Election Commission has arbitrarily violated three redelineation guidelines further deviating from the “one man, one vote, one value” principle which raises fundamental questions about its transparency,  credibility and integrity

(Petaling Jaya, Tuesday):  The Election Commission has maintained a three-week silence to my query as to why it had arbitrarily violated its 45-year redelineation principle that the state in the Peninsular Malaysia with the largest number of registered voters is allocated the most number of parliamentary seats. 

The time has come for the Election Commission to break its three-week silence to prove its responsibility, accountability, transparency and integrity, especially as since the publication of its proposed electoral redelineation of parliamentary and state assembly constituencies on August 8, Election Commission officials, whether its Chairman or Secretary, had been very prompt in shooting down objections as either baseless or uninformed - except for this one query. 

This is the question as to  why Selangor should not be given ten new seats instead of the proposed five to have a total of 27 (instead of the proposed total of 22) parliamentary seats if Johore is being allocated six new parliamentary seats to have a total of 26 parliamentary seats, as Selangor (with 1,368,693 registered voters) has more voters than Johore with 1,223,532 voters on the electoral list. 

I have now all the relevant figures for the 1974, 1984,  1994 and 2002  redelineation exercises which prove that the Election Commission has arbitrarily violated this  45-year redelineation principle that the state in Peninsular Malaysia with the largest number of registered voters is allocated the most number of parliamentary seats, as follows: 

Registered voters (seats allocated)

1974 Redelineation:-

1984 Redelineation:-

1994 Redelineation:-

2002 Redelineation:-

In the 1974, 1984 and 1994 redelineations, the two states with the largest number of registered voters led the pack  of Peninsular Malaysia states in having the most number of parliamentary constituencies, i.e.  Perak with 21 and Johore 16 in 1974,  Perak 23 and Johore 18 in 1994, and Perak 23 and Johore 20 in 1994.  

For the 2002 redelineation, however, this principle has been overturned, with Johore and Perak allocated more seats than Selangor, although Selangor has more registered voters with 1,368,693 as compared to Johore’s 1,223,532 and Perak’s 1,138,010. 

Selangor, which registered a 44.18% voters on  its electoral list as compared to the 1994 redelineation, is allocated an increase of five  parliamentary seats while Johore is given an increase of six seats when it registered an increase of  only 24.53% of voters during the same period and Perak given  an increase of one seat when it had a mere  8.12% voters’ increase. 

There are those who find a political explanation to this unprecedented violation of the 45-year redelineation principle and practice that the two states with the most number of registered voters top the peninsular States with the most number of parliamentary constituencies – that the underlying  agenda is to  shore up the Barisan Nasional to enable it to retain the parliamentary two-thirds majority in the next general election.

The reasoning  is that giving  10 new parliamentary seats to Selangor, which would be the fair and equitable redelineation if Johore is to get an increase of six parliamentary seats,  is quite dicey politically, as in the 1999 general election, Barisan Nasional only secured 53.84% of the total votes cast, losing six State Assembly seats to the Opposition.  Giving  six new parliamentary seats to Johore, however, is regarded as a “sure bet” for the Barisan Nasional as Johore is regarded as its “fortress”, with Barisan Nasional securing 71% of the votes cast in the state, sweeping all the 20 Parliamentary and 40 State Assembly seats in the state. 

If this is not the reason for giving Johore such an unprecedented and disproportionate increase in parliamentary seats, which would be most unfair, undemocratic and even unconstitutional, then the Election Commission should speak up and account to Malaysian voters the underlying rationale for its redelineation.

These comparative figures of the previous redelineations give rise to many questions, such as:

• Why  Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah have not been allocated  one new seat each in view of the 16.2%, 21.76% and 17.4% increase of voters respectively since the last redelineation exercise, as Negri Sembilan and Malacca are allocated one new seat each with 20.04% and 23% increase of voters respectively. 
• What is the valid ground  for the allocation of one new  seat to Perak which has only  a 8.12% increase of voters as compared to the previous redelineation. 
• Why the three-seat  increase for Pahang with 21.39% increase in voters, much less than the 21.76% increase registered by Terengganu since the last redelineation?

Most important of all, the Election Commission should explain what are the formula, the principles and extent  of “rural weightage” which  it has applied to justify deviation from the constitutional principle of “one man, one vote, one value”.

It is to be noted that in the three previous redelineations, the “rural weightage” has been used to justify redelineating constituencies whereby states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis invariably fall below the parliamentary quota for  peninsular Malaysia, but in the 2002 redelineation, this principle is breached as except for Perlis, the three states of Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah all  exceed the peninsular parliamentary quota.

The parliamentary quota is the average number of electors per parliamentary constituency in the peninsular states, derived from dividing the total electorate by the total number of parliamentary constituencies  in all the peninsular states.

Finally, the Election Commission should explain a third arbitrary violation of its redelineation principle and practice in  reversing the process started in the 1984 and 1994 redelineation exercises to reduce the great disparity among constituencies with regard to total number of electors which undermine  the principle of “one man, one vote, one value”.

Based on the parliamentary quota, the 2002 redelineation is the most unfair and undemocratic of all redelineation exercises, with Johore Bahru, the parliamentary constituency  with the biggest electorate (90,187) representing a 94% deviation from the parliamentary quota of 46,498, as compared to the maximum of 49% deviation in the 1994 redelineation (Klang’s 69,422 voters to the parliamentary quota of 46,558), 69% maximum deviation in the 1984 redelineation (Petaling Jaya’s 67,846 voters to the parliamentary quota of 40,139) and 65% maximum deviation in the 1974 redelineation (Ipoh’s 51,569 to the parliamentary quota of 31,198).

The Election Commission owes a full explanation as to why it had arbitrarily violated  these three redelineation guidelines causing further deviation from the “one man, one vote, one value” principle, viz: 

• Deviation from the redelineation principle that the state in Peninsular Malaysia with the largest number of registered voters is allocated the most number of parliamentary seats; 
• Interpretation of “rural weightage” to place Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah above the parliamentary quota in peninsular Malaysia for the first time in the history of constituency redelineation; and 
• Reversal of the process to narrow the disparity in the number of electors among the constituencies started in the 1984 and 1994 redelineation exercises.

The Election Commission must respond to these  questions about the current redelineation exercise before the end of the one-month period for public objections and representations, as they raise fundamental issues as to its transparency, credibility and integrity especially. 

At present, there  is no legal provision for political parties, NGOs, public interest bodies or public-spirited citizens to object to the overall thrust, direction and the principles adopted in  the entire redelineation exercise. 

The  present law only provides for 100 registered voters to lodge objections on  the micro-aspects of the proposed redelineation where it affects them as voters in their constituency, but does not permit any macro-challenge on the large picture of the policy and principles of the redelineation.

(3/9/2002)