• Why BN does not want more Parliament seats

    Why BN does not want more Parliament seats

    The fact that no new no Parliament seat was added in Sarawak by the Election Commission is a very good indication that the yet-to-be revealed peninsular Malaysia and Sabah delimitation plans will also not include parliamentary seat increases.

    With 31 out of 222 seats, Sarawak currently has 14 percent of the total Parliament seats. This figure would be diluted further if parliamentary seats are added in peninsular Malaysia and Sabah but not in Sarawak.

    Any Sarawak chief minister would not have agreed to the new Sarawak delimitation plan if there was no assurance from the BN at the national level that no parliament seat will be added in either peninsular Malaysia or Sabah. This way, the current distribution of parliamentary seats and power at the federal can be maintained.

    The delay in revealing the new delimitation plans for peninsular Malaysia and Sabah also indicates that a decision has been made to present plans without any increase in Parliament seats.

    Election Commission chairperson Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof (seated right), in various statements in 2014 indicated that new Parliament seatswould be added in the coming delimitation exercise, especially in existing seats with more than 100,000 voters. It was also reported in various news reports that the delimitation exercise would begin by the end of 2014.

    While the floods in the East Coast may have caused the public display of the new delimitation exercise in peninsular Malaysia to be delayed, and will likely delay it further, there is also another alternative explanation. Which is that the EC was asked to amend the delimitation proposals so that no new parliament seats are added.

    My colleague, Anthony Loke, the MP for Seremban, had already revealed in early November 2014 that he saw an electoral mapfor Negri Sembilan which proposes an increase in parliament seats including splitting the seat of Rembau into two.

    This shows that the maps for peninsular Malaysia, and possibly Sabah, were ready for public display. 2014 came and went but these maps were never shown.

    So, why was this the case?

    One possible explanation is that the EC obtained orders from ‘above’ not to increase any parliamentary seats to avoid the possibility that the whole delimitation exercise would be ‘stuck’ in parliament because BN does not have a two-thirds majority to vote through an increased number of Parliament seats, as this will require amending the federal constitution.

    It is also likely that the EC was asked not to increase any state seats in the states where the BN does not enjoy a two-thirds majority – Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Penang, Perak, Selangor and Negri Sembilan.

    This is to avoid the problem of not being able to obtain a two-thirds majority in these state legislatures to increase the number of state seats by amending the state constitution. The exception here may be in Kelantan, where the PAS state government has had experience in negotiating with the Election Commission to increase state seats.

    In states where the BN does enjoy a two-thirds majority such as Perlis, Pahang, Malacca, Johor and Sabah, it is likely that the EC will propose new state seats because such proposals are likely meet the approval of the BN-controlled state legislatures, which includes the necessary constitutional amendments at the state level.

    What are the political implications?

    What would be the impact of such a move by the EC? While we cannot be sure until the maps are revealed, it is likely that if no new Parliament seats are added, the EC will redraw the existing parliamentary boundaries to be favourable to the BN.

    We saw this happen in Kedah in the 2003 delimitation exercise where no Parliament or state seat was added, but major gerrymandering took place which helped the BN win back marginal Parliament seats in lost in the 1999 general election, including Pokok Sena, Bali and Jerai.

    In states like Selangor, boundaries may be redrawn to help BN win back marginal parliamentary seats such as Kuala Langat, Sepang and Hulu Langat. In Johor, boundaries may be redrawn and new state seats created in order to help the BN win back marginal state seats such as Bekok, Tangkak and Parit Yaani.

    The ‘no increase’ urging by some NGOs

    Ironically, the EC may justify its decision not to increase Parliament seats by referring to the statements made by NGOs such as Bersih, Tindak Malaysia and ABU requesting that no new parliament seats be added in the delimitation exercise.

    While I am certain that none of these NGOs would approve of the EC’s attempts at gerrymandering even if no new parliament seats are added, their insistence on no new parliament seats may come back to haunt them.

