Redelineating Sarawak. The EC Disappoints. Again.

By admin-s Last updated Jan 7, 2015

The state assembly frivolously increased the number of representatives. But, the EC is obliged to implement the decision. I am curious to know what the EC says is the basis for its second recommendation. My guess is “we did as instructed.” So is it a recommendation?

Rama Ramanathan

On 5^th January the Election Commission (EC) gazetted a notice that in accordance with the Federal Constitution it has reviewed the division of Sarawak into Federal (Parliamentary) and State constituencies. In the notice the EC said it will be making four recommendations. The notice also said where the new constituency maps are on display, and described the parameters for registering objections to the recommendations.

The first recommendation is “do not increase the number of Parliamentary seats for Sarawak.” This is odd, for the EC has no authority to recommend any change to the number of seats.

The second recommendation is that the number of state constituencies be increased by eleven. This too is odd, for the EC is simply implementing what the Sarawak state assembly decided in November 2014.

I’ll not comment on the third and fourth recommendations as these are changes to the names of constituencies. I’ll highlight three problems with the EC’s recommendations and explain why we should be alarmed.

Problem # 1: The recommended changes are not adequately described

Generally, every time we recommend change, we recall the current state and we describe the recommended future state. Six Sigma practitioners – people who implement change professionally – often speak of the “As-Is” and the “To-Be” states.

The EC hasn’t bothered to describe the changes, though it’s not hard to do so.

The As-Is state is depicted in the GE13 constituency maps. These maps include three levels of detail: boundaries for the parliamentary constituencies, state constituencies and polling districts.

Isn’t it obvious that the maps for the recommended constituencies should also contain three levels of detail? Not to the EC!

The EC has only displayed maps with two levels of detail. Has the EC omitted showing the third level in order to make it harder for us to evaluate whether our constitutional rights are being respected?

I suggest the EC has deliberately “omitted showing” the third level because the Constitution requires the EC to take account of local ties, convenience in going to polling stations, availability of administrative facilities, etc. when drawing the boundaries. This means the EC must at least use the third level to check their work. So, omitting to show the third level is a deliberate decision.

In the state-wide displays (which are not in places frequented by the public), the old maps are not shown. How then are voters to evaluate the change? If you don’t have a confirmed As-Is, how do you evaluate the To-Be?

Problem # 2: The goals and achievements of the delineation are not clearly stated

Changes should bring improvement. What improvements does the EC seek to achieve through the recommendations?

Thousands have protested about the election process in Malaysia. There’s even been a people’s tribunal on GE13, with well documented evidences of failures. Issues raised have included irregularities in the electoral roll, malapportionment, gerrymandering and the EC accepting “corrections” proposed by persons or groups without Constitutional standing.

At the very least the EC should have goals for “approximately equal” sizes of constituencies, as required by the Federal Constitution. Operationally, the goal could be stated like this: “Eighty percent of the constituencies should be within plus or minus fifteen percent of the average constituency size in the state.” (I selected 15% because that’s the figure in the 1957 Constitution; I selected eighty percent because the Statistics Department says that’s the current level of urbanization in Malaysia.)

The EC should have computed the compliance percentage (goal: 80%) for the As-Is state and the corresponding percentage for the To-Be state. That’s the primary goal of re-delineation – bring more and more constituencies closer to the average size. What was the EC’s goal?

The new constituencies range in size from 6,340 voters (Gedong-N26; this is the smallest of the 82 proposed constituencies) to 20,107 voters (Batu Kitang-N13; there are 12 constituencies with more voters). What goal is the EC trying to achieve? Has the EC succeeded?

Another goal the EC should have had is to correct wrongs done in previous delineations, based on feedback received from the public. This is just like companies using customer feedback to improve the design of their products. The EC has been silent about this. Why?

Problem # 3: Selective avoidance of use of information technology

The EC has used computer technology to generate its maps.

The EC knows that groups like Tindak Malaysia and DART (Bersih 2.0) have used technology to create alternative maps. The EC knows that hordes of citizens nationwide have used technology participatively to create constituency maps as alternatives to the maps malapportioned and gerrymandered by the EC previously.

The EC knows those citizens have made their maps available online. Yet the EC refuses to display its maps online. The EC will not even sell the maps to the public. The EC is conscious of its horrid history of malpractices. Yet the EC refuses to be transparent. Why?

Why is all this important?

As stated in the gazetted notice, those who wish to object to the new boundaries must do so within 30 days. Only 3 parties are allowed to object: the State government, affected local authorities and bodies of one hundred or more voters from the constituencies in question.

Objections will only be entertained on a per-constituency basis. Also, the EC restricts objections to individual constituencies, not the overall schema I have outlined above.

Without the relevant information, how can we evaluate the EC’s recommendations responsibly?

I conclude that the EC, which is supposed to be the guardian and instrument of democracy in the nation, is declaring that it will work as it always has, and doesn’t care what citizens think. Sarawak now. The rest of Malaysia next. Expect lawsuits!