Posted in Gunting Dalam Lipatan

Will Star reporters vote BN or Pakatan?

By AC-DC

I wouldn’t know any other Star staff members aside from Chun Wai, Joeclyn [Joceline], and Barradan [K. Baradan].

We make this simple:

So you [Helen Ang] yourself mention there are thousands of Chinese reporters in the Star.

http://thestar.com.my/news/nation/

We need not scroll far down to see the multitude of political news pieces biased to portray Barisan favorably, and the opposition parties negatively.

Therefore, the journalists writing them are pro government.

As most of the journalists would be Chinese, its correct to conclude the Chinese Star journos would be sympathetic to the government.

My friends, co workers, and family all think the Star is pro government. You [Helen] in fact are the first person I have seen with this idea there is a secret plot in that newspaper. However your idea is kind of like a house of cards.

Comment by reader AC-DC originally @ 2013/03/17 at 9:32 pm

***  ***  ***

SelangorElectoralMap

AC-DC and I had an earlier exchange on a related topic.

By AC-DC @ 2013/03/17 at 1:11 pm

So how would you explain the loss of say, Chng Toh Eng to Charles Santiago in Klang, plus the results in Teluk Intan and Ipoh Barat, just to cite several examples? In which voters rejected a candidate of the same ethnicity for another of different ethnicity?

Helen Ang’s reply to AC-DC @ 2013/03/17 at 7:09 pm

Do Malaysians vote according to race?

Here’s an entry in the LKS blog quoting data obtained from Parliament Q & A, http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/05/2007-malaysian-population-2717-million/

It says Indians make up 7.5 percent of the population.

You specify 3 Parliament seats. Remember that there is no Parliament seat anywhere in Malaysia that has an Indian-majority electorate.

You say that DAP Indians won in Ipoh Barat, Teluk Intan and Klang.

  • Ipoh Barat has 22.9% Indian voters
    .
  • Teluk Intan has 20.0% Indian voters
    .
  • Klang has 18.6% Indian voters

In all of those three seats, the Indians were more than double and in Ipoh Barat close to triple the national average of 7.5 percent of the population.

Also in 2008, there was the Hindraf factor which swung the Indian votes massively.

If Malaysians voted colour blind, a Malay candidate could have won in all of the three seats. How come neither BN nor Pakatan put up a Malay candidate there?

Looking closer at the Teluk Intan seat

TelukIntan

The Parliament seat of Teluk Intan had a total of 52,354 electors in 2008.

The race breakdown was:

  • Malay: 36.16%= 18,931 electors
  • Chinese: 43.82%= 22,941 electors
  • Indian: 19.96% = 10,490 electors

(with a very, very minor discrepancy)

The voter turnout was 70 percent:

  • Malay: 13,252 turned up to vote
  • Chinese: 16,059 turned up to vote
  • Indian: 7,343 turned up to vote

(assuming a uniform turnout of 7 out of every 10 Malay, Chinese, Indian voters)

The national average of support for the opposition (Pakatan across the board and not party specific) was estimated at:

  • 42% Malay support
  • 64% Chinese support
  • 52% Indian support

Using the same percentages, the DAP Parliamentary candidate might have gotten:

  • 42% out of 13,252 votes = 6,891 Malay voters
  • 64% out of 16,059 votes = 10,278 Chinese voters
  • 52% out of 7,343 votes = 3,818 Indian voters

On the assumption of Teluk Intan following the national trend of 42 percent Malays, 64 percent Chinese and 52 percent Indians voting for the opposition, DAP’s candidate M. Manogaran should have gotten 20,987 votes in total.

However he only obtained 18,486 votes.

The Teluk Intan Parliamentary constituency comprises two state seats — Pasir Bedamar and Changkat Jong. Both were won by the opposition.

The PAS man in Changkat Jong got 8,705 votes and the DAP man in Pasir Bedamar got 13,655 votes. Added together the opposition obtained (8,705+13,655=) 22,360 votes in the two state seats under the Teluk Intan Parliament.

However, the opposition candidate contesting Teluk Intan only received 18,486 votes. There is a difference of 3,874 votes.

Meaning 3,874 voters who backed the Malay PAS candidate and the Chinese DAP candidate at state level failed to support the DAP Indian candidate at Parliament level.

On the BN side of the divide, Umno’s Changkat Jong candidate got 7,806 votes and the MCA’s Pasir Bedamar candidate got 5,741 votes. Added together, both the BN men got 13,547 votes.

But the MCA candidate for the Teluk Intan Parliament got 17,016 votes.

Meaning, BN got 3,469 more votes at Parliament level than it did at state level.

Don’t forget that 3,874 voters who backed the Malay PAS candidate and the Chinese DAP candidate at state level failed to support the DAP Indian candidate at Parliament level. Now we know that 3,469 of those people voted for MCA’s Datuk Mah Siew Keong at Parliament level even though they had voted for DAP at state level.

It’s like this.