    This is because if new parliament seats were proposed and new state seats in the Pakatan-controlled states of Kelantan, Penang and Selangor and in states where Pakatan has at least one-third of state seats – Terengganu, Kedah, Perak and Negri Sembilan – the EC and the BN would have been forced to negotiate with Pakatan.

    Then, the option would have been available for Pakatan to reject the delimitation plans, either at the federal or at the respective state levels by refusing to amend the state and federal constitutions. The default then would likely be to go back to the existing maps, which would be somewhat fairer, electorally speaking, compared with a new set of delimitation plans that would most certainly be more favourable to the BN.

    What can we do then?

    If the EC wants to bulldoze such a delimitation proposal in Parliament and in the respective states, the remaining options for the opposition as well as civil society, would be the following:

    • Organise as many objections as possible to the proposed delimitation exercises and use the public hearings to pressure the Election Commission to amend its delimitation proposal;

    • Ramp up pressure on the EC at each subsequent public hearing; and

    • If all else fails, the rakyat should organise another massive public gathering to protest of the delimitation exercise.
    We cannot allow a government that was supported by only 47 percent of the voters in the 13th general election to abuse the electoral system so that it can stay in power in perpetuity.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

  • Did the Election Commission choose not to increase parliament seats in the Sarawak delimitation to bulldoze the exercise in time for the next Sarawak state elections?

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 8th of January 2015

    Did the Election Commission choose not to increase parliament seats in the Sarawak delimitation to bulldoze the exercise in time for the next Sarawak state elections?

    The recent Sarawak delimitation exercise, which officially began on Monday, 5th of January, 2015, with a public display of the maps in Sarawak was shocking because for the first time in Sarawak’s history, state seats were added without a single increase in the number of parliament seats.

    Table 1 below shows the number of parliament and state seats added in each of the 5 delimitation exercises since 1968. With the exception of the 1968 and 1977 delimitation exercises where no parliament and state seats were added in Sarawak, in each of the past three delimitation exercises in 1986, 1996 and 2005, both parliament and state seats were added in Sarawak.

    In the recently revealed Sarawak delimitation exercise, a record number of new state seats – 11 – have been proposed by the Election Commission. This would increase the number of state seats in Sarawak from the current 71 to a proposed 82 state seats.

    What is the rationale for increasing the number of state seats by 11 but not adding a single parliament seat? If an increase in the voting population is used to justify the increase in state seats, why should that rationale not apply to parliament seats as well?

    One cannot help but suspect that the real reason why there were no parliament seats added is because this would require a constitutional amendment at the parliamentary level where the BN does not possess a two-thirds majority. If new parliament seats were proposed, then the whole Sarawak delimitation exercise may be delayed because it may get stuck at the parliamentary level.

    The non-increase in the number of parliament seats while at the same time increase in state seats is a clear indication that the Election Commission is not complying with democratic principles but is bowing down to political expediency in wanting to bulldoze the new Sarawak delimitation exercise in time for the Sarawak state elections, due by 2016. Once again, this shows the non-independence of the Election Commission and its failure to produce an independent, fair and transparent delimitation exercise. Political parties, civil society organizations and members of the public who are concerned about upholding free and fair elections must join together to reject this unfair and undemocratic Sarawak delimitation exercise.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

  • Is the Election Commission trying to slow down new voter registrations so that there will be less pressure to increase the number of seats in areas where Pakatan is strong in the upcoming delimitation exercise?

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 12th of June, 2014

    Is the Election Commission trying to slow down new voter registrations so that there will be less pressure to increase the number of seats in areas where Pakatan is strong in the upcoming delimitation exercise?

    On the 10th of June 2014, I asked the Election Commission whether it will renew the status of Assistant Registrars (AROs) of political parties so that political parties can once again do their duty of registering new voters. Almost all of the AROs for the DAP have not been renewed past 2013 which means that we cannot conduct voter registration exercises during our public events. This non-renewal of AROs does not only affect the DAP but also other political parties as well.

