Speech by Penang Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and Assemblyman for Padang Kota, Lim Kit Siang, in the Penang State Assembly on Tuesday, July 13, 1993 on his private member’s bill to amend the Penang State Constitution to increase six state assembly seats
Although the Election Commission has accepted some of the DAP criticisms against its redelineation of the Penang state assembly constituencies which would be gazetted in the next ten days, the refusal of Koh Tsu Koon to agree to amend the State Constitution to increase six State Assembly seats is a great denial of democratic rights of the people of Penang
I rise to move a motion to seek leave of the House for me to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Penang State Constitution to increase six state assembly seats.
When the DAP proposal to introduce a private member’s bill-to amend the Penang State Constitution was made public early last. .month, the Deputy Chief Minister, Dr. Ibrahim Saad, led the Penang Barisan Nasional State Government in expressing its opposition when he said that the DAP proposal to increase 33 State Assembly constituencies in Penang State to 39 was ‘confusing’.
He said that the DAP leaders were fickle-minded and undecided on the number of seats.
It was only then that the Penang Chief Minister, Dr. Koh Tsu Koon and the Gerakan Exco Member from Sungei Pinang, Dr. Kang Chin Seng, expressed their opposition to the DAP proposal, claiming that the DAP had been inconsistent on this issue.
Dr. Kang said that the DAP had contradicted the stand we have taken in the Penang State Assembly in the special sitting of the State Assembly on November 2 on the Penang State Constitution Amendment Bill to increase three state assembly seats in the state, which was defeated when the Barisan Nasional State Government could not secure the requisite two-thirds majority.
I had responded by declaring that I will withdraw the private member’s bill to amend the Penang State Constitution to in-crease six state assembly seats if it could be proved that the I had been inconsistent on this issue with what I had said in the Penang State Assembly on November 2 last year.
Neither one of them could publicly substantiate their allegation that the DAP had been inconsistent or contradictory with the stand we had taken in the State Assembly last November in introducing the present private member’s bill.
I had promised to give Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, Dr. Ibrahim Saad and Dr. Kang Chin Seng a special” lecture in the Penang State Assembly so that they could understand there is no inconsistency or contradiction in the Penang DAP’s stand on-the increase of the number of State Assembly seats for Penang, and this is the time for such a special free lecture for the Penang Barisan Nasional Government.
I admit that in the special sitting of the Penang State Assembly on November 2, where the Chief Minister had proposed an increase of three state assembly seats without any increase of a single Parliamentary seat of Penang, I had countered with the proposal that there should be an increase of eleven state assembly seats.
This, however, was a second choice for the DAP and we made it very clear in the State Assembly – except that people who could get Ph.Ds do not seem to be capable of understanding it. The DAP had always made it clear that our first choice was that the 11 Parliamentary and 33 State Assembly seats in Penang should be increased to 13 Parliamentary and 39 State Assembly seats.
This was what I said in the Penang State Assembly on November 2, 1992:
“The DAP is suggesting 44 state assembly seats for Penang because there had been no increase of any parliamentary seat. A fair- redelineation for Penang would have been 13 parliamentary seats and 39 State Assembly seats, which means an increase of six state assembly constituencies keeping the ratio of one parliament to three state assembly seats.”
Right from its gazette notification on November 26, 1992, the DAP had maintained that the redelineation exercise undertaken by the Election Commission was undemocratic and unconstitutional, not. only in violating the constitutional stipulation that the Election should not carry out a review of the redelineation of the electoral constituencies until the lapse of eight years from the previous review, violating the democratic principle of ‘one-man one-vote1 but also in breaching its constitutional mandate to be an independent commission in bowing to political pressures from the Barisan Nasional government.
Tsu Koon wasted the golden opportunity created by the victory of the DAP legal suit to start anew on the constituency redelineation review by getting Federal Government to increase two new Parliamentary seats for Penang
In the December meeting of the Penang State Assembly, the Penang Chief Minister, Dr. Koh Tsu Koon challenged the DAP to take the Election Commission to court to challenge the constitutionality of its review of the constituency redelineation.
