On December 19, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s book ‘Assalamualaikum: Observations on the Islamisation of Malaysia’ was banned under the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPA). As usual, only official reason given for this ban is that the book is "likely to be prejudicial to public order as well as public interest and is likely to alarm public opinion".
The addition of ‘Assalamualaikum’ to the growing list of books banned by the Malaysian government is proof of the government’s outright disregard for freedom of expression and ideas in Malaysia.
According to Zaid, the Home Ministry did not explain or consult him before banning his book nor was he even informed that the book would be banned. It goes to show the immense and arbitrary power that the PPA accords the Home Ministry to ban these without any clear reasoning.
Such curt excuses to ban books certainly harks back to the Stalinist or Maoist regimes where any forms of expression, whether in writing or in art, which are deemed prejudicial to the interest of the ruling elites are banned.
In 2017 alone, 44 gazettes have been issued to ban publications in Malaysia. Among the political titles banned are civil society group G25’s new book Breaking The Silence: Voices of Moderation; Islam in a Constitutional Democracy and reknowed academic Professor Farish A. Noor’s From Majapahit to Putrajaya, which was published in 2005.
The banning of these titles without any clear justification shows that the government exercising totalitarian control over what ideas can be discussed by Malaysians. This goes completely against the values of democracy that our country holds so dear.
In a democratic state, the authors and publishers would be hauled to the Courts to be charged for any criminal offences which may have taken place. Even if there were no criminal elements involved, the Government must at the very least provide facts and justifications to prove the contents of these books to be wrong.
However, the BN regime will not even pretend to rebut the arguments carried in the book, however feeble the rebuttals might have been.
Just last month I had questioned the government’s censorship of arts following the confiscation of works at the KL Biennale for purportedly containing ‘elements of communism’. It seems that the thought policing of our government will continue with the banning of these books and the continued censorship of our media.
We call upon the Home Affairs Minister to prove that Malaysia is not taking great leaps to undermine democratic principles enshrined in our Federal Constitution, in remaking Malaysia into a communist state.
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 03, 2018
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
The Speaker has gone bonkers in his over-zealousness to cover up the 1MDB mega-scandal, in this case a US$600 million (RM2.5 billion) emergency bailout of 1MDB by the Ministry of Finance in August 2017
The Parliament question time has become a complete joke. During the last sitting, I had 5 questions rejected for asking questions with regards to 1MDB. This round, I have 3, in part because I submitted less questions on 1MDB to avoid too many questions being thrown out.
However, the basis of rejecting the questions I had posed remained completely untenable. For example, I had asked submitted the following question to be answered today:
However, I received a rejection letter from the Speaker claiming that the question could not be answered presumably because it would be subjudice as “the matter is in court”. But the above payment which is part of an agreed settlement with IPIC has nothing to do with any court, whether in Malaysia or any where around the world.
I didn’t even ask about the ‘settlement’ itself. I merely asked if the MOF helped 1MDB, directly or indirectly, with the US$600 million payment to IPIC which was made in the month of August. Hence, how is this in any way related to any court case?
The Speaker should be reminded that in April this year, it was 1MDB itself who claimed that its payment obligations would be funded by the monetisation of investment ‘units’.
In August, 1MDB changed their tune and said that the payments were funded through the ‘proceeds of the on-going rationalisation programme’. What exactly is this rationalisation programme?
Is it not ridiculous that 1MDB can make all sorts of conflicting and vague statements to the public but Members of Parliament have no recourse to obtain any clarification or confirmations from the Ministers?
Both 1MDB and the MOF need to come clean about the source of these payments. If the Ministry is helping make these payments, surely the rakyat have a right to know. In fact, the refusal to respond has only confirmed the suspicions that the MOF has indeed conducted an emergency RM2.5 billion bailout of 1MDB in August this year.