    The reply I obtained from the Minister in charge of the Election Commission, Shahidan Kassim, said that the Election Commission has no plans to renew or appoint new AROs from political parties. The reply also said that the EC is in the process of coordinating existing voter registration exercises. I have also read reports that the EC does not want to give ARO status to political parties because some of these AROs have abused their positions and registered voters without their knowledge and gave financial incentives for unregistered voters to register.

    The reply from the Minister is highly unsatisfactory as it ignores the fact that the number of newly registered voters has been steadily decreasing since Quarter 1 2013. According to Table 1 below, the number of newly registered voters was 104959 in Q1 2013, the number of voters who had changed their address was 31070 while and the number of deleted voters was 31807. The net increase in the number of voters (newly registered plus those who have changed address minus the deleted voters) was 10422 in Q1 2013. Since then, the nett number of voters have been decreasing in every quarter. For Q2 2013, the net increase was 47671 and for Q3 2013, the net increase was only 8434. By Q4 2013, the net number of voters had become negative – minus 7941 – which means that the number of voters on the electoral roll has decreased. In Q1 2014, the latest electoral roll update, the net number of voters was negative 11565.

    Table 1: Nett Increase / Decrease in the number of registered voters Q1 2013 to Q1 2014

    Part of the reason why the net number of voters has been decreasing is because the EC has not been active in conducting voter registration exercises. The EC has depended a lot of political parties to conduct voter registration exercises on its behalf. But now that the political parties no longer have ARO status, we cannot register voters any longer. This is an important reason why the number of newly registered voters have decreased since Q1 2013.

    One cannot help think that the EC is purposely slowing down the increase in the number of new voter registrations because many new voters will be in the urban areas which supported Pakatan strongly in GE13. This means that there will be less pressure on the EC to increase the number of parliament and state seats in these areas in the upcoming delimitation exercise. I call upon the EC to restore the ARO status to political parties once again and to take strong action against individuals who have abused their ARO status to make false voter registrations rather than to punish all political parties for the offenses of a small number of irresponsible AROs. Only with the help of political parties can the EC hope to register more new voters and decrease the number of eligible but unregistered voters. Unless of course, the EC is planning to implement automatic voter registration in which case AROs would not be needed.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    Appendix 1: Question and Answer on AROs by Shahidan Kassim, Minister in charge of the Election Commission (EC)

  • Response to Wee Ka Siong’s opinion piece – “Make Teluk Intan the end of hate politics”

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 8th of June, 2014

    Response to Wee Ka Siong’s opinion piece – “Make Teluk Intan the end of hate politics”

    In an opinion peace entitled “Make Teluk Intan the end of hate politics”, MCA Deputy President Dr Wee Ka Siong lobbed a few baseless accusations against the DAP and Pakatan but ended up implicating and highlighting the failures of his own party and his own BN coalition.[1]

    Firstly, he accuses DAP for failing Dyana Sofya and of “trying to push the limitations of tolerance and create discord among races”. I fail to comprehend how the DAP can be guilty of this in any aspect of our campaign in Teluk Intan unless Dr. Wee is somehow implying that the fielding of a Malay candidate in a non-Malay majority constituency can create discord among the races. Of all people, Dr. Wee should appreciate the benefits of having a minority representative since his very own parliament seat of Ayer Hitam is a 56% Malay majority constituency. Rather than criticize the DAP, Dr. Wee should have congratulated DAP for taking a bold step in breaking down racial barriers and stereotypes in the decision to field Dyana in Teluk Intan.