1 accepted the challenge of Dr, Koh Tsu Koon and on December 9, 1992, I announced in this House our decision to file legal proceedings to stop the Election Commission from proceeding with its constituency redelineation review.
This was duly done, and on February 16, in the Kuala Lumpur High Court in the hearing of my legal suit against the Election Commission to declare its constituency redelineation review unconstitutional and null and void, the Election Commission showed the ‘white flag of surrender1 and announced that the Election Commission had cancelled its entire constituency redelineation review in a gazette notification on February 11, 1993. The reason the Election Commission gave was that it was over a technicality, although it had no objections to paying costs for the DAP’s legal action.
The DAP’s legal, action compelled the Election Commission to cancel its constituency redelineation review for fear of a public-expose in the courts as to how it had committed the triple sins of violating the constitution, breaching the democratic principle of ‘one-man, one vote’ and undermining its constitutional independence in taking directives from the Barisan Nasional and in particular UMNO.
As a result, there was a opportunity to review afresh the number of parliamentary and state assembly constituencies Penang should be entitled to and start on a completely new slate as far as Penang is concerned.
Unfortunately, the Penang Chief Minister completely wasted this golden opportunity created by the victory of the DAP legal suit to start anew the constituency redelineation review by getting the Federal Government to amend the Federal Constitution to increase two new Parliamentary seats and six new State Assembly seats.
It may be that the Penang Chief Minister was aware that he had nothing to show to the State Assembly that he decided during question time on June 23 to be utterly rude and offensive when he replied to the first, question posed by the Assemblyman for Bukit Tengah, Sdr. Chian Heng Kai on what he had done to increase additional Parliamentary and State Assembly sears for Penang after the cancellation of the constituency redelineation review – setting the tone for the rest, of the current State Assembly meeting!
In May 1993, the Federal Government introduced amendments to the Federal Constitution allegedly to remove the ‘technicality’ which the Election Commission and the Barisan Nasional Government, had maintained was the cause for the cancellation of the constituency redelineation review and not the DAP’s legal challenge.
What is relevant for our debate is that Dr. Koh T’su Koon had failed to make use of the golden opportunity created by the DAP legal suit to influence the Federal Government to amend Article 46 in the Federal Government so as to increase to new Parliamentary seats for Penang.
If Dr. Koh Tsu Koon had done his duty to get the Federal Government to amend Article 46 to increase two new Parliamentary seats in the Constitution Amendment. {No. 2} 1993 Bill in the May meeting of Parliament, then the amendment to the Penang State Constitution to increase six additional State Assembly seats would be the next natural and logical step.
If Gerakan leaders, both MPs and Assemblymen, are prepared to support, the amendment of the Federal Constitution to allow Tun Mustapha to keep his Sabah State Assembly seat, while being appointed Federal Minister, there is no reason why they cannot support an amendment to the Federal Constitution to increase two additional Parliamentary seats for Penang
This does not mean however that we will have to wait for another eight to ten years before there could be another increase of two additional Parliamentary seats for Penang – as seemed to be the thinking of Gerakan leaders, both state and national, including Gerakan President, Datuk Dr. Lim Keng Yaik.
Parliament is meeting next week, and there is going to be another Constitution Amendment Bill – so that Tun Mustapha could be appointed Federal Minister without, having to resign his Usukan Sabah State Assembly seat, as is now required by the Federal Constitution.
Let the Penang State Assembly give full support to the DAP private member’s bill to amend the Penang State Constitution to increase six additional state assembly seats, and follow this up with a State Assembly request, to the Federal Government and Parliament to include an amendment to Article 46 to increase two new parliamentary seats for Penang State in the Constitution Amendment Bill (No.3) 1993 to be presented, to the Dewan Rakyat in the coming Parliamentary meeting.
