Will we, the 52%, strike back?

Details Created on Friday, 14 November 2014 07:00

 

By Haris Ibrahim

 

11.2 million registered voters cast their votes at the poll at the last general election. 52% voted for a regime change in Putrajaya. I was one of them.

Since the result was announced, to this day I feel cheated.

This week I chatted with Maria Chin Abdullah and Wong Piang Yow on the 'Agree to Disagree…with Haris Ibrahim' show.

And over the last few days, I have ploughed through the report of The People’s Tribunal on the 13^th General Election.

On the Election Commission, the tribunal reported, at page 60 of the report, that it is “hard to escape the conclusion that the EC of Malaysia was designed as an instrument of the ruling party to keep it in power”.

On the matter of constituency boundaries, the tribunal reported that “It is hard to see how having one constituency nine times the size of another in terms of electorate can be described as ‘approximately equal’.

"The EC failed to implement the principle of equal representation in apportionment and districting…there is considerable evidence that these anomalies work in one direction only: to the benefit of the ruling coalition."

To make a long story short, a major factor that led to the 52% being cheated at the 13^th GE was the extensive malapportionment and gerrymandering that afflict our constituencies.

The EC has announced that it is ready to kick off a delimitation exercise which will entail a re-drawing of constituency boundaries, that may even lead to an increase in the number of constituencies, both parliamentary and state.

Should we hope that the EC will look to re-draw boundaries with a view to, as best as it can, equalize the constituencies, or will it continue to serve “as an instrument of the ruling party to keep it in power”?

Maria says she does not trust the EC to serve the interests of the Rakyat.

I, too, do not trust it.

And Wong takes the view that this delimitation exercise offers us, the 52%, the best opportunity to right the inherent wrongs in our present constituency boundaries.

“Haris, we will not have another opportunity like this for another 50 years," was how he put it.

Two things, according to Wong, can be achieved if we are permitted to effectively exercise our constitutional right with regard to this imminent delimitation exercise.

First, we can work towards equalizing our constituencies, aspiring towards achieving the ideal of 1 person, 1 vote, 1 value throughout the constituencies.

Second, and this will go a long way towards helping us achieve the first, to prevent the increase in the number of parliamentary constituencies from the existing 222, which, according to Wong, already far exceeds the number that we actually need.

What is this constitutional right that Wong speaks of? Under the constitution, once the proposed delimitation has been duly gazetted, there is a 30-day period during which objections may be lodged with the EC by a minimum of 100 registered voters in a particular constituency in respect of the proposed re-drawing of that constituency boundary.

Wong warns, however, that there are barriers to the effective exercise of this constitutional right that you and I have.

First, the period for objection is very short: 30 days. Then, you need to have at least 99 others to make up the requisite 100 objectors.

Then comes the biggest barrier.

EC's not being forthcoming with the information that you will need. Let me illustrate this point. I vote in PJ Selatan and Bukit Gasing. EC has just gazetted its proposed delimitation for the whole country. My 30-day period to object has started.

The proposed new boundaries for PJ Selatan and Bukit Gasing are on display at, say, the MBPJ building.

Great. I go and look at it.

But I want to compare this with that of the 21 other parliamentary and 55 other state constituencies in Selangor to see if they are ‘approximately equal’, as stipulated in the 13^th Schedule of the Constitution. No maps of the other constituencies are on display at MBPJ. They are not available online on the EC website.

I call EC and it informs me that I can view the maps of all the other constituencies at the various district offices in all the constituencies!

I tell EC I don’t have the time to go through the state to sight the maps, so I wish to purchase them from EC.

Sorry, not for sale.

So, before the expiry of the 30-day objection period, I will have to travel through the state to the various district offices to sight and make sense of these maps!

Not just me, but 99 others!

So much for EC’s 'Cekap & Iklas' slogan that stares at you when you go to its website!

Are we, the 52%, going to allow the EC to get away with this?

Or do we strike back?

Source: http://www.rakyattimes.com/index.php/columnist/1612-will-we-the-52-strike-back-haris-ibrahim

获 220 万票赢得 112 选区，国阵靠20%选民执政

2013-06-08 17:31

• 
  律师公会宪法委员会和人权委员会联办的主题为“选区划分―知道在哪里划线”的选举后系列讲座会，吸引许多公眾出席。（图：星洲日报）

（吉隆坡8日讯）律师公会人权委员会主任邱进福指出，在全国130个选民人数最少或最小的选区，国阵贏得112个，从而以简单多数议席执政。

他说，惟在国阵贏得的这112个选区，投选国阵的选民有220万8千516人，只佔全国合格选票总数约19.97%。

“20%合格选民就能够投选出执政的政府。”

他在律师公会主办的主题为“选区划分―知道在哪里划线”的选举后系列讲座会上说：“有鉴於此，划分选区的方式导致选区的大小出现巨大差距，引发了代表性的问题，目前，执政的政府是由20%合格选民投选出。”

加埔应划分多8个选区

他指出，全国有222个国席，最小是布城，只有1万5千791名选民，最大的是加埔，选民高达14万4千159人，两个议席的差距高达9倍或912.92%，换言之，布城的一票等於加埔的9票。

“若要公平，应该在加埔划分多8个选区；其实，全国皆出现选区人数差距巨大的问题。”

他说，国阵横扫30个选民人民少於3万人的选区，而在59个选民人数介於3万至5万的议席，国阵贏得55个，在58个选民人数介於5万至7万人的议席，国阵也贏得33个。

他说，国阵贏得的31个议席，多数票少於3千张，31个议席的多数票总数是4万3千零79张，但单单郭素沁在士布爹国席贏得的多数票就达5万1千552张，而潘俭伟在八打灵北区国席的多数票也有4万4千672张。

他指出，在全国20个多数票最高的选区，国阵主席拿督斯里纳吉是唯一的国阵候选人。

他说，选区之间的选民人数差距可以追溯到1973年，当时进行了有条件的修订。

他说，1973年之前，宪法规定选区內选民人数差距的上限为33%，而独立初期的差距不得超过15%，但1969年，33%的限制並没有被遵守，柔佛的蓬沙（Bungsar）国席比东南镇大6倍。

“我们从33%的差距限制到15%，再回到33%，到最后撤销限制，我们是否因这种变化而有更好的代表性和更民主？2013年，在如此大的差距下，我们如何能对选举成绩心服口服？”

行动大马：东马可扩大至15%
“重划选区人数差距最多10%”

长期观察大马选举制度的非政府组织行动大马（TindakMalaysia）建议，选举委员会未来在重新划分选区时，西马选区的选民人数差距，应为正负10%之间，而东马两州应地理位置关係，选民人数差距则可扩大至正负15%。

换言之，一个西马国会选区的平均选民人数若为10万人，则最大选区的选民人数差距不应超过1万1千人，而最少的选区，选民人数也不应少过9万人。

不过，由於政府在1973年修宪刪除选区选民人数差距限制后，一般预料选委会不会採纳类似建议。

重划选区呈选委会参考

该组织创办人黄炳耀今日在“选区划分――知道在哪里划线”选后系列讲座会上表示，该组织正在进行一项为期6个月的BERES计划，准备援引上述概念，重新划分全国222个国会及576个州选区，然后提呈给选委会参考。

“公平的选区划分最重要就是落实一人一票的精神，不过我们也承认沙巴及砂州是特殊的，东马两州佔25%席位可继续保留，各选区之间的选民差距可比西马高。”

目前全国222个国席中，其中166席来自西马、沙巴25席及砂州31席。全国人口最密集的雪州，有22个国会，平均每个国会选区人数都超过9万人。

黄炳耀认为，即使有选民认为本身不要太涉入政治，也不应採取袖手旁观的態度，不过他对本届大选许多民眾积极投入，包括自愿成为监票员感到欣慰。

他也说，虽然宪法规定选委会划分选区后，3造包括州政府、地方政府及同一选区內至少100名民眾可联名，在一个月的期限內提出反对。

不过，他认为30天的期限太短，而在最多2次的公眾听证会后，选委会仍可以將已划分的选区结构图提呈给首相。

跨党特委会监管选委会
律师公会质疑符宪法

律师公会主席梁肇富指出，根据联邦宪法，选举委员会是一个独立的机构，它不需要向任何人匯报或归任何机构管辖，因此，把选委会交给一个跨党派的国会特別委员会监管，將令人质疑这做法是否符合宪法。

他说，选委会的权力直接来自联邦宪法，因此，成立有关特委会引发的问题，还包括它应该以甚么样的形式存在。

他今日在律师公会主办的主题为“选区划分―知道在哪里划线”的选举后系列讲座会上说：“有关特委会的结构应该如何？委员只是国会议员吗？委员应该以国阵或民联议员为多数？或朝野议员各一半？非国会议员是否能成为委员？如果不能，非国会议员如何能扮演角色？”

有关讲座是由律师公会宪法委员会和人权委员会联合主办。

办讲座激发对选举討论

梁肇富说，律师公会举办选后系列讲座，目的是激发公眾对一些选举问题的討论，希望藉此开启改革选举程序、选民册和相关机构的可能性。

“有关问题包括是否有必要改革选委会？

选委会是否保持独立？选委会是否有充份履行其职责？是否有必要重组选委会？”

他指出，联邦宪法第113和114条文阐明，选委会的职责是举办国会和州议会选举、为每一届全国大选准备和检討选民册；若有必要，选委会应提出相关建议。

首相拿督斯里纳吉之前宣佈把原本隶属首相署管辖的选举委员会，交给一个由朝野各党国会议员组成的特別委员会监管，以提高选委会的威信和公信力。

他希望通过这项举措，选委会的独立性不再受到质疑，而且也能加强人民对选委会的信心。

来源：http://news.sinchew.com.my/node/302396?tid=1