Look at it closely again（UPDATED with Chinese translation)

ARCHIVES 2013

By MT Webmaster On Jun 15, 2013

Hence DAP and PAS did not do too badly in the votes versus seats comparison. It is PKR’s performance that upset these figures. And this is because DAP contested in the predominantly Chinese areas and PAS in the predominantly Malay areas while PKR contested in the ‘mixed’ areas. Hence Pakatan Rakyat’s performance in the mixed areas was not that good, thus bringing down Pakatan Rakyat’s performance.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

However in a show of unlimited stupidity, BN’s cybertroopers argue that BN has got more popular votes than either DAP, PKR or PAS based on an individual party basis. Their contention is that the opposition’s popular votes have to be pegged to the individual parties and not Pakatan Rakyat as a whole because Pakatan is not a registered entity with the Registrar Of Societies (ROS).

Of course Pakatan is not a registered entity. We do not need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce who is the one blocking Pakatan from getting registered as a single coalition.

In the realm of social media especially in Facebook, those who are pro-Pakatan have shot down the arguments of the BN cybertroopers with comments such as “Have you taken your daily dose of medicine?” or “Janganlah bergaya sangat nak tunjukkan kebodohan awak tu.”

Although BN has won more seats than Pakatan, the fact that they have lost the popular vote must be gnawing at their gut. And this makes them come up with nonsensical and irrational arguments beyond the realm of logic.

Simply put, BN won due to the votes of ignorant voters and due to seat-shenanigans (rural areas having less voters but given more seats). Therefore they are now trying to “recapture” the popular vote via some spin in order to regain some sort of credibility. Nonetheless it is a futile attempt. — (Selena Tay)

************************************************

That was what Selena Tay wrote today in Free Malaysia Today. And since Selena is a DAP activist and supporter it is quite natural that she wrote the way she did although you may be of the opinion that what she wrote is very biased and one-sided. Nevertheless, to accuse her of lying or of distorting facts would not be accurate or fair because she is merely expressing what she believes to be the truth. And the truth comes in many shapes, sizes and colours.

For example, a staunch and committed Muslim who writes or gives his/her opinion on Islam would say that Islam is the true religion (while all other religions are false) and that the only way you are going to get into heaven is to follow Prophet Muhammad and believe in the Qur’an, Hadith and Sunnah because on Judgment Day only the followers of Muhammad will enter heaven.

On the other hand, a staunch and committed Christian who writes or gives his/her opinion on Christianity would say that Christianity is the true religion (while all other religions are false) and that the only way you are going to get into heaven is to follow Jesus Christ and believe in the Trinity and the Bible because on Judgment Day only the followers of Jesus will enter heaven.

Now, both these people (the Muslim and the Christian) believe what they say to be the truth and would stake their soul on it (which is actually what is happening anyway). They are not lying. They never intended to tell even one iota of a lie. They would swear on their life that what they say is God’s truth.

But then how can both be telling the truth when what they say contradicts each other? There can only be one truth while the other has to be a lie. Or can both actually be lies?

Well, that depends on what you believe. If you are a Muslim then you will say the Muslim chap is telling the truth while the Christian chap is lying whereas if you are a Christian you will say that the Christian chap is telling the truth while the Muslim chap is lying. And if you are a Jew you will say both the Muslim and Christian chaps are lying. Both statements are lies.

So you see, truth is very subjective and true and false depends on your belief system. A lie can be the truth and the truth can be a lie depending on what you believe. And belief is very powerful. Belief needs not be about facts or about the truth. It is about what you think is true or what you imagine is the truth. And that, basically, would be how you need to assess what Selena wrote above.

The point I am trying to make is you need to look at the graphics below, which was published today in another DAP leader’s Blog (Sakmongkol AK47). Selena is suggesting that Barisan Nasional garnered lesser votes than Pakatan Rakyat and therefore is not the legitimate government although it won more seats than Pakatan Rakyat (133 versus 89).

