Time and place decides what’s fair (UPDATED with Chinese translation)

ARCHIVES 2013

By MT Webmaster On May 23, 2013

For all intents and purposes, this article is a purely academic exercise to discuss the issue of fair or fairness. I have attached the issue of election boundaries (in the addendum below) merely as the emphasis in discussing this issue. The point I wish to make, however, is that if you subscribe to the doctrine of relativity (a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another), then everything is open to interpretation and subject to time and place plus dependent on whom you are.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Before I start let me warn you that this is going to be a cheong hei article so if you are one of those who are incapable of reading more than one page I would suggest you just skip this article and read something else.

First of all, before any of you jump up and down and scream that I am anti-reform, let me caution you that I am one of the early birds who was clamouring not only for electoral reforms but for political reforms as well — under which would include electoral reforms.

And I have already openly declared that I joined the Liberal Democrat party because of this desire to see not just electoral reforms but political reforms here in the UK as well, a country that is now my home and where I will eventually be buried when I die in a few years time (hopefully more than 10 years more).

When we look at something we always use the yardstick of where we stand and when that time may be to measure that thing we are looking at. What may be fair at one time and in another place may no longer be fair today in the place where we live. Hence nothing is constant and the only constant thing is change — an oxymoron of sorts. (If it changes then it is not constant, is it not?)

Let us take voting as one example. In some countries in the past, only the landowners and the elite were allowed to vote (the serfs and landless could not vote). That meant roughly only 20% of the population could vote. In some countries only the whites and/or only the males could vote. ‘Blacks’ and women were not allowed to vote.

By today’s standards that would be most unfair. In those days, though, and in those countries concerned, there was nothing unfair about that. That was the law and the law must be obeyed. Whether this is ‘rule of law’ or ‘rule by law’ is another matter for another discussion (just like Malaysia’s Sedition Act issue).

Okay, that was in the past. Let us talk about today and let us talk about Malaysia.

In the UK, anyone who resides in the country can vote (as long as you have a UK address). Since you reside in the country, whatever happens in the UK affects you — so you can vote. Hence even Malaysian students who hold Malaysian passports and are Malaysian citizens can vote in the British elections — as long as you are old enough.

Malaysia, however, does not allow this. And if you are not a Malaysian citizen and you vote then you would be regarded as a ‘phantom voter’. Is this fair (to regard non-citizens as phantom voters)? In the UK it is not fair. But in Malaysia this is fair.

Now, if British citizens can go to Malaysia and are allowed entry into the country without the need of a visa then, to reciprocate, Malaysian citizens can also enter the UK without the need of a visa. However, while Malaysian citizens can vote in the UK, British citizens cannot vote in Malaysia. Is this reciprocating and hence is this fair?

Let’s, say, a British citizen votes in Malaysia. What will happen to him or her? Absolutely nothing — other than getting beaten up by the Pakatan Rakyat supporters, of course. But what will happen if a Malaysian citizen votes in the UK? Well, he or she can lose his/her Malaysian citizenship. Is this fair? It is fair in Malaysia but not in the UK.

In 1969, the voting age in the UK was reduced from 21 to 18. And that is why foreign students can vote since most are above 18 anyway. In Malaysia, the voting age is still 21. But you can drive a car at 18 plus you can also get married at that age. So, we trust 18-year-olds to drive a car and get married but we do not trust them to vote? Is this fair?

Up to 1969 it was fair in the UK. Today, however, it is no longer fair. In Malaysia, though, it is still fair. Hence the interpretation of ‘fair’ changes over time and over place. In 1969, I was only 18 and could not vote in the 10th May 1969 ‘historic’ general election in Malaysia. But I would have been able to vote in the UK had I gone there to study instead of choosing the life of a hippie in Malaysia.

So, in reviewing our electoral system, we need to redefine what is fair and hence we need to consider a total overhaul of the system to keep up with the changes in the world. Children of 13 were still considered children back in the time of Merdeka. Children of 13, today, are more exposed to the world and have become more mature partly due to cable TV and the Internet. Children of 13, say, 500 years ago, already went to war and got married and by 30 were considered too old (not many lived beyond 50 anyway in those days).

Hence, the issue of the age of maturity plus the voting age itself needs to be reconsidered and probably changed to keep up with ‘world norms’. Even how we look at 16-year-olds changed from 1813 to 1913 to 2013.