We very much regret that the purportedly independent Speaker’s Office is now helping 1MDB and MOF cover up questions on the scandal. I will certainly raise this question again in my speech in this sitting and it will make a complete mockery of the Budget debate if the Finance Minister cannot tell us where our money has been used or spent.
However, the basis of rejecting the questions I had posed remained completely untenable. For example, I had asked submitted the following question to be answered today:
Tony Pua meminta Menteri Kewangan menyatakan adakah 1MDB membayar lebih kurang US$600 juta kepada IPIC pada bulan Ogos 2017 melalui pengewangan (“monetisation”) ‘unit’ dana pelaburan 1MDB? Adakah Kementerian Kewangan telah membantu membiayai bayaran tersebut secara langsung atau tidak langsung?The question was whether 1MDB’s settlement to Abu Dhabi’s IPIC was funded through the monetisation of 1MDB investment ‘units’ and/or whether the Ministry of Finance (MOF) had helped support these payments either directly or indirectly.
However, I received a rejection letter from the Speaker claiming that the question could not be answered presumably because it would be subjudice as “the matter is in court”. But the above payment which is part of an agreed settlement with IPIC has nothing to do with any court, whether in Malaysia or any where around the world.
I didn’t even ask about the ‘settlement’ itself. I merely asked if the MOF helped 1MDB, directly or indirectly, with the US$600 million payment to IPIC which was made in the month of August. Hence, how is this in any way related to any court case?
The Speaker should be reminded that in April this year, it was 1MDB itself who claimed that its payment obligations would be funded by the monetisation of investment ‘units’.
In August, 1MDB changed their tune and said that the payments were funded through the ‘proceeds of the on-going rationalisation programme’. What exactly is this rationalisation programme?
Is it not ridiculous that 1MDB can make all sorts of conflicting and vague statements to the public but Members of Parliament have no recourse to obtain any clarification or confirmations from the Ministers?
Both 1MDB and the MOF need to come clean about the source of these payments. If the Ministry is helping make these payments, surely the rakyat have a right to know. In fact, the refusal to respond has only confirmed the suspicions that the MOF has indeed conducted an emergency RM2.5 billion bailout of 1MDB in August this year.
We very much regret that the purportedly independent Speaker’s Office is now helping 1MDB and MOF cover up questions on the scandal. I will certainly raise this question again in my speech in this sitting and it will make a complete mockery of the Budget debate if the Finance Minister cannot tell us where our money has been used or spent.
Monday, April 03, 2017
Dato’ Seri Nazri Aziz must prove that Malaysia is not a Police State
After great expectations were set for the Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz debate on 1MDB, for the second time, the Police stepped in to stop the debate by refusing to grant a “permit”.
The original intent was for the debate to be held in a townhall in the Tourism Minister’s own constituency, Padang Rengas. The Police put a stop to that, forcing a change in venue to the premises of Karangkraf Media Group, the publisher for local daily, Sinar Harian in Shah Alam.
Despite an earlier approval by the Selangor police with conditions which were accepted by the organisers, the Police has now rescinded the approval.
Apparently, “the Shah Alam district police headquarters had received objections from residents in the surrounding area”. Hence, “after studying and considering the matter based on public order, the peaceful assembly permit reference 4/17 dated March 31 is cancelled,” the Police said.
The denial of a permit for a political debate or dialogue is ridiculous at so many levels.
For one, Karangkraf is located at an industrial area, a good distance from the nearest residential zones.
Secondly, it is the role of the Police to facilitate and ensure that the dialogue or debate takes place in a peaceful manner by providing the necessary support and security. The constitutionally-guaranteed rights to freedom of assembly and speech should not be denied by those who are threatening those very freedoms.
However, most importantly, it is not at all within the powers of the Police to deny approval for the event to take place. Based on the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012, all the organisers are required to do under the law is to give a 10-day “notice”. The Act does not provide for the police to say yay or nay to an assembly, what more an indoor function at private premises. A police permit is no longer required.
