IN recent days, a commentary by political scientist Wong Chin Huat questioning whether the Election Commission (EC) is delimiting Sarawak’s electoral boundaries at the instruction of Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) has sparked debate.
While academic scrutiny of democratic processes is both welcome and necessary, it is equally important that such scrutiny remains grounded in constitutional fact and verifiable data. When speculation is presented as analysis, it risks undermining public confidence in institutions without adequate justification.
The accusation that Sarawak’s seat expansion and the subsequent delimitation exercise are somehow orchestrated by GPS deserves careful examination, and a sober rebuttal.
At the heart of the issue is the decision by the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly in 2025 to increase the number of state seats from 82 to 99. This move was debated openly in the legislature and passed through an amendment to the State Constitution. It was neither a secretive manoeuvre nor an administrative shortcut.
Once the number of seats in a legislature is altered, the Federal Constitution requires the EC to conduct a review of electoral boundaries. Under Article 113(3A), delimitation becomes a constitutional obligation of the EC following such changes. In other words, the current review is not an optional political exercise but a legal duty mandated by the Constitution itself, one that requires compelling evidence rather than conjecture.
Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) Batu Lintang information chief Hadzman Johny has rightly described the accusation as speculative and misleading.
“First, delimitation is a constitutional duty of the EC under Article 113, not the prerogative of any political party. Suggesting institutional capture without concrete evidence is irresponsible and undermines public trust.
“Second, political parties proposing ideal constituency maps is normal in any democracy. Proposals do not equal control. By that logic, any map produced by academics or NGOs would also imply manipulation.
“Third, critics from Malaya often ignore Sarawak’s geographic realities. Constituencies here are not compact urban districts but vast territories with scattered settlements, poor connectivity, and difficult terrain.
The Constitution itself recognises this through ‘weightage for area’ for rural constituencies.
Hadzman’s point goes to the heart of the debate. Sarawak cannot be analysed through the lens of urban Malayan politics alone. Comparing a densely populated parliamentary seat such as Bandar Kuching with massive interior regions like Baram or Kapit as if they operate under identical logistical conditions reflects a misunderstanding of Sarawak’s geography.
Baram alone is larger than the entire state of Perak. Kapit is almost the size of Negeri Sembilan. In many parts of these constituencies, communities are separated by vast rivers, forests and mountains, and some settlements are accessible only by boat or logging roads. Representing such areas requires far more time, resources and travel than representing a compact urban constituency.
This is precisely why the Federal Constitution allows what is known as “rural weightage”. The 13th Schedule explicitly permits deviation from strict voter equality when geographical size, accessibility, and rural disadvantage are taken into account.
Hadzman elaborates on this point clearly. “Sarawak has long river systems and poor infrastructure in some regions, which make interior settlements accessible only by boat or logging roads. This is exactly why rural weightage exists.”
Critics who focus solely on voter numbers without acknowledging these structural realities risk ignoring the very constitutional principles designed to ensure fair representation for remote communities. Equally important is the fact that malapportionment, namely disparities in voter numbers between constituencies, is not unique to Sarawak.
Across Malaysia, some constituencies have significantly larger electorates than others. In Malaya, urban parliamentary seats such as Bangi, Sungai Buloh and Damansara have more than 150,000 voters, while smaller constituencies like Putrajaya have around 18,000.
These differences exist due to demographic concentration, urbanisation patterns and administrative considerations. If disparities alone are to be labelled as gerrymandering, then the accusation would have to apply to the entire Malaysian electoral system. Not just Sarawak!
Another key aspect often overlooked is the uneven population distribution across the state. Sarawak’s population is concentrated in a handful of urban centres such as Kuching, Sibu, Miri and Bintulu. Beyond these cities lies a vast rural and interior landscape inhabited by numerous indigenous communities.
If electoral representation were determined strictly by voter numbers alone, large rural regions would inevitably lose political representation, leaving many communities effectively voiceless. In a state as geographically expansive and culturally diverse as Sarawak, the expansion of legislative seats is therefore not merely a political decision but a practical necessity.
Local political analyst Abang Zaabar Abang Ballia has also questioned the assumptions underlying Wong’s argument.
“The accusation that the Election Commission is drawing Sarawak’s electoral map based on GPS’ instructions is purely speculative. The claim relies on an unverified ‘leaked’ slides and assumes guilt before the EC has even published its proposal.
“Political parties planning seat allocations is normal practice, and drawing alternative constituency maps is not illegal. Malaysia’s Constitution also allows rural weightage, which is especially relevant in a vast state like Sarawak,” says Zaabar.
His observation highlights another important point: the so-called “leaked slides” cited by Wong have not been independently verified. Even the original report acknowledges that these slides are merely “suspected” GPS documents. Without authentication or proof that the EC has adopted them, treating them as definitive evidence of manipulation is premature.
Political parties, civil society groups, and academics frequently produce their own hypothetical maps during delimitation discussions. These are proposals or political wish lists, not official boundaries. Ultimately, the EC alone determines the final delimitation proposal.
Moreover, once the EC publishes its proposed boundaries, the process does not end there. The Constitution provides for a public objection period, during which stakeholders, political parties and members of the public may raise objections or propose revisions. This built-in mechanism ensures transparency and accountability. Until the EC releases its official proposal, claims of collusion remain speculative, argues Zaabar.
Sarawak’s political landscape is complex and unique. It cannot be reduced to simplistic narratives of gerrymandering without taking into account the state’s geography, demographics, and constitutional safeguards. As analysts and commentators, we have a responsibility to ensure that criticism is informed by context rather than assumption.
Academic debate is healthy. But when speculation is framed as established fact, it risks eroding public trust in democratic institutions that are already under intense scrutiny. Sarawak is not a tidy electoral map drawn on a lecture slide. It is a vast territory with rivers instead of highways, longhouses instead of apartment blocks, and communities scattered across some of the most challenging terrain in Southeast Asia.
Understanding that reality is essential before passing judgment. The expansion of Sarawak’s state seats and the ensuing delimitation exercise should therefore be viewed within the framework of constitutional procedure and geographical necessity, and not as evidence of political manipulation!
Sarawak is not a political experiment to be interpreted from afar through theory and speculation. Any discussion about its electoral boundaries must begin with reality, not abstract assumptions. Criticism is welcome in any democracy, but it must be anchored in facts, not conjecture.
Until the EC completes its constitutional duty and presents its official proposal, accusations of manipulation remain precisely what they are: speculation. And in the serious business of democracy, speculation should never be mistaken for truth.
Before judging Sarawak’s map, one must first understand Sarawak itself.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at rajlira@gmail.com