Are 18-year-olds old enough and mature enough to be entrusted with the ballot paper? If they are old enough to be sent to jail or to be sent to the gallows then they should be old enough to be allowed to vote.

But what will happen if 18-year old Malaysians are allowed to vote? Well, that would mean Barisan Nasional is finished because then most likely the opposition would garner 60% of the popular vote and if this happens then no amount of fraud or gerrymandering can make any difference. You can only cheat up to a certain extent, mainly in borderline cases. If the swing is too massive, to the level of a Tsunami, then even cheating cannot help any longer.

So the government has to very carefully look into all these issues in the expected re-delineation exercise, which may be conducted soon. However, what is the priority of the Election Commission (SPR)? Malaysia practices the first-past-the-post system. How do we incorporate the one-man-one-vote system into that system? That is the billion-dollar question. And, again, the issue of ‘fair’ needs to be carefully considered.

But then I have just explained that fair or fairness is relative. It all depends on who you are and what era you live in and in which region you are living. The interpretation of fair changes from time-to-time and from place-to-place and from person-to-person as well. So how do we establish ‘fair’? And who will be the one establishing what is fair?

Okay, you may argue that the ones establishing this yardstick of ‘fair’ must be the majority. But what if what the majority wants is not fair to the minority? Do we then ignore the rights of the minority because we must comply to majority-rule? What if in that particular society the majority happens to be Shia Muslims and the minority are Sunni Muslims? Can the majority Shias pass a law that persecutes the minority Sunnis? Do the minority Sunnis not also have rights?

Say, the majority Shias decide that Sunni Islam is not Islam and Sunnis are heretics who should be put to death. The Sunni Books of Hadith are banned and anyone found in possession of the Sunni Books of Hadith will be arrested and sent to jail.

But Sunni Islam is far larger than Shia Islam. There are an estimated 80-90% Sunnis compared to only 10-20% Shias in the world. In Malaysia, Malaysians who follow Shia Islam are arrested and jailed (unless you are a foreigner). So is it fair that the ‘majority’ Shias who are actually the minority worldwide pass such laws even though in that particular country they may be the majority?

So, can you see that the issue of majority-rule itself can be disputed because, yet again, it is subject to who you are and where you happen to live at that time and what era you happen to be living in?

Okay, back to Malaysia’s election system, what would Barisan Nasional consider fair? Fair to Barisan Nasional is whatever it is that can keep them in power. What about Pakatan Rakyat? To Pakatan Rakyat, fair is whatever it is that can kick out Barisan Nasional.

Hence, to start off, both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have different interpretations of fair. So how do we come to a consensus on what is fair? If we go by the majority in Parliament then Barisan Nasional has 133 votes compared to Pakatan Rakyat’s 89. So, if majority rules, then Barisan Nasional wins.

You may argue that Barisan Nasional may have 133 seats in Parliament but then they won these 133 seats with less than 50% of the votes. Okay, but is Malaysia’s election based on votes or based on seats? Undoubtedly it is based on seats and not votes. And if on seats then Barisan Nasional will win the shouting match.

The bottom line is: both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have two different interpretations of fair and have different priorities in the re-delineation exercise. So there is no way they can meet in the middle. One has to lose while the other will win. The question is: which one will lose and which one will win?

In the meantime, be prepared for a long-drawn shouting match and probably even more street demonstrations before this issue is going to be resolved. And at the end of it all, one party is going to benefit and another is going to be frustrated. And the whole reason for this is because the present system is not perfect. Any system that can be manipulated and exploited cannot be perfect.

Is the solution, therefore, to look for another system?

Yes, something to mull over and sleep on, don’t you think so?

Nevertheless, treat this piece of mine as merely an academic exercise to discuss the issue of what is fair.

*************************************

PSC recommended fairer election system, DAP rep reminds BN, EC

Clara Chooi, The Malaysian Insider

Barisan Nasional (BN) was reminded today of recommendations approved last year by Parliament to improve the country’s current electoral system and for the coming redrawing of boundaries to ensure fair weightage is given to every vote.

DAP election strategist Dr Ong Kian Ming mocked BN leaders Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Datuk Seri Noh Omar for criticising those who dared to challenge the alleged unfairness of the current system, pointing out that their own colleagues had made the recommendations as members of the Parliamentary Select Committee for electoral reform.

