Sarawak’s Delineation: A Test for the Election Commission’s Credibility

Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS), the ruling coalition in Sarawak, is widely expected to remain a pivotal bloc in the next general election (GE16). With the Sarawak state elections due by April 2027, an upcoming redrawing of constituency boundaries now carries wider implications.

The delineation exercise in the state is occurring against a backdrop of Sarawak’s growing political assertiveness. It commands the largest state budget, and the symbolic elevation of its chief executive from “chief minister” to “premier” underscores a confidence that distinguishes Sarawak from the rest of the federation. The emboldened state leadership has sought to consolidate its bargaining power by pressing for more parliamentary seats for Sarawak and Sabah (the Borneo bloc) in the upcoming delineation, which is conducted periodically by the Election Commission (EC) to reflect population changes and ensure that each seat carries roughly the same number of voters.

In July 2025, the Sarawak state assembly approved an increase of state seats from 82 to 99 for the legislature. A state government spokesperson said the move is necessary to keep pace with Sarawak’s changing demographics, rapid urbanisation, and demands for fairer representation. As the power to determine the legislature’s size rests with lawmakers rather than the EC, the seat increase approved by the state assembly necessitated a new round of boundary delineation by the EC. On paper, the process is initiated by the EC and must go through public consultation and parliamentary (federal) approval.

There is a time constraint driven by political considerations for this delineation: GPS leaders want the exercise completed before the state election deadline in 2027, having publicly signalled plans to expand the state Cabinet as the assembly grows to 99 seats. The coalition holds a supermajority in the state assembly, after winning more than 90 per cent of seats in the 2021 state election. For the next term, they want the legislature to reflect the expanded size of the state assembly (99 assemblypersons). GPS, however, does not control the re-delineation process, which rests with the EC.

The issue gained renewed attention in March 2026, when a leaked 98‑slide presentation surfaced online. The leak was published by Dayak Daily and Malaysiakini, reportedly detailing how the 17 new Sarawak state seats would be apportioned among GPS component parties. Although the authenticity of the leak cannot be independently verified, it corroborated an earlier Free Malaysia Today (FMT) report from July 2025. The FMT report cited an internal source to reveal that 10 of the 17 new seats have been earmarked for Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB), the largest party in GPS. If confirmed, the 17 new seats would make the dominant party in the coalition the main beneficiary of the proposed expansion.

State opposition leader Chong Chieng Jen from DAP Sarawak has rejected the proposed delineation after reviewing the leaked document, saying it dilutes urban votes (ethnic minority Chinese voters are concentrated in urban and town-centre seats, where they form between 30 and 70 per cent in urban constituencies) and breaches constitutional requirements for broadly equal-sized constituencies. Prominent figures such as Violet Yong and Kelvin Yii argue, quite correctly, that the new seats favour GPS strongholds and question why seat numbers are not expected to rise in the capital despite increases proposed for smaller constituencies. In addition, an MP has urged the EC to use the delineation to correct long‑standing voter imbalances.

Civil society and academics have also raised concerns. A joint statement by five civil society groups (Projek Sama, Bersih, Engage, ROSE Sarawak, and Tindak Malaysia) raised the alarm over a possible lack of electoral integrity and called for an impartial process. Political scientist Wong Chin Huat also correctly underscored that the EC’s impartiality is at stake, as an EC proposal that resembles the leaked version allegedly attributed to GPS would risk creating the impression that constituency boundaries are being drawn to align with the coalition’s interests.

Nonetheless, the state government is unfazed. Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah, the ruling party’s information chief, has dismissed the claims as rumours but maintained that it was “not wrong” for political parties to discuss potential new constituencies.

The reported delineation is now being overshadowed by allegations that outcomes may have been pre-determined by partisan interests. If it is allowed to proceed unchecked, it risks damaging public confidence in the EC’s impartiality.

Ultimately, if Sarawak’s delineation is allowed to proceed without robust scrutiny, it risks eroding public confidence in the EC’s credibility.