    Secondly, Dr. Wee accused the DAP of hubris by saying that the party would win Chinese majority seats like Seputeh and Cheras even if we fielded a goat as a candidate. Disregarding the fact that a goat is not a Malaysian citizen and therefore is not eligible to contest as a candidate in any Malaysian elections, the DAP has never made such a claim. Others may have used such an example as a way to describe seats which are DAP strongholds but to say that DAP has publicly made such a statement clearly shows that Dr. Wee is deluded. Moreover, right from the announcement of Dyana Sofya as DAP’s candidate in Teluk Intan, we have been saying that she is the underdog in this by-election. How can this be consistent with a hubristic attitude as described by Dr. Wee?

    Thirdly, Dr. Wee claims credit for himself and for MCA when he mentioned that his presence in the Teluk Intan by-election ensured that there was no inter-party sabotage between MCA and GERAKAN for the ‘first time since 1974’. The fact that Dr. Wee can take pride in such an ‘achievement’ is frankly laughable. It is an open admission that the BN has been practicing a culture of internal ‘sabotage’ for 40 years (if not more) which required a hero of Dr. Wee’s status in order to be solved. This naturally leads to the next question of how many other GERAKAN seats did MCA sabotage since 1974 and whether it will require Dr. Wee to practice his ‘magic’ in all of these seats in the next general election if GERAKAN is to stand a chance of winning these seats. Can he station himself again in Teluk Intan in GE14 seeing that his own Ayer Hitam seat seems quite secure? Will he also travel to the other GERAKAN seats such as Batu Kawam, Beruas, Taiping, Puchong, Batu, Kepong and Segambut to ensure total MCA cooperation with GERAKAN in these seats?

    Fourthly, Dr. Wee accused the DAP of not being able to get-out-the-vote in Malay areas which “Umno took advantage of and quickly mobilized itself to garner support”. If UMNO was so good in mobilizing support, why was it that voter turnout in the Malay areas dropped by 14% which is the same drop in turnout as the Chinese areas? If DAP was so poor in reaching out to the Malay areas, why did we win a larger percentage of votes in 7 out of the 10 Malay majority polling districts and how did we, together with very strong support from PAS, increase the level of Malay support from 25% to 28%?

    Fifthly, Dr. Wee attributed the increase in support among Indian voters in the Nova Scotia estates where over 1500 Indians live as a result of MIC managing to acquire funds to ‘fix some of the run-down infrastructure abandoned since 2008’. In making this statement, Dr. Wee is admitting that the BN controlled federal government and the state government in Perak has failed to fulfil their responsibilities since 2008. Furthermore, it took political party funds in order to solve this problem which is a further indictment of the failure of the BN federal and state governments to take care of the infrastructure needs of the people of Teluk Intan. Despite this sudden infusion of MIC funds, the DAP still managed to win a respectable 40% of votes in Nova Scotia.

    Sixthly, Dr. Wee implies that the young voters are not necessarily supporting the opposition. He gave the example of Kg Selamba, a Malay majority polling district where the BN received 266 votes compared to the DAP’s 74 votes in the youngest polling stream which is Saluran 4. This translates into the DAP winning only 21.8% of the total votes in this stream. But Dr. Wee failed to point out that the DAP only won 18.9% of this polling stream in GE2013 which means that DAP’s support actually increased by 2.9% in this polling stream during the by-election!

    Dr. Wee also conveniently ignores the fact that DAP’s support in the younger polling streams is significantly higher than in the older polling streams, even in Malay majority areas. For example, in the Kampong Bahagia polling district which is 95.5% Malay, 23.9% of voters in the oldest polling stream, which is Saluran 1, voted for the DAP. In Saluran 7, the youngest polling stream, 48.8% of votes went to the DAP. Furthermore, this was an increase of 4.5% from GE2013! In the Batak Rabit polling station, which is 61.3% Malay, only 28.6% of voters in Saluran 1 voted for the DAP compared to 50.1% of voters in Saluran 5, the youngest saluran. The younger Malay voters clearly have less qualms about voting for the DAP compared to the older voters because they have access to more information and are less swayed by the negative propaganda and lies that have been spewed out against the DAP in the mainstream media. If this trend continues, spurred on by the DAP’s commitment to field more young Malay candidates in GE14, it is the BN which has to be worried.

