, I put aside differences because there is a bigger fish to fry
Kaytee,
DeleteYou don't have to apply for UK citizenship. Just stay in UK for 6 months can liao. Notice why UK border agency is screening through commonwealth citizens especially malaysians the sufficient financial means to stay in UK for the period of time. It's because they can vote in UK. To be an MP, one just have to be the permanent resident of the country. See how Aishah (Read Hisham Rais's blog) can survive there for nong nong time.
UK is the only country that does not have a written constitution. Most of them goes by conventions. Certain UK statues stated that The Queen can appoint & dismiss ministers. But by convention, she can't do so except through the advice & consent of PM. Something to do with one king that lost his head that started the civil war where Yingeliang had turned republic. Your sifu RPK can teach you on this
whether rural, suburban or urban, the voters in those constituencies would be represented by a politician who we pray would know what he or she has to do, wakakaka. So I don't see how giving weightage to rural areas can help them (they're usually rich landowners or rich farmers anyway, but also applies to poor with minimum education) if their political representatives are either idiots or unscrupulous bums
DeleteThe problem would have been solved by having the elected local government. But then why wouldn't UMNO & to a certain extent possibly PKR would not allow it. Simple, it leads to regional government. Regional government means less power. Hahahaha
Deletelooes, u r right. my mistake on the 2 votes criteria. the dictatorial claim is wrt autocratic act in silancing voice of dissent, not any elitism thought n idea, mahathir could have similar excuse of what he did, thus u r not much vary with the malay rightist, just diff colour.
Deleteanwar did admit wrong on the 1987 incident. din merican sure respect lky bec he ban commenters that disagree with him, raja anglo likewise. lky is less hypocrite compare to din n mahathir n that anglo petra. i dun like deng cat quote, among the dictators, i am okay with mao, i think he truly side the poor.
"Not unlike other scholarship, politically sensitive historical research in and about Singapore has been constrained, to put it mildly. Hagiography and apologia are well rewarded, while dissent from official versions often suffers from self- and other censorship as well as peer pressure. Some observers even point to a 'growing band of scholars who, more for career considerations, rather than political or ideological reasons are being absorbed into active scholarship in line with officially dictated projects' especially on the recent history of Singapore" jomo ks
The long delay in the EC boundary deliniation exercise is easily understood, once you realise the EC's primary objective is to keep UMNO in power.
ReplyDeleteBy law it was due in 2011. However, BN lost its 2/3 majority in 2008. So the customary Rubber Stamp in Parliament couldn't be counted upon.
They decided to wait until after GE13, hoping BN would regain the 2/3. Again lost.
EC would gladly postpone the redeliniation exercise indefinitely, but alas the Constitution is a wee bit inconvenient, they can't keep postponing it forever.
The same situation exists with Constitutional amendments, which used to be rushed through aplenty. Since 2008 , the number has dropped to Zero.
That's not the spirit of the Constitution. It just says you need a 2/3 majority in Parliament to approve the amendment. So if BN doesn't have a 2/3 majority, it must seek concensus with sufficient other MPs to pass.
What's so difficult with that, if the amendment is a Necessary and Just one ?
Simple - many of the past Constitutional amendments were Unjust and Unnecessary.
Just to inform you that we have an elaborate constitution. Many of our amendments were technical in nature. When Sabah and Sarawak join malaysia we had 118 amendments on it. We also had a number of times amend to increase rates to reflect the times. There's nothing unjust on this.
DeletePlease note that some amendments are by way of majority.
Just ask that slimy joker, how many amendments in the US constitution?
Deletehttp://www.malaysiakini.com/news/250353
ReplyDeleteFat Mama strikes again....
I think I still prefer Anwar Ibrahim , man-man lai or not
You fellas do not like the present government eh?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/12/28/Zaitun-Leave-Malaysia-if-you-dislike-BN-govt/
Kt already did!
Lets compare to the USA - self-proclaimed champion of democracy.
ReplyDeleteAlaska - population 731,000 - less than the tiny dot of Penang sends 2 Senators to Washington.
California - population 38 Million - its GDP on its own would make it the World's 12th largest economy. - also elects 2 Senators to Washington.
What is fair, and what is not ?
