Tuesday 11 November 2014

King Wei: Dun (Composition of Membership) Bill may have contravened Federal Constitution

By Simon Peter

KUCHING, Nov 11, 2014: Padungan State Assemblyman Wong Wing Wei has cautioned that  the Dewan Undangan Negeri (Composition of Membership) Bill 2014 may have contravened the Article 117 of the Federal Constitution?

The Bill sought to increase the number of state lawmakers from the present 71 to 82. It was later passed after much debate.

Wong, in posing a question whether the Bill had contravened Article 117, said that amendment, in just one sentence, had failed to inform where the additional seats were and why the delineation of seats had to be done.
 

"If we just pass this Bill just with one simple sentence, without any due consideration of the principles relating to delineation, this August house is put to a great risk of amending the State Constitution in violation of Federal Constitution.

"This is something very serious and may rendered this Ordinance be declared invalid by the Court of Law," he said when debating on the Bill which was tabled by Housing Minister Abang Johari Openg.

He added:" Therefore, I am reserving my support to this Bill, until and unless the 11 new seats and the reasons for delineation are disclosed to this august house.

"As a responsible legislator, we can’t just blindly allow a piece of legislation to be passed without knowing what it is about," he stressed.

He said the delineation exercise must not be done simply and that it must be strict adherence to the Federal Constitution.

Wong said  Article 117 of the Federal Constitution states that "for the election of members to the Legislative Assembly of a State, the State shall be divided into as many constituencies as there are elected members, so that one member shall be elected for each constituency; and the division shall be made in accordance with the provisions contained in the Thirteenth Schedule.

"Therefore any delineation on State constituencies shall be made in accordance with the provisions contained in the 13th Schedule.

"What are stated in the 13th Schedule?  The 13th Schedule provides the principles relating to delineation. There are constitutional principles for delineation exercise. As a member of this August House, we must not simply allow any delineation without keeping our observation on Federal Constitution, particularly  the 13th Schedule," he stressed. 

He said in Part I Clause 2 of  the 13th Schedule, it provides that:-

2. The following principles shall as far as possible be taken into account in dividing any unit of review into constituencies pursuant to the provisions of Articles 116 and 117-


(a) while having regard to the desirability of giving all electors reasonably convenient opportunities of going to the polls, constituencies ought to be delimited so that they do not cross State boundaries and regard ought to be had to the inconveniences of State constituencies crossing the boundaries of federal constituencies;

(b) regard ought to be had to the administrative facilities available within the constituencies for the establishment of the necessary registration and polling machines;

(c) the number of electors within each constituency in a State ought to be approximately equal except that, having regard to the greater difficulty of reaching electors in the country districts and the other disadvantages facing rural constituencies, a measure of weightage for area ought to be given to such constituencies;

(d) regard ought to be had to the inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies, and to the maintenance of local ties.

He added the 13th Schedule clearly stated that one of the principles in dividing the constituencies is the number of electors.

"Number of electors within each constituency must be equal unless the area is too big, causing difficulties in reaching the electors.

"But I have an example here, it is not a comparison between urban and rural constituencies, but a comparison between both urban seats, that is, my constituency and my neighbouring constituency, Satok."

Based on the 2011 state election, he said Satok had 10,431 registered voters while Padungan had 23,576 voters.

"What it means is that I am representing more than double than the people in Satok. I should have at least two votes in this house while Satok should have one," Wong asserted.

He said the total turnout in Padungan in the 2011 state election was 16,469, more than the total number of voters of Satok.

"That is unfair," he declared.

Wong said the nearby Pending constituency had 29,488 registered voters in 2011.

"If Honourable member for Satok has one vote in this house, Pending should be given three votes," Wong added.

He  said the delineation exercise must be done with due care and with justifiable reasons, pursuant to Federal Constitution. 
:”

Wong commented “desirable and necessary” was not one of the principles of for the delineation.



No comments: