THIS month marks the 50th anniversary of the 1974 electoral redelineation of Peninsular Malaysia. The exercise was done at record speed; it failed to address the malapportionment problem, brought about gerrymandering, and was noted for its lack of transparency. Within days of the redelineation report being approved in the Dewan Rakyat, parliament was dissolved and Barisan Nasional won a pyrrhic victory. Fifty years have passed, and it is time for Malaysians to reflect on this exercise as we gear up for potential redelineation exercises in the future. The author of this article would like to give special credit to Professor Emeritus Sothi Rachagan’s two publications entitled “The 1974 Parliamentary Election in Peninsular Malaysia: A Study in Electoral Geography (1978)” and “Law and the Electoral Process in Malaysia (1993)”.

Context

Malayan federal electoral boundaries came into existence in 1954, with Peninsular Malaysia subdivided into 52 constituencies. Subsequently, after independence, these 52 constituencies were subdivided into 104 constituencies for Dewan Rakyat in 1958, as per our constitutional requirements (including the redelineation of 282 state constituencies). These boundaries were gazetted on 22nd September 1958. In our Merdeka-era constitution, the 104 federal constituencies were meant for the first post-independence elections (which were the 1959 elections), and subsequently, the Dewan Rakyat constituency count was to be reduced to 100 after the first parliament. Our then very independent Election Commission (EC), which had the power to draw and enforce electoral boundaries, proceeded with the 1960 redelineation exercise (for the formation of 100 federal constituencies and, concurrently, the newly adjusted state constituency count). As the 1960 redelineation exercise was grounded on strict equality of constituency sizes, the ruling Alliance government legislated changes to the constitution, which annulled the 1960 redelineation exercise, relaxed limits on constituency electorate sizes, and reduced the EC to a redelineation consultant.

Before 1984, redelineation exercises were to be carried out every eight to 10 years from the previous redelineation exercise. With the formation of Malaysia in 1963, Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak were treated as different units of review for redelineation. This means redelineation exercises for these units of review can be done at different times. The EC proceeded to carry out the research for the next redelineation of Peninsular Malaysia in 1967, with the first display of draft boundaries in 1968. Following the 1969 elections and the subsequent suspension of democracy, the redelineation exercise was resumed in 1971. Before the new delineated boundaries could be made effective, the Dewan Rakyat passed new legislation (Act A206) that annulled the EC’s efforts in 1973.

Act A206 ended the EC’s ability to equalise voting power in Malaya, excised Kuala Lumpur from Selangor, limited equalisation to within state boundaries, removed vague limits on constituency electorate sizes, and based redelineation cycles for Peninsular Malaysia on the first redelineation after the act was enforced. The same act increased the number of federal constituencies from 104 to 114 for Peninsular Malaysia (which dispels the myth of 15 of Singapore’s former constituencies being absorbed into Peninsular Malaysia). The amended Article 46 is indicative of parliament’s power to allocate constituencies by state. Among the states, Perlis, Negri Sembilan, Malacca, and Johor did not receive new constituencies, and Selangor experienced a reduction of its federal constituency count from 14 to 11. Since the Malaysian constitution legislated the principle of simple multiple (the number of state seats shall be the same or a multiple of federal constituencies of the state) in 1962, the change in the federal constituency count triggered a change in the number of state seats in all states except Perlis, Negri Sembilan, Malacca, and Johor. State constituencies in the peninsula numbered 312 (up from 282 between 1958 and 1974).

Malapportionment

While it is not possible to ensure all constituencies have exactly equal electorate sizes, the 1957 Merdeka constitution made it clear that all constituencies shall not have an electorate size exceeding +/-15% of the state electoral quota (EQ), or average federal/state constituency size. This is to ensure all voters are treated equally irrespective of their background and geography. With the dilution of constituency size limits in 1962 and their subsequent removal in 1973, the EC should draw constituencies such that the number of electors among constituencies within the state is approximately equal, with exceptions given for constituencies in rural areas. This exception to equality was based on the grounds of difficulty in reaching electors and other disadvantages where a weightage of areas should be given. To comply with the weightage of area principle, the EC proceeded to classify constituencies as either city, major urban, minor urban, or rural areas (which are not defined clearly in the 1974 redelineation report).

