– Ravinder Singh
The Malaysian Insider
November 28, 2013
Former Election Commission chief Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman’s bold admission that the three redelineation exercises he did were done in such a way to ensure Malays retained political power and that he did so “in a proper way, not illegally”, is not a surprise at all. He is very proud of what he did, despite the fact that he had breached Schedule 13 of the Federal Constitution which states that the number of voters in state and parliamentary seats must be approximately equal.
He questions how Barisan Nasional could have lost in Kelantan, Penang and Selangor if the redelineation was done to favour the BN.
This is a cheap question. Either he must be a fool not to realise why the BN lost these states, or he is trying to make a fool of those who question gerrymandering.
Why BN lost these states is because the EC did not dream that such a huge percentage of voters in these states would go against the tide. From previous elections, it must have drawn graphs showing a certain percentage of voters voting against the ruling party at each election.
Obviously, the number of voters voting for the opposition had been increasing. Projections based on these would have been used to carry out each redelineation exercise, splitting these votes to increase the number of voters in certain constituencies and reducing them in others so as to ensure “Malays retained political power”.
However, voter sentiments at GE13 did not follow the predictions of the EC. It was like a deluge breaking the banks of a river and causing massive flooding and destruction that was never thought could happen. This happened in the states that the BN lost. So, Abdul Rashid need not try to pull wool over the people’s eyes. This bluff may work in some places, with some people, but not in all places and neither with all people.
Schedule 13 of the Constitution is very clear. It says that the number of voters in the different constituencies must be approximately equal, or “lebih kurang sama banyak”. Where did Abdul Rashid learn that one (1) is approximately equal to ten (10) or even more?
Abdul Rashid, let’s go to a fish market. If you are asked to buy 10 kilogrammes of fish (regardless of type), but with firm instructions that each fish must be approximately (lebih kurang) one (1) kg in weight, do you buy one 10-kg fish, or eight (8) to twelve (12) fish which are approximately equal in weight, making up a total of 10 kgs?
Abdul Rashid, in which dictionary did you find that “approximately” means 1:10 or 1:15? Enough with the fooling. What you did was unconstitutional. It was a clear breach of Schedule 13 of the highest law of the country.
Now, I would like to ask: Does your religion permit you to carry out your public duty in breach of the Constitution? Do any of the Moral and Religious values that we teach our school children permit the kind of fraud that you carried out in violation of the Federal Constitution? – November 28, 2013.