PARLIAMENT:

MCA Chinese vs DAP Indian

STATE:

MCA Chinese vs DAP Chinese

Umno Malay vs PAS Malay

The most reasonable inference to account for the difference of between 3,469 to 3,874 votes is that the Chinese who supported DAP’s Seah Leong Peng (against MCA’s Lee Heng) were at the same time unwilling to give their vote to an Indian but voted for the MCA Datuk instead.

The national trend of 42% Malay-64% Chinese-52% Indian support also failed to tally with the lesser amount of votes received by Manogaran. He should have received more votes if 64% of the Chinese had supported him.

Assuming that he received more than 52% (national average) of Indian votes – let’s just say he got 70% of the Indian votes – then it would infer than even fewer Chinese had voted for him due to the inverse proportions to balance.

My original thesis with the voting patterns in Pandan and Bentong indicated that the Chinese voters in both constituencies gave their votes to the MCA man at Parliament level even though at DUN level, all the opposition candidates [in Pandan] had won.

And I had conjectured that MCA had won in Pandan and Bentong because the opponents were Malay and Indian respectively.

The theory you quoted from Amri Yunos’s blog analysis said that the Chinese were the most racialist voters. Not true, meh?

Updated: 9.26pm (18 March 2013)

***  ***  ***

Since the calculations below missed a step, I’ve struck it out. My thanks to AD-DC for pointing out.

ERRATUM: KLANG

We’ll look closer at Klang.

The Klang Parliamentary constituency won by DAP’s Charles Santiago comprises 3 state seats of Port Klang, Pandamaran and Kota Alam Shah.

All the DUNs were swept by the opposition, respectively Badrul Hisham Abdullah (PKR at that time, now independent), Ronnie Liu and Manoharan (the Hindraf ISA detainee).

CORRECTION: I made a mistake with the Klang numbers as I calculated on a full 100 percent turnout and have reworked using the same formula on the Teluk Intan seat instead.

Let’s work out the Klang numbers.
Voter turnout in Klang was 76.2%. Klang had a voter base of 77,816 electors. Using this 76.2% uniform figure across ethnicity, we can project that those who turned up to vote on 8 March 2008 comprised:
  • 26,029 Malays
  • 36,628 Chinese
  • 14,458 Indians
I’ll use the following percentages of opposition support to work out Charles Santiago’s votes.
Using the percentages above, Charles Santiago should have gotten
  • 23,442 Chinese votes
  • 7,518 Indian votes
  • 10,932 Malay votes
[figures refer to full 100% turnout]
Added up, it would have given Charles Santiago a total of 41,892 votes. [figures refer to full 100% turnout]
However, in reality he got less 4,000 than anticipated. He received only 37,990 votes. So which opposition supporter didn’t vote for Charles when going by the national averages he should have?
I’ve used the national figure of 52% Indian support for the opposition in 2008 to calculate support for Charles. But I think in Klang, it would have been higher than 52% because Mano the Hindraf ISA guy won his DUN – which has a lot of Indians (23.3%) very comfortably.
The Umno DUN candidate was unpopular as she is the daughter-in-law of Zakaria Deros, who became infamous for building his castle (remember the scandal?)
So I’d reckon that the Malay support for Charles would not only match the national average of 42% percent pro-opposition but in Klang it would have been even higher due to the local factor of the Zakaria Palace being a byword for corruption.
Therefore, Charles would likely have gotten higher than national average votes in Klang from the Indians and the Malays. Yet his total votes were lower than the national average of support for the opposition.
I repeat: If Charles had received 64% Chinese-52% Indian-42% Malay support, he would have obtained 41,892 votes. But he only got 37,990 votes.
Going on the assumption that Charles was more popular with the Indian voters in Klang than the national average due to Mano his Adun’s Hindraf factor,
and that Charles was more popular with the Malay voters in Klang than the national average due to the Zakaria’s Palace factor which was a big turn-off,
then the opposition supporters, who should have voted for Charles but did not, would have been the Chinese.
And it’s a major difference. Charles was some 4,000 votes short than he should have received according to the national averages and this figure hasn’t even taken into account that more Indian and Malay votes for Charles means that he got far less Chinese votes than the national average of 64%.

Author:

I have no Faceook or Twitter.

24 thoughts on “Will Star reporters vote BN or Pakatan?

    1. It seems it is not just how STAR reporters vote but also how NST editors vote is the question.

      NST insulted our police force with fake and madeup figures questioning PDRM and the military competency and calling the police intelligence stupid. Yes, the NST may be drumming support for our fighting force but its Cars and Truck pullout editor Yamin Vong insulted and ridiculed the sacrifices by our police with the following comments.

      “the incursion by the group of about 200 raiders should then be considered a failure on the part of the Special Branch and Military Intelligence in the area of intelligence gathering to forestall the attack, offered the senior banker. To which the retired commander remained silent.”

      The silence of the imaginary commander indicates that this is what Yamin thinks of the military.

      “The journalist then offered the comment that the agreement between the Malaysian government and the former owners, the Sultan of Sulu, was couched in terms of perpetuity… “that the ownership of the land belonged to Malaysia as long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west” as long as the conditions including a US$5,000 payment were not breached.”

