THIS week, several civil society organisations called for the vetting of appointments to the Election Commission (EC).
This came after the appointment of Datuk Sapdin Ibrahim as an EC commissioner, which they described as a failure to fulfil a promise made by both Pakatan Harapan (PH) and Barisan Nasional (BN) in their election manifestos.
This was because the appointment was made without any parliamentary review, which would portray Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the unity government as insincere in implementing institutional reforms.
The promise for appointments to key positions such as those in the EC, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, and the police to be reviewed by Parliament first was made in PH’s ‘Buku Harapan’ manifesto for the 15th general election (GE15).
Similarly, BN’s ‘Plan of Action and Effort’ for GE15 contained a similar promise.
The concern raised by these groups was that the position of EC chairman would be filled without going through Parliament. The incumbent, Datuk Abdul Ghani Salleh, retired on Thursday (May 9).
This is particularly crucial as the new chairman will oversee a critical period of delineation of electoral boundaries in Sarawak, which is currently ongoing, while Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia are scheduled for a similar exercise next year and in 2026, respectively.
These organisations are arguing against malapportionment, where constituencies do not have an equal distribution of voters.
They are making the case for the value of one person’s vote in a high-population constituency compared to constituencies with a lower population.
They are trying to shift the focus towards development allocation, where a voter in a high-population constituency would receive lower funding compared to a voter in a lower-population constituency.
Undoubtedly, this sentiment will be propagated to influence the delineation exercise in Sarawak, which has a unique situation with low population density and a vast land size.
As it stands, Sarawak is demanding more seats to be allocated to it by the Malaysia Agreement (MA63), whereby Sarawak and Sabah should have one-third of the Parliamentary seats.
Currently, Sarawak, with 31 MPs, and Sabah, with 26 MPs, make up only 25 per cent or 56 seats in the 222-seat federal Parliament.
With the ‘one man, one vote’ proposal from these civil society groups, any claim to increase the number of seats for Sarawak in Parliament becomes unfeasible.
This is because it calls for the number of voters in each constituency to be the same.
If constituencies with a lower number of electorates have to be merged with other constituencies to maintain the ratio of vote value and development funding per person, we would end up with fewer seats, not more.
Not only is this counterintuitive, but it may also lead to the underrepresentation of rural areas, which is already an issue.
Similarly, it must be said that development funding should not be tied to the number of people in one constituency or even in one region such as Sarawak.
The allocation should be done on a needs-based basis, taking into account the planned projects and development plans.
The population-based allocation from the federal government has hindered Sarawak’s development as the needs of rural communities could not be met due to being considered ‘too small in number’.
This kind of thinking should not be carried forward. Needs-based representation must be maintained for Sarawak as it is crucial to bridge the development gap and provide better service delivery to constituents.
If anything, the current situation where rural constituencies with a lower population receive more development allocation should be continued.
This rural-biased policy and approach have always been evident in the Sarawak Budget, which places heavy emphasis on developing rural areas.
It is hoped that with the delineation to be carried out in Sarawak, rural areas would benefit from better representation along with the funding that comes with it.
This would enable better and more focused engagement with the community in terms of developing undeveloped areas and providing better service delivery.
The Sarawak landscape is unique, and a one-size-fits-all approach such as the ‘one man, one vote’ principle is not applicable.
While we strive to deliver reforms, we must not lose sight of the importance of not only balanced development but also fostering progress in the community through better representation.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the New Sarawak Tribune.