The EC also faces a credibility test arising from Borneo’s demands for at least one-third of parliamentary seats, framed as a safeguard against unilateral constitutional amendments by Peninsular Malaysia. This is because major constitutional changes require a two‑thirds majority, a threshold that Peninsular MPs can currently meet without support from Borneo representatives. While the EC is likely to be confined to the upcoming delineation of Sarawak’s state seats, boundary changes to parliamentary seats will loom in the background, since this will eventually be done in a subsequent exercise. The reported delineation in Sarawak is therefore likely to be calibrated with a future parliamentary review in mind — one that reflects Sarawak’s growing political clout and could alter the national balance of power.

Borneo’s push for veto power coincides with a rise in regionalist sentiment, including calls for greater autonomy and even a borderline secessionist movement known as “Sarawak for Sarawakians” (S4S). The political consequence was evident in Sabah’s 2025 state election, where Peninsular-based parties were routed.

The one-third proposal runs counter to the principle of one person, one vote. The Borneo states are already overrepresented relative to their electorate. Despite possessing only 17 per cent of the electorate, Sarawak and Sabah possess 25 per cent of seats in the Dewan Rakyat (Table 1). Further expanding their share would exacerbate disparities in the value of votes, known as malapportionment.

One way to measure malapportionment between East and West Malaysia is to calculate the number of voters per seat in each region. A single East Malaysian parliamentary seat holds 64,912 voters on average, compared to 106,060 voters for a West Malaysian seat (Table 2). The one-third proposal, based on a simulation that increases the seat count to 100 for East Malaysian seats and 200 for West Malaysian seats, would widen the disparity. This would result in East Malaysian seats catering to just 37,000 voters on average, versus 87,500 for West Malaysian seats. This is one way of expressing malapportionment, whereby the “value” of votes in smaller-population seats exceeds that of voters in larger seats.

Over-represented

Table 1: Vote and seat shares of Peninsular and East Malaysia

Region	Number of voters	% of electorate	Number of parliamentary seats	% of parliamentary seats
Peninsular Malaysia	17.5 million	83%	165	74%
East Malaysia	3.7 million	17%	57	26%
Total	21.2 million	100%	222	100%

Overvalued Borneo Voters?

Table 2: Malapportionment under status quo vs one-third proposal

Metric	Status quo (222 parliamentary seats)	One-third proposal *simulation of 300 parliamentary seats with one-third allocated to East Malaysia
East Malaysia (EM) seats (% total)	57 (26%)	100 (33.3%)
West Malaysia (WM) seats (% total)	165 (74%)	200 (66.7%)
Number of voters per seat (EM)	64,912	37,000
Number of voters per seat (WM)	106,060	87,500
Malapportionment ratio = B/A	1.6	2.4

Table 3: Malapportionment measured by seats per 100,000 voters

Metric	Status quo (222 parliamentary seats)	One-third proposal *simulation of 300 parliamentary seats with one-third allocated to East Malaysia
East Malaysia voters	3.7 million	3.7 million
West Malaysia voters	17.5 million	million
(C) Seats per 100k voters (EM)	1.5	2.7
(D) Seats per 100k voters (WM)	0.9	1.1
Malapportionment ratio = C/D	1.6	2.4

A perhaps more intuitive way to illustrate the disparity in representation is by computing the inverse — that is, the number of seats per 100,000 voters. From this angle, the disparity translates into 1.5 seats per 100,000 East Malaysian voters versus 0.95 seat per 100,000 West Malaysian voters. If the one-third proposal is passed, East Malaysian voters would be boosted to 2.7 seats per 100,000 voters, whereas the ratio for West Malaysian voters only marginally increases to 1.1. The malapportionment ratio encapsulating this problem would expand from 1.6 to 2.4. Whether it is expressed as number of voters per seat or seats per 100,000 voters, the result is the same: that is a malapportionment ratio of 1.6 under the status quo, which will widen to 2.4 under the one-third proposal (see Table 3).

Ultimately, if Sarawak’s delineation is allowed to proceed without robust scrutiny, it risks eroding public confidence in the EC’s credibility. The implications could carry over to future delineation exercises, particularly when Peninsular Malaysia’s electoral map is under review. Given that boundary reviews occur only once every decade or so, any loss of trust at this juncture could have lasting consequences for the integrity of Malaysia’s electoral process and the broader political landscape.

2026/115