Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 12 May 2013 07:23 PM PDT

Out of the 89 parliamentary seats that Pakatan Rakyat won, 53 are non-Malay/Muslim seats while only 36 can be said to be Malay/Muslim-majority seats. Umno, however, won 88 seats just by itself (almost the same as for DAP, PKR and PAS combined). Then there were another 12 non-Malay/Muslim seats with 33 from the native areas in East Malaysia.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Okay, let's say Pakatan Rakyat won or wins the general election. Then let's say Pakatan Rakyat does what it promises to do: it cancels the citizenship of 1.5 million 'illegal' citizens, mostly from East Malaysia, and kicks these people out of the country. Then Pakatan Rakyat ends the gerrymandering and, like some countries, passes a law so that the variance between seats is, say, within plus-minus 20%.

Can this be done?

Unfortunately it can't. Currently, Sabah and Sarawak control 25% of the seats in Parliament even though it has about 19-20% of the population of Malaysia. And if you cancel the citizenship of one million or 1.5 million citizens, it would be even less than 20%, maybe just 15-16%. However, they will still control 25% of the seats in Parliament.

Hence, due to the agreement, it would be impossible to implement the plus-minus 20% variance between seats since, if you do this, you will then create more seats in West Malaysia and thus you will have to correspondingly increase the number of seats in East Malaysia to ensure that you maintain their 25% share of the seats.

And this would make it worse. The variance, because of East Malaysia, would get wider and you actually increase more seats in Barisan Nasional's 'fixed deposit' region. For every three seats you increase in West Malaysia, you need to increase one more seat in East Malaysia.

What will happen in the end is: the seats will be divided into three categories. For the urban areas the seats may be, say, 80,000-120,000 voters (roughly 20% or so variance calculated on 100,000 voters per seat). For the semi-urban areas they may be 50,000-79,000 voters (roughly 20% or so variance calculated on 65,000 voters per seat). And for the rural areas they may be 30,000-49,000 voters (roughly 20% or so variance calculated on 40,000 voters per seat).

And after you redraw the election boundaries and increase the number of seats, you will end up creating more seats in the rural areas and East Malaysia, which can only work to Barisan Nasional's favour. Furthermore, you need a two-thirds majority in Parliament to do this and you are never going to see a two-thirds majority for either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakayat for a long time to come. The days of two-thirds majorities are gone.

But will Pakatan Rakyat support whatever proposal is tabled by Barisan Nasional? Certainly not, because whatever proposal Barisan Nasional tables will certainly be in its favour. And vice versa for Pakatan Rakyat if it happens to be in power: because whatever proposal Pakatan Rakyat tables will also be in its favour.

And that would mean Pakatan Rakyat's supporters would all be lumped in the urban and semi-urban areas while Barisan Nasional's supporters would be spread out in the rural areas and in East Malaysia. And this would also mean that Barisan Nasional could still stay in power with less than 50% of the popular votes while Pakatan Rakyat cannot get into power even with 55% of the popular votes.

Now, what was the strategy for both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat in the recent general election on Sunday, 5th May 2013? I am not sure what Pakatan Rakyat's strategy was but I think it was mainly to get the crowd.

And this they did.

Barisan Nasional, however, had a more devious strategy (devious only if you look at it through the eyes of an opposition supporter but clever if through the eyes of Machiavelli). Barisan Nasional's strategy was to turn Pakatan Rakyat into a Chinese-dominated coalition and Barisan Nasional into a Malay-dominated opposition.

And this they did.

Without the MCA/MIC/Gerakan seats included, Umno and the 'natives' won 121 seats in Parliament -- enough to form the government even without the help of MCA, MIC and Gerakan.

Umno intentionally wanted Pakatan Rakyat to appear Chinese and less multi-racial. They also wanted the Malays in Pakatan Rakyat to appear like 'tools' of the Chinese. And to do this they need to play the race card -- which they are currently doing.

Can you now understand the reason for this sudden surge in Chinese-bashing? It is all part of the plan to make Pakatan Rakyat appear Chinese. And the Chinese supporters of Pakatan Rakyat are not helping much either. The more Malay-bashing you indulge in, the more you strengthen Umno's strategy.

TO BE CONTINUED

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 9)

Posted: 12 May 2013 05:30 PM PDT

You may argue that the Chinese voters have rejected the Chinese from Barisan Nasional and hence the Chinese should not be in the government. But if the Sultan says he wants Chinese in the government then Barisan Nasional will have to make sure that there are Chinese in the government. And if the Sultan says he does not want certain people in the government then these people will have to be dropped from the EXCO list (or as the Menteri Besar).

