Time and place decides what’s fair

For all intents and purposes, this article is a purely academic exercise to discuss the issue of fair or fairness. I have attached the issue of election boundaries (in the addendum below) merely as the emphasis in discussing this issue. The point I wish to make, however, is that if you subscribe to the doctrine of relativity (a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another), then everything is open to interpretation and subject to time and place plus dependent on whom you are.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Before I start let me warn you that this is going to be a cheong hei article so if you are one of those who are incapable of reading more than one page I would suggest you just skip this article and read something else.

First of all, before any of you jump up and down and scream that I am anti-reform, let me caution you that I am one of the early birds who was clamouring not only for electoral reforms but for political reforms as well -- under which would include electoral reforms.

And I have already openly declared that I joined the Liberal Democrat party because of this desire to see not just electoral reforms but political reforms here in the UK as well, a country that is now my home and where I will eventually be buried when I die in a few years time (hopefully more than 10 years more).

For all intents and purposes, this article is a purely academic exercise to discuss the issue of fair or fairness. I have attached the issue of election boundaries (in the addendum below) merely as the emphasis in discussing this issue. The point I wish to make, however, is that if you subscribe to the doctrine of relativity (a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another), then everything is open to interpretation and subject to time and place plus dependent on whom you are.

When we look at something we always use the yardstick of where we stand and when that time may be to measure that thing we are looking at. What may be fair at one time and in another place may no longer be fair today in the place where we live. Hence nothing is constant and the only constant thing is change -- an oxymoron of sorts. (If it changes then it is not constant, is it not?)

Let us take voting as one example. In some countries in the past, only the landowners and the elite were allowed to vote (the serfs and landless could not vote). That meant roughly only 20% of the population could vote. In some countries only the whites and/or only the males could vote. ‘Blacks’ and women were not allowed to vote.

By today’s standards that would be most unfair. In those days, though, and in those countries concerned, there was nothing unfair about that. That was the law and the law must be obeyed. Whether this is ‘rule of law’ or ‘rule by law’ is another matter for another discussion (just like Malaysia’s Sedition Act issue).

Okay, that was in the past. Let us talk about today and let us talk about Malaysia.

In the UK, anyone who resides in the country can vote (as long as you have a UK address). Since you reside in the country, whatever happens in the UK affects you -- so you can vote. Hence even Malaysian students who hold Malaysian passports and are Malaysian citizens can vote in the British elections -- as long as you are old enough.

Malaysia, however, does not allow this. And if you are not a Malaysian citizen and you vote then you would be regarded as a ‘phantom voter’. Is this fair (to regard non-citizens as phantom voters)? In the UK it is not fair. But in Malaysia this is fair.

Now, if British citizens can go to Malaysia and are allowed entry into the country without the need of a visa then, to reciprocate, Malaysian citizens can also enter the UK without the need of a visa. However, while Malaysian citizens can vote in the UK, British citizens cannot vote in Malaysia. Is this reciprocating and hence is this fair?

Let’s, say, a British citizen votes in Malaysia. What will happen to him or her? Absolutely nothing -- other than getting beaten up by the Pakatan Rakyat supporters, of course. But what will happen if a Malaysian citizen votes in the UK? Well, he or she can lose his/her Malaysian citizenship. Is this fair? It is fair in Malaysia but not in the UK.

In 1969, the voting age in the UK was reduced from 21 to 18. And that is why foreign students can vote since most are above 18 anyway. In Malaysia, the voting age is still 21. But you can drive a car at 18 plus you can also get married at that age. So, we trust 18-year olds to drive a car and get married but we do not trust them to vote? Is this fair?

Up to 1969 it was fair in the UK. Today, however, it is no longer fair. In Malaysia, though, it is still fair. Hence the interpretation of ‘fair’ changes over time and over place. In 1969, I was only 18 and could not vote in the 10th May 1969 ‘historic’ general election in Malaysia. But I would have been able to vote in the UK had I gone there to study instead of choosing the life of a hippie in Malaysia. 

So, in reviewing our electoral system, we need to redefine what is fair and hence we need to consider a total overhaul of the system to keep up with the changes in the world. Children of 13 were still considered children back in the time of Merdeka. Children of 13, today, are more exposed to the world and have become more mature partly due to cable TV and the Internet. Children of 13, say, 500 years ago, already went to war and got married and by 30 were considered too old (not many lived beyond 50 anyway in those days).