The clear cut abuse of power by the Police in this case shows without a doubt, the fear by the Najib administration for the debate on 1MDB to take place. The debate will only serve to confirm in the minds of Malaysians – the fact that billions of ringgit of 1MDB funds surfaced in the personal bank accounts of the Prime Minister.
It would have been a debate so lopsided that even Dato’ Seri Nazri Aziz, arguably one of the sharpest debaters on the frontbench, could not possibly win. However, with the Tourism Minister demonstrating unbounded bravado, the Police was called to step in to stop the debate to save Dato’ Seri Najib Razak the blushes.
Dato’ Seri Nazri has previously told reporters that “Malaysia is not a Police State”, after the original debate was denied by the Police, hence the subsequent alternative arrangement was made.
Hence, we call upon the Senior UMNO Minister to prove that Malaysia is indeed “not a Police State” by insisting and proceeding with the debate with Tun Dr Mahathir, regardless of the ruling made by the Police.
The Minister’s failure to do so will not only confirm, by his own benchmark, that Malaysia has indeed degenerated into a Police State. It will also confirm that he is not a man of his words and has conveniently found a face-saving way out of proceeding with the much anticipated debate.
The original intent was for the debate to be held in a townhall in the Tourism Minister’s own constituency, Padang Rengas. The Police put a stop to that, forcing a change in venue to the premises of Karangkraf Media Group, the publisher for local daily, Sinar Harian in Shah Alam.
Despite an earlier approval by the Selangor police with conditions which were accepted by the organisers, the Police has now rescinded the approval.
Apparently, “the Shah Alam district police headquarters had received objections from residents in the surrounding area”. Hence, “after studying and considering the matter based on public order, the peaceful assembly permit reference 4/17 dated March 31 is cancelled,” the Police said.
The denial of a permit for a political debate or dialogue is ridiculous at so many levels.
For one, Karangkraf is located at an industrial area, a good distance from the nearest residential zones.
Secondly, it is the role of the Police to facilitate and ensure that the dialogue or debate takes place in a peaceful manner by providing the necessary support and security. The constitutionally-guaranteed rights to freedom of assembly and speech should not be denied by those who are threatening those very freedoms.
However, most importantly, it is not at all within the powers of the Police to deny approval for the event to take place. Based on the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012, all the organisers are required to do under the law is to give a 10-day “notice”. The Act does not provide for the police to say yay or nay to an assembly, what more an indoor function at private premises. A police permit is no longer required.
The clear cut abuse of power by the Police in this case shows without a doubt, the fear by the Najib administration for the debate on 1MDB to take place. The debate will only serve to confirm in the minds of Malaysians – the fact that billions of ringgit of 1MDB funds surfaced in the personal bank accounts of the Prime Minister.
It would have been a debate so lopsided that even Dato’ Seri Nazri Aziz, arguably one of the sharpest debaters on the frontbench, could not possibly win. However, with the Tourism Minister demonstrating unbounded bravado, the Police was called to step in to stop the debate to save Dato’ Seri Najib Razak the blushes.
Dato’ Seri Nazri has previously told reporters that “Malaysia is not a Police State”, after the original debate was denied by the Police, hence the subsequent alternative arrangement was made.
Hence, we call upon the Senior UMNO Minister to prove that Malaysia is indeed “not a Police State” by insisting and proceeding with the debate with Tun Dr Mahathir, regardless of the ruling made by the Police.
The Minister’s failure to do so will not only confirm, by his own benchmark, that Malaysia has indeed degenerated into a Police State. It will also confirm that he is not a man of his words and has conveniently found a face-saving way out of proceeding with the much anticipated debate.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Will Khairy demand for Maria Chin’s release since he mocked the opposition’s fear that SOSMA would be abused against peaceful assemblies when the Act was passed in April 2012?
The Securities Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) was passed in Dewan Rakyat on 17 April 2012. The controversial new law intended to fight and counter terrorism was hotly debated by both sides of the House.
