ADAKAH PH TERIKAT DENGAN BUKU HARAPANNYA?

Salinan dari status laman mukabuku ADUN Semariang, YB Hajjah Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed

https://www.facebook.com/sharifahhasidah.sayeed

Dibawah adalah terjemahan artikel yang saya postkan beberapa jam yg lalu. Ditulis oleh seorang rakan.

Adakah PH terikat dengan Buku Harapannya?

Kenyataan akhbar terkini oleh Ahli Parlimen yang baru dipilih bagi Stampin dan pemimpin negeri lain Pakatan Harapan (PH) di Sarawak menimbulkan keraguan yang serius sama ada kerajaan PH di Putrajaya akan menghormati apa yang ada dalam Buku Harapan berkenaan dengan 'kepulangan Sabah dan Sarawak kepada status yang diberikan dalam Perjanjian Malaysia '

Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Batu Lintang, See Chee How berkata dalam The Borneo Post bertarikh 18 Mei, beliau tidak ragu-ragu mengenai “kerajaan PH dalam memenuhi semua janji-janjinya termasuk penurunan kuasa kepada Sarawak. “Pengerusi PH negeri Chong Chieng Jen berkata bahawa penurunan kuasa kepada negeri itu adalah “terhenti” tetapi See berkata beliau “tidak pasti dalam konteks apa Chong bercakap”.

Ketua PH negeri kini dilaporkan sebagai berkata, "Rakyat Sarawak hanya akan memperolehi autonomi dengan menukar kerajaan negeri" (BP bertarikh 20 Mei. Beliau menambah "PH akan terus meneroka kaedah lain dalam penurunan kuasa, termasuk menubuhkan jawatankuasa khas untuk mengkaji lain-lain aspek penurunan kuasa."

Orang ramai betul-betul keliru sama ada PH akan mengembalikan hak-hak yang menurut bekas perdana menteri baru-baru ini, telah secara tidak sengaja diambil.

Janji-janji Pakatan Harapan

Buku Harapan (iaitu manifesto PH) berjanji bahawa bukan sahaja status Sabah dan Sarawak akan dikembalikan ke tempat yang dinyatakan dalam MA63, tetapi (a) kedua-dua negeri akan menerima 20 peratus royalti minyak, (b) 50 peratus hasil yang dikutip daripada kedua-dua negeri akan diberikan kepada Sabah dan Sarawak, dan (c) menurunkan kuasa untuk pendidikan dan kesihatan kepada kedua-dua negeri.

Kenyataan-kenyataan awam oleh ahli-ahli politik PH tempatan dan sikap terus membisu dan berdiam diri yang tidak dapat dijelaskan oleh pemimpin PH Kebangsaan, termasuk Perdana Menteri dan Majlis Penasihat Kerajaan, pada janji-janji mengenai royalti minyak, hasil dan penurunan kuasa atas pendidikan dan kesihatan perlu menjadi punca kebimbangan sebenar dan mendalam untuk rakyat Sarawak dan terutamanya mereka yang telah termakan oleh janji-janji untuk mengundi PH. Di pihak saya, saya dapat merasakan janji-janji ini adalah sangat tidak mungkin dapat dipenuhi.

Kebimbangan saya bukannya sesuatu yang tidak wajar. Kita boleh lihat rekod prestasi Pakatan. Pada tahun 2008, Pakatan Rakyat di Selangor menjanjikan elaun khas kepada ibu tunggal dalam manifestonya. Janji ini tidak pernah ditunai. Apabila perkara itu dibawa ke mahkamah oleh beberapa ibu tunggal, kerajaan Selangor yang diterajui PKR berhujah bahawa apa yang dijanjikan semasa pilihan raya itu tidak mengikat secara undang-undang! Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan memihak kepada kerajaan Selangor [Kerajaan Negeri Selangor v Murtini Kasman & Ors (2014) 7 CLJ 773]. Mahkamah Rayuan berkata "Kerajaan tidak harus terikat dengan manifesto pilihan raya."

Ini membawa saya kepada seorang Hakim yang paling dihormati di England iaitu Lord Denning; beliau berkata dalam Bromley Borough London Council v Greater London Council (1982) 1 All.ER 129 @ p. 135: "Manifesto yang dikeluarkan oleh sebuah parti politik, untuk mendapatkan undi bukan untuk diambil sebagai Kitab Injil. Ia tidak dianggap suatu bon, ditandatangani dan dihantar, dan ia mungkin mengandungi janji-janji dan cadangan yang tidak boleh dilaksanakan atau mustahil dicapai. "Lord Denning dalam kes yang lebih awal iaitu Regina v Liverpool Corporation Ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association (1972) 2 QB 299 berkata:

"Semua janji-janji politik tidak bernilai apa-apa.”