The recommendations, tabled in the Lower House on April 2 last year, included a call on the Election Commission (EC) to use a “fair and equitable” formula when determining the number of voters in one constituency, after taking note of the proposal to follow the “one-man, one-vote, one-value” principle.

The bipartisan PSC also took note of the proposal to improve the country’s current use of the simple majority or first-past-the-post system by considering a more proportionate system of representation for elections.

Ong (picture), the newly-elected MP for Serdang, told both Ahmad Zahid and Noh to take a week-long study leave abroad to better understand how other countries practising the same simple majority “first-past-the-post” system adhere to the “one-man, one-vote, one-value” principle in the drawing of their electoral boundaries.

“If the home minister (Ahmad Zahid) and the MP for Tanjong Karang (Noh) are too busy… I would be more than happy to sit down with them for a one-hour briefing to show them how other democratic countries using the first-past-the-post system redraw their boundary lines in order to reduce the disparity in the number of voters per seat,” Ong said.

He explained that if constituencies are fairly delineated, any party or coalition that wins the vote majority in any first-past-the-post system should win the majority of seats contested.

But in the just-concluded Election 2013, the ruling BN government emerged victors again by snapping up 133 seats or 60 per cent of the 222 federal seats to Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) 89 seats, despite losing the popular vote when it garnered only 48 per cent of votes cast to PR’s 51 per cent.

The outcome triggered the string of “Black 505” protests nationwide as indignant opposition leaders and voters rallied against BN’s return to power despite failing to win the majority number of votes cast.

Responding to the protests, Ahmad Zahid sparked an uproar when he wrote in Umno-owned daily Utusan Malaysia that Malaysians should accept PR’s failure to win federal power in Malaysia’s first-past-the-post system, saying those unwilling to accept the system could live elsewhere.

In a separate remark, Noh had said that those who do not like Malaysia’s electoral system to go “live in the jungle”.

Ong accused the home minister of failing to remember that prior to Malaysia’s independence, the maximum rural weightage given to votes had been two to one which, he said, effectively means that the largest constituency can only have twice as many voters as the smallest constituency.

“Instead, what we have now in Malaysia is a ‘bastardized’ form of the first-past-the-post electoral system where the largest constituency — P109 Kapar (144,369 voters in GE13) — has nine times the number of voters of the smallest constituency — P126 Putrajaya (15,798 voters in GE13),” he said.

“Indeed, if the home minister had done his research, he would have realised that the United Kingdom passed a Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act in 2011 which specified that the maximum deviation in the number of voters per constituency can only be 5 per cent,” he added.

In Australia, which uses the Alternative Vote (AV) in Single Member Constituencies, Ong said the maximum deviation in the number of voters per constituency is 10 per cent.

“However, there is an additional, stricter rule which requires the Australian Election Commission to project the number of voters per constituency 3½ years after a re-delineation exercise.

“This rule allows for a maximum of a 3.5 per cent deviation. The strict rules observed in Australia results in the one-man-one-vote principle being observed,” he said.

For example, Ong said the largest constituency in Australia in terms of geographical area is Durack in Western Australia with 88,177 voters when the last redelineation exercise was conducted in 2008.

Durack’s land size, he said, is 1,587,758 square kilometres, which is almost five times the size of Malaysia.

The smallest constituency, he said, is the constituency of Wentworth in New South Wales, Sydney, with 98,979 in 2009 when the last redelineation exercise was conducted.

Wentworth covers approximately 30 square kilometres which is about the size of Ipoh Barat, Ong added.

“The rural-urban weightage in Australia is 1.12. In other words, the number of voters in the smallest urban constituency is only 112 per cent the number of voters in the largest rural constituency.

“If Australia, given its large geographic area, can follow the one-man-one-vote principle, there is no reason why Malaysia cannot follow suit,” he said.

The EC is expected to kick off the re-delineation exercise at the end of this year, shortly after all election petitions for the May 5 polls are heard.