Among the issue which was most fiercely discussed was the fact that provisions of SOSMA could be used against individuals deemed to be “carrying out activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy”.
The members of the opposition led by the then Opposition Leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had argued furiously that such a clause of involving “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy” was too broad and will be subject to abuse by the authorities.
However, the Member of Parliament for Rembau, Khairy Jamaluddin, and a Minister in Najib’s Cabinet today, had mocked the opposition’s fear, claiming that they were not only unfounded, the letter of the proposed law was extremely clear and had no room for the purported abuse.
Instead, in his speech on the 16th April 2012, he praised the SOSMA Bill which was tabled by the Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Najib Razak himself, was “on the side of civil liberties”[1].
He criticised the Opposition Leader for not understanding that activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy means, “an activity carried out by a person or group of persons designed to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary Democracy by violence or unconstitutional means”.[2]
Subsequently, during his speech on the Amendments to the Penal Code (2012) the next day, Khairy further criticised the opposition’s position as “misleading” and reiterated that legitimate political dissent including peaceful assemblies or even, Bersih “is not detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy”.
“Saya dapati bahawa perbahasan daripada pihak pembangkang bukan mengelirukan tetapi amat lemah sekali sebab tidak mengkaji ataupun sengaja tidak mengakui bahawa sebenarnya apa yang dipinda ini tidaklah terlalu umum, tidaklah terlalu general, tidaklah terlalu longgar dan tidaklah satu peruntukan yang boleh ditafsirkan mengikut sesuka hati siapa-siapa pun.”
“…Kalau nak buat perhimpunan aman atau bersih pun, itu tidak detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy. Itu yang mereka [pembangkang] tak faham. Sudah cukup khusus daripada segi definisi yang diberi.”[3]
However, Bersih chairpeson, Maria Chin’s arrest under SOSMA three days ago has materialised all the fears expressed by the opposition MPs when the law was passed 4 years ago. Despite only organising a peaceful assembly to seek free and fair elections to ensure a clean government, the Police are investigating her for “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy” and detained her under SOSMA.
The question now for the Youth and Sports Minister is, will he now accept that he was over-zealous in his defence of the SOSMA and Penal Code Amendment Bills and his confidence with the authorities’ interpretation of the Acts in the spirit that they were intended was badly misplaced?
More importantly, will Khairy Jamaluddin do the honourable thing now to demand that Maria Chin be immediately released because she has been wrongfully arrested?
Or will he, more likely, keep his mouth shut and pretend that he had never said in Parliament that the SOSMA and Penal Code Amendment Bills will not be used on peaceful assemblies or Bersih?
[1] Hansard 16/4/2012 p18
[2] Hansard 16/4/2012 p24
[3] Hansard 17/4/2012 p73
Among the issue which was most fiercely discussed was the fact that provisions of SOSMA could be used against individuals deemed to be “carrying out activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy”.
The members of the opposition led by the then Opposition Leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had argued furiously that such a clause of involving “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy” was too broad and will be subject to abuse by the authorities.
However, the Member of Parliament for Rembau, Khairy Jamaluddin, and a Minister in Najib’s Cabinet today, had mocked the opposition’s fear, claiming that they were not only unfounded, the letter of the proposed law was extremely clear and had no room for the purported abuse.
Instead, in his speech on the 16th April 2012, he praised the SOSMA Bill which was tabled by the Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Najib Razak himself, was “on the side of civil liberties”[1].
He criticised the Opposition Leader for not understanding that activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy means, “an activity carried out by a person or group of persons designed to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary Democracy by violence or unconstitutional means”.[2]
Subsequently, during his speech on the Amendments to the Penal Code (2012) the next day, Khairy further criticised the opposition’s position as “misleading” and reiterated that legitimate political dissent including peaceful assemblies or even, Bersih “is not detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy”.
