Posted on by Kit

Does the EC No.2 take us for fools?

– Kunjuraman Karuppan
The Malaysian Insider
May 26, 2013

MAY 26 – The Election Commission (EC) is now speaking about redelineation of both state and federal constituencies as the last one was done a decade ago.

Now, this is a good move as there has been an increase in voters since then. We now have 13.3 million voters and that is set to increase by the time the 14th general elections take place.

But why is EC deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar taking us for a fool when he was quoted in The Sunday Star today for explaining that the difference in electorate sizes is due to reasonable access to services from the local lawmaker and local councils.

Now, is that the EC’s primary concern? Is it the commission of ensuring everyone has access to their lawmaker and council or to conduct elections in a free and fair manner? And to ensure that every vote is equal in value.

We now have ridiculous statistics of Putrajaya having nearly 16,000 voters while Kapar has some 140,000 voters.

Wan Ahmad gave the ridiculous comparison of Puchong having 107,010 while Silam in Sabah has only 51,662 voters but is remote and is as large as Negri Sembilan and Malacca combined.

“To ensure equal voter weightage, we will have to widen the boundary of Silam even further and this would be unfair to the voters as it would make it even harder for them to get service of their elected representatives and local council who will have even more ground to cover,” Wan Ahmad said.

No sir, what you do with some commonsense is cut up Puchong, so that it is equal if not almost equal to Silam.

Figure out population shifts and make sure every vote is equal. Not give us some poppycock answer.

The only reason why you (are) not thinking aloud along this lines is because more urban seats would probably mean more seats for Pakatan Rakyat (PR) rather (than) Barisan Nasional (BN) if current trends continue.

That also is not your primary concern. Your job is to conduct elections in a free and fair way. Get on with the job and drop the excuses now.

5 Replies to “Does the EC No.2 take us for fools?”

  2. Harder to service electorates huh. How is that so? Physical distance i suppose. Sparse density makes travel difficult. Therefore servicing the people’s needs becomes difficult.

    Firstly, pordah. That is a stupid argument and the logic stinks like chengho’s work attire (btw if you are wondering, chengho cleans NY underground longkangs for a living).

    Secondly, how easy or how difficult it is to service electorates is not a constitutional criteria for drawing up constituencies. It could be treated as an irrelevant consideration.

    Thirdly, even if it was to be accepted as a valid criteria then the very same logic could well apply to high density areas. Elected reps in densely populated areas without fail would have to beat horendous traffic and transport conditions. So bottom line, travel time in such places could easily equal if not exceed travel time in low density places. This fact alone would militate against the EC’s argument that low density areas are harder to service.

    Further, densely populated places are inevitably laboured with very diversified as well as more complex problems – from suicide teenage problems to homeless people and block drains, street vendors etc etc. And this added fact would in fact demand that urban areas (high density places) be split into smaller constituencies.

    Conclusion: EC, pordah!

  3. Sabah and Sarawak must have 25% + 1 of the total seats as per their agreements for them to join Malaysia in 1963. That’s 56 seats in total (Sabah 25, Sarawak 31, excluding Labuan) out of 122.

    However you carve up these two states, they still must have 25% +1 of the total. Most seats in Sarawak have only 30,000 voters at most but what can you do ? They all still must 25% +1 of the total. Can’t do anything about it.

    This was the mistake Pakatan made at the 13th GE. They fail to fully appreciate the 25% requirements and could not make inroads into the rural areas where most of BN seats were won – 46+ Labuan. This is a large number. BN only won about 87 seats in West Malaysia, about equal to Pakatan.

    Unless Pakatan can make further and more permanent inroads into the rural areas especially in Sabah and Sarawak, it will never gain Putrajaya.

    So Sarawak can have double or more than the number of seats for say Kedah, Kelantan, Selangor, Penang etc even though it may have less number of voters in the state. Fair ?

    No matter how you re-delineate the constituencies in West Malaysia to make fairer, you must still make sure that Sabah and Sarawak has 25%+1 of the total seats even if the constituencies there end up will a small voter number. That is the stark reality.

    Sabah and Sarawak will always be the king makers and will determine who will be in Putrajaya. You have to make serious inroads there, a no easy task given their local peculiarities and political environment.

    Else anyone wishing to be in Putrajaya might have to win at least 70% of the West Malaysian seats. Is this possible? Even UMNO / BN couldn’t do it in recent times. Pak Lah was a stray shot.

Leave a Reply