NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
BERSIH has asked for free, fair and transparent elections. This is fundamental in a democratic parliamentary system. But Malaysia practices the ‘first past the post’ electoral system. In other words, it is seats and not votes that count.
Yes, Malaysia has free, fair and transparent elections. It is free because you do not have to pay any money to vote. In fact, you can even receive money if you agree to vote for the ruling party. It is therefore more than free. It is profitable as well. And if your area faces a by-election, you will further receive tens of millions in development as the many by-elections thus far have proven.
Malaysian elections have never been transparent. But now the Elections Commission has introduced transparent ballot boxes. So, as far as the government is concerned, Malaysian elections are now transparent as well and there is no longer any reason for anyone to complain about Malaysian elections not being transparent enough. Of course, the people in government are not able to differentiate between a transparent system and transparent ballot boxes. It is like Samy Vellu walking into his office stark naked and declaring to all and sundry that he runs his ministry in a very transparent manner and nothing is hidden from public view.
And Malaysian elections are also fair. Barisan Nasional can garner 45% of the votes and still form the government. It can garner 55% of the votes and still rule with a two-thirds majority. It can garner 60% of the votes and still obtain 92% of the seats in Parliament. And this is what happened since 1969 until 2004. It can garner 70% of the votes and deny the opposition any seats in the spirit of pembangkang sifar or zero opposition. And this is what the ruling party hopes will happen come the next general election -- and they are working towards that even as you read this.
And this is fair because this is a Malay country so we must make sure the Malays continue to retain political domination while the Chinese can retain economic domination and the Indians can retain… hmm… we have a problems with the Indians. What are we going to allow them to dominate? Okay, we can allow them to dominate the record for having the longest-serving party president. There, that should now make the Indians happy as well. Have we left out anyone -- natives of Sabah and Sarawak maybe? Well, we can always allow the minority Melanau Malays to rule the majority Sarawakian natives and the minority Malay Pakistanis to rule the majority Sabahan natives and cook up a story later about what they are dominating.
What many Malaysians do not realise is that ‘Malay’ seats come as low as 5,000 voters while ‘non-Malay’ seats are as high as 100,000 voters or more. This means even if 100,000 non-Malays vote for the opposition it will still be only one seat for the opposition while the same 100,000 ruling party voters will allow the ruling party four or five seats. That is why the ruling party needs only 45% of the votes to stay in power and 55% of the votes to rule with a two-thirds majority. This is called gerrymandering.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about gerrymandering:
Gerrymandering is a form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage. The word ‘gerrymander’ is named after the Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry (July 17, 1744 – November 23, 1814), and is a portmanteau of his name with the word ‘salamander’, which was used to describe the appearance of a tortuous electoral district pressed through the Massachusetts legislature in 1812 -- and signed into law by Gerry in order to disadvantage their electoral opponents in the upcoming senatorial election.
‘Gerrymander’ is used both as a verb meaning ‘to divide into political units to give special advantages to one group’ as well as a noun describing the resulting electoral geography. Elbridge Gerry’s actual name is pronounced with an initial ‘g’ (a hard G), but the ‘jerry’ pronunciation is now the normal pronunciation.
Gerrymandering may be used to advantage or disadvantage particular constituents, such as members of a racial, linguistic, religious or class group, often in favour of ruling incumbents or a specific political party. Although all electoral systems that use multiple districts as a basis for determining representation are susceptible to gerrymandering to various degrees, governments using single winner voting systems are the most vulnerable. Most notably, gerrymandering is particularly effective in non-proportional systems that tend towards fewer parties, such as first past the post.
Now read what Dr Azmi Sharom, an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, has to say about this matter in The Star today.
The ballot box and protests
BRAVE NEW WORLD
By AZMI SHAROM
The Star, 29 November 2007
For democracy to have any sort of meaning, it must be part of our lives every day
Kuala Lumpur has been a busy place of late. Roads closed, people marching around, sometimes in colour-coordinated outfits. It all made our capital that much more hectic and more colourful than usual.
Politicians too have been more hectic and colourful than usual.
The common thread of comments from members of the ruling party is that all these protesters are merely tools of the opposition and, besides, we are a democracy and you can always let your feelings be known at the ballot box. Why take to the streets? It is not our way.
Allow me to deal with these two points: the ballot box and the idea that protesting is not “our way”.
Let’s look at the ballot box first. Every four or five years, it rises up from its resting place and it is supposedly all the democracy we need.
This is a bit of a silly idea because democracy is not like some mythical beast that slumbers for years and then rears its head every now and then to be fed.
Democracy, if it is to have any sort of meaning, must be part of our lives every day.