Apa yang dikatakan oleh Lord Denning dalam kes-kes ini telah digunakan oleh Hakim Abdul Rahman Sebli dalam kes Sabah iaitu Nasir @ Mohammed Manaf v Datuk Seri Panglima Joseph Pairin Katingan & 8 yang lain (2009) 1 LNS 738 di mana kerajaan Berjaya telah disaman kerana tidak menghormati janji-janji yang berhubungan dengan tanah.

Pemimpin PH di Sarawak adalah peguam mengikut profesion dan kita mesti menganggap mereka tahu undang-undang di Malaysia adalah seperti di England, iaitu 'Semua janji-janji pilihan raya tidak bernilai apa-apa' dan kerajaan PH tidak terikat dengan manifesto yang dikeluarkan untuk mendapatkan undi. Jadi, pengundi PH tidak mempunyai remedi undang-undang jika janji-janji manifesto yang PH tidak dihormati sama ada kerana kepentingan politik atau kerana mereka tidak boleh dilaksanakan atau mustahil dicapai.

Perintah pertama dalam urusan

Untuk mengurangkan kebimbangan awam sama ada apa yang dijanjikan dalam Buku Harapan akan dijalankan dan untuk memberi kuasa kepada pengundi untuk memegang kerajaan PH bertanggungjawab terhadap janji-janji pilihan raya mereka, kerajaan PH perlu secepat Parlimen bersidang, meluluskan Rang Undang-undang untuk meminda Akta kontrak, untuk membuat janji-janji dalam manifesto pilihan raya secara kontrak dan undang-undang mengikat kerajaan PH dan boleh dikuatkuasakan oleh mana-mana warganegara yang terkilan dan terjejas oleh pelanggaran janji-janji pilihan raya PH.

Tanpa undang-undang itu, yang juga perlu dibuat secara retrospektif kepada suatu tarikh sebelum PRU14, pengundi akan terus ditipu untuk membuat keputusan mengundi berdasarkan harapan palsu bahawa apa yang ada dalam manifesto pilihan raya akan dijalankan oleh pihak yang apabila ia menang pilihan raya. Ini adalah satu cabaran kepada ahli Parlimen Stampin yang tahu bagaimana untuk membentang Rang Undang-Undang untuk meminda Akta Parlimen. Baru-baru ini beliau mengemukakan usul di Parlimen untuk meminda Akta Pembangunan Petroleum, 1974 supaya sumber-sumber petroleum di Sarawak tidak terletak hak kepada Petronas. Jika Ahli Parlimen Stampin mahu rakyat di Sarawak mempercayai manifesto parti itu, beliau tanpa ragu-ragu mesti menyokong suatu undang-undang untuk membuat janji-janji pilihan raya yang boleh dikuatkuasakan di Mahkamah.

Melainkan jika undang-undang itu diluluskan, tidak ada sesiapa akan percaya dengan serius bahawa janji-janji dalam Buku Harapan mengenai royalti minyak, 50 peratus hasil cukai bagi Sabah dan Sarawak dan penurunan kuasa untuk pendidikan dan kesihatan akan dihormati.

Janji-janji tidak boleh dilaksanakan dan tidak boleh dicapai

Pada masa ini, di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan, royalti kepada mineral, termasuk minyak mineral sehingga 10 peratus ad volerem yang diberikan kepada negeri ini di bawah Bahagian V Jadual Kesepuluh Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Tiada gaji atau perbadanan cukai yang dipungut dari Sarawak yang diberikan kepada negeri-negeri. Untuk memastikan bahawa royalti minyak 20 peratus yang dikenakan oleh kerajaan untuk minyak dan gas asli, Perlembagaan Persekutuan perlu terlebih dahulu dipinda.

Jadual Kesepuluh juga perlu dipinda bagi membolehkan kerajaan persekutuan untuk memberikan 50 peratus daripada cukai yang diperolehi dari Sarawak dibayar kepada negeri ini sebagai sumber pendapatan tambahan untuk Sarawak.

