Speech by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Kota Melaka, Lim Kit Siang, in the Dewan Rakyat on Thursday, 6.12.1984 on the motion to approve the Elections Commission’s Report on the redelineation of parliamentary and state assembly constituencies
DAP challenge MCA and Gerakan Ministers and MOs to reject the proposed new Parliamentary and State Assembly constituencies or they would be exposed as opportunistic and unprincipled politicians who pretended to criticise outside but obediently voting for the new constituencies in Parliament
When I appeared before the Elections Commission at its inquiry in Malacca during its country-wide tour to hear objections to its original proposals for the redlineation of Parliamentary and State Assembly constituencies in early April, I prefaced my remarks by wondering whether I was wasting my time as well as the time of the Election Commission.
I told the Election Commission the reason for my wonder: that the issues I was going to raise involved basic and fundamental questions which the Elections Commission would not be allowed by its ‘political masters’ to consider although constitutionally it would be within its jurisdiction and responsibility.
After studying the Report of the Elections Commission on the redelimitation of Parliamentary and State Assembly Constituencies for Peninsular Malaysia, I have found that I have been rather prescient, for the fundamental objections I had raised in Malacca, and my other DAP colleagues had raised in Penang, Perak and in other states, and which had also been raised by civic bodies like the various Chinese national organisations, had been rejected out of hand by the Elections Commission without any convincing reason.
I do not want to retell the sorry story of how the constitutional independence of the Elections Commission, enabling it to act impartially and independently without fear or favour to any political group or the the government, had been removed in a series of amendments to Constitution. As a result, the Elections Commission has degenerated from its Merdeka status as an independent and autonomous Constitutional organ which could brook no interference or pressure by the ruling parties into another government department which operates within the general framework and guidelines laid down by the ‘political masters’ even when such guidelines and framework are contrary to the provisions in the Constitution on the responsibilities of the Elections Commission.
This is another ‘wayang kulit’ of Malaysian politics, where the political masters pull the strings of the Elections Commission from the backstage, while both the government and the Elections Commission would vehemently deny this puppet and puppet-master relationship.
ONE MAN, ONE VOTE
The greatest objection to the proposed new parliamentary and state assembly constituencies is that it violates the principle of ‘one man, one vote’ and in the process perpetuate and aggravate the political inequality among the people and the races, which would worsen the whole position of racial polarisation in Malaysia.
The Constitutional guidelines for the redlimitation of electoral boundaries is inspired by the one-man, one-vote principle when it provided in the Thirteenth Schedule of the Constitution, Article 2(c) that ‘the number of electors within each constituency in a State ought to be approximately equal except that, having regard to the greater difficulty of reaching electors in the country districts and the other disadvantages facing rural constituencies, a measure of weightage for area ought to be given to such constituencies‘.
The Elections Commission had completely disregarded this ‘one man-one vote’ principle in its redelimitation, whereby the under-representation of the urban voters is so serious that one rural vote is equal to more than three urban votes. Thus, the Gua Musang Parliamentary seat in Kelantan has as electorate of 20,503 while the Parliamentary seat of Petaling Jaya is more than three times the size with an electorate of 67,846.
This unequal political distribution of power exceeding the ratio of 3:1 is also maintained in the States, as for instance in Penang, the Pinang Tunggal State seat has an electorate of 7,079 while the Pengkalan Kota State seat has 22,642 voters; in Selangor, Sungai Tinggi State seat has 8,677 voters while Bukit Gasing state seat has 27,771; in Pahang, Benta State seat has 6,616 voters while Teruntum state seat has 21,011 voters; in Negri Sembilan Peradong state seat has 5,718 voters while Mambau state seat has 19,707 voters; in Malacca, Rim state seat has 6,263 voters while Bandar Hilir state seat 18,147 voters; while in Johore Tenggaroh State seat has 11,567 voters and Tanjong Puteri State seat 30,543 voters.
RURAL WEIGHTAGE
Article 2(c) of the Thirtheenth Schedule provided for ‘a measure of weightage’ to take into account the ‘disadvantages facing rural constituencies’ but this ‘measure of weightage’ must not be carried out to the extent of nullifying the ‘one man, one vote’ principle which is what the Elections Commission has done in decreeing that one rural vote is equal to more than three urban votes!
To keep within the spirit and letter or the Constitutional guidelines of ‘a measure of weightage’ for rural areas, the variation from the average of electorate in Parliamentary or State Assembly constituency should be in the religion of 15%, 25% or in any event not exceeding 50%.
The Elections Commission has rejected this interpretation of ‘measure of weightage’ for rural areas, it has completely repudiated the principle of one-man, one-vote in delimitation of parliamentar and state assembly constituencies.
Thus, in response to the representations of the MP for Jelutong, Sdr. Karpal Singh on behalf of the voters of Jelutong, the Elections Commission decided:
“Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya juga tidak dapat menerima cadangan ‘rural weightage’ dihadkan kepada 10 – 15% sahaja kerana penentuan had seperti ini menimbulkan kesukaran jika had itu perlu dipatuhi secara rigid. Kesukaran akan timbul untuk menepati prinsip-prinsip lain seperti kemudahan pentadbiran atau kepentingan perhubungan tempatan yang mungkin terpaksa diketepikan jika cadangan yang dikemukakan oley perayu ini dilaksanakan.”
From the above comment and decision of the Elections Commission, it is clear that the Elections Commission had completely failed to apply the ‘rural weightage’ provision in Article 2(c) without nullifying the basic principle in the article on ‘one man, one vote’. All the Elections Commission is interested is in rejecting the idea that ‘rural weightage’ must be limited, for if it feels that 10 – 15% limit is too rigid, why it is not prepared to consider a limit of 25 – 50% as I suggested in Malacca?
UMNO POLITICAL POWER
In fact, the first Elections Commission under the Chairmanship of Mustapha Albakri had not difficulty in 1959 to redelineate the electoral constituencies to comply the principle with regard to ‘administrative facilities’ or ‘maintenance of local ties’, as well as to comply with constitutional limitation that there shall not be a difference by more than 15 per cent in the number of electors of any constituency to the ‘electoral quota’ – which is obtained by dividing the number of electors in the country by the total number of constituencies.
But this first redelimination of parliamentary and state assembly constituencies by a truly independent and autonomous Elections Commission was rejected by the UMNO, not because it had deviated from the Constitution, but because the resulting greater equality in the distribution of political power arising from a closer observance of the principle of ‘one man, one vote’ was perceived as a threat to the dominance of political power by UMNO!
History has proven that the argument by the Elections Commission in its present report that to keep the ‘rural weightage’ to 10 or 15 per cent – or to 50 per cent, would be too rigid whereby other principles of redelineation would have to be set aside is untrue, as it is a mere excuse to cover up higher political purposes of the ruling parties.
In response to the representation of the MP for Bukit Bendera, Sdr. Gooi Hock Seng, speaking on behalf of the voters of Bukit Bendera, contending the principle of ‘one man, one vote’, the Elections Commission repudiated the principle in toto; giving the following comment:
“Soal ‘one man one vote’ atau ‘satu orang satu undi’ tidak timbul dalam urusan ini kerana dari segi konsep, Wakil Rakyat adalah mewakili seluruh pengundi secara kolektif atas soal-soal dasar dan perundangan dan bukan mewakili individu-individu secara persendirian baik dari segi masalah mahupun dari segi dasar. Oleh hal yang demikian sedikit sebanyak perbezaan pemilih di antara satu bahagian dengan bahagian yang lain tidak menjadi soal khususnya di dalam Bahagian-Bahagian Pilihanraya bandar dimana perkhidmatan perbandaran dan perkhidmatan-perkhidmatan awam yang lain boleh didapati dengan senang tanpa dirujukkan ataupun dipohonkan melalui Wakil Rakyat. Selagi Wakil Rakyat mewakili semua pemilih secara keseluruhan atau secara kolektif dalam Bahagian Pilihanraya dan bukan secara individu maka soal ‘under representation’ atau ‘over representation’ tidak timbul. Sekiranya seseorang Wakil Rakyat itu menjalankan tugas-tugasnya lebih daripada yang dikehendaki daripada sasaorang Wakil Rakyat, itu adalah daya usaha yang dilakukan oleh Wakil Rakyat itu di luar bidang tugas dan tanggungjawab asasnya.”
I find the Elections Commission’s reasons for rejection of the ‘one man, one vote principle’ as provided in Article 2(c) of the 13th Schedule of the Constitution most shocking, for it made not only contradictory arguments, but presented both undemocratic and unconstitutional assumptions.
MISGUIDED REDEFINITION
From the Elections Commission’s reasoning for rejecting the one-man, one vote principle, we can draw the following conclusions:
Firstly, the Elections Commission holds the view that an MP represents a collective group for purposes of policy and legislative activity, and that the individual constituency problems of the electors is none of the business of MPs. If MPs want to concern themselves with the individual constituency problems of the electors, they are doing something over and beyond what is expected of an MP, and such considerations need not be taken into account in the redelineation of electoral boundaries.
The Elections Commission is trying to redefine the role and responsibility of a Member of Parliament. It has come out not only with a misguided redefinition, it has also exceeded its constitutional function conducting elections and redelimiting constituencies strictly within the provisions laid down by the Constitution.
If the Elections Commission truly hold the view that individual constituency problems of electors are no proper concern of an MP, then it is because the strongest argument presented by the government for disparity and inequality in political representation between urban and rural areas is that an MP in the rural areas had greater difficulties in serving the constituents. If, as the Elections Commission claims, the MP represents the collectivity of voters for policy and legislative purposes, and not to help solve the individual constituency problems of electors, then this argument collapses.
Furthermore, one must question the minor constituency development allocations which Barisan Nasional MPs are given every year, for by the Election Commission’s definition, these MPs and the Government are misusing funds for it is none of the MP’s responsibility to be concerned with areas outside policy and legislative concerns!
In actual fact, MPs have a dual role, to represent the collective interests of the people in legislative and policy arenas, as well as to help solve the individual constituency problems of the electors.
