While i am generally supportive of the increase of seats in Sarawak, but any proposed delineation exercise, must firstly incorporate the constitutional principles on apportionment, area weightage, and local ties, and also allow enough due process for public scruitiny and consultation.
This is to ensure any redelienation upholds the interest of ALL Sarawakians in the different regions rather than the interest of any political parties.
The Federal Constitution, under Subsection 2(c) of the Thirteenth Schedule, mandates that the number of electors in each constituency ought to be approximately equal, with exceptions only for rural constituencies facing geographical disadvantages. Historically, this meant a maximum-to-minimum ratio of 2:1 (i.e., a rural constituency could have as little as half the voters of an urban constituency).
However what we see today is that the malapportionment is outrageous:
· Parliamentary Seats: P219 Miri has 149,441 voters, while P207 Igan has only 29,132 voters – a ratio of 5:1.
· State Seats: N75 Senadin has 73,430 voters, while N26 Gedong has only 10,380 voters – a ratio of 7:1.
The EC is constitutionally bound to reduce these disparities. Yet, my constituency of Bandar Kuching, with almost similar voters with Petrajaya is being ignored and not getting any new seats is, while Petrajaya gains two new seats.
This somehow creates two classes of urban voters, those in Petrajaya that seems “worthy of more representation” and those not, unfortunately in Bandar Kuching.
And these ” Two classes of voters is also not limited to the urban areas, but also in the rural areas.
While i acknowledge that there is the “weightage of area” provision in constitution for rural areas, it is not a blank cheque to over-represent all rural constituencies. It is conditional on two factors: (1) large geographical area, and (2) genuine difficulty in reaching electors.
That is why in my view, places like P216 Hulu Rajang (size of Pahang), P220 Baram (larger than Perak), and N64 Baleh, N65 Belaga, N66 Murum (larger than Kedah) does have legitimate claims for over-representation as these areas deserve weightage.
However in comparison, we see in places like P207 Igan and N26 Gedong, we see case of unjustifiable over-representation.
P207 Igan has an area of only one-third of Negeri Sembilan, yet it has fewer voters than Hulu Rajang, Baram, Selangau, Bintulu, and Kapit – all of which are larger in both area and electorate. N26 Gedong is an even clearer example of over-representation: nearly half of Sarawak’s 82 state constituencies have both a larger area and a larger electorate than Gedong, whose main town is less than two hours by car from the State Legislature.
The question is then, why do Igan, Tanjong Manis, and Mukah receive preferential treatment over larger constituencies? Are there also ” 2 classes of rural seats”, some deserving more representation and some do not?
This to me is not rural weightage; this is political manipulation. Are there two classes of rural voters, those in the strongholds of a certain party who gets better representation and everyone else who does not have that priviledge?
When GPS claims to champion “Sarawak First”, it means it must champion all Sarawakians regardless of race, religion or demographics.Yet if these rumoured leaked redrawing of line and redelienation of new seats instead divides Sarawakians into 2 different class, both in urban and rural areas. This is not Sarawak First, this seems more like “Party First”
The increase in Sarawak’s state seats from 82 to 99 was finalized and came into force on August 8 last year after being approved in DUN Sarawak. There is nothing left for Parliament to “approve” regarding the number of seats.
The only thing requiring Parliamentary approval is the final boundaries drawn by the EC. Yet, Deputy Prime Minister Fadillah Yusof has stated that Parliament will approve the exercise in July. This timeline implies that the EC has been instructed to complete the entire delineation process—from local inquiries to final reports—within just four months.
Is this a deliberate attempt to rush the process and avoid public scrutiny? This in my view is not at the best interest of ALL Sarawakians. There must be sufficient due process and time given for scruitiny to ensure all interest of Sarawakians, not political parties are better represented, including those from urban and rural areas.
That is why i call upon the EC to act independently, resist any pressure from any political parties and adhere to the constitutional demands which are;
1. Adhere to the “approximately equal” requirement and reduce the outrageous 5:1 and 7:1 disparities.
2. Apply “weightage of area” only to genuinely large and inaccessible constituencies, not political strongholds.
3. Respect “local ties” and avoid gerrymandering.
4. Allow sufficient time for public participation – not a rushed four-month timeline.
Sarawak belongs to its people, not to the behest or interest of any political parties. That is the true meaning of “Sarawak First”