Tanpa apa-apa pindaan kepada pembayaran Perlembagaan Persekutuan sebanyak 50 peratus hasil cukai dari Sarawak ke negeri itu boleh dicabar dan memerintah sebagai tidak mengikut perlembagaan.

Oleh itu, adakah kerajaan PH, tanpa majoriti dua pertiga di Parlimen, dapat memenuhi janji-janji untuk membolehkan kerajaan negeri untuk mengenakan dan mengekalkan 20 peratus royalti minyak dan menerima 50 peratus hasil cukai? Untuk membuktikan PH yang akan melaksanakan janji-janji pilihan raya ke atas royalti minyak dan hasil cukai, PH perlu membentangkan Pindaan Rang Undang-Undang Perlembagaan di Parlimen untuk meningkatkan jumlah royalti daripada minyak mineral yang diberikan kepada negeri ini kepada 20 peratus daripada lima peratus yang sedia ada; dan juga untuk memberikan 50 peratus daripada cukai persekutuan yang dikutip dalam Sarawak ke negeri ini.

Pada masa yang sama, kerajaan PH melalui Menteri Kewangan yang baru, Setiausaha Agung DAP, hendaklah mengemukakan bajet di Parlimen bagi memberi kuasa untuk menetapkan hasil cukai yang dijanjikan kepada Sarawak.

Berhubung dengan Pendidikan dan Kesihatan, ini adalah hal perkara dalam Senarai Persekutuan di mana kerajaan persekutuan mempunyai kedua-dua kuasa perundangan dan eksekutif. Bagi 'menurunkan kuasa' terhadap perkara-perkara ini kepada Sarawak, Yang Di-Pertuan Agong perlu membuat Perintah di bawah Perkara 95C untuk melanjutkan kuasa perundangan dan eksekutif ke negeri ini untuk memasukkan 'Pendidikan dan Kesihatan. Ini dengan mudah boleh dilakukan dalam tempoh 100 hari pertama pentadbiran PH di Putrajaya.

Pemantauan

Kecuali PH mengambil tindakan yang digariskan di atas, janji-janji dalam Buku Harapan untuk Sarawak yang menjadi salah satu daripada lima tonggak dalam manifesto itu, tidak boleh dilaksanakan. Rakyat termasuk diri saya sendiri, akan memantau sama ada kerajaan PH akan mengambil apa-apa langkah-langkah yang diperlukan seperti di atas. Jika tidak, seperti apa yang Undang-undang berkata sekarang, "semua janji-janji politik tidak bernilai apa-apa."

Selain itu, Ahli Parlimen Stampin perlu memperkenalkan semula dalam persidangan Parlimen akan datang usul untuk meminda PDA untuk membolehkan Sarawak mendapatkan semula hak-hak kedaulatan untuk minyak dan gas yang ditemui di dalam sempadannya; dan memastikan kerajaan PH akan memansuhkan Akta Territorial Sea 2012 yang 'tidak berperlembagaan', dengan segera. Langkah-langkah ini pasti boleh dilakukan dalam tempoh 100 hari dari PRU14 supaya Sarawak dengan serta-merta boleh mendapatkan semula semua hak-hak di bawah Perjanjian Malaysia 1963.

Kepada Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Batu Lintang dan Ahli Parlimen Stampin (yang juga Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Kota Sentosa), janganlah membuang masa membentuk Jawatankuasa khas mengenai hak-hak pemilikan minyak atau atas PDA dan Akta Territorial Sea, 2012, kerana anda berdua telah berulang kali mengisytiharkan, di dalam dan di luar Dewan Undangan Negeri, bahawa minyak dan gas dimiliki oleh Sarawak dan tanpa mengikut perlembagaan telah diambil oleh PDA, dan juga oleh Akta Territorial Sea, 2012. Sekarang adalah masa untuk mengotakan kata-kata tersebut. Sila ketepikan undang-undang yang menjadi 'batu penghalang' ini secepat mungkin. Dalam tempoh 100 hari pertama! kerajaan PH persekutuan perlu mempunyai kemahuan politik untuk berbuat demikian. Seperti semua rakyat Sarawak yang setia, saya menanti dengan penuh harapan. Jika PH gagal untuk menunaikan janji-janji dalam Buku Harapan seperti yang dijangkakan, kami, rakyat Sarawak, perlu mengekstrak hukuman dalam pilihan raya akan datang.