“Saya dapati bahawa perbahasan daripada pihak pembangkang bukan mengelirukan tetapi amat lemah sekali sebab tidak mengkaji ataupun sengaja tidak mengakui bahawa sebenarnya apa yang dipinda ini tidaklah terlalu umum, tidaklah terlalu general, tidaklah terlalu longgar dan tidaklah satu peruntukan yang boleh ditafsirkan mengikut sesuka hati siapa-siapa pun.”
“…Kalau nak buat perhimpunan aman atau bersih pun, itu tidak detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy. Itu yang mereka [pembangkang] tak faham. Sudah cukup khusus daripada segi definisi yang diberi.”[3]
However, Bersih chairpeson, Maria Chin’s arrest under SOSMA three days ago has materialised all the fears expressed by the opposition MPs when the law was passed 4 years ago. Despite only organising a peaceful assembly to seek free and fair elections to ensure a clean government, the Police are investigating her for “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy” and detained her under SOSMA.
The question now for the Youth and Sports Minister is, will he now accept that he was over-zealous in his defence of the SOSMA and Penal Code Amendment Bills and his confidence with the authorities’ interpretation of the Acts in the spirit that they were intended was badly misplaced?
More importantly, will Khairy Jamaluddin do the honourable thing now to demand that Maria Chin be immediately released because she has been wrongfully arrested?
Or will he, more likely, keep his mouth shut and pretend that he had never said in Parliament that the SOSMA and Penal Code Amendment Bills will not be used on peaceful assemblies or Bersih?
[1] Hansard 16/4/2012 p18
[2] Hansard 16/4/2012 p24
[3] Hansard 17/4/2012 p73
Friday, November 04, 2016
Ministerial replies in Parliament over the multi-billion dollar 1MDB scandal, when there were replies, has made a mockery of our august institution
When travelling overseas, Malaysians are now inundated with questions as to how Dato’ Seri Najib Razak remains firmly in power as the Prime Minister of Malaysia despite a few billion ringgit of funds which were misappropriated from a state owned investment firm finding its way into his personal account.
Foreigners are bewildered as to how our so-called democratic system could tolerate such unprecedented excesses.
The reason is simple. Our parliamentary institution is a mere facade whose sole existence is to lend legitimacy to those who wield the ultimate power. It is a pesky inconvenience which Dato’ Seri Najib Razak needs to tolerate to continue to present a semblance of a modern progressive nation.
When asked of the Prime Minister’s near total absence from Parliamentary sittings, the Honourable Speaker defended Dato’ Seri Najib Razak, claiming that the Prime Minister would have more important things to do than “to sit here and see the same face and then they (MPs) ask irrelevant questions”.
If even the Speaker of the House treats the elected Members of Parliaments with such contempt, little could be expected of the Ministers and Deputy Ministers who are left to respond to the obviously “irrelevant questions” from MPs.
Questions were asked about the actions taken by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission pursuant the charges laid out by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to seize more than US$1 billion of assets laundered by Low Taek Jho and the Prime Minister’s stepson, Riza Aziz with funds misappropriated from 1MDB.
Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Razali Ibrahim responded that there is no need for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to question Riza Aziz, the stepson of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, as he is not being probed for graft..
"For the MACC, Riza is not under a corruption probe so there is no need for the MACC to summon him (for questioning)", he said.
And when MP for Bayan Baru, Sim Tze Tzin asked about DOJ’s allegations that Riza had bought luxury properties overseas with 1MDB funds, Razali audaciously replied, "what's wrong if people with lots of money buy things?"
Obviously the point that these funds were stolen from funds managed by the Government did not matter to the Minister.
Separately the MP for Puchong, Gobind Singh asked about the need to re-open MACC’s investigations into the billions of ringgit found in the Prime Minister’s personal bank account in the light of the DOJ filings. Datuk Razali Ibrahim astonishingly responded that the concluded MACC probe on Dato’ Seri Najib Abdul Razak's RM2.6 billion ‘donation’ did not look into the origins of the money.