If the Federal Government, and Parliament could amend the Federal Constitution just for the sake of one person, so that he could retain his Sabah State Assemblyman’s seat on his appointment as Federal Minister, surely it is not asking too much to demand that the interests of the people and the state of Penang should take higher priority and that the Federal Constitution be amended to increase two parliamentary seats for Penang.
Barisan Nasional leaders in Penang, and in particular Gerakan leaders in Penang, whether MPs or State Assemblyman, cannot, claim to have the interests of the people of Penang at heart if they are prepared to support an amendment to the Federal Constitution teal low a Sabah State Assemblyman to retain his seat on becoming Federal Minister, but are not prepared to support an amendment to the Federal Constitution so that Penang has two additional Parliamentary seats.
The whole question is whether the Chief Minister, Dr. Koh Tsu Koon and the Barisan Nasional Government are prepared to take a common stand with the DAP in the Penang State Assembly on the question that Penang State should have two additional Parliamentary and six new State Assembly constituencies.
So far, Dr. Koh Tsu Koon has not been able to give one convincing reason why Penang should not be entitled to an increase of two Parliamentary and six State Assembly seats.
Tsu Koon has failed to give a single reason why Penang is not entitled to an increase of two Parliamentary and six State Assembly seats
All the reasons which Dr. Koh Tsu Koon had given to justify his stand that Penang should not have any increase of Parliamentary seat and only an increase of three State Assembly seats do not bear close scrutiny.
Firstly, Dr. Koh had argued that the number of voters for Penang had increased by 6.4 per cent from the previous constituency redelineation in 1985, and translated proportionately, 6.4 per cent increase; over 33 State Assembly seats would mean a IT increase of slightly more than two seats, and this was rounded up to three seats.
Even school students would be able to tell Dr. Koh that if Penang State Assembly is entitled to three additional state assembly seats because of increase of the electorate, then by any logic and common sense, Penang should be entitled to at least, an increase of one new Parliamentary seat.
Furthermore, if Dr. Koh’s argument is valid, then something is very wrong with Kedah, where the electorate had increased by 9.8 per cent as compared to the previous constituency redelineation. Going by Dr. Koh’s argument, translated proportionately, 9.8 per cent increase over Kedah’s 28 State Assembly seats would mean that Kedah should be entitled to an increase of slightly over two state seats and •at most rounded up to three seats. But in Kedah, there is an increase of eight additional State Assembly seats under the current constituency redelineation review. Why? Is it because the Kedah UMNO Mentri Besar wields more influence and. power than the Penang Gerakan Chief Minister?
The Penang State Government, had argued that even with eight new state assembly constituencies, the average number of voters in each state constituency in Kedah would be 18,400, which is higher than Penang, which would have an average of 16,800 voters per constituency if there are 33 constituencies, an average of 15,400 per constituency with 36 constituencies, and 14,240 with 39 constituencies. When DAP suggested an increase of 11 state assembly constituencies so as to keep the common ratio state assembly seats to each parliamentary seat, there would have been an average of 12,700 voters per state constituency.
All these figures would be very much higher than in Negri Sembilan which, with an increase of four new State Assembly seats, will have an average of 10,800 voters per constituency; while Malacca, with an increase of five new State Assembly constituencies, will have an average of 10,600 voters per state constituency.
Is Penang having the lowest representation in Parliament since Merdeka because Tsu Koon the weakest Chief Minister in Penang history?
There are many powerful reasons why Penang is entitled to an increase of two new Parliamentary and six State Assembly seats in the constituency redelineation review.
The second Prime Minister, the late Tun Razak, had told Parliament that factors determining the allocation of seats in Peninsular Malaysia include not only “population of the state, but their importance, their potentials and their area”.
The Barisan Nasional Government in Penang had boasted of the economic achievements and performance of Penang State in the past two decades, and its great contribution to the national economy.
This should be reflected in the allocation of parliamentary constituencies, with greater representation in Parliament for Penang. However, the reverse has actually happened.