===========================

The article below is written by a learned friend.

ELECTION MANIFESTO – WILL PAKATAN HARAPAN BE BOUND BY ITS BUKU HARAPAN

By Legal Eagle

Recent press statements by the newly elected MP for Stampin and other State Pakatan Harapan leaders in Sarawak raised serious doubt as to whether the PH Government in Putrajaya will honour what is in the Buku Harapan with regard to “the return of Sabah and Sarawak to the status accorded in the Malaysia Agreement”.

The State Assemblyman for Batu Lintang, See Chee How, said in Borneo Post dated 18 May, he had no doubt on “the PH Government in fulfilling all its promises including the devolution of powers to Sarawak.” PH State Chairman, Chong Chieng Jen said that devolution of powers to the State was “off” but See said he was “not sure in what context Chong was talking”.

The PH State Chief is now reported to have said that “Sarawakians will only acquire autonomy by changing State Government” (BP dated 20 May). He added “PH will continue to explore other avenues of devolution, including setting up of a special committee to study other aspects of the devolution of powers.”

People are utterly confused on whether PH will restore rights which, according to the ex Premier recently, had been inadvertently take away.

Pakatan Harapan’s pomises

The Buku Harapan (PH”s Manifesto) promised that not only the status of Sabah and Sarawak would be restored to that stipulated in MA 63, but that (a) both States will receive 20% oil royalty, (b) 50% of the revenue collected from the 2 States will be assigned to Sabah and Sarawak, and (c) devolving powers of education and health to the 2 States.

The public statements by the local PH politicians and the complete, unexplained silence by the PH national leaders, including the Prime Minister and the Council of Elders/Eminent Persons, on the promises of oil royalty, revenues and devolution of authority over education and health must be a cause of genuine and grave concern by the people of Sarawak and especially those who have been enticed by such promises to vote for PH. On my part I can sense these promises are very unlikely to fulfill.

My fears are not unjustified. Let’s look at Pakatan’s track record. In 2008, Pakatan Rak’yat in Selangor promised special allowance for single mothers in its manifesto. This promise was never honoured. When the matter was brought to the court by several single mothers, the PKR led Selangor Government argued that what was promised during the election, was not legally binding! The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Selangor Government [ State Government of Selangor v Murtini Kasman & Ors (2014) 7 CLJ 773]. The appellate Court said “A government should not be bound by an election manifesto.”

This brings me to what one of England’s most respected of Judges, Lord Denning, said in Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council (1982) 1 All.ER 129 @ p. 135:

“A manifesto issued by a political party, in order to get votes is not to be taken as gospel. It is not regarded a bond, signed and delivered, and it may contain promises and proposals unworkable or impossible of attainment.”

Lord Denning had in an earlier case of Regina v Liverpool Corporation Ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators’ Association (1972) 2 QB 299 said:

“All political promises are not worth anything.”

What Lord Denning said in these cases have been applied by Justice Abdul Rahman Sebli in the Sabah case of Nasir @ Mohammed Manaf v Datuk Seri Panglima Joseph Pairin Katingan & 8 others (2009) 1 LNS 738 where the Berjaya Government was sued for not honouring promises relating to land.

The PH leaders in Sarawak are lawyers by profession and we must assume they know the law in Malaysia is like in England, that is “All election promises are not worth anything” and the PH government is not bound by its manifesto which was issued to get votes. So, PH voters have no legal remedies if the PH’s manifesto promises are not honoured either because of political expediency or because they are unworkable or impossible of attainment.

First order of business

To ease public concern on whether what was promised in Buku Harapan will be carried out and to empower the electorate to hold the PH Government accountable for their electoral promises, PH government should as soon as Parliament convenes, pass a Bill to amend the Contracts Act, to make promises in election manifesto contractually and legally binding on the PH Government and enforceable by any aggrieved citizen adversely affected by a breach of PH’s election promises.

Without such a law, which should also be made retrospective to a date before GE 14, the voters would continue to be hookwinked to make voting decisions based upon false hopes that what is in an election Manifesto would be carried out by the Party when it wins the election. This is a challenge to the Member for Stampin who knows how to move a Bill to amend an Act of Parliament. Very recently he moved a motion in Parliament to amend the Petroleum Development Act, 1974 so that the petroleum resources in Sarawak are not vested in Petronas.If the Stampin MP wants the people in Sarawak to have faith in his Party’s manifesto, he must unequivocally support a law to make election promises enforceable in Court.

