Even as the Selangor state government’s action of challenging the Election Commission’s (EC) redelineation proposal is yet to be heard in court, the EC has submitted a new redelineation proposal for Peninsular Malaysia, with the new version excluding Selangor. Controversies have since arisen in the remaining 10 states and the federal territory.
According to the EC’s proposal, only seven parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia will have new names, but the boundaries of as many as 46 constituencies in five states will be redrawn, and the changes will have significant impact on the outcome of the 14th general election (GE14).
The EC’s proposal has since been met with strong objection from opposition parties which claim that the redelineation exercise is both unfair and unreasonable.
There is no secret that the ruling coalition has banked on such a redelineation exercise to accentuate its advantage, and the same has been practiced in many other countries, too. The question lies with the severity of it.
Of course, the EC claims that it has not sided any party and has been carrying out its duties in an impartial manner. Unfortunately, such a bland and monotonous explanation does not seem to convince voters, in particular those who support opposition parties.
There are plenty of instances of irrational redelineation that has seen huge disparities in the number of voters between the various constituencies. Even the supporters of the ruling coalition remain skeptical over such a phenomenon in two particular constituencies and might not unreservedly buy the explanation offered by the EC.
The criticality of redelineation lies with the fact that it is a major factor that can affect the ultimate outcome of the election. Through several means, including dispersing supporters of a particular party to two or more constituencies, redelineation can effectively reduce a party’s chances of winning. Alternatively, putting a party’s supporters within a few specific constituencies will limit the number of seats that it can win.
To political parties, such a manoeuvre will affect their winning chances, and to the voting public, it affects the true reflection of public views. When the redelineation is carried out in an unfair manner, the voters’ wish will be distorted and will not be justly manifested through the election outcome.
In other words, unfair and irrational redelineation will interfere with the voters’ freedom and right to choose their representatives, and as a result, their actual wish may not be accurately reflected in the election outcome.
Political parties have hoped to exploit the redelineation exercise to positively influence their election results, while voters hope the redelineation exercise will be able to accurately express their wishes and rights. The former consciously craves a biased redelineation while all that the latter wants is equality and fairness.
The “one man, one vote” aspiration will only become a reality with a fair and just redelineation in manifesting the true significance of democratic elections.
Indeed, absolute fairness is a tall tale, but the EC must at least provide more acceptable explanations for its proposal.
On the surface, it appears that the redelineation of electoral constituencies has been effectuated to impact the opposition, but if we were to look deeper, the voters are the ultimate losers in this game because to a certain degree their freedom and power of choosing the government will come under fire.
Sin Chew Daily is a local vernacular publication
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s (or organisation’s) personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.
Ethnic flavour as EC redraws election boundaries in Selangor
Redelineation: Selangor gets stay to halt EC from holding inquiries