As a result of the 1992 Constitution Amendment Act, which increased 12 new Parliamentary seats for the Peninsular Malaysia states but excluding Penang, Penang would have the lowest parliamentary representation in Peninsular Malaysia since the first Parliamentary general elections in 1959.
From 1959 till 1974, Penang had eight out of the 104 Parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia, which represents 7.7 per cent. From 1974 to 1984, Penang had nine out of 114 Parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia, which represents 7.9 per cent. From 1984 to 1992, Penang had 11 out of 132 Parliamentary seats or 8.3 per cent. Now Penang has 11 out of 144 Parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia, or 7.6 per cent.
If two out of the 12 new Parliamentary seats passed by Parliament last October had been allocated to Penang, giving Penang 13 Parliamentary out of the total of 144 Parliamentary seats in the Peninsular Malaysia, this will only give Penang nine per cent Parliamentary weightage in Peninsular Malaysia, which would be fair considering Penang’s important economic contribution to the nation. If only one of the 12 had been allocated to Penang, Penang would be merely maintaining its percentage position from 1984 to 1992 – which is 8.3 per cent.
In the event, none of the 12 new Parliamentary seats was allocated to Penang, plunging Penang’s parliamentary percentage in Peninsular Malaysia to an all-time low of 7.6 per cent.
Dr. Koh Tsu Koon should explain why after he became Chief Minister, Penang would have the lowest representation in the Malaysian Parliament, in nearly four decades by the next general elections? Can Tsu Koon explain how he could agree to this drastic dimunition of the political importance of the Penang state in Parliament when there should be an enhancement of Penang’s political role in view of the state’s contribution to the national economy?
Is this dimunition of the Penang’s importance in Parliament and national politics, when there should be an enhancement, reflective of the fact that Penang has the weakest Chief Minister in the state’s history – who does not exercise any real powers whatsoever?
Is this one of the secret, conditions for Dr. Koh Tsu Koon becoming and continuing as Penang Chief Minister – to sacrifice the political rights of the people of Penang in Parliament and their right to a commensurate role and weight, in national decision-making?
The Election Commission has reduced the rural weightage in Penang State Assembly redelineation from 150 per cent to 1.21 per cent, which is still a far cry from the DAP demand that it should not exceed 50 per cent
I had been very critical of the constituency redelineation review undertaken by the Election Commission last November, not only because of the larger questions of violating the Constitution on the the minimum eight-year rule from the last redelineation and to maintain its independence from political interference, and the democratic principle of ‘one-man, one-vote’ but also because the Election Commission had failed to provide the rationale for every proposed redelineation change.
For instance, for Penang State, in the proposed constituency redelineation which was publicly advertised on November 26 last year and subsequently cancelled, the Election Commission was recommending a rural weightage of 150 per cent for Penang State, with Sungai Dua having 10,006 voters while Air Itam has 25,043 – a rural weightage which is even higher than states like Johore, Trengganu, Negri Sembilan and Perils which have big rural areas.
Dr. Koh had said that the State Government is of the view that the urban voter population per constituency on the island should be between 20,000 to 22,000 while the rural voter population per constituency on the mainland should be between 10,000 to 14,000. This means that Dr. Koh is advocating a rural weightage of 220 per cent for Penang, which goes against his own stand in the 1984 redelineation of electoral constituencies that there is no rural area in Penang state in the real sense of the word.
If Penang has a rural weightage of 120 per cent, it will be in the same position as Johore, Trengganu and Negri Sembilan. Is Tsu Koon seriously suggesting that Penang’s rural areas is comparable to Johore, Trengganu and Negri Sembilan?
Peril has only a rural weightage of 28 per cent. Being the most urbanised state in Malaysia, the rural weightage for rural con¬stituencies in Penang should not be greater than that of Perils, and at worst, should not be more than 50 per cent if the redelineation of electoral constituencies is fair and democratic.