Unless such a law is passed, no one seriously believes that the promises in Buku Harapan on oil royalty, 50% tax revenue for Sabah and Sarawak and devolution of powers for education and health will be honoured.

Unworkable and unattainable promises

Currently, under the Federal Constitution, royalty on minerals, including mineral oils up to 10% ad volerem is assigned to the State under Part V of Tenth Schedule of Federal Constitution. No income or corporation tax collected from Sarawak is assigned to the States. To ensure that 20% oil royalty may be imposed by the State for oil and natural gas, the Federal Constitution must first be amended.

The Tenth Schedule must also be amended to enable the Federal Government to assign 50% of the taxes derived from Sarawak be paid to the State as an additional source of revenue for Sarawak.

Without such amendments to the Federal Constitution payment of 50% tax revenues from Sarawak to the State may be challenged and ruled as unconstitutional.

Therefore, will the PH Government, without a two-third majority in Parliament, be able to fulfill its promises to allow the State to impose and retain 20% royalty from oil and to receive 50% tax revenue? To prove that PH will carry out its election promises on oil royalty and tax revenue, PH should table a Constitutional Amendment Bill in Parliament to increase the amount of royalty from mineral oil assigned to State to 20% from the existing 10%; and also to assign 50% of federal tax collected in Sarawak to the State. At the same time, the PH Government through its new Finance Minister, the Secretary General of DAP, must present a Budget in Parliament to authorize the assignment of the promised tax revenue to Sarawak.

With regard to Education and Health, these are subject matters in the Federal List over which the Federal Government has both legislative and executive authority. To “devolve” these subject matters to Sarawak, the Yang Di-pertuan Agong should make an Order under Article 95C to extend the legislative and executive powers to the State to include “Education and Health”. This can easily be done within the first 100 days of the PH Administration at Putrajaya.

Monitoring

Unless PH takes the actions outlined above, the promises in Buku Harapan for Sarawak which forms one of the 5 pillars in the Manifesto cannot be implemented. The people, including myself, will closely monitor whether PH Government will take any of these necessary measures. Otherwise, like what the Law now says, “all political promises are not worth anything.”

Additionally, the Member for Stampin must reintroduce in the next sitting of Parliament, his motion to amend the PDA to enable Sarawak to regain its sovereign rights to oil and gas found within her boundaries; and ensure that PH Government will immediately repeal the “unconstitutional” Territorial Sea Act, 2012. These steps can surely be done within 100 days of GE 14 so that Sarawak can forthwith regain all its rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

To the Member for Batu Lintang and the MP for Stampin (who is YB for Kota Sentosa) do not waste time forming Special Committee on oil ownership rights or on the PDA and the Territorial Sea Act, 2012, as both of you have repeatedly proclaimed, both inside and outside the Dewan Undangan Negri, that our oil and gas belonged to Sarawak and was unconstitutionally taken away by the PDA, and also by the Territorial Sea Act, 2012. Now is the time to walk the talk. Get these “obnoxious” laws out of the way as soon as possible, please. Within the first 100 days! The federal PH Government should have the political will to do so.

Like all loyal Sarawakians, I await with great anticipation. If PH fails to live up to its promises in the Buku Harapan, we, Sarawakians, must extract retribution in future elections.

PAKAIAN SERAGAM UNTUK GURU DI MALAYSIA. PERLUKAH?

MENYELUSURI 100 hari pemerintahan kerajaan baru di Malaysia dibawah dokongan Pakatan Harapan timbul desas-desus idea untuk memberikan pakaian seragam buat tenaga pengajar di sekolah-sekolah awam di Malaysia.  Walau ianya masih lagi hanya cakap-cakap sahaja namun sekiranya dilontarkan kata-katanya oleh pemimpin No. 1 sudah tentu ada keseriusan ceritanya.  

Jika difikirkan secara lebih logik apakah perlu untuk Kerajaan Malaysia menyediakan sejumlah peruntukan bagi menyeragamkan pemakaian warga pendidik kita.  Jumlah guru sahaja sudah cukup baik dari warga pendidik sekolah rendah sehinggalah ke sekolah menengah tidakkah ianya akan lebih membebankan.  Bukankah lebih baik sekiranya sejumlah peruntukan itu disalurkan buat menaiktaraf sekolah-sekolah yang sedia ada contohnya perkakasan sekolah yang kebanyakkannya sudah ditahap hidup segan mati tidak mahu.  Atau untuk lebih up-to-date menyalurkannya buat membantu sistem pembelajaran guru-guru di sekolah-sekolah.  