Of course, this is what she believes and we cannot fault her for what she believes since she is a DAP activist. Those who are on the ‘other side’ or who are neutral may not see it this way since Malaysia has adopted the British Westminster system of first-pass-the-post, which means majority seats and not majority votes gives you the government (and which has already been explained many times but which has fallen on deaf ears).

Now, is this so strange or weird? Well, look at the graphics below. DAP won 15.71% of the votes and 17.12% of the seats (not too bad in the votes versus seats balance). PAS, however, won almost the same number of votes (14.77%, which is 0.94% less than DAP) and yet it won only 9.46% of the seats (which is 7.66% less than DAP).

So, PAS won 0.94% votes less than DAP but it won 7.66% seats less than DAP. Would Selena regard this as fair or unfair? She did not offer any comment, of course.

PKR, on the other hand, won the highest number of votes (20.39%). Yet it won only 13.5% of the seats (which is lower than DAP but with more votes than DAP). Would Selena regard this as fair or unfair? She did not offer any comment, of course.

Okay, let us look at just DAP and PAS. Combined, they won 30.48% of the votes but they won only 26.58% of the seats. That is actually not too bad and almost balances in the votes versus seats analaysis. It is only when you add PKR’s performance that the combined figures (of all three) becomes 50.88% of the votes and merely 40.09% of the seats.

Hence the problem is not Pakatan Rakyat per se. Pakatan Rakyat — if only DAP and PAS were taken into consideration — actually performed quite okay in the votes versus seats analysis. It is only when you add PKR to it that the votes versus seats performance looks miserable.

Let’s look at another example. Umno, DAP and PAS combined won 59.8% of the votes and 66.22% of the seats. Then, Umno, PKR and PAS combined won 64.48% of the votes and 62.25% of the seats.

Can you see how the votes go up and the seats go down, and vice versa, when you change the ‘mix’?

Let me paint a new scenario. Say, PKR joins Barisan Nasional. What will we now see? The ‘new’ Barisan Nasional with PKR as a member would have won 67.79% of the votes (more than two-thirds of the votes) and 73.4% of the seats.

Okay, yet another scenario. Say, Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat both break up and Umno and PAS, for the sake of Malay-Muslim unity, form a unity government. Umno and PAS combined would have won 44.09% of the votes and 49.1% of the seats. And this would mean the Malay-Muslim unity government would now be kicked out unless some Malays from PKR cross over to join Umno-PAS.

And if the ‘others’ do not pass a vote of no confidence against Umno-PAS in Parliament (because they cannot come to a consensus) then Umno-PAS would rule with only 49.1% of the seats. Now that is what we would call a ‘minority government’ — a term that is being wrongly used to describe the current Barisan Nasional government that has 59.9% of the seats in Parliament.

Interesting is it not? And what is even more interesting is if Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat both break up and Umno and DAP form a unity government then they would have won 45.03% of the votes and yet they would win 56.76% of the seats (which means they would still rule with even lesser votes than the current Barisan Nasional).

Hence Barisan Nasional, in its present form, only has 47.4% of the votes and 59.9% of the seats while a new coalition of just Umno and DAP would be not that far off with 45.03% of the votes and yet they would win 56.76% of the seats.

In short, the real winners in the votes versus seats contest are Umno and DAP. The rest from both sides of the political divide are merely making up the numbers. A coalition of Umno and DAP can actually control the country between just the both of them. They do not need the rest.

Hmm…if Umno were to agree with what DAP wants and both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat were to disband then Umno and DAP can take Malaysia forward without the need of the rest of the ‘small players’.

That, of course, is never going to happen for very obvious reasons — which is Umno and DAP are on the reverse side of the same extremist and uncompromising coin. But then, putting personal party interest aside and for the sake of a better Malaysia, that may not be such a bad idea after all although there is no way in hell this can happen.

Selena needs to look at the fine details in analysing the real scenario. The issue of lesser votes and more seats or more votes and lesser seats cuts across both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. To say that Barisan Nasional won less votes and more seats (or vice versa) while ignoring the fact that the same thing also happened in Pakatan Rakyat is not a balanced analysis.

And another unfair statement from Selena is: “Of course Pakatan is not a registered entity. We do not need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce who is the one blocking Pakatan from getting registered as a single coalition.”