"We (the MACC) were only looking into corruption, not where the money came from,” he said.
"We can't make assumptions about 1MDB, because of things in the US and Switzerland… They may be looking at the money trail, we only look at the question of corruption," he added while wrapping up his part of the Budget 2017 debate speech, focusing on the MACC and Felda.
The answer is as bizarre as it is dumbfounding. How can you rule out corruption if you fail to investigate the money trail? In fact, the admission by the Minister that MACC did not bother investigating the money trail to trace the origins of the funds which ended up in the Prime Minister’s accounts only goes to justify the call for MACC to re-open investigations because they have failed to perform their duties thoroughly and competently.
However, the fact that the Ministers can get away with such nonchalant and nonsensical replies in the highest legislative body of the land epitomises the collapse of Malaysia’s democratic institutions.
With a cabinet full of Ministers that know no shame, it explains why despite the severity and credibility of the corruption and embezzlement allegations against the Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Najib Razak remains firmly in grip of power.
The only way to remove Dato’ Seri Najib Razak and the ruling Barisan Nasional, is via the ballot box, even if Malaysians have to overcome the unfair electoral system.
Foreigners are bewildered as to how our so-called democratic system could tolerate such unprecedented excesses.
The reason is simple. Our parliamentary institution is a mere facade whose sole existence is to lend legitimacy to those who wield the ultimate power. It is a pesky inconvenience which Dato’ Seri Najib Razak needs to tolerate to continue to present a semblance of a modern progressive nation.
When asked of the Prime Minister’s near total absence from Parliamentary sittings, the Honourable Speaker defended Dato’ Seri Najib Razak, claiming that the Prime Minister would have more important things to do than “to sit here and see the same face and then they (MPs) ask irrelevant questions”.
If even the Speaker of the House treats the elected Members of Parliaments with such contempt, little could be expected of the Ministers and Deputy Ministers who are left to respond to the obviously “irrelevant questions” from MPs.
Questions were asked about the actions taken by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission pursuant the charges laid out by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to seize more than US$1 billion of assets laundered by Low Taek Jho and the Prime Minister’s stepson, Riza Aziz with funds misappropriated from 1MDB.
Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Razali Ibrahim responded that there is no need for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to question Riza Aziz, the stepson of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, as he is not being probed for graft..
"For the MACC, Riza is not under a corruption probe so there is no need for the MACC to summon him (for questioning)", he said.
And when MP for Bayan Baru, Sim Tze Tzin asked about DOJ’s allegations that Riza had bought luxury properties overseas with 1MDB funds, Razali audaciously replied, "what's wrong if people with lots of money buy things?"
Obviously the point that these funds were stolen from funds managed by the Government did not matter to the Minister.
Separately the MP for Puchong, Gobind Singh asked about the need to re-open MACC’s investigations into the billions of ringgit found in the Prime Minister’s personal bank account in the light of the DOJ filings. Datuk Razali Ibrahim astonishingly responded that the concluded MACC probe on Dato’ Seri Najib Abdul Razak's RM2.6 billion ‘donation’ did not look into the origins of the money.
"We (the MACC) were only looking into corruption, not where the money came from,” he said.
"We can't make assumptions about 1MDB, because of things in the US and Switzerland… They may be looking at the money trail, we only look at the question of corruption," he added while wrapping up his part of the Budget 2017 debate speech, focusing on the MACC and Felda.
The answer is as bizarre as it is dumbfounding. How can you rule out corruption if you fail to investigate the money trail? In fact, the admission by the Minister that MACC did not bother investigating the money trail to trace the origins of the funds which ended up in the Prime Minister’s accounts only goes to justify the call for MACC to re-open investigations because they have failed to perform their duties thoroughly and competently.