Hence, the issue of the age of maturity plus the voting age itself needs to be reconsidered and probably changed to keep up with ‘world norms’. Even how we look at 16-year olds changed from 1813 to 1913 to 2013.

Are 18-year olds old enough and mature enough to be entrusted with the ballot paper? If they are old enough to be sent to jail or to be sent to the gallows then they should be old enough to be allowed to vote.

But what will happen if 18-year old Malaysians are allowed to vote? Well, that would mean Barisan Nasional is finished because then most likely the opposition would garner 60% of the popular vote and if this happens then no amount of fraud or gerrymandering can make any difference. You can only cheat up to a certain extent, mainly in borderline cases. If the swing is too massive, to the level of a Tsunami, then even cheating cannot help any longer.

So the government has to very carefully look into all these issues in the expected re-delineation exercise, which may be conducted soon. However, what is the priority of the Election Commission (SPR). Malaysia practices the first-past-the-post system. How do we incorporate the one-man-one-vote system into that system? That is the billion-dollar question. And, again, the issue of ‘fair’ needs to be carefully considered.

But then I have just explained that fair or fairness is relative. It all depends on who you are and what era you live in and in which region you are living. The interpretation of fair changes from time-to-time and from place-to-place and from person-to-person as well. So how do we establish ‘fair’? And who will be the one establishing what is fair?

Okay, you may argue that the ones establishing this yardstick of ‘fair’ must be the majority. But what if what the majority wants is not fair to the minority? Do we then ignore the rights of the minority because we must comply to majority-rule? What if in that particular society the majority happens to be Shia Muslims and the minority are Sunni Muslims? Can the majority Shias pass a law that persecutes the minority Sunnis? Do the minority Sunnis not also have rights?

Say, the majority Shias decide that Sunni Islam is not Islam and Sunnis are heretics who should be put to death. The Sunni Books of Hadith are banned and anyone found in possession of the Sunni Books of Hadith will be arrested and sent to jail.

But Sunni Islam is far larger than Shia Islam. There are an estimated 80-90% Sunnis compared to only 10-20% Shias in the world. In Malaysia, Malaysians who follow Shia Islam are arrested and jailed (unless you are a foreigner). So is it fair that the ‘majority’ Shias who are actually the minority worldwide pass such laws even though in that particular country they may be the majority?

So, can you see that the issue of majority-rule itself can be disputed because, yet again, it is subject to who you are and where you happen to live at that time and what era you happen to be living in?

Okay, back to Malaysia’s election system, what would Barisan Nasional consider fair? Fair to Barisan Nasional is whatever it is that can keep them in power. What about Pakatan Rakyat? To Pakatan Rakyat, fair is whatever it is that can kick out Barisan Nasional.

Hence, to start off, both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have different interpretations of fair. So how do we come to a consensus on what is fair? If we go by the majority in Parliament then Barisan Nasional has 133 votes compared to Pakatan Rakyat’s 89. So, if majority rules, then Barisan Nasional wins.

You may argue that Barisan Nasional may have 133 seats in Parliament but then they won these 133 seats with less than 50% of the votes. Okay, but is Malaysia’s election based on votes or based on seats? Undoubtedly it is based on seats and not votes. And if on seats then Barisan Nasional will win the shouting match.

The bottom line is: both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have two different interpretations of fair and have different priorities in the re-delineation exercise. So there is no way they can meet in the middle. One has to lose while the other will win. The question is: which one will lose and which one will win?

In the meantime, be prepared for a long-drawn shouting match and probably even more street demonstrations before this issue is going to be resolved. And at the end of it all, one party is going to benefit and another is going to be frustrated. And the whole reason for this is because the present system is not perfect. Any system that can be manipulated and exploited cannot be perfect.

Is the solution, therefore, to look for another system?

Yes, sometime to mull over and sleep on, don’t you think so?

Nevertheless, treat this piece of mine as merely an academic exercise to discuss the issue of what is fair. 

*************************************

PSC recommended fairer election system, DAP rep reminds BN, EC

Clara Chooi, The Malaysian Insider

Barisan Nasional (BN) was reminded today of recommendations approved last year by Parliament to improve the country’s current electoral system and for the coming redrawing of boundaries to ensure fair weightage is given to every vote. 