*************************************

時間和地點是決定公平的因數

這是篇以公平爲主題的學術討論文章。我在下方附上的選區劃分文章僅僅是爲了加強我們的内容而已。我想說的是，如果你是相信‘相對’主意（即一件事情的狀況完全是依賴其它事情來定下來的），那所有事情都是可以被開放式地詮釋的，詮釋的主軸則依賴于時間，地點和你是誰。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

在我開始之前我想警告你這會是一篇很長的文章。如果你是受不了長過一頁的文章的那我會建議你跳過此文去讀其他的。

第一，在你大喊大叫講我反改革之前，我要慎重地提醒你我是第一批吵著不但只要選舉改革而且還要政治改革的人—–政治改革當然也包括了選舉改革。

我之前就曾公開地宣佈我加入英國自由民主黨的原因是因爲我不止想看到選舉改革；我還要看到政治改革。英國現在已是我的國家了，是我在三四年（當然最好還能有個10來年）歸天以後所葬身的地方。

這是篇以公平爲主題的學術討論文章。我在下方附上的討論選區劃分的文章僅僅是爲了加強我們的内容而已。我想說的是，如果你是相信‘相對’主意（即一件事情的狀況完全是的話依賴其它事情來定下來的），那所有事情都是可以被開放式地詮釋的，詮釋的主軸則依賴于時間，地點和你是誰。

儅我們看待一件事情是我們會以我們當時的立場和時間背景來做準繩。在某個地方某個時間點很公平的事情有可能在現今我們生活的地方變得不公平。所以說沒有東西是不變的，只有改變是不變的。

就讓我們拿選舉作例子。在過去某些國家裏，只有地主和貴族才可以投票（農奴和無地階級是不可投票）。那也表示只有20%的人口有資格投票。在另一些國家只有白人或男人才可以投票，黑人和女人一概不准。

對現今的標準來説這是絕對不公平的，但在當時那些國家這則是沒有所謂的不公。這是當時的法律，所以他們得遵從法律。當然這種做法是‘法治精神’抑或是‘以法制人’則是另一個有待討論的課題（就像馬來西亞煽動令一樣）。

好了，那都過去了，現在讓我們談談現在和談談馬來西亞。

在英國只要你是個居民（只要你有個英國地址）你就可以投票；因爲你居住在英國所以所有一切發生在英國的事情都能影響你，所以你就有權投票。因此，就連持大馬護照在英國讀書的大馬籍學生也可以投票—-只要你夠年齡的話。

無論如何，馬來西亞是不允許這種做法的。如果你不是大馬人而你又投票的話那你就是個‘幽靈選民’。這公平嗎？在英國這是不公平的，但在馬來西亞卻公平得很。

如果說英國公民可以免簽入境大馬，那同等的，大馬公民也可以免簽入境英國。但，儅大馬公民可以在英國投票的同時英國公民是不可以在大馬投票的，這又同等和公平嗎？

就讓我們講說有一個英國公民在大馬投票，那他會發生什麽事情嗎？他跟本就不會有什麽事情—–除了會被民聯支持者痛毆一頓以外。但儅一個大馬公民在英國投票時他又會出什麽事情呢？他會因此而喪失大馬公民權。這公平嗎？這在大馬是公平的但在英國則反之。

在1969年英國把投票年齡從21嵗降到18嵗，這就是爲什麽留學生都可以投票，因爲他們一般都過了18嵗。在馬來西亞，投票年齡還是21嵗，但你只要過了18嵗就可以駕車，你甚至還能在那個歲數結婚呢。換句話說，我們認可18嵗的那一群可以駕車結婚但我們不認可他們可以投票？這公平嗎？

在1969年以前英國認爲這是公平的，但現今則不是。在馬來西亞這種情形到今天爲止則都還是很公平。所以你看，‘公平’的詮釋是隨著時間和地點的不同而改變的。我在1969年時因爲我還是18嵗而錯過了那場‘歷史性’的大選。但如果我當時選擇放棄在大馬過上嬉皮士的生活而到英國讀書的話那我就會有投票在那兒機會。

所以說，在審查我們的選舉系統之前，我們必須為‘公平’給定義下來；爲了能趕上世界的改變我們必須在這系統裏來個大翻修。獨立時代那些13嵗的小伙們還被認爲只是孩子，但今天的13嵗小伙因大量地接受外邊的信息而被認爲是很成熟了；反過來說，500年前的13嵗則已經上戰場打戰和可以結婚了，而儅他們30嵗時他們已是很‘老人’了（當時很多人都會活不過50嵗）。