    If Dr. Wee is serious about ending hate politics, as his opinion piece implies, he should look no further than to his own coalition member, UMNO, who allowed Perkasa’s Zulkifli Nordin and Ibrahim Ali to contest in the Shah Alam and Pasir Mas parliament seats in GE2013; whose Bukit Bendera division chief Ahmad Ismail was suspended for three years for calling Chinese ‘pendatangs’ and later returned as the unanimous choice for division chief in the party elections in 2013; whose KLFT Youth Chief Razlan Razii recently threatened to burn down the DAP Headquarters in KL, just to name a few examples.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    [1]http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/make-teluk-intan-the-end-of-hate-politics-wee-ka-siong

  • Explaining why did the DAP not ask for a recount or protest against the discrepancy in the number of votes cast as announced by the Election Commission in the Teluk Intan By-Election

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 6th of June, 2014

    Explaining why did the DAP not ask for a recount or protest against the discrepancy in the number of votes cast as announced by the Election Commission in the Teluk Intan By-Election

    Many Pakatan supporters have raised the issue of why DAP did not ask for a recount given the small majority of 238 won by the BN candidate. Many Pakatan supporters also asked why DAP did not protest against the discrepancy in the number of votes first announced by the Election Commission after the close of voting and the number of votes after the results were announced.

    Let me firstly clarify on the issue of asking for a recount.

    According to the Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981, Article 25, Section 13, if the difference between the number of votes for the first two candidates is less than 4% of the total number of voters then the candidate or his election agent or counting agent can ask for a recount. But this request can only be done at the individual polling station level and has to be done before Form 14 – which is the determinative document for the results at each polling station – is issued.

    Given that our counting agents at each polling station were experienced individuals, there was no directive to each of them to ask for a recount if the difference was less than 4%. (There were 7 salurans or polling streams where the difference was 4% or less) We were and are confident that our experienced polling agents carried out their responsibilities in ensuring the transparency and accuracy of the vote count at their respective polling stations.

    In addition, a recount at the polling station, according to Article 25, Section 13, cannot include spoilt or rejected votes. They can only involve the valid votes which means that the chances of changing the final vote count is very slim and probably not enough to overturn a 238 majority. Also, when conducting such a recount, the results could easily go the other way i.e. more votes could be obtained by the BN candidate.

    Once the Form 14s have been issued at the polling station, it is not possible to ask for a recount of individual ballots. The only thing DAP could have done is to ask for the Returning Officer to recheck the totalling up of votes according to the Form 14s. DAP collected ALL the Form 14s from our counting agents and verified that the final results as announced by SPR was indeed correct and consistent with our Form 14s.

    Secondly, why did DAP not raise the issue of the discrepancy in the number of votes announced by the Election Commission after the close of voting and the final number of votes after the results were announced?

    At approximately 5:30 pm, the Election Commission announced that the total turnout on the day was 39,850 voters. Together with the 392 early votes, the total number of votes would be 40,242 if the EC’s announcement was correct. When the final results were announced, the total number of votes was 40,619 (BN obtained 20,157 votes, DAP obtained 19919 votes and there were 543 spoilt votes). This gives a discrepancy of 377 votes between what the EC originally announced (40,242) and the final results (40,619). This figure is more than the winning majority of the BN candidate which was 238 votes.

    The Secretary General of the DAP, Lim Guan Eng, has written to the Election Commission Chairman, Tan Sri Dato Seri Abdul Aziz, to ask for an explanation for the discrepancy in the total number of voters initially announced and the final number of voters after the results were announced. We are waiting for this reply before further discussions with the party’s lawyers. Our lawyers have advised us not to say anything until we get an official reply from the Election Commission. The Secretary General is intent on pursuing the truth of this matter with the Election Commission.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

Page 5 of 15« First...34567...10...Last »