DECEMBER 21 — The 1957 Constitution of Malaysia created and empowered the Election Commission (EC) to guarantee that all eligible citizens are equally represented in the government. Five years later, in 1962, the Constitutional provisions related to the EC were substantially changed.
The EC’s power to make changes to constituency boundaries was deleted. From June 1962 the EC was only to “make recommendations [acceptable to the Prime Minister].” (see Article 115 Clause 2)
Nevertheless the Constitution still has much to say about elections. Since we are expecting the EC to announce its recommendations on delineation, and because the EC’s 2003 delineation was severely biased, we must be watchful. Here I will describe three requirements the EC must fulfil, and touch on the 1962 amendment.
Firstly, the EC must assure that anyone whom the Constitution says is eligible to vote can vote. Secondly, the EC must assure that those whom the Constitution says are not eligible to vote do not vote. Thirdly, the EC must assure that every voter is equally represented in the organs of government. “Assure” means “Make it so!”
I’ll take the first and second requirements together. How must the EC assure that everyone who is eligible can vote and that those who are not eligible cannot vote?
The EC must maintain an Electoral Roll. An Electoral Roll is a list of names of all persons who are eligible to vote in each constituency.
The EC must use good, well-defined processes consistently to add names and to delete names from the Roll. Names must be added when voters attain voting age. Names must be deleted when voters die or emigrate. Names must be moved when voters move into or out of a constituency, or when a constituency’s boundaries are changed. Voters must be informed as appropriate.
The Sabah RCI on “Project IC” has made it plain that the Electoral Roll is severely defective.
The few EC commissioners who deign to engage the public, blame the National Registration Department (NRD) for problems in the Electoral Roll, e.g. hordes of voters in the same address, deceased voters, voters who were granted citizenship illegally, etc. They say it is not the EC’s task to hold the NRD responsible for such problems.
An EC which complies with the Constitutional would seek to audit the NRD’s processes and publish the results. Such audits would have found, on a more regular basis, the same problems the RCI found. Also, a Constitution-respecting EC would demand automatic registration of voters when they reach voting age — thereby eliminating a voluntary registration process and the associated issues.
The public have clamoured for the Electoral Roll to be cleaned up — indeed, for a fresh Electoral Roll to be created. Even an EC in the UK is creating a new Roll. Malaysia’s EC remains belligerent.
We can now consider the third point, the question of how the EC must assure that every voter is equally represented in the organs of government.
After assuring a clean Electoral Roll, the EC must apply a good, well-defined process to apportion an approximately equal number of voters to each constituency in the next two to three General Elections. The need for equality is most easily explained using a simplistic, imaginary situation.
Imagine a state with two constituencies. Imagine constituency A has 35,000 voters, and constituency B has 140,000 voters. Is it fair (“equitable”) that constituency A and B each has one MP?
Now consider an example from Selangor. In 2003 Parliament accepted the EC’s proposal for a delimitation which, in the 13th General Election last year resulted in about 144,000 voters in Kapar electing one MP and about 37,000 voters in Sabak Bernam also electing one MP. Is that fair?
The EC claims the large difference is because Kapar is an urban area whereas Sabak Bernam is a rural area. The EC appeals to the Constitution to justify the difference. But the EC’s claim is only partially true.
It is true that the Constitution recognises the different characteristics of rural areas and allows some difference in the number of voters per constituency. There are two primary reasons why the Constitution allows the difference.
The first reason is that it must be relatively easy for every voter to vote on voting day. So, each constituency must have enough voting centres which can be relatively easily accessed by voters: School buildings best fit the requirements, so there must be enough schools in every constituency.
The second reason is that it must be relatively easy for the candidates or elected representative, to communicate with voters. The candidates and the elected representative must be able to relatively easily communicate effectively within the budgets available to them.
The 1957 Constitution did not plainly use the words “rural” and “urban” to distinguish between constituencies with and without good buildings and access. This is what it said:
Article 116, Clause 4 (1957): Each State shall be divided into constituencies in such manner that each constituency contains a number of electors as nearly equal to the electoral quota of the State as may be after making due allowance for the distribution of the different communities and for differences in density of population and the means of communication; but the allowance so made shall not increase or reduce the number of electors in any constituency to a number differing from the electoral quota by more than fifteen per cent.
Note the words “fifteen per cent.” The 1957 Constitution set a maximum limit of fifteen per cent as the goal for the EC when it does the work of delimitation. (In the clause, “different communities” refers to local communities, NOT ethnic groups. Also, the cited clause is the reason why Tindak Malaysia and DART (Bersih 2.0) speak of fifteen per cent.)
In 1962 Parliament deleted the clause. The deletion was accomplished by Act 14/1962 which also created the Thirteenth Schedule in our Constitution.
In 1962 Parliament removed the limit of fifteen per cent. That is one of the reasons why in 2003 the EC could glibly propose that voters in Kapar be given one quarter the representation of voters in Sabak Bernam (P92). What will the EC now recommend for Kapar (P109)?
Here is a more detailed discussion, by Thomas Fann of DART, about delineation and why we should be interested.
* Rama Ramanathan blogs at http://write2rest.blogspot.com.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or organisation and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