Senators are NOT Congressmen (or MP). US senators supposedly represent the "State" (not so much the people), therefore each sovereign state regardless of population has two senators to represent the "State". Congressmen (or MP) represents the people hence the bigger the population in an area the more Congressmen will represent that population
DeleteI think my matey kaytee has argued from an extremely narrow point of view. Kaytee only mention one of a very tiny point why the whole thing is so unfavourable to us. I dare to say if we continue with kaytee's blind devotion in trusting his loverboy Najib to do the right thing. I dare to say DAP will be MAMPUS.
DeleteAiyaaa......ever since Tunku's time, it's already fucking unfair. Now!!!!????
Just ask one question.....why counting can be allowed at sub electoral districts? Heard of certain portion of pasir panjang kenna chopped off to setiawan. See play by the fucking rule......you fucking will lose
Anon 5:12pm....yours is a classic case of shooting your own foot....better luck next time eh? before cakap besar, do some proper research lah. Now you know the answer to your own question - what is fair, and what is not ? Pordahhhh.....
DeleteKaytee,
ReplyDeleteWho's the one who is running the show? BN itself? Who is the PM? Your beloved Najib.
What you have mentioned in the very lengthy thesis is just the tip of the iceberg? The problem with Malaysia is RULE OF LAW. Your beloved Najib got no sense of rule of law. See what happen to the HEAT when Najib can't stand the heat.
So now you know why Hisham Rais advocate going to the street. Street politics forced many seemingly OMNIPOTENT leaders to resign.......
1) Richard Nixon
2) De Gaulle
3) Margaret Thatcher
Of course, when UMNO got the big guns, it would be extremely messy. I wonder such tactics kinda similar to your nemesis Isreal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_1958
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election_referendum,_1962
Hahaha, kaytee, De Gaulle got over 60% votes to strengthen the french presidency
did you not see UMNO chop in the EC Chief ARSE-both present and past?
ReplyDeleteellesse
ReplyDeletewhy ask others to read consittution to defend your position?
why dont you go back to the original constitution before it was mutilated by you know who? what did the original constitution say about representation and constituency delineation?
I disagree. If we go back to our original constitution we won't have Sabah n Sarawak. We must read as is. Go into a bit of detail. You will find many of the spin on our constitution is untrue. We as Malaysians must uphold the constitution. That's the thing that holds us.
DeleteI sent earlier comment but had a glitch and somehow lost it. Anyway, to cut short the original constitution was rural based bias.
DeleteLoose,
ReplyDeleteYou can't condemn others for not following the rule of law when you support others who don't believe in the rule of law. Its a strange argument you raise.
CBMF,
DeleteU have really turned circular arguement into an act form for yr continue mental masturbation.
If history, tradition & culture r so important to u, there shouldn't be more craps coming out from u, in the form of twisted logic.
For someone, pretended to be 'knowlegeable' about constituent delineation, how much googling can u do?
Yr takes on the Jervis Bay/Canberra is a plagiared cut & paste notes from some Aussie university thesis.
Good try but still hp6 - from someone trying hard to appear 'neutral' in farcical racial comments!
Let see what u can google out in the case of Washington DC.
You always make me laugh in trying hard to push your ignorance across. The level of baseless allegation makes Zahid shameful. Must somehow get Zahid to learn from you.
DeleteWhile u r laughing, the blood is been bleeded internally.
DeleteAs u cant proved me slandering u, with facts, others have successfully demonished yr twisted arguments to smitten. And yet u still wanted to push up a CB front to prove nothing!
Zahid has a token doctarate, even with his tin kosong mentality. U r slightly 'better', with yr hp6 knowledge. That makes u person of greater evil. U r arrogant, thinking that u can fool people All The Time with yr little tricks of pseudo-understanding. Just like those umno parasites.
Zahid cant learn from me, for he wouldnt be surviving long in politic, bcoz politics lives on filmsy ground of ethics. Neither can he uses u as an example. But he definitely CAN engage u as a con-sultant!
Read back what I said in the beginning of this blog, yr continuing farcical showing of yr hypocrisy, would be one of yr biggest show of foolhardiness for the close of 2013.
Do prepare for another good one for 2014. Many of us would be waiting to see what whore u can put up. And there would be many volleys in waiting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXbhZLVWa9A
DeleteEllese, I rest my case
Ellese,
DeleteIs Naik your sifu?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SUDWix67PKA
ellese....that guy is already shameful by himself, no need for him to "learn" more.... remember the bashing he gave to someone ? how he teamed up with anwar to bring down mahathir and then pusing balik to angkat the winning side to reach where he is now, how he asked the gangster group to continue with their 'good' work...how he.....feel free to add more, his closet filled to the brim..