I understand that the new proposal by the Election Commission for the review of the redelineation of electoral constituencies would be gazetted in ten days’ time.
Although the Election Commission has accepted some of the criticisms against its previous review of constituency redelineation, we are still not fully satisfied that the exercise had been conducted fairly and democratically. Most important, of all, the refusal of Dr. Koh Tsu Koon to agree to the amendment of the State Constitution to increase six state assembly seats in Penang represents a grave denial of the democratic rights of the people of Penang.
I understand for instance that the 150 per cent weightage in Penang state assembly constituency reclelineation has been reduced to 121 per cent, ranging from the lowest, voters in Penaga constituency with 10,407 voters to Air Itam with the most voters at 22,998. This is of course still a far cry from the DAP proposal that the rural weightage in Penang should not exceed 50 per cent.
Election Commission should rectify the historic disparity and injustice in the distribution of seats between the Penang Island arid Mainland, by allocating more seats on the island than mainland
It is also most regrettable that the Election Commission had ignored the DAP’s demand that the Penang Island should have more constituencies than the mainland in view of the fact, that there is a higher electorate on the island than on the mainland.
I have said in the Assembly last November that although the polling clay process during the general elections is fair, the electoral process in Malaysia is pre-rigged in three areas: the allocation of constituencies and redelineation of electoral constituencies; the registration of eligible voters and the conduct of the election campaign period itself.
The unfairness and abuses of the constituency redelineation in Penang in well-known history, From 1959 to 1974, Penang island had 14 state assembly seats while the mainland had 10 state assembly seats, reflecting the greater population and electorate on the island.
However, in the 1974 constituency redelineation review, the island’s state representation was slashed down from 14 to 12 seats •while the mainland’s representation was increased from 10 to 15 seats, although the island had 156,218 voters as compared to 132,922 on the mainland.
This unfair and undemocratic disparity in the distribution of state assembly seats between the island and the mainland was maintained in the 1984 constituency redelineation review – with 15 seats on the island and 18 seats on the mainland.
In the current constituency redelineation exercise, this historic disparity and injustice should have been rectified, by allocating more constituencies on the island than on the mainland, but. this has not been done.
If the electoral process is to be recognised as really fair and democratic, then the abuses and blemishes in these three areas should be eliminated.
The first step that the Penang State Government and Penang State Assembly should take is to give unanimous support to the DAP private member’s bill to amend the Penang State Constitution to increase six state assembly seats so that the present. 33 State Assembly seats in Penang is increased to 39.
The second step would be for the Penang State Government, and the Penang State Assembly to formally request the Federal Government and Parliament, to amend the Federal Constitution to increase to two additional Parliamentary seats for Penang, increasing the 11 Parliamentary seats in the state to 13.
Tsu Koon’s credibility as Chief Minister is at an all-time low as a result of his disastrous State Assembly performance
Penang Chief Minister, Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, had declared that he would not support the DAP private member’s bill. Dr. Koh Tsu Koon should realise that his credibility as an effective Chief Minister who is in close touch with the wishes and aspirations of the people is at great stake – especially after the current meeting of the State Assembly, where he seems to be quite lost not only with regard to State Assembly proceedings but also State Government affairs.
If Tsu Koon’s ears are close to the ground, he would have heard the laughter in the country on two recent matters pertaining to credibility of political leaders.
The first is the laughter at Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, because is credibility is at an all-time low as a result of his disastrous State,’ Assembly performance. He had been caught again and again as resorting to underhand tactics just, to score political points, as claiming for instance that he gets only RM10,500 a month after the increase of remuneration when he gets over RM30,000 a month. Another example is his utter dishonesty in claiming that I get an allowance of EM4,085 as Parliamentary Opposition Leader when he knew that the allowance of a Parliamentary Opposition Leader is RM.2,800.