Equalisation of voting power should not be viewed within state boundaries only. Up to 1973, the EC had the power to add or remove federal constituencies throughout Peninsular Malaysia so that the voting power of every state was more or less equal. The 1973 legislation resulted in inequality of voting power, where Kelantan, Terengganu, and Pahang gained in the process, while voters from parts of Selangor that became Kuala Lumpur were the losers. A voter in Terengganu had 1.6 times more voting power than his or her counterparts in Kuala Lumpur.

When we compare the largest federal constituency against the smallest federal constituency in terms of electorate size, we can assign small credit to the EC for reducing the gap from 4.8 times (pre-redelineation) to 3.1 times (post-redelineation). Since there are no prescribed limits for constituency electorate size, we can use Merdeka-era limits (+/-15% from the state EQ) to assess the implications of the EC’s proposed boundaries. The 1974 redelineation led to more federal constituencies heading towards more equalised outcomes (with all constituencies in Perlis and Kuala Lumpur being within +/-15% of the state EQ). However, the 1974 redelineation worsened the inequality of state constituencies (only improvements were found in Kedah and Selangor).

An examination of constituency electorate size by urbanisation level (using the Global Human Settlement Layer) and ethnicity reveals distinct implications of the 1974 redelineation. The 1970 census indicated that 27.8% of the population resided in urban areas and the majority of urban residents were Chinese (58.5%). When examined from an ethnic lens, the Chinese-majority constituencies were above the average Malayan federal constituency size. Malay-majority and mixed constituencies were below the average Malayan federal constituency size. However, the largest constituency formed in the 1974 redelineation was Johor Baru, which was an extremely oversized Malay-majority constituency. When examined by urbanisation type, the patterns are clearer. Urban federal constituencies were above the average Malayan federal constituency size, semi-urban were closer to equal size, and rural were below the average. In the state of Perak, Jalong (Sungai Siput) and Kelian Pauh (Taiping) were Chinese-majority, but Jalong voters had twice the voting power of those in Kelian Pauh. This could be due to the fact that Kelian Pauh was an urban constituency while Jalong was a semi-urban constituency.

Gerrymandering

Malayan electoral boundaries started with malapportionment that was built in in 1954. The 1958 and 1960 redelineation exercises did not indicate political motivations influencing electoral boundaries (as the EC was then fiercely independent). From the mid-1960s onwards, the independence of the EC was undermined by the presence of former party members as commissioners, and the retirement of the EC chairman in 1967. Having said that, the EC was bold enough during the 1967/68–73 redelineation exercise to perform constituency distribution in Peninsular Malaysia (e.g., deducting two parliamentary constituencies from the Alliance’s bastion in Johor). Due to the absence of substantial information on this exercise, it would be inconclusive to point out the existence of gerrymandering (manipulation of electoral boundaries for political advantage) at that time.

After the formation of Malaysia in 1963, there were no additions of states or territories in Peninsular Malaysia until 1973. The 1973 legislation carved out Kuala Lumpur from Selangor, and this dramatically altered the ethnic composition of the state of Selangor (which nearly fell into the hands of the opposition during the 1969 elections) from a slight Chinese-majority electorate state (35.3% Malay, 50.1% Chinese, 13.4% Indians) to a mixed state (46.5% Malay, 38.9% Chinese, 14.7% Indians). In the process of losing the Kuala Lumpur area, it is estimated Selangor lost six to seven state seats (from the original 28 state constituency count). Having said that, Selangor had a net increase of five state constituencies (from 28 pre-redelineation to 33 post-redelineation). While there is no information on which were the new seats, it is estimated that 11 new state constituencies were formed, most of them Malay-majority. Together with boundary alterations, the Selangor state constituency makeup showed that any political party with a strong Malay base could win the Malay-majority constituencies (now commanding a majority constituency type in Selangor) and form the government alone.