DeleteDear CBMF
DeleteGood try. You see however long you write 0 + 0 still equals to 0. Not sure whether you understand this but try to read a bit more subtantive material. then you'll
improve from zero. until then cheers to you. :-)
Aiyah, just look at this link before, you will know why
ReplyDeletehttp://malaysianpolitico.blogspot.com/2013/04/in-perspective-perak-statistics-and.html
Melayu got 48%, Chinese 38%, Indian 12% & Orang asli 2%
But then how many melayu majority seats contested by UMNO
38 seats which is about 64% of the seats.Just one melayu seat given to Gerakan to contest but lost to PKR. I am absolutely sure that slimy Ellese would use Penang statistic against this argument. But then
http://malaysianpolitico.blogspot.com/2013/04/in-perspective-penang-statistics-and.html
Those statistic is from SPR.....35% melayu votes should only get 14 state assembly constituencies. UMNO got 15.
If the EC were fair, wouldn't it be like this
28 Malay, 21 chinese, 7 Indian & 3 mixed areas.
How could it end up like this?
38 malay majority seats, 2 mixed & 20 chinese areas.
Looking at what the former EC, what more I can say about the fairness of the system? It's all because of UMNO.
Hahahahaha
ReplyDeletehttp://dapmalaysia.org/all-archive/English/2003/feb03/bul/bul1950.htm
Dear loose,
ReplyDeleteWeved had too many run ins and you know how it ends up. At KT you know I'm very restrained. So don't name calling me and just assert your point. I've done it politely so try to be civil. Otherwise i have no choice but reply in a harsher manner.
I've not engaged you much simply because a number of things weved trashed it before including the constitution bit. You know ill correct misleading impression and statement and give justification for that. If disagree just rebut. Rest assure I'll provide you with reasons. Its just too bad if you don't like it but theres no necessity to call names.
Ps your constitution remark comparing US and Malaysia is an outdated spin as highlighted to you before. The US constitution is brief short and principle based. Weved a detail constitution which even needs amendments to adjust to inflation Mah! You know all this kan but why repeat.
Fellow Malaysian,
ReplyDeleteDo bear in mind that the Constitution guarantee 25% of total federal seats to Sabah and Sarawak. So how your cut in West Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak will always hold 25% of the total seats.
Zuo De
I believe that many sabahans & sarawakians may never agree with you. It could be more than 25%. In any case, what's the point of maintaining the 25% of seats for east malaysians when they only get 5% oil revenue? See we can go on & on till the cow comes home.
DeleteHow about having 25% of the cabinet made up of east malaysia? Lagi baguskan? Oh ask UMNO to relinquish several important ministries to east malaysians
Seriously, I felt that the constitution of the nation should be to protect the interest of all rather than the interest of the so called majority. To be very frank, I am absolutely sure there would not be an implosion of bumiputra if not so many celup ones especially mamaks have become constitutional malays. From the onset itself, the whole thing had been flawed. Thus you have been seeing the constitutional of Malaysia that HAVE BEEN RAPED repeatedly over 600 times. The so called balance of power has been broken from the very beginning.
ReplyDeleteOf course, we can say. Damage has been done. We should move on but Quo Vadis Malaysia. Should we rely on the benovolent of the so called constitutional malays to be enlightened so that the sanity is restored?
Perhaps we should ask that slimy Ellese........If ones such as yours have been given special rights, well fed with food, supplements & money, would he willingly give up all these?
It's time that we should stood up for what's right. Fighting through UMNO's rule of law. Can meh? This is how the Blacks in America has won.....Blacks are ALSO FUCKING PENDATANGS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66_kqSG6aHI
This is a tribute to Rosa Park.........All the oppressed folks under UMNO apartheid rule should stop up against the likes of Ellese.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGRYS-vmLcY
Ellese,
Rosa Parks is a pendatang too
Dear slimy loose,
ReplyDeletePlease do not mislead. Why is 118 amendments to our constitution be regarded as rape. Why do you hate sabahan and sarawakians so much that you call the 118 amendments to the provision admitting them as raping?
You must cease the hatred. Life is like a box of chocolate. Enjoy it. Don't mislead and lie to satisfy the dark hatred in you. You're a much better person than this.
(Ps we then go to other amendments till we reach 600 or as much as we can. Weved done 1/6 already)
CBMF,
DeleteThis question of 118 (???) amendments to the Federal Constitution, for admitting Sabah/Sarawak into The Federation of Malaysia was/is a farcical play right from the beginning.
Perhaps, u should list out those beneficial 118 amendments for the EM’sians to check!
In fact calling them rape is mild – considering the blundering of their natural resources, in both states, by the various parties, especially with the elegantly silence of the federal govt, that until these days both Sabah/S’wak r still locked below acceptable socio-economical development for their populace. Sabah has also been deteriorated to become one of the poorest states in M’sia!
Just a digress, same thing happened to Kelantan, with her abundant timber resources & yet, again, she remains one of the poorest states in M’sia! Considering, Kelantan was a Malay state & yet still faces the preposterous blunderings by her own kind.
These numbers of amendment were made over a period of time. Most of them were done during the earlier 2/3 rule of Alliance/BN, with the later accounting for majority of the changes proposed, long after the formation of M’sia!
They were also done during the early days of the political awakening of the Joe East M’sians, with the help of the sycophant & greedy EM’sian politicians.
Most glaring was the fact that these two countries were looped in by the UMNO to balance out the population strength of the Chinese, as contributed by the now exited S’pore in the formation of The Federation of Malaysia. The sopo economical wellbeing of the two states were NEVER the top agenda.
Right from the beginning, in Tunku’s word – ‘…ensure Malay political control even after the enfranchisement of large numbers of non-Malays..’,
Malay siege mentality had been played out through & through for the imagined fear of political/economical dislocation of the Ketuanan Melayu, even though KM was not quoted at that time.
There were, never any actual intention to treat the EM’sia states as 2 of the 4 equal partners (Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak & Singapore) in the formation of the M’sia Federation. Rather, they were been grouped as the equal of the 9 PM’sia states & been treated as such ever since. & the earlier EM’sian politicians, with the exceptions of Tun Fuad Stephens (Sabah) & Stephen Kalong Ningkan (S’wak), gimmickry played along for the sopo demised of the two resource-rich states.
Instead, the two mentioned EM’sian politicians were treated badly - with Fuad died in a mystery air clash together with majority of the then Sabah state cabinet members, while Ningkan was sacked unceremonious with the help of the PM’sian imposed emergency.
Many of the current generation of the EM’sians, knows they had been conned & raped over the years. The revival of the growing emphasis of the 20- & 18-points agreements, for Sabah & S’wak respectively, is the sign of the day. AND they r holding FAST to these two agreements RATHER than the Federal Constitution, which they considered ONLY as a piece of PM'sia trash.
Any wonder, why EVERYTIME when issues related to the EM’sia, these two documents r been mentioned, rather than the Federal Constitutions!
CBMF,
DeleteI never thought it was possible. But you did the impossible. From Zero it becomes negative. A first.
You bloody don't know what's in the Malaysia Agreement and got con by Jeffry's spin. Next time read first. Don't be lazy. Go google Malaysia agreement. See how foolish you are. http://hakbersuara.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/why-must-jeffry-and-pr-cohorts-lie-about-sabah-and-sarawak/.
CBMF,
DeleteWakaka, from zero to negative, what a quote for the end of 2013 from a hp6 spin doc based on an equally spurious umno-ized write-up!
How difficult for one to understand the 18- & 20-point agreements that one needs a professional spin doc to disect the clauses?
Or izznt it like what u spinned earlier that these two documents r written in the same manner as ' detail constitution which needs amendment to adjust to inflation' mah, ouch2x!!
For all yr spins, the 18- & 20-point agreements r written in the same format as the 'brief' US Constitution. Yr mentioned googling spin had done a lousy write-up by doing the 'detailing' expansion that hp6 likes u like to prove yr oxymoron twist. Doing so, he destroy the mean of comon-sense that these two documents had been intended by the signees!
Make one wonder how low can a low-live re-interprets the wordings of a written document for spin with veinglorious 'spud' intelligence.
BTW, u r confirming that googling is indeed yr passion for pseudo-research. Especially those write-ups that's matching yr taste. However, perhaps this time u do learn & quote source - to avoid been labelled as a plagarist, even though the source is equally crappy.