POLITICAL INEQUALITY
The argument that rural constituencies have to have fewer electorates than urban constituencies because a rural MP have to cover greater area does not take into account that an urban MP has more complex problems arising from a crowded population. DAP calls for the restructuring of political power to eliminate political inequality and end the division of Malaysians into politically first-class and second-class citizens.
In disregarding the one man, one vote principle in a multi-racial society, the Elections Commission has perpetuated and aggravated political inequality among the people and the races.
With the approach of 1990, there are increasingly strident voices for the extension of the New Economic Policy to restructure the Malaysian society to avoid the identification of any economic function with any particular race.
But what has been done to eliminate the identification of the political function with any one race, which is itself another major cause of division and polarisation in the country?
One would have expected with the suceeding decades, the Elections Commission would be guided by the spirit of the Malaysian Constitution and the provisions in the Thirteenth Schedule to lay the basis for a more united, equal Malaysian nation, whereby political power is more evenly distributed among people and the races.
But the Elections Commission has done the reserve. There is political restructuring, not to eliminate political inequality among the people and the races, but to perpetuate and aggravate such political inequality.
A study of the new proposed electoral constituencies would show that the number of Chinese-majority constituencies have progressively decreased, while the number of Malay-majority constituencies increased.
When I raised with the Elections Commission the need for the rectification of racial imbalances in delineation of constituencies between Malay and non-Malay electors, the Elections Commission said:
“Masalah memperbetulkan ketidakseimbangan politik khususnya antara pengundi Melayu dan bukan Melayu tidak boleh dijadikan asas atau isu dalam urusan ini.”
And when I objected that the electors had not been given enough time to study the proposed redelineation of constituencies, and that they had no access to the electoral rolls to enable them to know the racial breakdown of the constituencies in the proposed redelineation, the Elections Commission said:
“Daftar pemilih tidak perlu dipamerkan untuk membuat analisa perpecahan kaum kerana persempadanan ini tidak berasaskan kepada faktor tersebut.”
The Elections Commission and the ruling parties, in particular UMNO, must not take the Malaysians as three-year-old children, for everybody knows that the supreme criteria for UMNO and Elections Commission is to redelineate the constituencies to consolidate the political power of UMNO. In fact, UMNO leaders had not been shy in publicly declaring their intention to ensure that their hold on political power is not weakened, on the ground that their hold on political power means the hold of the Malays on political power. The instrument of such hold on political power is none other than the Elections Commission.
The Elections Commission and the ruling parties, in particular UMNO, must not take the Malaysians as three-year-old children, for everybody knows that the supreme criteria for UMNO and Elections Commission is to redelineate the constituencies to consolidate the political power of UMNO. In fact, UMNO leaders had not been shy in publicly declaring their intention to ensure that their hold on political power is not weakened, on the ground that their hold on political power means the hold of the Malays on political power. The instrument of such hold on political power is none other than the Elections Commission.
The Elections Commission’s proposals on the new parliamentary and state assembly constituencies must be opposed, for it perpetuates and aggravates the political inequality among the people and the races. The DAP calls for the restructuring of political power to begin to eliminate the identification of political function with my race, and to end the division of Malaysians into politically first-class and second-class citizens.
Parliament has the power to reject the proposals submitted by the Elections Commission under Article 11 of the Thirteenth Schedule of the Constitution which reads:
“If a motion for the approval of any draft order referred to in section 9 is rejected by the House of Representatives, or withdrawn by leave of the House, or is not supported by the votes of not less than one-half of the total number of members of the House, the Prime Minister may, after such consultation with the Election Commission as he may consider necessary, amend the draft and lay the amended draft before the House of Representatives………”
I am therefore formally proposing an amendment to the motion before the House to substitute the word ‘reject’ for the word ‘approve’ so that the Elections Commission’s draft recommendation is amended to incorporate the principle of one-man one vote; and the objective of eliminating the identification of the political function with any one race by greater political equality among the people and the races.
I challenge the MCA and Gerakan Ministers and MPs to reject the proposed new Parliamentary and State Assembly constituencies or they would be exposed as opportunistic and unprincipled political leaders who pretended to criticise outside but obediently vote for the new constituencies in the House.
MCA and Gerakan Ministers and MPs should stop playing the double game, wanting to give the people the idea that it is the Elections Commission which is responsible for such unfair and unequal redelineation of electoral constituencies. In actual fact, it is the MCA and Gerakan Ministers and MPs who are responsible, for the Elections Commission could only make recommendations and wait the final decision of Parliament, which could approve or reject the report.
If MCA and Gerakan Ministers and MPs refuse to support the DAP’s amendment to reject the Elections Commission’s redelineation of electoral constituencies, and vote instead for its adoption, then let them have the courage to openly, public defend their vote instead of putting up a pretense that they did not support the redelineation.
This is a great test for MCA and Gerakan Ministers and MPs, for if they vote against their conscience, then they have become the co-authors of the political inequality in the Malaysia political system, with far-reaching consequences for the political, economic, educational, cultural and religious rights of all Malaysians in the rest of the 1980s and the 1990s.