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Azmin: I will respect and uphold Sultan's decision

PKR deputy president Azmin Ali said the decision on who would be the Selangor Menteri Besar lies ultimately with the Sultan of Selangor and he will respect it totally. Despite his earlier strong objections over the way party president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail had submitted a candidate's name, allegedly without the knowledge of the state party's leadership, Azmin said that whoever was eventually chosen would have his full backing.

READ MORE HERE

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

Okay, how do you ensure that the percentage of seats you win almost matches the percentage of popular votes that you win (say 50% of the votes versus 50% of the seats as opposed to 40% of the votes versus 60% of the seats)?

This was what I wrote in part 8 of this series:

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.

Can you see that Dr Lee was complaining that he won but that he won with half the majority that he should have? According to Dr Lee, his majority should have been 30,000 instead of just 15,000.

Now, I am not going to argue whether Dr Lee is right or wrong. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that he is right: that he was cheated out of a 30,000 majority and because of that his majority was only 15,000.

That, to me, is not what Dr Lee should be focusing on. In fact, this is what most Pakatan Rakyat people talk about: the majority that they won. And that is not what a good election strategy is all about.

Barisan Nasional cannot get these large majorities that Pakatan Rakyat can. In many seats that Barisan Nasional won their majorities were very slim. But this does not upset Barisan Nasional as it does Pakatan Rakyat. And this is because Barisan Nasional is not focused on vote majorities like Pakatan Rakyat is but on seat majorities.

Pakatan Rakyat's support base is concentrated -- hence these large majorities. Barisan Nasional's support base is spread out, especially Umno. So, with the same number of votes, Barisan Nasional can win 50 seats versus only 30 seats for Pakatan Rakyat (see below).

Pakatan Rakyat can win 30,000 or more vote majorities in the seats it contests. But that would mean it is 'robbing' another seat of a win. Barisan Nasional may win with a mere 10,000-vote majority but if it wins with a 10,000-vote majority in three seats, this would be three seats versus only one for Pakatan Rakyat.

That is how to win an election with less than 50% of the popular votes like Barisan Nasional -- or lose the election with more than 50% of the votes like Pakatan Rakyat.

Now, on the issue of the Menteri Besar of Selangor.

I wrote earlier that His Highness the Sultan of Selangor had written to DAP, PKR and PAS asking the three Pakatan Rakyat parties whom they want as the Menteri Besar. All three replied to the Sultan's letter naming Khalid Ibrahim.

Some readers, probably Azmin Ali's supporters, posted some very nasty comments calling me a liar and saying that no such thing happened (I deleted these nasty comments which were very personal in nature). Well, you can choose to believe it or you can choose not to believe it. Nevertheless this did happen.

Azmin has been told (which he admits) that the power and prerogative to appoint the Menteri Besar lies with His Highness. The Sultan can even choose to reject the name or names suggested by Pakatan Rakyat and need not explain the reason why. His Highness can even reject the names of the EXCO Members, as His Highness the Sultan of Kelantan did last week.

Yes, Their Highnesses the Sultans (and His Majesty the Agong) are just Constitutional Monarchs who must 'listen to the advise' of the Menteri Besar (or to the Prime Minister for the Agong). But this does not mean the Monarchs are Rubber-Stamp Monarchs even if they may be Constitutional Monarchs.

Can you remember in 2008 when His Highness the Sultan of Selangor rejected Pakatan Rakyat's candidate for Deputy Menteri Besar, a Chinese from DAP? Finally this man was appointed the Speaker of the Selangor State Assembly as a sort of 'compromise'.

The bottom line is: the Monarchs do have a certain amount of power and authority. It is just how far they want to exert this authority. Most times, by convention, the Monarchs do not meddle too much in issues concerning politics. But did not His Highness the Sultan of Johor just issue a statement saying that he insists that some Chinese representatives be appointed to the Johor EXCO?

You may say you don't like this and you want the Sultans/Agong to butt out. Well, what if they don't? Do you want to launch a revolution and 'storm the Bastille'? Remember that His Majesty the Agong is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces while the state Monarchs are Colonels-in-Chief of the different branches of the Armed Forces.

So, who holds the guns? Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Rakyat, or the Monarchs?

And it is the Agong, not the Prime Minister, who holds the power to suspend Parliament and declare an Emergency. And the Agong with 100,000 guns and I don't know how many tanks behind him will have the final say.

TO BE CONTINUED

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 8)

Posted: 12 May 2013 04:26 PM PDT

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.

READ MORE HERE

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

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

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 13 Mei 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan