COMMENT The Election Commission (EC) offers a “bare map”, with no polling district sub-division, and administrative, physical and infrastructural boundaries.

This is in sharp contrast to the maps it sells to the political parties during elections, which shows the details.

3.4 No administrative, physical and infrastructural boundaries on maps

Take the existing parliamentary constituency P198 Mambong (renamed as P198 Puncak Borneo) for example. Map 3a is its electoral map in the 13th general election (GE13), in a scale of 1: 125,000, which shows not only some of the polling districts (68 polling districts could not be found) but also mountains, rivers, contours, villages and roads.  

   

Now, look at Map 3b below, which has been on display since Jan 5. On a scale of 1:600,000, the map is more than four times lower in resolution.

Worse, the map is bare – not only is there no sub-division into polling districts, but there are also no physical and land-use information for people to make sense of the boundaries.

The existing P198 Mambong is subdivided into N16 Bengoh (24,655 voters in GE13) and N17 Tarat (17,689), yielding a total of 42,344. The 2014 Electoral Roll used for redelineation suggests a rise of 510 voters to 42,854.

The redelineation proposal basically splits N16 Bengoh into the new N18 Serembu (9,677 voters) and N19 Mambong (16,803 voters), while Tarat shrinks a little to have 16,374 voters.

This means the ballot value for the original N16 Bengoh voters doubles. More precisely, those voters in N18 Serembu have their vote values increased by nearly 150 percent if compared with during GE13.

Putting aside malapportionment at the state-wide level, one must question why P198 Mambong/Puncak Borneo is internally malapportioned. In 2013, Bengoh was 50 percent larger than Tarat, while now Tarat and Mambong are proposed to be nearly twice the size of Serembu.

Details can show if new boundaries are justifiable

 

The only constitutional justification for under-sized constituency is transportational and communicational difficulties. Now, how do we know if Serembu is really so justifiably remote? How do we know if the proposed boundaries do not cut “local ties”, which Section 2(d) of the 13th Schedule of our Federal Consitution aims to maintain?

We won’t know all these unless we have a high-resolution map detailed with contours, settlements and roads.

Common sense tells us to assess the changes – the “effect of (the EC’s) proposed recommendation” as stipulated in Section 4(a), the EC must provide in its redelineation proposal the same type of maps it provides during elections.

The EC cannot replace a microscope with a magnifying glass and ask the public to make a comparison.

Hence, by denying the public detailed maps, the EC is making meaningful public scrutiny and objection under Sections 4 and 5 impossible, and giving itself unchecked power to dictate the final outcome.

3.5 No information on constituencies’ land mass

While the EC does provide the public the electorate size of all constituencies, hence allowing an assessment of malapportionment and objection under Section 2(c) of the 13th Schedule, it has held back another piece of important information that it conventionally published in its report to the Parliament: land mass.

Land mass is important in assessing transportational and communicational difficulties, which is a constitutional ground to justify exception to the “approximately equal” requirement in Section 2(c).

One would expect those extremely small-sized constituencies to cover much larger areas while the normal-sized constituencies to be smaller.

For example, for Hulu Rajang, which is nearly as big as Pahang, it is not reasonable to have strictly an average electorate size.

Now, if this information is to be presented to the Parliament eventually, why is the EC holding it back from the public? What is there to hide? ( See Image 3, on right right )

4 The EC is not above the Constitution

I have argued that for the public scrutiny and objections stipulated out in Sections 4 and 5 in the 13th Schedule and objections against malapportionment and gerrymandering, as per sub-sections 2(c) and 2(d), the EC must provide the following:

(a) An exhaustive list of “effects” of the redelineation proposal, not just its description, for the public to have a clear understanding;

(b) “proposed electoral rolls” that correspond to the “proposed constituencies”, for voters to ascertain if they are negatively affected;

(c) Polling district subdivision to allow contemplating of alternative grouping of polling districts:

(d) Administrative, physical, and infrastructural boundaries to assist in ascertaining local ties; and

(e) Electorate size and land mass of all constituencies to assist in assessing malapportionment and whether the excessively under-sized constituencies are constitutionally justifiable.

In response to Bersih 2.0’s criticism of incomplete map on Jan 6, EC chairperson Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof ( right ) reportedly said that “the same process has been in place” for the six redelineation exercises and that “If we include all information in the maps, it will be a mess”.

Allow me to remind the EC chairperson that he and his commission are not the ultimate authority on redelineation. The ultimate authority is the Federal Constitution, especially the principles and procedures laid down in the 13th Schedule.

The EC is not above the Federal Constitution. Its past practices do not constitute a licence for it to do what it likes. After all, the EC has an outrageous record in violating the Federal Constitution, from handling objections, committing malapportionment, and gerrymandering, to dealing with seat increases.

If the EC got off scot-free in the past, it is because no one has held it accountable to the Federal Constitution. That era has ended.

Once, most people felt helpless with the EC that even some opposition politicians would try to make deals with the body. That era has ended too.

It is heartening to read Sarawak PKR chief Baru Bian’s ultimatum to the EC to correct the informational gaps in the redelineation within seven days, or face judicial review. The deadline Baru gave the EC has just passed.

If the EC refuses to accept that it is not above the Federal Constitution, it shall have its education in court soon.

Part 1: Why Sarawak redelineation is unconstitutional

Part 2: 64,451 Sarawak voters not accounted for on EC map

WONG CHIN HUAT earned his PhD on the electoral system and party system in West Malaysia from the University of Essex. He is a fellow at the Penang Institute, and a resource person for electoral reform movement Bersih 2.0.