Next time, try some neutral & peer-reviewed researches to do yr takes. Otherwise, u r again making a fool of yrself.
Or could it be that there is nothing for yr hp6 mind to understand & spin if they r NOT written to yr level of understanding & taste?
Cbmf, may god have mercy on you. Try to be objective and read. I've quoted verbatim the Malaysia agreement and wrote an FAQ for even school children to understand. You must kick out this sikap malas membaca. Rather than embarrassing you here exposing the lies, I strongly suggest you read the true hard facts. May God provide guidance to you and open your heart to the truth. Peace be with you.
DeleteCBMF, also I need to add. If you have read the Malaysian agreement, I suggest you read the constitution itself to compare. See how different its from the 20 points and how Sabah and Sarawak have agreed to our constitution. You can refer to a few treatises like by sufian, jayakumar and even Harding and shad. I'm very familiar with all the provisions of our constitution and if you're diligent enough we can go to case laws. These are not on the Internet but I can help you understand what happened and with god's guidance hope you see the light and false understanding you had based in accusing and condemning others. Despite your personal unjustified attack I still harbor hope though infinitessimal that you be shown the true path. Open your mind to objectivity. Peace be with you my CBMF dude.
DeleteCBMF,
DeleteIf u truly believe in yr God, then dont DO fitnah by twisting facts!
Aint u confusing yrself about yr 'Malaysia Agreement' & the more simplistic 18- & 20-point agreements?
Who wrote what, eh!!! Who is malas membaca? Or should u've stated that - read anything, as long as it goes with my theme.
Only low life would turn to his/her supreme one for mercy to win an argument. After all, how many time can one regurgitate trash/spin?
Just watch this you would know that Ellese is like Glenn beck.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebexx89yohE
We should use Jon stewart method in ridicuing Ellese. That will make them freak & mampus cock stand
CBMF, obviously now even god cannot help you.
DeleteDear Slimy loose, its obvious just like in the past you couldn't rebut and had to resort to personal attack. Many times in the past I always suggested that we might as well start with the end ie personal abuse. Since this is KT's blog ill still exercise refrain. Otherwise In my blog ill publish your comments together with other "zero" cheap unthinking comments.
DeletePerhaps someone SHOULD educate this slimy low-life how to do counter-attack professionally.
DeleteUsing god can always back-fire, as this supreme being's dogma is two-facing, ie good & evil open for interpretation. If not careful, then one can easily kena kaw-kaw!
RPK has a much smarter approach. He uses race to do his betting. Check this out: http://www.malaysia-today.net/how-racism-works/
U REALLY has to give him credit for been able to twist a personal argument into an insult for the WHOLE race.
Coupled that with the in-bred inferiority complex & umno-ized siege mentality, he can easily raise the racial tension, between the two major races, 10x higher.
& many of his fans r buying his counter-argument, lot stock & barrel, wholesale! easily the better plan for the umno rising cost-of-living diversion. Much much better than that half-baked treason and thereby gone against Islamic teachings shit by that infamous Perak Mufti Harussani Zakaria.
What a subtle agent provoker, par excellent, for the GOOD future of umno.
Really makes one wonder what he actually want, out from his bruised ego?
To be frank, the constituency boundaries drawn up in Malaya 1957 were intended to protect Malay political power.
ReplyDeleteThe supposed rationale of rural constituencies being drawn with smaller population because they are more inacessible and difficult to serve was just a political excuse.
The Malays formed slightly less than 50% of the population of Malaya in 1957. Combine this with the weaker economics of the Malays, and there was a real fear in 1957 that the Malays would become marginalised and alienated within Tanah Melayu.
Fear can often be objectively analysed as illogical and lacking substance, but there is no denying it is a very real emotion.
In 2014, there is zero danger of Malay marginalisation, but the imbalance between Rural/Urban constituencies is now just a tool to ensure the perpetuation of UMNO power.
Of course, those who benefit handsomely from the UMNO kleptocracy will support this wholeheartedly.
You are right. Like it or not, it's an aparthied like. The same argument used by afrikanners in south africa. The white would surely mampus. The difference is the white willing to give up power but UMNO won't
DeleteThere's some truth but you gloss over many things for convenience. The next lowest constituency is a rural area in Sarawak of 17000. Umno is not there. Its not a melayu area but melanau unless you're saying both are the same. How does this weightage help Umno then? Don't gloss over and generalise. You miss the issue. We had many difficulties with the legacy of Sabah n Sarawak plus Singapore to ensure balance of power.