Has Pakatan Rakyat submitted its registration application? When was that and why has it not been approved yet? I do not have the details but since Selena brought it up then she should offer some details to support this allegation. And she had better get used to the fact that in the first-pass-the-post system you form the government based on majority seats and not majority votes. To argue otherwise is not only dishonest but demonstrates ignorance as well.

************************************************

讓我們再來詳細地看看

所以說行動黨和伊斯蘭黨在選票對席位的比例上交出了不錯的成績，只是公正黨的表現把這些數目給搞難看了。這是因爲行動黨/伊斯蘭黨一般都在華人區/馬來人區參選，而公正黨則在混合區參選。故此可看出民聯在混合區的表現其實是不大理想的，所以直接地拖垮了總體表現。

以上就是Selena Tay在FMT發表的文章。因爲她是個行動黨的鉄粉所以她文章的寫法是如此的。你可能會認爲她的寫法很不中立和偏袒某方，但如果你要指責她扭曲事實那是對她來講是很不公平的，因爲她只是寫出她認爲是事實的看法而已；而事實是有很多不同類型的。

打個比方，對一個虔誠的回教徒來講，儅別人問起他對宗教的看法時，他會講回教是唯一正確的宗教（其他宗教都是假的），而你唯一能上天堂的方法就是追隨先知默罕默德和相信古蘭經和其他回教聖經，因爲在世界末日那一天只有先知的追隨者能夠上天堂。

另一方面，一個虔誠的基督徒則會說基督教是唯一正確的宗教（其他宗教都是假的），而你唯一能上天堂的方法就是追隨耶穌基督和相信聖經，因爲在世界末日那一天只有耶穌的追隨者能夠上天堂。

好了，這兩個人都相信他們講的都是事實而願意以他們的靈魂來宣誓（這一切其實在現實世界裏都正在發生著）。他們都沒有撒謊，他們就連要吐出一字謊言的意念也沒有。他們回憶他們的生命來發誓他們所講的一切都是上帝的真言。

但他們兩怎能同時閒說真話而又彼此矛盾對方呢？那只能存在一個真理而另一個必須是謊言。抑或這兩都在説謊？

這真的很視乎你相信的到底是什麽。如果你是個回教徒你會講那個回教徒講的是真話而那個基督徒正撒謊，如果你是個基督徒則反之。而如果你是個猶太人的話你就會講他們兩都在説謊。

所以你看，真理其實是很主觀的而對錯全視乎你的信仰。一個謊言可以是真理和反之，全都視乎你到底在相信些什麽。信仰是很有威力的，它不在乎事實或真理。它在乎的是你認爲什麽是真的或你設想的真理是什麽樣子的。這基本上就是你必須用來理解Selena這篇文章的工具。

我要講的重點是，你必須去看看上方由另一行動黨領袖(Sakmongkol AK47)所發表的圖表。Selena認爲既然囯陣的得票比民聯來得少那它們就是非法的政府，即使他們贏得更多的囯席位（133對89）。

這是她相信的東西，我們不能因她相信的東西來怪罪她。那些中立的和敵對的可能會不認同她的看法，因爲馬來西亞採取的是英國西敏寺的席位制選舉，意即多席位（而不是多選票）才能讓你執政中央（我已經多遍解釋這一點了，但有些人卻聼不進耳裏）。

好了，那現在這真的很奇怪嗎？讓我們來看看以上圖表。行動黨贏得了15.71%的選票來奪得17.12%的席位數（這是個很不錯的選票換席位比例）。另一方面，伊斯蘭黨贏得了接近一樣的選票（14.77%，比行動黨少0.94%）但他們只奪得9.46%的席位（比行動黨少7.66%）。