However, the fact that the Ministers can get away with such nonchalant and nonsensical replies in the highest legislative body of the land epitomises the collapse of Malaysia’s democratic institutions.
With a cabinet full of Ministers that know no shame, it explains why despite the severity and credibility of the corruption and embezzlement allegations against the Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Najib Razak remains firmly in grip of power.
The only way to remove Dato’ Seri Najib Razak and the ruling Barisan Nasional, is via the ballot box, even if Malaysians have to overcome the unfair electoral system.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Election Commission conducts single-biggest gerrymandering exercise in the history of Malaysia to steal victory in the next General Election for Barisan Nasional
The Election Commission (EC) has officially published its proposed redelineation of electoral boundaries today. As highlighted previously, there will be no increase in parliamentary seats for the whole country, and no increase in state seats for Peninsula Malaysia.
A simple cursory review of the proposals will confirm the fears of all Malaysians that the EC has made it its primary objective to ensure Barisan Nasional (BN) victory for the Federal Government.
In the proposal, my constituency, “Petaling Jaya Utara (PJU)”, to be renamed as “Damansara”, will become the single largest constituency in Malaysia with 150,439 voters, an increase of 76.2% from the 85,401 registered voters as at the 2013 General Election.
Damansara will displace Kapar as the single largest constituency, with the latter’s number of voters reduced from 144,159 to 100,456, a reduction of 30.3%.
The discretionary treatment in the two seats epitomises the completely arbitrary and brazen gerrymandering exercise the EC is carrying out to the advantage of BN.
How can the EC justify or rationalise the increase of 76.2% of voters in my constituency, making it the largest in the country while at the same time reducing the existing largest constituency by 30%?
EC has increased the size of Damansara mainly by appending 54,902 voters from Bukit Lanjan state assembly seat, previously part of Subang (now renamed “Sungai Buloh”) parliament. As a result, the number of voters in Subang/Sungai Buloh is also reduced from 128,543 (2013) to 73,448.
There is only one reason one can deduce from the EC actions. It was to add to the majority in the seats BN is deemed unlikely to win, while reducing the majorities for seats where BN sees the opportunity to re-capture.
PJU had the 2nd highest majority of 44,672 in the 2013 general election and is in all probability deemed unwinnable by BN.
Bukit Lanjan on the other hand contributed a 17,200 vote majority to the Subang parliament overall winning majority of 26,719 by Sivarasa Rasiah of PKR in 2013.
With the proposed redelineation, Subang/Sungai Buloh will be left with a much reduced estimated majority of only 9,519 votes.
By shifting Bukit Lanjan to Damansara, the EC has made Subang a much more winnable seat for BN, despite increasing the potential majority for Damansara to a whopping 61,872 (based on 2013 results)!
The similar situation applies to Kapar, when its state seat with the largest majority, Sg Pinang (renamed “Bandar Baru Klang”) is shifted to the Klang parliamentary seat which faced an increase of voters from 97,073 (2013) to 141,025.
In doing so, Kapar, which is currently held by Manivanan Gowin of PKR becomes much more vulnerable. It’s 2013 winning majority of 23,790 is approximately halved as a result of the proposed redelineation.
The absurdity of creating a monster Damansara seat with more than 150,000 voters is even more outrageous when contrasted with other seats in Peninsula Malaysia with only a fraction of the voters.
Putrajaya remained the smallest constituency in the country with only 17,627 voters (11.7% of Damansara). Perak remains the state with the highest number of low voter seats with Lenggong at 28,078 (18.7% of Damansara), Padang Rengas at 28,727 (19.1%), Kuala Kangsar at 33,113 (22.0%), Parit at 33,638 (22.4%) and Gerik at 33,832 (22.5%).
Even within Selangor, which has 2.08 million voters and 22 parliamentary seats, the disparity is unjustifiably huge, with the smallest constituency of Sabak Bernam having only 37,126 voters (24.7% of Damansara). The discrepancy in the number of voters for constituencies within Selangor itself is repugnant, when the average number of voters per seat should be approximately 94,500.