DeleteWhat is CBMF ?
ReplyDeletecool buddy? my friend?
DeleteOK lah....pity those not in the loop...so here goes...CBMF = Chee Bai Mother Fucker, which btw, perfectly describe that Ellese guy to the T, haha....somehow this Anon 12:55 got the knack to hit the nail on that Ellese CB head....LOL. Wow.....this MF even resort to asking god to have mercy whenever he got slaughtered again....again, and yet again. Give up lah, chee bai. Making a real fool of yourself here.
DeleteSomehow I prefer CBMF Cool Buddy My Friend....
Deletewakakakaka
Kahkahkah... People can see lah. You had to resort to name calling et all coz you don't have depth and knowledge. Your so call fragile truth has been based on shallow propaganda spin and thus had no choice to go on irrelevant name calling method when the glass cracks. its again so obvious above. though i disagree with kt but at least kt defended his position. You my cbmf friend dare not and actually cant explain and wiggle on every account, Everybody can see that ive exercised restrain with a lot of sarcasm. Have a good CBMF day.
DeletePS its still zero.:-)
Errr....that ellese umno cybertrooper is anything but cool and he's friend/buddy only to the corrupted and two-faced ones....birds of a feather lah.
DeleteCBMF,
DeleteMake up yr bloody mind - am I zero & negative up there?
Personally I prefer to be negative so that I could duel with the daily trashes coming out from slimy low-life like u.
As far as name calling, u deserve every single one of these labels. But since u r still in syok-sendiri mode, I suppose the people out there (NOT u, moron) need some recaps.
CB, as a claimed ‘learned’ man, u twisted the fact about rural representative weightage by quoting US & UK as examples. Such weightage occurred throughout the democratic world, BUT never as practiced by bolihland under BN.
Bearing in mind that bolihland constituent delineation has two components - the distribution of the total electorate among constituencies (apportionment) and the determination of constituency boundaries (districting).
The Malaya founding fathers had agreed that the apportionment weightage was limited to 15% of the national average.
This is the NORM for a free society. Even now, US & UK have VERY strict electoral rules governing this percentage. In fact, the current trend is towards reducing the percentage rather than increasing, due to the advancement in electronic means.
Yet, this figure was changed by mamak to 50% then, to now, no limit during the numerous constitutional amendments!
Did u mention this in yr write-ups? Instead, u r cycling around the bandwagon (general rural/urban distribution), ignoring the goods (unfair weightage increment).
U also conveniently grossed over the factor of districting, which results in the mutilated concoction of jigsaw arrangement of constituents. Prime example, just look at the boundaries of various constituents in KL to note this point. They r drawn to protect the favored race!
The biggest laugh is that as a Federal Territory with multiple constituents within, her governing authority is been appointed & NOT been formed by the elected majority of the winning party!
1of2
cont 2of2
DeleteTo certain extend, both the changes in distorted districting & mal-apportionment contributing to the possible creation of the 'fixed deposit' constituent like Putrajaya.
As far as the Jervis Bay/Canberra cut & paste piece, u r still a plagiarist! Oh, BTW, Jervis Bay inclusion was not purely due to apportionment, districting also played a part! The Ozzie would never allow the scheme like Putrajaya to be implemented. Talk about strange historical product!!!
Now back to the biggest CB in this talk – both the mal-apportionment & distorted districting of the constituents in M’sia r done for the interest of the tongkat race. Hello, there – it’s a race based scheming right from the start.
DID u mention THAT, too?
Unlike in US /UK, the constituent delineation is more or less socio-economical in planning, with emphasize given to one-man-one-vote, tied with strict controlled weightage if allowed.
Just like Aku Melayu juga said;
‘To be frank, the constituency boundaries drawn up in Malaya 1957 were intended to protect Malay political power.
The supposed rationale of rural constituencies being drawn with smaller population because they are more inaccessible and difficult to serve was just a political excuse’
It’s still the same & more tighten NOW.
Lets just touch on yr well-read ‘Malaysia Agreement’ for a simple sketch;
In 1963, seats in the 159-member elected House of Representatives were distributed as follows: 15 to Singapore, 16 to Sabah, 24 to Sarawak and the remaining 104 to the Malayan states. This apportionment was clearly not proportional to population (or electorate).
