The 2002 Delimitation Exercise Systematically Favoring the BN? By K Ong
The preliminary result of the latest delimitation exercise, apparently conducted in early 2002, was made public by the EC on Aug 9 2002. This recent exercise exhibits certain disturbing characteristics which might impact on conducting fair, representative and democratic elections in Malaysia.
Why the Rush?
The first concern pertains to the speed in which the recent exercise was conducted.
The past three delimitation exercises (1974, 1984 and 1994) all took approximately two years to complete. The 1994 exercise, for example, started in 1992 - eight years after the previous exercise had been completed in 1984 – and was only completed in 1994. This time, the result of the delimitation exercise was announced as soon as the eight-year waiting period was over. The Constitution was amended previously to allow precisely for this to occur – that the exercise need not begin only after the eight-year period was up but could start and end before the eight-year period.
One could perhaps speculate that there was a degree of urgency to complete this exercise early to expedite the calling of an early general election. Historically, the 1974, 1986 and 1995 general elections all occurred shortly after the completion of the delimitation exercise, presumably to allow the ruling coalition to reap the benefits of a favorable delimitation exercise. Political circumstances seem to dictate the need for an early general election; it will allow UMNO to regain its lost mandate (and seats) from the 1999 election, and to expedite Dr Maha-thir's stepping down and the change in leadership that is due by the end of October next year.
Another anomaly with respect to this recent exercise is that the ruling coalition has not yet amended Article 46 of the Federal Constitution to increase the number of parliament seats prior to the start of this 2002 exercise as it did prior to the beginning of the 1994 exercise. This time, the EC is taking the lead in recommending the increase in the number of parliament seats which will then be subject to the approval of parliament (the same procedure occurs in regards to the increase in state seats which must be approved by the respective state assemblies).
Mal-apportionment
The second concern is with apportionment or the allocation of parliament seats among the different states. Usually this is based on two factors – the population and the number of voters in a state. There is usually a strong relationship between these two factors since the number of voters in a state should be somewhat proportional to the population of that state. The exceptions are for states with a high immigrant population like Sabah, or states with a high number of interstate workers like Selangor.
As a general rule, if a state has X% of voters, then it should have X% of seats (as an approximation). Historically, the apportionment of parliament seats to Sabah and Sarawak have been ‘over-allocated’ i.e. the percentage of seats allocated is greater than its share of voters. But given that the delimitation exercise takes the Peninsula, Sabah and Sarawak as separate units, the apportionment of seats within the states in the Peninsula should follow this general rule. The latest delimitation exercise does not seem to do this.
A few states stand out in their obvious over- and under-allocation of seats. Selangor, with 16.4% of total voters in the Peninsular, should have been allocated 27 seats or an addition of 10 seats whereas only five seats were added giving a total of 22, or an under-allocation of five seats.
Pahang, with only 6.7% of voters, should have been allocated 11 seats or no change in its allocated number of seats. Instead, three additional seats were allocated to this state. Johor, with 14.7% of voters, should have been allocated 24 seats or an addition of four seats instead of the six additional seats adding up to a total of 26 seats for Johor.
Another way of analyzing the apportionment of seats would be to examine the increase in the number and the percentage of voters by state (comparing the 1994 delimitation exercise with that of the 2002 delimitation exercise). If the number of voters have increased by X amount or Y % in a particular state A and another state B experiences a similar increase in terms of number of voters or % of voters, then it would be logical for these two states to be allocated the same increase in the number of seats. Again, the latest delimitation exercise does not follow this principle.
For example, Kelantan experienced a 24% increase in the number of voters or 127,000 voters but did not receive any additional seats but Pahang which saw an increase of 21.4% or 98,000 voters saw an increase of three parliament seats. Kedah, which saw an increase of 17.4% or 118,000 voters, did not receive any additional seats but Penang which saw an increase of 17.1% or 97,000 voters was allocated an additional two seats.
Some would argue that the apportionment of seats among the states in the Peninsula cannot be strictly based on the number of voters but should also be based on the population of the state since the population of a state will reflect the number of unregistered voters in that state.
Table 1 below shows the increase in the percentage and number of voters by state between the 1994 and the 2002 delimitation exercises. It also shows the under- or over- allocation of seats by voters for each state in these two delimitation exercises.
State Voters in 1994 Voters in 2002 % Change Difference Over/Under allocation in 1994 Over/Under allocation in 2002 Perlis 97,978 109,750 12.0% 11,772 1 1 Kedah 675,790 793,517 17.4% 117,727 1 -1 Kelantan 528,679 655,602 24.0% 126,923 3 1 Terengganu 337,918 411,453 21.8% 73,535 1 0 Penang 563,039 659,155 17.1% 96,116 -1 0 Perak 1,047,175 1,138,010 8.7% 90,835 1 2 Pahang 456,834 554,534 21.4% 97,700 1 3 Selangor 949,317 1,368,693 44.2% 419,376 -3 -5 Wilayah 591,806 664,233 12.2% 72,427 -3 -2 N. Sembilan 298,178 417,712 40.1% 119,534 1 0 Melaka 269,198 331,327 23.1% 62,129 -1 -1 Johor 982,484 1223,532 24.5% 241,048 -1 2 Total 6,798,396 8,327,518 22.5% 1,529,122
By this measure, Selangor which has a total population of approximately 4.2 million or 22.5% of the population of Peninsular Malaysia, should be allocated 38 seats out of the 165 in Peninsular Malaysia. Even if we assume that there is a large migrant workforce (from other states or from other countries) in Selangor, the difference in total population in Selangor (4.2 million) and Johor (2.7 million) means that the number of unregistered voters in Selangor would be higher than that in Johor and hence Selangor should be allocated more seats than Johor. This contrast is a clear example of mal-apportionment in the 2002 exercise.