Ya tidak dinafikan sememangnya ada warga pendidik yang mungkin melaram ke sekolah namun disebalik “pentas fesyen sekolah” mereka itu turut tertakluk dengan undang-undang pemakaian ke sekolah seperti yang sudah diikuti sejak dahulu lagi.  Yang paling utama sekarang adalah untuk mengangkat sistem pendidikan kita agar setara dengan negara luar setelah pelbagai polisi-polisi pendidikan yang bertukar-tukar hanya kerana keseronokan Menteri Pelajaran sebelumnya.  Natijahnya pada anak-anak pelapis kepimpinan negara BUKANNYA warga pendidik yang sudah dewasa dan punya akal untuk menyesuaikan diri dengan persekitaran kerja.  

Usah ditambahlagi segala hal yang tidak berkaitan. Jika ingin menjadi Malaysia Baru, harus berfikir ke hadapan bukannya ke belakang.

MEDIA STATEMENT BY TUN ABDULLAH AHMAD BADAWI

MEDIA STATEMENT BY 

TUN ABDULLAH AHMAD BADAWI

1. On the 9th of May, Malaysians will go to the polls to determine the future of our beloved country.

2. Since independence, we Malaysians have exercised our democratic rights in 13 General Elections; and if we include the 1955 general election, this will be the 15th time in 63 years that we exercise our duty as citizens. And throughout the years, Malaysians have demonstrated experience and wisdom in exercising their democratic rights and duties.

3. The 14th general election will determine the ability of our country and society in facing previously unheralded challenges. This election will determine the government that will steer us through these challenges and lead us into the future.

4. And whether we continue to be progressive, prosperous and peaceful will be decided by the government we choose on the 9th of May.

5. Malaysia is at the precipice of becoming a developed nation and like other countries, is not insulated from the effects of globalisation.

6. The challenges that we will face in the coming years can only be overcome by a government which is strong, stable and experienced. A strong and stable government can only be formed on the back of a strong mandate and one that is anchored by leaders who genuinely work together for the benefit of its people. Any government comprising people of differing and opposing political ideologies who only come together for the sole purpose of wresting political power will not and cannot be good for the country. It is unwise to elect leaders who share the same bed but yet have different dreams.

7. Malaysia’s tremendous progress since independence was largely possible because of its political stability and because it was led by leaders who were genuine and sincere in working together and shared the same aspirations and dreams for their country

8. In building the nation, our leaders from the very beginning formulated consistent and progressive policies with strong and sound fiscal and economic management.

9. Throughout the years the governments of Barisan Nasional and it’s precursor Perikatan also consistently had a smooth transition of power from one prime minister to another which ensured the country’s continued stability and success.

10. As such, in the coming general election, Malaysians should again exercise wisdom and rationality in applying the same important criteria when choosing the party that will helm the government.

11. An election is not a game of chance; neither is it an excuse to change for the sake of changing as there is no system that is perfect. Malaysians should be honest with themselves and carefully evaluate the electoral promises made by competing parties and rationally distinguish between what is real and achievable and what are mere promises, made just to fish for votes, as the promise of spring may lead to a glorious summer; but it can also end up in a winter of discontent for our country.

12. As one who once led this country, it is my hope and desire to see a higher level of political maturity amongst the candidates contesting in this election. It is also my hope and wish to see that the political parties and candidates embrace democracy in a rational manner; and not based on emotions, anger and animosity.

13. As an elderly man who loves his country as much as any other Malaysian, I would also like to remind those contesting this election that you do so out of a sense of duty to your country and to serve your fellow citizens, and not merely to seize power for power’s sake.

14. The people’s interests should be the primary concern; and not the agenda or political ambition of any particular group or individual.

15. I plead to my fellow citizens to exercise their democratic rights and duties peacefully and responsibly without ill feelings and animosity. Let us continue to build a society that values integrity, ethics and righteousness.

16. Whether we progress or regress, live in misery or prosperity; live in dignity or ignominy is all in our hands and for us to decide. i pray to the almighty that this election will be conducted smoothly and peacefully and the outcome on the 9th of May will be one that is in the best interest of the nation that we love and cherish.

Selamat Mengundi.