DAP election strategist Dr Ong Kian Ming mocked BN leaders Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Datuk Seri Noh Omar for criticising those who dared to challenge the alleged unfairness of the current system, pointing out that their own colleagues had made the recommendations as members of the Parliamentary Select Committee for electoral reform.

The recommendations, tabled in the Lower House on April 2 last year, included a call on the Election Commission (EC) to use a “fair and equitable” formula when determining the number of voters in one constituency, after taking note of the proposal to follow the “one-man, one-vote, one-value” principle.

The bipartisan PSC also took note of the proposal to improve the country’s current use of the simple majority or first-past-the-post system by considering a more proportionate system of representation for elections.

Ong (picture), the newly-elected MP for Serdang, told both Ahmad Zahid and Noh to take a week-long study leave abroad to better understand how other countries practising the same simple majority “first-past-the-post” system adhere to the “one-man, one-vote, one-value” principle in the drawing of their electoral boundaries.

“If the home minister (Ahmad Zahid) and the MP for Tanjong Karang (Noh) are too busy... I would be more than happy to sit down with them for a one-hour briefing to show them how other democratic countries using the first-past-the-post system redraw their boundary lines in order to reduce the disparity in the number of voters per seat,” Ong said.

He explained that if constituencies are fairly delineated, any party or coalition that wins the vote majority in any first-past-the-post system should win the majority of seats contested.

But in the just-concluded Election 2013, the ruling BN government emerged victors again by snapping up 133 seats or 60 per cent of the 222 federal seats to Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) 89 seats, despite losing the popular vote when it garnered only 48 per cent of votes cast to PR’s 51 per cent.

The outcome triggered the string of “Black 505” protests nationwide as indignant opposition leaders and voters rallied against BN’s return to power despite failing to win the majority number of votes cast.

Responding to the protests, Ahmad Zahid sparked an uproar when he wrote in Umno-owned daily Utusan Malaysia that Malaysians should accept PR’s failure to win federal power in Malaysia’s first-past-the-post system, saying those unwilling to accept the system could live elsewhere.

In a separate remark, Noh had said that those who do not like Malaysia’s electoral system to go “live in the jungle”.

Ong accused the home minister of failing to remember that prior to Malaysia’s independence, the maximum rural weightage given to votes had been two to one which, he said, effectively means that the largest constituency can only have twice as many voters as the smallest constituency.

“Instead, what we have now in Malaysia is a ‘bastardized’ form of the first-past-the-post electoral system where the largest constituency — P109 Kapar (144,369 voters in GE13) — has nine times the number of voters of the smallest constituency — P126 Putrajaya (15,798 voters in GE13),” he said.

“Indeed, if the home minister had done his research, he would have realised that the United Kingdom passed a Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act in 2011 which specified that the maximum deviation in the number of voters per constituency can only be 5 per cent,” he added.

In Australia, which uses the Alternative Vote (AV) in Single Member Constituencies, Ong said the maximum deviation in the number of voters per constituency is 10 per cent.

“However, there is an additional, stricter rule which requires the Australian Election Commission to project the number of voters per constituency 3½ years after a re-delineation exercise.

“This rule allows for a maximum of a 3.5 per cent deviation. The strict rules observed in Australia results in the one-man-one-vote principle being observed,” he said.

For example, Ong said the largest constituency in Australia in terms of geographical area is Durack in Western Australia with 88,177 voters when the last redelineation exercise was conducted in 2008.

Durack’s land size, he said, is 1,587,758 square kilometres, which is almost five times the size of Malaysia.

The smallest constituency, he said, is the constituency of Wentworth in New South Wales, Sydney, with 98,979 in 2009 when the last redelineation exercise was conducted.

Wentworth covers approximately 30 square kilometres which is about the size of Ipoh Barat, Ong added.

“The rural-urban weightage in Australia is 1.12. In other words, the number of voters in the smallest urban constituency is only 112 per cent the number of voters in the largest rural constituency.

“If Australia, given its large geographic area, can follow the one-man-one-vote principle, there is no reason why Malaysia cannot follow suit,” he said.

The EC is expected to kick off the re-delineation exercise at the end of this year, shortly after all election petitions for the May 5 polls are heard.