There could be massive changes in 15 years. Economic development might have brought drastic demographic changes to some constituencies and if no re-demarcation is made, it would further deteriorate the differences of voter sizes. For example, there are about 150,000 voters in Kapar but only 15,000 in Putrajaya. It is not only unfair, but has also violated the principle of one person one vote.
Lim Mun Fah, MM
Electoral reform comes with the principles of fairness and reasonableness.
Electoral reform will inevitably involve the questions of how the constituencies should be re-demarcated, and how the election system should be improved. The two aspects are closely related to the two major principles of fairness and reasonableness.
The reform involves amendments to the Federal Constitution and it must obtain the support of at least two-thirds of Members of Parliament before being implemented.
Currently, there are 222 members in the Parliament with 133 from the BN and 89 from Pakatan Rakyat. Although the BN has more than half members in the Parliament, it still needs 15 more MPs to reach the two-thirds majority threshold.
Due to political reality, the ruling and alternative parties would have to compromise and reach a consensus on electoral reform to pass the motion. Otherwise, any electoral reforms involving amendments to the Federal Constitution would be rejected unless if the party tabling the motion is able to secure enough support from MPs of the opposite camp.
According to the regulation, constituencies can be re-demarcated every eight years and we should have re-demarcated the constituencies in March 2011. However, the problem turned complicated as the BN did not have two-third majority seats in the Parliament, while four states were ruled by Pakatan Rakyat. Moreover, since the 13th general election might be held at any time, the Election Commission (EC) thus shelved the work.
However, the 13th general election has again produced a government with simple majority seats, and three states are ruled by Pakatan Rakyat. Therefore, if both the ruling and alternative coalitions refuse to compromise, the constituency re-demarcation motion would not be passed in the Parliament and thus, we might still have to use the existing constituencies in the next general election.
The current constituencies were demarcated in 2003 and they had gone through the 2004, 2008 and 2013 general elections. If the next general election falls in 2018, they will then have 15 years of history and been used for four terms.
There could be massive changes in 15 years. Economic development might have brought drastic demographic changes to some constituencies and if no re-demarcation is made, it would further deteriorate the differences of voter sizes. For example, there are about 150,000 voters in Kapar but only 15,000 in Putrajaya. It is not only unfair, but has also violated the principle of one person one vote.
The BN is able to stay in power even though it has gained less popular votes than Pakatan Rakyat in the 13th general election as our country adopts the simple majority election system, as well as because of an unfair demarcation of constituencies. Therefore, the urgent need is to restore a reasonable limit of voter number differences among different constituencies.
Non-governmental organisation Tindak Malaysia suggested that the number of parliamentary seats in Sabah and Sarawak should be increased while the number of Parliamentary seats in the Peninsula should be reduced to maintain balance. However, is the principle of one person one vote more important? Or maintaining the balance of geographical politics? Obviously, it is a very controversial issue and if the ruling and alternative coalitions fail to reach a consensus here, the suggestion will never be passed in the Parliament.
There is a serious discrepancy between the EC and Bersih on the electoral roll to be used in re-demarcation. And it is much complicated for the question of whether to continue with the existing simple majority election system or change to proportional representation or mixed system. Discrepancies and disputes seem inevitable.
If all parties insist on their respective principles and refuse to give way, would election reform eventually remain empty talk?
Electoral reform will inevitably involve the questions of how the constituencies should be re-demarcated, and how the election system should be improved. The two aspects are closely related to the two major principles of fairness and reasonableness.
The reform involves amendments to the Federal Constitution and it must obtain the support of at least two-thirds of Members of Parliament before being implemented.
Currently, there are 222 members in the Parliament with 133 from the BN and 89 from Pakatan Rakyat. Although the BN has more than half members in the Parliament, it still needs 15 more MPs to reach the two-thirds majority threshold.
Due to political reality, the ruling and alternative parties would have to compromise and reach a consensus on electoral reform to pass the motion. Otherwise, any electoral reforms involving amendments to the Federal Constitution would be rejected unless if the party tabling the motion is able to secure enough support from MPs of the opposite camp.
According to the regulation, constituencies can be re-demarcated every eight years and we should have re-demarcated the constituencies in March 2011. However, the problem turned complicated as the BN did not have two-third majority seats in the Parliament, while four states were ruled by Pakatan Rakyat. Moreover, since the 13th general election might be held at any time, the Election Commission (EC) thus shelved the work.
However, the 13th general election has again produced a government with simple majority seats, and three states are ruled by Pakatan Rakyat. Therefore, if both the ruling and alternative coalitions refuse to compromise, the constituency re-demarcation motion would not be passed in the Parliament and thus, we might still have to use the existing constituencies in the next general election.
The current constituencies were demarcated in 2003 and they had gone through the 2004, 2008 and 2013 general elections. If the next general election falls in 2018, they will then have 15 years of history and been used for four terms.
There could be massive changes in 15 years. Economic development might have brought drastic demographic changes to some constituencies and if no re-demarcation is made, it would further deteriorate the differences of voter sizes. For example, there are about 150,000 voters in Kapar but only 15,000 in Putrajaya. It is not only unfair, but has also violated the principle of one person one vote.
The BN is able to stay in power even though it has gained less popular votes than Pakatan Rakyat in the 13th general election as our country adopts the simple majority election system, as well as because of an unfair demarcation of constituencies. Therefore, the urgent need is to restore a reasonable limit of voter number differences among different constituencies.
Non-governmental organisation Tindak Malaysia suggested that the number of parliamentary seats in Sabah and Sarawak should be increased while the number of Parliamentary seats in the Peninsula should be reduced to maintain balance. However, is the principle of one person one vote more important? Or maintaining the balance of geographical politics? Obviously, it is a very controversial issue and if the ruling and alternative coalitions fail to reach a consensus here, the suggestion will never be passed in the Parliament.
There is a serious discrepancy between the EC and Bersih on the electoral roll to be used in re-demarcation. And it is much complicated for the question of whether to continue with the existing simple majority election system or change to proportional representation or mixed system. Discrepancies and disputes seem inevitable.
If all parties insist on their respective principles and refuse to give way, would election reform eventually remain empty talk?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.