Effectively, a vote in the redelineated Damanasara is not worth even a quarter of a vote in the above gerrymandered seats designed to give the advantage to BN.
We call upon all voters in Damansara, as well as all other affected voters in Malaysia to protest vehemently at the proposed election rigging exercise by the EC which deny them of their equal rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
A simple cursory review of the proposals will confirm the fears of all Malaysians that the EC has made it its primary objective to ensure Barisan Nasional (BN) victory for the Federal Government.
In the proposal, my constituency, “Petaling Jaya Utara (PJU)”, to be renamed as “Damansara”, will become the single largest constituency in Malaysia with 150,439 voters, an increase of 76.2% from the 85,401 registered voters as at the 2013 General Election.
Damansara will displace Kapar as the single largest constituency, with the latter’s number of voters reduced from 144,159 to 100,456, a reduction of 30.3%.
The discretionary treatment in the two seats epitomises the completely arbitrary and brazen gerrymandering exercise the EC is carrying out to the advantage of BN.
How can the EC justify or rationalise the increase of 76.2% of voters in my constituency, making it the largest in the country while at the same time reducing the existing largest constituency by 30%?
EC has increased the size of Damansara mainly by appending 54,902 voters from Bukit Lanjan state assembly seat, previously part of Subang (now renamed “Sungai Buloh”) parliament. As a result, the number of voters in Subang/Sungai Buloh is also reduced from 128,543 (2013) to 73,448.
There is only one reason one can deduce from the EC actions. It was to add to the majority in the seats BN is deemed unlikely to win, while reducing the majorities for seats where BN sees the opportunity to re-capture.
PJU had the 2nd highest majority of 44,672 in the 2013 general election and is in all probability deemed unwinnable by BN.
Bukit Lanjan on the other hand contributed a 17,200 vote majority to the Subang parliament overall winning majority of 26,719 by Sivarasa Rasiah of PKR in 2013.
With the proposed redelineation, Subang/Sungai Buloh will be left with a much reduced estimated majority of only 9,519 votes.
By shifting Bukit Lanjan to Damansara, the EC has made Subang a much more winnable seat for BN, despite increasing the potential majority for Damansara to a whopping 61,872 (based on 2013 results)!
The similar situation applies to Kapar, when its state seat with the largest majority, Sg Pinang (renamed “Bandar Baru Klang”) is shifted to the Klang parliamentary seat which faced an increase of voters from 97,073 (2013) to 141,025.
In doing so, Kapar, which is currently held by Manivanan Gowin of PKR becomes much more vulnerable. It’s 2013 winning majority of 23,790 is approximately halved as a result of the proposed redelineation.
The absurdity of creating a monster Damansara seat with more than 150,000 voters is even more outrageous when contrasted with other seats in Peninsula Malaysia with only a fraction of the voters.
Putrajaya remained the smallest constituency in the country with only 17,627 voters (11.7% of Damansara). Perak remains the state with the highest number of low voter seats with Lenggong at 28,078 (18.7% of Damansara), Padang Rengas at 28,727 (19.1%), Kuala Kangsar at 33,113 (22.0%), Parit at 33,638 (22.4%) and Gerik at 33,832 (22.5%).
Even within Selangor, which has 2.08 million voters and 22 parliamentary seats, the disparity is unjustifiably huge, with the smallest constituency of Sabak Bernam having only 37,126 voters (24.7% of Damansara). The discrepancy in the number of voters for constituencies within Selangor itself is repugnant, when the average number of voters per seat should be approximately 94,500.
Effectively, a vote in the redelineated Damanasara is not worth even a quarter of a vote in the above gerrymandered seats designed to give the advantage to BN.
We call upon all voters in Damansara, as well as all other affected voters in Malaysia to protest vehemently at the proposed election rigging exercise by the EC which deny them of their equal rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)