所以，伊斯蘭黨只比行動黨少贏0.94%選票但他們的席位竟少了7.66%。這對Selena來講公平不？當然，她並沒有對此發表看法。

再看看公正黨，他們贏得了最高的選票（20.39%），但只奪得13.5%的席位，這是比行動黨還低呢。這對Selena來講公平不？當然，她並沒有對此發表看法。

好，讓我們來看看儅行動黨和伊斯蘭黨和起來后是怎樣一個情形。他們會以30.48%的選票奪得26.58%的席位。這個比例基本上還是不錯的，但一旦你加進公正黨的表現，民聯三黨的表現就變成50.88%的選票對40.09%的席位。

所以說行動黨和伊斯蘭黨在選票對席位的比例上交出了不錯的成績，只是公正黨的表現把這些數目給搞難看了。這是因爲行動黨/伊斯蘭黨一般都在華人區/馬來人區參選，而公正黨則在混合區參選。故此可看出民聯在混合區的表現其實是不大理想的，所以拖垮了總體的表現。

這其實並不是民聯的問題；如果我們只看行動黨和伊斯蘭黨的話，他們的選票對席位的比例其實是還不錯的。一旦你放進公正黨的成績以後，民聯的成績才變得很難看。

換個例子來看看，巫統，行動黨和伊斯蘭黨三者的縂選票是59.8%和66.22%席位。巫統，公正黨和伊斯蘭黨三者的縂選票則是64.48%和62.25%席位。

你看到了嗎？選票對席位比例是會隨著你的‘組合’而上升下降的。

讓我來給你另一個例子，就講説公正黨加入囯陣好了，那‘新囯陣’的票數就會變成67.79%（多過2/3）而席位則是73.4%。

再給你另一個例子，就講説囯陣和民聯兩紛紛拆夥好了，然後爲了能夠把馬來穆斯林給團結起來，巫統和伊斯蘭黨結盟。那他們兩只會以44.09%的選票奪得49.1%的席位。這也表示馬來穆斯林政府是不能成立的，除非公正黨的一些馬來議院跳槽來加入他們。

如果‘其他人’因某個因素而沒有對巫統-伊斯蘭黨投不信任票的話，那巫統-伊斯蘭黨就能以49.1%的不過半席位組織政府。現在我們就能把他們稱之爲‘少數政府minority government’了—-這個詞一直被錯誤地用來形容現在的囯陣，因爲囯陣他們並不是少數政府，他們擁有59.9%的席位。

很有趣，不是嗎？更爲有趣的是，如果巫統與行動黨結盟，那他們就會以45.03%的選票奪得56.76%的席位（亦即他們可以比目前囯陣還要少的選票直接執政）。

所以說，現今的囯陣是以47.4%的選票贏得59.9%席位，但巫統-行動黨也差不遠，他們只需以45.03%的選票就能以56.76%席位執政。

簡短一點來講，選票換席位的真正贏者是巫統和行動黨；其他的政黨只是把他們的數目整合起來而已。巫統與行動黨的聯盟已足以執政了，他們並不需其他的政黨。

哼。。。如果巫統能夠答應行動黨的要求和囯陣和民聯兩紛紛拆夥，那巫統和行動黨就能自行結盟來執政而不需要去鳥其他的‘小黨’了。

這當然是不可能發生的，巫統和行動黨都身処很極端的對抗兩端。當然，如果他們兩能爲了馬來西亞的未來而放下己黨的利益的話，那結盟未嘗不是件好事。但這是一百萬年也不會發生的事情。

Selena必須更詳細地去分析這些細節。那些所謂的少票換多席位其實也都發生在民聯身上的。如果只注重于囯陣是以少票換多席位而忽略掉民聯本身也發生同樣的事情，這其實不是個很公平和全面的分析。

Selena發表的另一個不公平看法是：“民聯當然不是一個已正式註冊的聯盟。我們不用福爾摩斯的推理也能知道，背後有人一直在搞破壞，他們不要民聯被註冊為一個政治聯盟。”

民聯已經呈交註冊申請書了嗎？他們是幾時呈交的？爲何還沒被批准呢？我並沒有這些細節，但既然Selena她提起的話她就應該給出些細節來支撐她的指責。她也最好能早日了解我國的選舉系統是以多席位執政的，而不是多選票。持續的反駁這一點不止顯示出你是不誠實的，它也顯示出你是無知的。