So population weightage is NOT implemented BCOZ, these other 3 countries joined Malaya as a equal sovereign partners, period.
My question to yr CB brain is what happened to the S’pore’s15 seats when she quit, then? Did Alliance distribute those seats to the E M’sia States to make up the QUARANTEE 25% quota or did umno saput all of them, not even had a thought about his partners-in-crime; MCA & MIC?
This was later corrected in the subsequent delineation exercises (I think in Sabah 1986 & S’wak 1990), with the insistent of the E M’sian states.
So slimy with yr M’sia Agreement!
Guess why it's meaningless to engage slimy folks such as Ellese. Such folks would say anything just to stay in power. Which is why kaytee's method of folling UMNO's rule of law would lead to kaytee being branded as persona non grata. Perhaps, kaytee's citizenship would be revoked. UMNO MUST MAMPUS for the sake of Malaysia! These are prophetic words from Tunku Andul Rahman
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkglnAbjQEI
"kaytee's citizenship should be revoked"
ReplyDeleteSokooong !
Citizenship to be revoked ? Ahh.....not much different from this fugly Wanita Umno's war cry. Btw.....this bitch's mug makes one want to puke....even a oranghutan looks more winsome in that red baju kurung :
Deletehttp://kosongcafe.blogspot.com/2013/12/wanita-umno-catches-attention-of-51-of.html#links
UMNO and Perkasa like to blab about revoking the Citizenship of this or that person, usually non-Malays, because somehow their citenship status is considered 2nd class...
DeleteActually there is no process under the law to revoke the Citizenship of a person who has Malaysian citizenship by right of birth.
If a person takes up citizenship of another country, he loses his Malaysian citizenship, but that is different matter.
A person originally of another country who becomes a naturalised Citizen can have his citizenship revoked for stipulated offences.
There were a few cases of China-born Malaysian residents who had their citizenship revoked due to alleged anti-Government activities. That by itself is still controversial, but there is such a provision in the terms and conditions of Naturalized Citizenship.
This was also the tactic the US used to get rid of some Mafioso Godfathers back in the 1950's. Those born in Sicily , and became naturalised citizens ended up deported back to Sicily. Evidence that may not be strong enough to get a criminal conviction in courts, could still be used to strip a naturalised citizen of his status. Most of them did not survive long in Sicily.
Happy 2014 ...Constitutional crisis coming up ....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/as-allah-issue-rages-on-groups-want-herald-editor-to-be-charged-for-contemp
"Ahmad Zaharin Mohd Saad, Jais's newly appointed director, ....said the state religious authorities would draw up a list of Selangor churches before writing to ask them to comply with the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation among Muslims) Enactment 1988."
JAIS has no authoritiy to interfere with the right of Non-Muslims to practice their religion in peace within their own religious community.
Why is Ktemoc still supporting these idiots ?
I am not sure if kaytee is supporting these goons but this has proven a point that you don't need PAS to have such talibanic law. Oh I have forgotten, kaytee is an atheist
DeleteGestapo @ Jais raids Christian group premises and arrests Church office bearers.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/bible-society-of-malaysia-president-calls-for-calm-following-raid-at-societ
I do wonder what kaytee going to do about his loverboy called Najib
ReplyDeletehttp://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/jais-has-no-right-to-raid-bible-society-of-malaysia-premises-says-council-o
Blame Khalid Ibrahim. Wait a minute, it's all PAS's fault. No, it's all anwar's fault. This is worse than few kelantan unisex salons getting summons.
Imagine if kaytee's porno books kenna confiscated by JAIS. This would be fun
Hahahaha! Hahahaha!
ReplyDeleteKalau cikgu berdiri kencing, murid lari berkencing
http://www.malaysia-today.net/its-called-posturing/
Kaytee, does that mean that RPK is supporting PAS. Jialat liao!
anyone who can read know this turncoat support najib. for what i dun know, everyone hava a price.
DeleteSo...its now confirmed we not only have a PM for Malays only , we also have Sultan for Malays only.
ReplyDeleteThe future for Nons in this country is getting bleaker by the day.
I'm glad my bags are all packed and leaving for Adelaide SA for good, on February 15.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmrx6fhd1PM
ReplyDelete