In the aftermath of May 5th (part 8) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
Hence the percentage in votes has never matched the percentage in seats. This has always been the case since Merdeka and is called gerrymandering, perfectly legal all over the world unless that particular country passes a law where the variance between seats must be within plus-minus 10% or 15% (something I have been talking about since 1999).
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Anwar vows never to surrender until GE13 results validated
(The Malaysian Insider) – Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim vowed last night never to surrender Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) fight to ensure the pact claims its rightful place in Putrajaya, maintaining his stance that Barisan Nasional (BN) had cheated its way to victory on May 5.
***************************************************
I followed the rally in Ipoh last night (on live streaming) and would like to touch on what Dr. Lee Boon Chye and Anwar Ibrahim said in that rally.
Dr Lee lamented that he won with a majority of only 15,000 votes while if there had not been any cheating he would have won with a majority of 30,000 instead. Anwar, on the other hand, said since Pakatan Rakyat won with more than 51% of the popular votes this proves that Barisan Nasional lost the election. Furthermore, he had known as early as 7.00pm (even as the votes were still being counted) that Pakatan Rakyat had won.
Okay, I would like to talk about three very crucial issues here, two of those issues that I have been talking about for a very long time since 1999. And the first issue is about gerrymandering or the fallacy of popular votes while the second issue is about crowds.
On Sunday, 5th May 2013, Barisan Nasional won less than 50% of the popular votes and yet it still won almost 60% of the seats in Parliament. Hence this is the evidence of fraud, said Anwar, because it is impossible to win less than 50% of the popular votes and still win the election.
Well, in that case, look at the following results of the last 12 general elections from 1959 to 2008 and tell me: is it impossible?
Even in the worse election for the ruling party, 1969, they won less than 50% of the votes but yet were only 0.7% short of getting a two-thirds majority in Parliament. One more seat and the Alliance Party would have controlled two-thirds of Parliament.
Hence the percentage in votes has never matched the percentage in seats. This has always been the case since Merdeka and is called gerrymandering, perfectly legal all over the world unless that particular country passes a law where the variance between seats must be within plus-minus 10% or 15% (something I have been talking about since 1999).
So, how can Anwar say Pakatan Rakyat won the election since it won more than 51% of the seats? I have warned Pakatan Rakyat that Barisan Nasional can win 45% of the popular votes and still form the government with a simple majority and that if Pakatan Rakyat wants to take over it needs to win about 60% of the popular votes (based on the current system).
The next point I have always talked about, and which was the basis of my Harakah article back in March 2000 regarding the Sanggang by-election (the article was called ‘Crowds do NOT translate to votes’) is that, well, crowds do not translate to votes.
For the first time in Malaysian history, there was a huge crowd in the usually ‘sleepy’ town of Sanggang and the traffic jam into town was five kilometres long. Judging by the crowd alone, PAS had definitely won that by-election. When the votes were counted, however, Umno won 6,743 votes against Hishamuddin Yahya of PAS’s 4,780 votes.
Hishamuddin Yahya, the Managing Director of Harakah, published my article because, according to what he told me, he agreed with what I said and felt that the opposition should seriously take note of this very important point.
But they did not. In January 2002, there were large crowds at the opposition rallies during the Indera Kayangan by-election. I had to park my car three kilometres from the ceramah and walk the rest of the way because of the massive jam. The crowd was at least 50,000 or more.
Earlier, I drove pass Menteri Besar Shahidan Kassim’s residence and saw less than 100 people there. No way MCA was going to win. Cikgu Khoo from PKR was definitely going to win and PKR forecasted a majority of at least 2,500 votes. When the votes were counted, it was indeed a majority of 2,500 votes but in favour of MCA, not PKR.
That is the reality but the opposition never listens and still thinks that crowds of 50,000 or 100,000 at their ceramah means they are going to win the election. This has never been the case and it is time that the opposition wise up to this reality. You need to win seats, not crowds at your ceramah, to win the election.