TUN ABDULLAH AHMAD BADAWI

PERUNTUKAN RM5 JUTA UNTUK MEMBINA BATU KAWA WATERFRONT

“Hiraukan sengketa di sana (Semenanjung), jangan kita orang Sarawak terikut-ikut perangai mereka, kita Orang Sarawak hidup aman damai dan saling memahami, sama ada Melayu, Iban, Bidayuh atau Cina, kita semua adalah 'Anak Sarawak. Orang Cina bukannya pendatang sebaliknya adalah warga Sarawak. Kita harus terus bekerjasama sebagai satu pasukan untuk mempastikan Sarawak menjadi contoh negeri yang paling maju menjelang tahun 2030.” - KM Abang Jo -

Itulah kata-kata yang diucapkan oleh KM Abang Johari apabila merasmikan Program Sejiwa Senada di Dataran MJC Batu Kawa semalam yang mana turut mencatitkan jumlah kehadiran yang amat luar biasa sekali.  Program yang mampu mendekatkan lagi badan-badan kerajaan serta sektor korporat dengan rakyat sehingga ianya sering menjadi program yang ditunggu-tunggu apabila menjengah di satu kawasan saban tahun.  

Politik Sarawak adalah politik pembangunan dan dek kerana itulah ianya harus diwar-warkan kepada rakyat untuk mereka mengetahuinya terlebih dahulu.  Dan di program ini juga turut menyaksikan KM Abang Johari mengwar-warkan bahawa di kawasan Batu Kawa akan dibina satu lagi waterfront yang mana telah diperuntukkan sebanyak RM5 juta untuk membina.  Satu lagi limpah rahmat untuk masyarakat di kawasan Batu Kawa kelak.  

Di dalam program ini juga semalam menyaksikan KM Abang Jo turut menyampaikan Sijil Pelantikan Ketua Kaum kepada 14 orang ketua kaum dari Kuching dan Lundu.  Kemudian beliau menyerahkan Warta Rizab Komunal Seksyen 6 Kanun Tanah Negeri di bawah Program Pengukuran Inisiatif Baru NCR kepada Kampung Giit Padawan, Kampung Semadang Siburan dan Kampung Gita Baru, Sungai Maong.

Untuk Sumbangan Tanggungjawab Sosial Korporat PETRONAS pula turut menyampaikan sumbangan kepada 10 Pertubuhan Sukarela Kebajikan Bahagian Kuching seperti Pusat Pemulihan Dalam Komuniti (PDK) 1 Divisyen Kem Penrissen, Kuching Spinal Injuries Association (KUSIA), Persatuan Cerebral Palsy Bahagian Kuching Dan Samarahan dan Pertubuhan Orang Cacat Penglihatan Malaysia Cawangan Sarawak. 

KALAU PH MENANG, SARAWAK HILANG KUASA!

Dari laman fb Danny Liew (dengan izin) 

https://www.facebook.com/danny.liew.18/posts/1674001115970469

Gerrymandering is always a contentious subject that had been put forth as one of the 'tools' that are used by the 'regime' to ensure their continuous control over this beautiful country via our election system. It is so contentious that DAP Secretary-General, Lim Guan Eng was quoted to have said recently that he would push for one-person-one-vote system to be introduced in Malaysia if Pakatan Harapan wins the election.

What is claimed as the most glaring evidence that is being used to prove the existence of gerrymandering in Malaysia is the fact that Parliamentary seats located in Selangor have very high number of voters, as compared to Sarawak.

The following parliamentary seats, according to Roketkini, has the highest number of voters.

P102 Serdang ->178,790 voters

P106 Damansara -> 164,322 voters

P110 Klang --> 149,348 voters

P111 Kota Raja --> 149,021 voters

The 4 smallest seats that I managed to identify from MKini website are:

P207 Igan --> 19,592

P203 Lubok Antu --> 20,801

P210 Kanowit --> 21,022

P222 Lawas --> 21,297

So how is this possible? A person would be asking why does a person's vote in, say Igan, is equal to the value of 9 person's vote in Serdang? And often this is presented as evidence of gerrymandering, as rural voters tend to gravitate to the ruling party.

This article will not be able to address all the issues about gerrymandering. It will only answer half of the problem, or worse, open new can of worms.

This article came about from a short banter with Suzainur K A Rahman, on what is gerrymandering. I gave her an example why I say that the one-person-one-vote system itself is a gerrymandering too. So let us have a look.

