Categories

Login

政治 >>>

选区分割不需要2/3多数票,只需超过一半的国会议员支持就可以通过

本人虽不是律师,至少还能了解大马的宪法的第十三附表(Thirteen Schedule)关于选区再分割的条文,宪法也明文写着国会只需超过一半的人数就可以通过选区再分割的提案。

国会里头有法律专业资格的议员没有五十个也有二、三十个,民联的倪可敏本身就是一名律师,还有大名鼎鼎的卡巴星,却一直以来没有任何议员出来纠正选区再分割需要2/3多数票的错误。

更令人难以置信的是选举委员会也曾公开说出选区分割提案需要2/3多数票的言论。

从这一小事得到的教诲,本人敢敢道出我国的国会从议长到国会议员的素质是何其低落,国会议员连宪法的内容都搞不清楚,何来威信去定法制宪。他们在国会的吵架斗嘴功夫倒是一流!

民联不分皂白就发表文告说四位议员半年内被禁止出席国会会影响到2/3的份额也是另一项不明白宪法的例子。

安华不被国会特委会招见去解释对APCO的指责的案件已破坏国会的公信力,然后民联再闹出2/3会变动和选区分割需要2/3多数票的种种歪论,足可见马来西亚的国会的水准和公信力已沦落到马戏团的地步。

http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/151173

The nkkhoo.com comment board with Facebook account.
anonymous says:

Mr Khoo,
Can you explain the definition of “选区分割”, is either
Case 1-adjustment number of constituency (like forming new Putrajaya seat from existing Sepang/Serdang); or
Case 2-restructure electoral boundary (just for example-transfer polling area of kampung kerinci from constituency Lembah pantai to Seputeh)

Most people concern should be Case 1, where article 46 should amend based on provision of article 159 (3). (reply to your statement “坦白讲宪法没提到增加选区要2/3”.

I believe your understanding should be case 2,(your statement “Constituency delineation can move around voters to …), where thirteen schedule should read in conjunction of article 116 and 117.

Actually, everyone able to move from one constituency to another (for example from Pandan to Cheras) through election commission by showing changing of home address. what’s the big matter?

Your profound knowledge should used to contribute better nationhood of malaysia and better of personality. By throwing “regime-look-alike” sentence to common people, eventually harm your reputation, even you are right.

nkkhoo says:

Changing your constituency after moving to a new place is nothing to do with constituency delineation. Constituency delineation can be case 1 or case 2 or both.

Moving a block of voters by EC is not a small matter for those close fight constituencies.

Clause 46 has to be amended for adding any new constituency in a state or Federal Territory, that is a clear case of constitution amendment, although it is affected under the delineation exercise.

Stop saying nonsense, there are BN and PR hardcore supporters who disregard any fact unfavored to their parties.

kelvin lee says:

i am a pure malaysian care of politic, according to major press report, any constitution amendment need 2/3 of total number of MP is not wrong. I don’t think the major press will give such kind of wrong information like constitution.

nkkhoo says:

Believe any source blindly is worst than no source.

Go study Malaysia constitution phrase by phrase, there is exception rule for 2/3 policy.

BN may able to pass amendment on Kampung Baru Malay land bill with the ejection of 4 PR MPs. The change of Malay reserve land title only need 2/3 of number MP presence, not the total number of MP.

anonymous says:

I confused to your statement,
Anyway, I understated what is different of act (like ISA) and constitution (like article 153-malay rights)

According to constitution:
Article 46- stated number of parliament members (increase/decrease of MP)
Article 113 (3A)- where number of MP against to article 46, election commission shall review division of constituency provision to thirteen schedule
Article 159 (3)- Any amendment on constitution shall supported by votes not less than 2/3 of MP.

Barisan knew the important of 2/3 majority in parliament, as they fight such long. Whereas simple majority applied only to pass act/enactment or budget.

(source refer to http://www.pogar.org/publications/other/constitutions/malaysia-e.pdf)

nkkhoo says:

Any constitution amendment needs 2/3 of total number of MP except for Malay land title conversion where 2/3 of MP presence in the parliament session is good enough.

Your source is wrong, in article 66, not 46 mentions constitution amendment needs at least 2/3 of total MP approval. Article 46 only stipulates the number of MP in Malaysia is 180.

No matter how many opposition MPs are ejected, the total number of MP of is remained the same.

Constituency delineation can move around voters to favor BN with the simple majority.

Adrian says:

您有听说过或看过国会选区重新分割之后,国会议席不会增加的吗?

如果真的没增加,那可能你说得对。

但事实却不是,大家都知道这不可能发生。那您认为,需不需要2/3?

nkkhoo says:

先去学过历史和宪法才回来放话。

每八到十年就要重划选区,在未增加选区下,重划选区已不知进行了多少次。

坦白讲宪法没提到增加选区要2/3。你能找到那一项宪法条文来反驳本人吗?

你本身曾读过宪法吗? 还是人云亦云,道听途说就想学人做无牌的loyar buruk。

anonymous says:

Be patient…
DAP had rejected resolution to redraw state assembly seats in 1990-1995, when they possessed over 1/3 seats(13 out of 33). And again, PAS-PKR did the same on 1999-2004 session (13 out of 36).
That’s some facts on history…

nkkhoo says:

Even 100 voters outside the parliament can reject resolution for at least one time.

The 2/3 majority is needed only for increment in parliament seats (still no evidence to support this claim), redrawing constituency area does not require 2/3.

anti ISA says:

after see your notice, i found out you are bull shit.
plz go check malaysia law before you want to comment!
your brainless causing a lot people laugh at you only.

What notice I served to you idiot? This idiot cannot even write a proper English.

Ask DAP Karpal Singh to sue me for saying him is an ignorant lawyer in this 2/3 issue.

alan says:

根据《联邦宪法》第159(3)条款,除非得到不少于国会三分二议员票数(votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of that house)的支持,否认不可修宪

nkkhoo says:

I was misled by PR on 2/3 majority is reduced after the unlawful ejection of 4 MPs.

I have already explained that mistake in another posting written in Chinese and also in Anil Netto’s blog prior to your reply.

People still mistaken constituency delineation is a kind of constitutional amendment, which is not true. Thirteen schedule clearly stated constituency delineation only need a simple majority.