所以我們必須從新考慮有關成熟年齡和投票年齡的關聯，從而很大可能要做出‘與時並進’的更改。我們對18歲的看法在1813年，1913年和2013年是各有不同的。

18歲是否就足夠成熟進而我們可以把投票這個責任交給他們了嗎？如果他們滿18歲就可以坐牢和被送上吊頸台，那同時閒他們也應該可以投票了。

如果18歲的大馬人可以投票的話那後果又是什麼？答案是，國陣就會因此‘玩完’，因為反對黨奪得60％選票的幾率會高出很多，屆時就連舞弊和不均勻的選區選民數也幫不了什麼。你能欺騙的其實並不多，一般都是在邊界上的課題。如果形勢是都往一邊倒而達到大海嘯的程度的話，那就連欺騙也改變不了大局。

政府在即將進行的選區從新規劃計劃中必須把這些課題探討得一清二楚。話說回來，那選舉委員會的首要目的是什麼？馬來西亞是採取多數制first-past-the-post系統的，我們要怎樣才能把一人一票one-man-one-vote系統整合在內呢？這才是一個很值得深思的問題。與此同時，‘公平’這個課題還是需要很小心地來思考的。

我已解釋過了，公不公平是很‘相對’的。那要視乎你是誰，你住在什麼地方和你存在在哪一個時間背景裡。每個人對‘公平’的定義會隨著時間，地點，和個人的不同而改變的。所以我們應該怎樣來做得很‘公平’呢？我們又要誰來確立公平的準則呢？

好，你有可能會講公平的準則應該是由多數人來決定的。但如果多數人要的對少數人來講是不公平的呢？我們是否要因為必須跟從‘多數為先’的管理規則而忽視掉少數人的權益呢？如果說在這一個社會裡多數人為什葉派而少數人是遜尼派，什葉派就是否可以通過法令來迫害少數的遜尼派？遜尼派穆斯林在這裡難道就沒有權力了嗎？

打個比方，多人數的什葉派有可能認為遜尼式回教並不是回教所以遜尼教徒都是應該被送上斷頭臺的異教徒。遜尼版的Hadith經是被禁止的，而持有者將會被控進監牢。

但現實生活當中遜尼派遠比什葉派大得多。大約全球穆斯林人口中有80-90%是遜尼派而只有10-20%是派。在大馬，什葉派教徒是會被捉進監牢的（除非你是個外國人）。所以說，在什葉派是主流的社會裏，他們通過法令壓制遜尼派的舉動是‘公平’的嗎？

所以在此你就可以看到所謂的‘多數為先’的管理規則也是有問題的，因爲它也是因時間，地點，和個人而改變的。

好了，讓我們囘到來馬來西亞選舉系統。請問對囯陣來講何謂公平呢？他們會認爲只要是能讓他們繼續掌權的那就是公平的。民聯呢？他們則會認爲只要能把囯陣拉下馬的就是公平的。

如此可看到，打從一開始囯陣和民聯對公平的詮釋就已經很不同了，我們又要怎樣來達成共識呢？如果我們以國會的多數權來看，囯陣會有133個投票權，對比民聯的89個。所以，以多數為先的主意來看，囯陣鐵定會贏。

你可以爭辯囯陣雖然有133席但他們所奪得的選票只有不到50%。對的，但請問馬來西亞選舉系統是以選票還是以席位來做定奪的呢？很不幸的，我們是以席位來定奪的，所以囯陣在爭辯中肯定會勝出。

底綫是，囯陣和民聯各自都有對公平的不同詮釋，並且兩黨在選區從新規劃計劃上各有自己的目的，所以他們根本沒有可能會做出妥協。其中一個將會勝出而另一個則會敗下來。問題是：勝利者會是誰？失敗者又會是誰？

現在，你應該要做心理準備去接受即將上演的持續性爭吵和更多的街頭示威，直到這個課題被解決爲止。最終，這兩個的其中一個將會獨獲所有的甜頭而另一個則會很煩躁。這背後的真正原因是因爲我們的系統是很不完美的。一個能夠被操縱和被利用的系統就是個很不完美的系統。

故此，我們最佳的解決方案是不是應該尋找一個全新的系統呢？

是的，一個徹底不同且一勞永逸的新系統，你覺得呢？

無論如何，請你只把我的這篇文章當作是對‘公平的定義’的學術討論來看待。

*************************************

PSC薦舉更爲公平的選舉系統，行動黨如是提醒囯陣和選舉委員會

Clara Chooi, 大馬内幕者

囯陣今天被提醒有關去年國會曾提出的建議來改良國家現今的選舉系統。國會也建議應該更爲妥善地從新規劃選區以確保每一票的權重性都是更加相等且公平的。

（下文省略）