Ahad, 11 Januari 2015

Chong Chieng Jen's Blog

Chong Chieng Jen's Blog

选委会所建议的选区划分，根本就是为了要增加国阵的选区。

Posted: 11 Jan 2015 12:51 AM PST

（古晋11日讯）古晋市国会议员兼哥打圣淘沙州议员揶揄，选举委员会针对所建议的选区划分的解释，其实是愈描愈黑，更加暴露选举委员会为国阵护航的角色。

张健仁今天再次抨击选举委员会为国阵的第14成员党，选委会所建议的选区划分，根本就是为了要增加国阵的选区。而过去几天选委会所给予的解析，自相矛盾。

张氏指出两点选委会自相矛盾的言论：

1. 选委会称说，选区划分为更小，是为了方便中选议员可以提供更好的服务。

若这论调可以成了的话，为什么国会选区没有增加？ 难道州议员的选区需要缩小选区以提供更好的服务，国会议员就不需要提供更好的服务？
选委会自己也知道，国阵在国会没有3份2的多数议席，选委会所建议的选区划分的不公平程度，没有一位正常的在野党议员会支持。 因此，选委会的荒唐建议，怎样也是无法在国会被通过的。

2. 选委会称说，郊区或半郊区的选区面积比较大，比较难服务，因此应该有比较少的选民。

若这论调成立的话，那为什么砂督的面积如此的小，但选民人数却只有区区的1万3580人？  砂督的面积比浮罗岸州选区稍微大一点点，但比朋岭州选区或巴都林当州选区小许多。 砂督的面积也只是哥打圣淘沙州选区面积的1/3，更只是石角州选区面积的1/5而已。

但是，砂督的选民人数只是区区13580人，而其他这5个选区的选民人数却是：
浮罗岸 (22873选民);
朋岭 (30881选民);
巴都林当 (24640选民);
哥打圣淘沙 (21247选民); or
石角 (19643选民)


张氏也说，最荒谬的是，增加了11个州选区，但是国会选区连1个都没有增加。 唯一的解释就是，选委会赶紧增加州议席以应付砂州州选，因为现今多了亲国阵的联民党和力量党。 虽然这11个新的州选区不会全部给这两个"新成员"，但是至少有了一些新选区的分配，可以减少这两个"新成员"和人联党及民进党之间的摩擦。

张健仁表示，如果选举委员会还有意要挽救其所仅存的公信力和尊严，它应该收回这选区划分的建议，另外提出比较中立和合理的选区划分建议。

The integrity and impartiality of the Election Commission (EC) is called to question on the recently announced delineation exercise.

Posted: 11 Jan 2015 12:50 AM PST

The integrity and impartiality of the Election Commission (EC) is called to question on the recently announced delineation exercise.  So far, the so-called further explanation or purported justification provided by the EC in respect of the delineation only reinforces the fact that the EC is the stooges of Barisan Nasional or even the 14th party in BN.

I wish to point out the self-contradictory explanation provided by the EC in respect of the delineation exercise:

1. The EC claims that the re-drawing of the area into smaller areas is for the purpose of making it easier for the elected representatives to serve their constituencies.

If that were the case, why is there no re-delineation of the Parliamentary seats?  If the ADUNs need to have their constituency sized down-sized to provide better service, why is there no such similar need for the MPs and their parliamentary constituencies?

The true reason for the non-increase in the Parliamentary constituencies is that the BN does not have 2/3rd majority in Parliament and the re-delineation is so unfair and ridiculous that the EC is confident that no right-minded opposition members of Parliament will lend their support to such proposal.


2. The EC claims that the rural or suburban constituencies are larger in surface area and thus harder to serve, and therefore need to have less number of voters.

If that were the case, why is Satok one of the smallest in surface area and yet has only 13,580 voters?

The surface area of Satok is slightly bigger than Padungan, but smaller than either Pending or Batu Lintang.  Satok's surface area is only 1/3rd of the surface area of Kota Sentosa and 1/5th of the surface area of Batu Kawah.

Yet, Satok has only 13,580 voters whereas these other areas has the following number of voters:
Padungan (22,873 voters);
Pending (30,881 voters);
Batu Lintang (24,640 voters);
Kota Sentosa (21,247 voters); or
Batu Kawah (19,643 voters)

Anyway, it is a joke that when there is an increase of 11 state constituencies for Sarawak, there is totally no increase in Parliamentary constituencies for Sarawak.

The only plausible explanation why the EC is willing to make itself looking like a fool in rushing to increase the State seats while maintaining the number of Parliament seats is that there are now BN friendly UPP and TERAS which require certain State seats to appease.  Though not all of the increased seats will go to UPP, TERAS, or SUPP or SPDP, but it will help to lessen the conflicts.

Therefore, I call on the EC to withdraw its present proposal and redo the whole thing to come up with a new proposal.  This is the only way which the EC can hope to save whatever credibility it has left.


11-1-2015
Chong Chieng Jen
MP for Bandar Kuching / ADUN for Kota Sentosa
DAP Sarawak Chairman
Dicatat oleh di Tiada ulasan:
Langgan: Catatan (Atom)

Nuffnang