If one were to think that the ballot box is the be-all and end-all of democracy, then one is playing a zero-sum game.
It’s all or nothing, either you are with us or against us.
This is an oversimplification of George Bush proportions.
It is not just opposition people who engage with the Government. Ordinary people and civil society want to have a say, too.
Furthermore, there are people who support or even like most of what the ruling party does but disagree with some of its decisions. Surely, they have the right to voice their concerns?
That right of dissent is a vital component in a democracy, as it helps to ensure that governments are aware that their responsibility and culpability to citizens is something that exists all the time.
The question is how that dissent should be expressed.
Yes, the ballot box is one way but it is pretty much an all-or-nothing method of dissent.
One example of its downside is the slow registration process.
I know of young people who have registered to vote for months and yet their names still do not appear in the register.
Just how difficult is it to place someone on the electoral roll?
In this age of computers and MyKad, it should be a matter of hours or at the most days. Not months.
Furthermore, I can’t see the logic of having some large parliamentary seats with many voters and some tiny ones with very few.
The division of constituencies is such that in the last general election, on average the ruling party needed 16,000 votes to get a seat while the opposition parties needed 180,000 votes for each of their seats.
Another method of dissent is through the press. An argument against a dissenting press is that a totally free press is dangerous and the people are not ready for it.
Well, no one is saying that the press has to be totally free. Everybody is bound by laws.
The issue in question is the extent of repression that those laws exert.
As long as the Printing Presses and Publications Act exists, we can say that our press, despite good intentions, is on a short leash.
How much coverage can you give to dissenting voices when the object of those voices’ anger could whip away your licence to publish at any time?
What other methods are available then to show dissent? Handing in politely worded documents to the powers-that-be is all well and good, but sometimes an issue is so big that people want to express themselves.
They want to come together in a show of solidarity and to make as big an impact as possible.
For example, when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice turned up, there were people in the streets.
Maybe what is really meant is that opposing the government on the streets is not “our way”.
But then didn’t Umno organise demonstrations against the Malayan Union? That was opposing the government, wasn’t it?
Oh yes, that was in a different situation. There were no ballot boxes and the press was controlled by the British.
A democracy needs dissent. It needs a free press; it needs people to express themselves.
Anything less is disrespecting our inalienable and fundamental freedoms.
Dr Azmi Sharom is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya
Raja Petra Kamarudin
BERSIH has asked for free, fair and transparent elections. This is fundamental in a democratic parliamentary system. But Malaysia practices the ‘first past the post’ electoral system. In other words, it is seats and not votes that count.
Yes, Malaysia has free, fair and transparent elections. It is free because you do not have to pay any money to vote. In fact, you can even receive money if you agree to vote for the ruling party. It is therefore more than free. It is profitable as well. And if your area faces a by-election, you will further receive tens of millions in development as the many by-elections thus far have proven.
Malaysian elections have never been transparent. But now the Elections Commission has introduced transparent ballot boxes. So, as far as the government is concerned, Malaysian elections are now transparent as well and there is no longer any reason for anyone to complain about Malaysian elections not being transparent enough. Of course, the people in government are not able to differentiate between a transparent system and transparent ballot boxes. It is like Samy Vellu walking into his office stark naked and declaring to all and sundry that he runs his ministry in a very transparent manner and nothing is hidden from public view.
And Malaysian elections are also fair. Barisan Nasional can garner 45% of the votes and still form the government. It can garner 55% of the votes and still rule with a two-thirds majority. It can garner 60% of the votes and still obtain 92% of the seats in Parliament. And this is what happened since 1969 until 2004. It can garner 70% of the votes and deny the opposition any seats in the spirit of pembangkang sifar or zero opposition. And this is what the ruling party hopes will happen come the next general election -- and they are working towards that even as you read this.
And this is fair because this is a Malay country so we must make sure the Malays continue to retain political domination while the Chinese can retain economic domination and the Indians can retain… hmm… we have a problems with the Indians. What are we going to allow them to dominate? Okay, we can allow them to dominate the record for having the longest-serving party president. There, that should now make the Indians happy as well. Have we left out anyone -- natives of Sabah and Sarawak maybe? Well, we can always allow the minority Melanau Malays to rule the majority Sarawakian natives and the minority Malay Pakistanis to rule the majority Sabahan natives and cook up a story later about what they are dominating.
What many Malaysians do not realise is that ‘Malay’ seats come as low as 5,000 voters while ‘non-Malay’ seats are as high as 100,000 voters or more. This means even if 100,000 non-Malays vote for the opposition it will still be only one seat for the opposition while the same 100,000 ruling party voters will allow the ruling party four or five seats. That is why the ruling party needs only 45% of the votes to stay in power and 55% of the votes to rule with a two-thirds majority. This is called gerrymandering.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about gerrymandering:
Gerrymandering is a form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage. The word ‘gerrymander’ is named after the Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry (July 17, 1744 – November 23, 1814), and is a portmanteau of his name with the word ‘salamander’, which was used to describe the appearance of a tortuous electoral district pressed through the Massachusetts legislature in 1812 -- and signed into law by Gerry in order to disadvantage their electoral opponents in the upcoming senatorial election.
‘Gerrymander’ is used both as a verb meaning ‘to divide into political units to give special advantages to one group’ as well as a noun describing the resulting electoral geography. Elbridge Gerry’s actual name is pronounced with an initial ‘g’ (a hard G), but the ‘jerry’ pronunciation is now the normal pronunciation.
Gerrymandering may be used to advantage or disadvantage particular constituents, such as members of a racial, linguistic, religious or class group, often in favour of ruling incumbents or a specific political party. Although all electoral systems that use multiple districts as a basis for determining representation are susceptible to gerrymandering to various degrees, governments using single winner voting systems are the most vulnerable. Most notably, gerrymandering is particularly effective in non-proportional systems that tend towards fewer parties, such as first past the post.
Now read what Dr Azmi Sharom, an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, has to say about this matter in The Star today.
The ballot box and protests
BRAVE NEW WORLD
By AZMI SHAROM
The Star, 29 November 2007
For democracy to have any sort of meaning, it must be part of our lives every day
Kuala Lumpur has been a busy place of late. Roads closed, people marching around, sometimes in colour-coordinated outfits. It all made our capital that much more hectic and more colourful than usual.
Politicians too have been more hectic and colourful than usual.
The common thread of comments from members of the ruling party is that all these protesters are merely tools of the opposition and, besides, we are a democracy and you can always let your feelings be known at the ballot box. Why take to the streets? It is not our way.
Allow me to deal with these two points: the ballot box and the idea that protesting is not “our way”.
Let’s look at the ballot box first. Every four or five years, it rises up from its resting place and it is supposedly all the democracy we need.
This is a bit of a silly idea because democracy is not like some mythical beast that slumbers for years and then rears its head every now and then to be fed.
Democracy, if it is to have any sort of meaning, must be part of our lives every day.
If one were to think that the ballot box is the be-all and end-all of democracy, then one is playing a zero-sum game.
It’s all or nothing, either you are with us or against us.
This is an oversimplification of George Bush proportions.
It is not just opposition people who engage with the Government. Ordinary people and civil society want to have a say, too.
Furthermore, there are people who support or even like most of what the ruling party does but disagree with some of its decisions. Surely, they have the right to voice their concerns?
That right of dissent is a vital component in a democracy, as it helps to ensure that governments are aware that their responsibility and culpability to citizens is something that exists all the time.
The question is how that dissent should be expressed.
Yes, the ballot box is one way but it is pretty much an all-or-nothing method of dissent.
One example of its downside is the slow registration process.
I know of young people who have registered to vote for months and yet their names still do not appear in the register.
Just how difficult is it to place someone on the electoral roll?
In this age of computers and MyKad, it should be a matter of hours or at the most days. Not months.
Furthermore, I can’t see the logic of having some large parliamentary seats with many voters and some tiny ones with very few.
The division of constituencies is such that in the last general election, on average the ruling party needed 16,000 votes to get a seat while the opposition parties needed 180,000 votes for each of their seats.
Another method of dissent is through the press. An argument against a dissenting press is that a totally free press is dangerous and the people are not ready for it.
Well, no one is saying that the press has to be totally free. Everybody is bound by laws.
The issue in question is the extent of repression that those laws exert.
As long as the Printing Presses and Publications Act exists, we can say that our press, despite good intentions, is on a short leash.
How much coverage can you give to dissenting voices when the object of those voices’ anger could whip away your licence to publish at any time?
What other methods are available then to show dissent? Handing in politely worded documents to the powers-that-be is all well and good, but sometimes an issue is so big that people want to express themselves.
They want to come together in a show of solidarity and to make as big an impact as possible.
For example, when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice turned up, there were people in the streets.
Maybe what is really meant is that opposing the government on the streets is not “our way”.
But then didn’t Umno organise demonstrations against the Malayan Union? That was opposing the government, wasn’t it?
Oh yes, that was in a different situation. There were no ballot boxes and the press was controlled by the British.
A democracy needs dissent. It needs a free press; it needs people to express themselves.
Anything less is disrespecting our inalienable and fundamental freedoms.
Dr Azmi Sharom is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya
No comments:
Post a Comment