The data on total voters is obtained from EC website, while the population data is an estimated population of Malaysia as in 2017, and obtained from DOSM website.

We can see that the 3 states with the largest number of seats are Sarawak (31), Sabah (25), and Johor (26).

Before we go any further, we need to make several assumptions:

1. There is no MA63 to dictate the allocation of seats to Sabah and Sarawak.

2. Parliamentary seat can go across existing established political borders, ie if a seat located in Selangor does not have prerequisite headcount, the seat can be combined with the bordering seat in Negeri Sembilan.

3. The total parliamentary seat of 222 is fixed.

If we were to implement 1-person-1-vote, we will derive at each Parliamentary seat must have a total of 67,300 voters. Looks fair, right when compared to having 178,790 voters in Serdang.

Let's see the net effect of the move.

Selangor will be having 36 seats as compared to the current 22 seats, a massive 14 seats gain. This is followed by Terengganu, with an addition of 3 seats.

The worst loser will be Sarawak. Sarawak will lose 13 seats, leaving only 18 seats. Sabah will lose 8 seats, leaving only 17 seats.

What we will be seeing here is the concentration of parliamentary power to 1 state, which is Selangor. This largely urbanised state will gain the most, while Sabah and Sarawak will suffer the worst. Both will find themselves more difficult to fight for their rights if 1-person-1-vote system is implemented.

In terms of development, this may have severe repercussion as the power is now concentrated in 1 state which is largely urbanised. This will not augur well for states with large rural population. Funding from Federal Budget would be very likely to be concentrated to the Selangor.

Concurrently, with low or little power to get more funding for rural area, this would result probably a large scale migration of population from rural areas nationwide to urbanised areas. This will probably result in the growth of slum area in these urbanised area, which will not augur well for the country as a whole.

Government machinery located in these urbanised area may also have difficulties to cope with the larger population.

If this system is unfair, especially to rural population, what is fair then?

Like I said earlier, I will not be able to provide all the answer to you. But let's see what we can understand from the same set of data.

In terms of voters population for each state, we can see that Terengganu, Perak and Perlis are the most politically-conscious states. More than 60% of their population are registered voters. While it does not address the seats allocation nationwide, it does bring up some new questions. With Sabah and WP Labuan having less than 30% of their population registered as voters, would it mean that they should be having more seats? Maybe?

As I didn't get the answer to the questions that I have, I decided to compare the percentage seats allocated to each state versus the percentage of population of each state to overall Malaysian population. You will notice that both ratio does not fall too far away, except for the following:

1. Selangor (variance of -10.01%).

2. Sarawak (variance of 5.33%).

3. Perak (variance of 3.02%).

4. Pahang (variance of 1.16%)

Positive variance means the states are actually getting more seats as compared to their counterparts. While negative means they get less seats than their counterparts.

While Selangor does lose out in terms of representation, it gets back in term of being the most developed state in the country. Large swathe of the state has already been developed. It also gets spill-over effects for development in WP Kuala Lumpur and WP Putrajaya. Of course, in a way, both WP were formerly part of Selangor.

For all other less urbanised states, this means that they get to have more voice. Especially in the case of Sarawak, Sarawak itself is about the same size as the whole of Peninsular Malaysia.

Some might point out that the seats in Sarawak too have large variance in terms of voters. Urbanised seats have voters between 50,000 to 100,000. But this does not point to gerrymandering. The fact that even development with Sarawak itself is not evenly spread out. Hence, forcing this discrepancy in terms of voting population.

Another important factor to consider when discussing about gerrymandering would be the existing political administrative system on the ground. If you take note, many of the parliamentary areas are within existing boundary of the existing political administrative system. Hence, it would be difficult to separate these out without having to cross-over to other administrative system. (examples are why Putrajaya itself is a seat and not combined into any other seats in Selangor).

Conclusion is, there is no single perfect system. Some of you may have been hoping that I would be giving a verdict either to condemn or support the how the political boundaries are drawn. That is not the intention. The intention is for me to be able to get this out in writing so that it stops bothering me. And at least I get to see this in both qualitatitve and quantitative ways.

Source:

EC website (for population of voters for each state)

MKini website (for population of voters on certain seats)

Roketkini (for the 4 largest voter population)

Department of Statistics Malaysia website (for estimated Malaysian population as at 2017)