I shall continue this ‘story’ in the next episode because Malaysia Today readers get very upset when my articles run into more than two pages.
TO BE CONTINUED
**************************************************
5月5之後（八）
所以說選票的巴仙率從來都不等于議席的巴仙率。自獨立以來情況就是這樣的了，這英文就叫做 gerrymandering，是個100%合法而全球多個國家都採用的做法，除非那個國家有明文規定所有選區的選民人數差別不可超過10%/15%（我直1999年就開始強調這點了）。
原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin
譯文：方宙
我昨晚透過綫上的直播來觀看怡保的集會，我要看看安華和李文才醫生到底講了些什麽。
李醫生認爲如果此次的大選沒有舞弊的話，他將會以3万票勝出而不是現在的1万5千票。另一方面安華則強調，既然民聯奪得51%的選票那就代表囯陣已經輸掉大選了。再者，他早在晚上7點時（他們還在算選票時）就知道民聯經已獲勝了。
那好，在此我想跟你們談談三件很重要的事情，其中兩項是直1999年以來我就不斷地提醒你們的：第一是選區分佈，第二則是人群出席數的問題。
囯陣在5月5贏得了少過50%的選票但卻拿下了多過60%的囯席。這對安華來講就是舞弊的證據，因爲你沒有可能在贏得少過50%選票的情況下還能在大選勝出。
請看看下表列出的12個大選成績，然後請告訴我：這真的沒有可能嗎？
在1969年的大選，執政黨迎來了最差的成績；但即使他們只贏得了少過50%的選票，他們還是奪得了約66%的囯席，而且只要他們再奪得一席的話，他們就能以2/3多議席執政了。
所以說選票的巴仙率從來都不等于議席的巴仙率。自獨立以來情況就是這樣的了，這英文就叫做 gerrymandering，是個100%合法而全球多個國家都採用的做法，除非哪個國家有明文規定所有選區的選民人數差別不可超過10%/15%（我直1999年就開始強調這點了）。
所以安華他怎麽可以講説民聯因取得了51%的選票就贏得了大選呢？我早就警告過民聯，依據現今的系統，囯陣單靠45%的選票就可以執政了，但如果民聯想要推翻囯陣的話那他們至少得贏得60%的選票。
下一個課題我想講的，也是我曾在2000年3月Sanggang補選期間在Harakah刊登的文章的中心點（那篇文章題爲“人群並不代表選票”），也就是人群並不代表選票
Sanggang當時見證了史上第一次的人潮大聚集，這個‘沉睡的城市’當時的堵車車龍長達5公里。單看當時的人群出席率，伊黨鐵定會贏得此次的補選，但儅結果出爐時，巫統竟以6743票擊敗了伊黨的Hishamuddin Yahya。Hishamuddin Yahya也是Harakah的管理總監，根據他的説法，他是因爲很認同我的論點和很想把我的論點傳達給反對黨所以才把我的文章發表在他們的黨報上面的。
但他們並沒有聼進耳裏。2002年1月，Indera Kayangan 補選，反對黨當然也舉辦了助選集會。我當時因爲堵車堵得太過分而必須把車停在距離演講會的3公里処再步行到達集會。當時大約有5万人出席吧。
在那之前，我駕車經過州務大臣Shahidan Kassim的住所，看到那裏只有少過100個人，所以馬華根本就贏不了吧。公正黨的朱老師看起來也一樣鐵定會贏得那次的補選，他們預測他會以2500多數票勝出。開票時，沒錯，多數票是2500，但是馬華的2500票而不是公正黨的。
這就是現實，但反對黨永遠都聼不進腦子裏。他們到現在還以爲只要有5万人10万人出席他們的講座會他們就鐵定會贏得大選。但情況一直都不是這樣子的嘛！他們必須得開始接受現實：你需要囯席來贏得大選，而不是講座會的人群。
我想我必須在此停筆，在下一篇文章才繼續我的‘故事’；儅我寫長過兩頁時，MT的讀者是會發飆的。
（敬請期待下一篇文章）