Gerrymandering
The term “gerrymandering” is used when the redrawing of parliamentary and state seats is conducted so as to benefit the ruling party. There is evidence that gerrymandering occurred in the 2002 delimitation exercise. The examples below indicate that different ‘strategies’ of gerrymandering were used.
The state of Kedah is a good case in point to show where state seats have been shifted from parliamentary constituencies where the BN is strong to parliamentary constituencies where PAS won by small majorities in the 1999 general election. A particularly egregious case is the parliament seat of Yan (proposed to be renamed Jerai) which is currently held by PAS Secretary General, Nasaruddin Mat Isa. This seat was won by PAS in 1999 by a slim majority (0.7% or 182 votes). The latest delimitation exercise has added the Gurun state seat to the parliamentary seat of Yan. Significantly, the state seat of Gurun is a strong MCA seat (38.1% majority in 1999 election). It must be noted that the state seat of Gurun lies within the administrative district of Kuala Muda while the rest of the parliament seat of Yan is found in the administrative district of Yan.
Similar ‘transfers’ of state seats have affected three other parliamentary seats in Kedah, namely Pokok Sena (PAS – Mahfuz Omar), Kuala Kedah (PAS – Mohd Sabu) and Baling (PAS – Taib Azamudin).
Another ‘strategy’ that can be used is the shifting of polling districts from one state seat to another to strengthen the position of the ruling coalition in an area where it is relatively weak. One such example is the sensitive parliamentary constituency of Jeli in Kelantan which the then Finance Minister, Mustapha Muhammed, lost by a mere 693 votes (2.3% majority). The number of voters in Jeli has been decreased from 38,000 in 1999 to 31,700 in the latest delineation exercise. A large part of the state seat of Kemahang was taken out of Jeli and replaced by a new state seat, Bukit Bunga. Post delineation, the seat of Jeli still crossed into the administrative district of Tanah Merah.
One wonders why the administrative borders were not re-aligned as in the case of Gua Musang which saw its number of voters decrease from 30,000 to 26,000 (but which also saw a new state seat added there). Is it coincidence that two new state seats were added to the parliament seats of Jeli and Gua Musang, two areas with a low number of voters? Of course, Gua Musang was the only parliamentary seat won by UMNO (Tengku Razaleigh) in 1999 while Jeli, as mentioned earlier, was narrowly lost to PAS.
By counter-checking the 1999 polling data to the shifting of polling districts from one constituency to another, one should be able to come up with a comprehensive study of the outcome of the next election. Invariably, these shifts ought to favour the BN/UMNO rather than the opposition.
Absorption
State Smallest Parliamentary Seat in State Largest Parliamentary Seat in State Ratio Perlis 35,844 37,100 1.04 Kedah 27,311 76,031 2.78 Kelantan 26,035 69,948 2.69 Terengganu 42,820 65,900 1.54 Penang 37,769 64,666 1.71 Perak 21,148 71,706 3.39 Pahang 24,507 51,370 2.10 Selangor 30,042 88,751 2.95 Wil. Persekutuan 51,012 68,478 1.34 Negeri Sembilan 36,349 77,988 2.15 Melaka 37,160 76,657 2.06 Johor 28,210 90,187 3.20
A final observation is that when particular states have been allocated extra parliamentary seats, it is not the seats with the largest number of voters which have been split or affected. Rather the new seats have been created from those constituencies with a lower number of voters. For example, with the creation of the new parliamentary seat of Lenggong (21,000 voters) in Perak, the number of voters in the neighbouring constituency has dropped from 37,000 in 1999 to 24,000 voters in 2002. Meanwhile the parliamentary seat of Batu Gajah (a DAP-held seat) saw an increase of voters from 57,000 in 1999 to 71,000 in 2002. Consequently, the disparity in the size of constituencies persist especially in Selangor, Perak and Johor. Table 2 provides the the number of voters in the largest and smallest constituency in each state. The ration between them is also indicated
The three characteristics of the 2002 delimitation exercise outlined above are of great concern because the arbitrary nature of the exercise will lend doubt to the democratic nature of elections in Malaysia. It is of course acknowledged that in any delimitation exercise, there will inevitably be those who are affected positively and others negatively. But if a closer examination of the impact of the exercise shows a systematic bias towards favouring the ruling coalition, then the integrity of the elections system will be called into question.
Now e-mail us and tell us what you think.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
