The Federal Constitution, specifically Section 2 (c) Thirteenth Schedule states that: “The following principles shall as far as possible be taken into account in dividing any unit of review into constituencies pursuant to the provisions of Articles 116 and 117— ... (c) the number of electors within each constituency in a State ought to be approximately equal except that, having regard to the greater difficulty of reaching electors in the country districts and the other disadvantages facing rural constituencies, a measure of weightage for area ought to be given to such constituencies; ...
Clearly, our Federal Constitution has prescribed for the principle of One Man, One Vote but with condition of having regard to the greater difficulty of reaching electors in the country districts and the other disadvantages facing rural constituencies, a measure of weightage for area ought to be given to such constituencies.
The prioritisation of rural constituency is not new and other country such as Australia, specifically the state of Western Australia has similar clauses in their Electoral Distribution Act 1947. One important fact that we have to bear in mind is that all these clauses were added in at the time when roads are few and telephone operator is still in use.
In the Australian case of Attorney-General of Western Australia v Marquet, the Australian High Court had decided that in present day, constituency shall not be given more weightage as improvements in the means of communication had removed, or reduced, a justification commonly offered for disparities.
As a matter of fact, even the most rural constituency in today's Peninsular Malaysia has mobile telecommunication coverage and road, as such preferential weightage to rural constituency shall no longer be a valid reason as improvements in the means of communication and infrastructure had removed, or reduced, a justification commonly offered for disparities.
Hence, it will be unreasonable to diminish the value of the votes of the citizens who resides in populous urban constituency and any executive action that diminishes the value of the votes due to fact that they live in populous urban area, is as serious as denigrates rights, privileges and immunities of a person and in violation of Article 8 (1) Federal Constitution as citizen is entitled to be treated and protected equally by law.
Clearly, our Federal Constitution has prescribed for the principle of One Man, One Vote but with condition of having regard to the greater difficulty of reaching electors in the country districts and the other disadvantages facing rural constituencies, a measure of weightage for area ought to be given to such constituencies.
The prioritisation of rural constituency is not new and other country such as Australia, specifically the state of Western Australia has similar clauses in their Electoral Distribution Act 1947. One important fact that we have to bear in mind is that all these clauses were added in at the time when roads are few and telephone operator is still in use.
In the Australian case of Attorney-General of Western Australia v Marquet, the Australian High Court had decided that in present day, constituency shall not be given more weightage as improvements in the means of communication had removed, or reduced, a justification commonly offered for disparities.
As a matter of fact, even the most rural constituency in today's Peninsular Malaysia has mobile telecommunication coverage and road, as such preferential weightage to rural constituency shall no longer be a valid reason as improvements in the means of communication and infrastructure had removed, or reduced, a justification commonly offered for disparities.
Hence, it will be unreasonable to diminish the value of the votes of the citizens who resides in populous urban constituency and any executive action that diminishes the value of the votes due to fact that they live in populous urban area, is as serious as denigrates rights, privileges and immunities of a person and in violation of Article 8 (1) Federal Constitution as citizen is entitled to be treated and protected equally by law.
***
Example, explain the disparity between two urban (not rural) constituencies such as Putrajaya (17,500 voters who are mainly pro UMNO) and the proposed new Damansara (now still Petaling Jaya Utara) where the latter constituency will have its 85,000 voters increased to more than 150,000 (most would be pro Pakatan).
A simple explanation in electorate delineation.
ReplyDeleteGerrymandering normally refers to redrawing of the electorate boundary in favour of certain component compositions - be them religious, political, race, economic status or sexual preferences.
Bcoz of these preferential requirements, the formation of the electorate boundaries can be a trigonometric acrobat, like what M'sia has.
Since the # of electorate affects the formation of the govt, any changes done to it MUST have a two-thirds majority in Parliament approval. This is not easy for the current bn govt as it has no such majority in Parliament now.
Within each electorate there is another trick, known as mal-apportionment, to manipulate the size of the voting populace.
The EC has absolutely authority in shifting any sub-voting zones within &/or across the any electorates to form 'coherent' pacts, new &/or old inclusively.
The OIGINAL Federal Constitution has a protection clause to prevent this mal-practice to be implemented by the EC.
The deviation in the number of voters between the biggest & the smallest sub-zone within each electorate, CANNOT be more than 15% of the national average.
However, this protection clause was amended & subsequently removed during that mamak's PM golden years office.
Thus it's lost!
Hence, the EC is revisiting this rule, time & again, to play advantage to the bn govt.
Legally, it is within the law. Morally, it is another story.