Formerly Seremban Barat, Mantin was a mixed constituency created during the 1974 redelineation exercise. In Negri Sembilan, there were no constituency count changes for the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Undangan Negeri (six and 24, respectively). Two federal constituencies, Seremban Barat and Seremban Timor, are worth studying for gerrymandering. Seremban Barat was renamed Mantin during the 1974 redelineation exercise, and Mantin received a very complex constituency shape (as it absorbed the state seat of Rantau and parts of Sungei Ujong from Seremban Timor). Seremban Timor, renamed Seremban, absorbed Bukit Nanas (renamed Rasah) from the former Seremban Barat. The resulting situation reduced the number of Chinese-majority federal constituencies from 2 to 1 in Negri Sembilan (as Mantin is now a mixed constituency). Chinese voters were packed into Seremban.

The net effect of this redelineation exercise for Peninsular Malaysia was a net increase of 19 Malay-majority federal constituencies, a reduction of four Chinese-majority federal constituencies, and a reduction of five mixed constituencies.

While there is no official list of the 10 new federal constituencies, map comparisons revealed that the vast majority of new constituencies are Malay-majority but largely assigned to Umno. As Barisan Nasional has co-opted former opposition parties, PAS and Gerakan received crumbs from the list of these constituencies.

Nature of the redelineation process

While the constitution gives the EC two years to complete the redelineation exercise, the EC completed the process in about a year. As the basis for redelineation hinges on the electoral roll, there were doubts about the electoral roll used for the redelineation exercise. According to Sothi, it seemed the EC redrew and created constituencies on an electoral roll that could have included 80,000 non-existent electors.

When the constituency delineation report was presented to parliament, the redelineation report finalised the constituency allocation and its makeup except for the state of Johor. The 1974 redelineation report listed the federal constituencies, state constituencies, and polling districts under them for Johor at the point when the EC submitted the report to the prime minister (on July 22, 1974). Between July 22 and 23, 1974, when the redelineation report was presented by the prime minister to Dewan Rakyat, the EC’s proposal for Johor constituencies was substantially modified. These proposals worsened the malapportionment of the constituency of Johor Bahru, brought about a highly irregular constituency shape for Sri Gading, and further divided electoral strength among communities. Then Members of parliament weren’t fully made aware of the changes, and limited information was communicated about them. While there was opposition from the Dewan Rakyat who voiced objections to these changes, the strong dominance of Barisan Nasional ensured the effective passing of the redelineated boundaries. On July 26, 1974, the redelineation was gazetted, and four days later, parliament was dissolved.

Conclusion

With the co-option of former opposition parties, advantages of incumbency, and disunity in the remaining opposition parties, Barisan Nasional won 104 out of 114 Dewan Rakyat (Peninsular Malaysia) constituencies (including 32 won unopposed for the Peninsular Malaysia side) and 283 out of 312 state constituencies in Peninsular Malaysia (43 won unopposed). The 1974 redelineation ensured the primary voting base for Barisan Nasional retained its electoral advantage. Such approaches of the 1974 redelineation worked well for subsequent elections until the 1990 elections when major fissures manifested in the Malay voting base. Having said that, the 1974 redelineation highlights the importance of returning to clearly defined limits on constituency electorate sizes and safeguards against gerrymandering. The 1974 redelineation serves as another reminder of the need for an independent boundary delineation body to propose and enforce electoral boundaries. May the 1974 redelineation exercise serve as a useful lesson in arguing for fair electoral boundaries. – July 31, 2024.

* Danesh Prakash Chacko is director of electoral reform group Tindak Malaysia.
 

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.