The story of ‘the political leader and the portrait’
The second subject of the laughter in the country is about the story of ‘the political leader and the portrait1 – the same political leader Tsu Koon and Gerakan leaders have extolled in the current meeting of this Assembly and wanted to recognise as their ‘tsi fu’ master.
He is the Malacca MCA State Chairman and Executive Councillor, Datuk Can Boon Leong, who Tsu Koon wants to ‘accept’ as his ‘master1 on the ground that Boon Leong had defeated me in the Malacca state elections in 1982.
I was in Malacca last. Saturday in response to the challenge by the MCA President, Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik in response to his challenge to me to announce the DAP Save Bukit China and Oppose $2-Million Quit Rent One-Person One-Dollar Fund.
However, Liong Sik was not there and in his stead there was Can Boon Leong and Malacca MCA national and state leaders and members. When Can Boon Leong claimed that he represented Liong Sik, I asked whether he had brought along Liong Sik’s photograph. This so stunned Boon Leong that he was speechless.
There is a background to this story. A few years ago, there was a fire at Malacca MCA headquarters. Suddenly, Boon Leong rushed into the fire, and everybody thought he was trying to save someone who must have been trapped in the fire, or salvage some important, document or valuable property. Boon Leong came out of the fire clutching the portrait of Boon Leong, and this was how the story of ‘the political leader and the portrait’ originated.
The credibility of Tsu Keen’s government is so low that even the Kedah Mentri Besar does not believe the Penang State Government’s ‘monkey’ story
Dr. Koh Tsu Keen and the Penang State Government is suffering from such a grave credibility gap that not only the DAP and the people do not put much reliance in their claims, speeches and statements, but even Barisan Nasional leaders from other states also do not believe what they say. This is why we have the controversy over the export of monkeys from Penang to Kedah, with the Kedah Mentri Besar, Tan Sri Osman Aroff, declaring that he did not believe in the denial by the Penang Exco member, Kee Phaik Chin, that Penang did not export the marauding monkeys to Kedah!
Dr. Koh should realise that such a grave credibility cannot be rectified by manipulation of the press, as issuing streams of directives to the local press as to how news reports are written or what what headlines to give.
Yesterday, for instance, in the State Assembly, Tsu Kaon was unable to answer my numerous questions which proved my point that, he did not understand the difference between Independent Power Producer (IPP) and Associated Power Producer (APP) with regard to generation of electricity to resolve the current, national energy crisis.
Because Tsu Koon knew that he had performed, badly in the State Assembly, he influenced the Kwang Wah Jit Pah report this morning to include a statement which he never made in the State Assembly to put himself in a good light – as quoting him as ending the argument with me in the State Assembly with the Chinese saying; “Scholar met a soldier” – when he never uttered such things in the State Assembly.
This shows his obsession with his image in the press – the extent, he is prepared to go, however petty or trivial, in his attempt to give himself a good public image.
I congratulate the journalists, including Sri Tanjong, who were given state awards during the Governor’s birthday, and I hope these awards were given in recognition of their public service and not in order to manipulate the press in the future -or as rewards for previous manipulation.
Once credibility in the Chief Minister and the State Government is shaken, public confidence is the greatest casualty.
The Chief Minister should be aware of the talk in town about, the abuses in the giving of state awards, about RM500,000 being given to Gerakan for one Datukship this year and a Tan Sri-ship for another related person the next year.
This is all very unhealthy and Dr. Koh Tsu Koon should take firm positive action to restore his credibility.
This is why I have formulated the Ten Golden Rules for him as a guide as to how he could earn respect as a Chief Minister with credibility and authority, and the DAP will grade him once in six months on how he had acquitted himself on the Ten Golden Rules.
One effective way for the Chief Minister to restore credibility is to demonstrate that he is prepared to do what is right although unpopular in the Barisan Nasional to advance the rights and interests of the people of Penang as in giving full support to the DAP private member’s bill to amend the Penang State Constitution to increase six state assembly seats and to join the DAP in asking the Federal Government and Parliament to increase two Parliamentary seats for Penang.