      The historical truth is Sabah belongs to Sultan of Brunei and never part of Sulu. Every school kid knows this and here NST is perpetuating a Sulu piracy lie. They were paid off by the British not to trouble them not because Sabah belongs to them. Just ask the Sultan of Brunei if Sabah ever belongs to Sulu.

      Not enough with promoting Sulu piracy views, Yamin insulted the death of 10 of our forces by claiming that excessive force was used to flush out the terrorists! These lives belong to Malay and Bumiputeras families, it was incredible indeed and a blessing not more was lost.

      “The journalist said that calling in an airstrike was excessive and against common law, citing that in developed nations, if an intruder enters your yard with a knife, it’s considered excessive toface him off with an assault rifle.”

      Why is the NST tolerating these insults and degrading comments in UMNO papers? A search will show that this is not the first time that Yamin has denigrated UMNO/Govt policies.

      read more at http://www.cbt.com.my/2013/03/14/as-long-as-the-sun-rises-in-the-east/

  1. good morning Helen. I just returned from Ridhuan Tee’s blog at http://ridhuant.blogspot.com/
    there’s nothing there.

    and I think I know who that Anon is. when you told me to look at Ridhuan Tee’s blog, on Mac 17, 2013 at 1:04 pm, someone with the name Zendra Bangsat showed up at Stop the Lies on the same day at 7.40pm asking me this question :

    “Nampaknya ada orang korek dubur kau di blog Helen Ang. Dah jawab ke soalan Helen Ang untuk kau tu?”

    this trooper was smarter. he waited until after a few hours so that when he posted his comment at Stop The LIes, people will not suspect that he Anon and Zendra Bangsat are the same person.

    I do not discount the possibility that someone may have been using my name to post comments of the racist kind. I do appreciate it if someone notifies me of this travesty.

    1. Thanks for connecting the dots PPP.

      Now we both know who this Anon is.

      He’s a Dapster who’s got a decent command of BM (since RT’s blog is entirely in Malay) and he’s been lurking in my blog and is still hanging around here.

  2. I had heard news some months back that DAP has been increasing their intake of hackers in view of the coming GE. There have been a steady increase in number of these Komtar troopers..

    I heard that they even employed retired old timers along with young punks. I even heard rumours that in the recent months some Malays (PAS supporters) have been roped in as well.

    I guess this Anon in question could even be a Malay as it is hard to find Dapsters well versed in BM in Penang.

    1. re: “this Anon in question”

      Give it some investigative thought and you will get your lightbulb moment, wink.

    2. I doubt this Anon is a Malay. its not that difficult to find a Chinese with a strong command of BM in Penang. you just have to look at the right places.

      this Anon is well trained in psy war. if you read his comments at Stop The Lies and over here, at times you may think that you’re dealing with a dimwit but then boom ! he comes in with something refreshing.

      I also doubt Anon/Zendra Bangsat are his only names. after all, there’s the fake Calvin Sankaran appearing at STL, not to mention names like Joe Black and zam.

      you see, sometimes they use reverse psy tactic. he will come in and at first he will say bad things about Pakatan but by the end of his comments he would hit on Barisan. I’ve read about these stuff before.

      speaking of The Star reporters voting for Pakatan, it is safe to say that this is a forgone conclusion. they are the 5th column. but hey, cheer up a bit. at least the enemies will reveal themselves, or to put it in less flattering terms, now they are openly stabbing Barisan in the back.

      as for Amri Yunos’ analysis, well, we have known this for years, so no surprise there as far as I m concerned. but I would remind them, these Chinese intending to vote for the DAP. its going to backfire on them big time. the big irony here is that them voting DAP will result in what they have been trying to prevent from happening all these years. let me explain.

      prior to 2008, the Chinese strategy was based on the premise that to prevent the Malays from ever coming together in an Umno Pas alliance, they must vote for Barisan to project the image that Umno is the party that colludes with the infidels. this worked, as Malays were divided the lines of Umno – Pas and the DAP didn’t get involved with Pas.

      but now, the situation is very different. now that the Malays are bitterly divided, or so the Chinese seemed to think, the Chinese are throwing caution to the wind. they think this divide cannot be bridged. so now, when Chinese are pitted against Chinese i.e MCA vs DAP, vote DAP as Pas will take care of the Malay vote now that both are in Pakatan.

      but with gains here and there, there are bound to be losses in other places. now Pas are worried. after carefully cultivating an image as an Islamist party, they now fear being accused of colluding with the people they accused of being anti Islam.

      how long will this persist ? how will it end ? if Umno wins big, and Pas and PKR barely made the finish line, in their attempts at political self preservation, it is not unthinkable that the erstwhile foes Umno, Pas and the Malays of PKR will come together and form a Malay unity government with the help of Taib’s entourage when they realized how much the DAP have gain at their own expense.

    3. Funny how you continue to allege the existence of a group of hackers whilst continuously doing the same for umno. Well, you lot were never intelligent to start with.

      1. and it’s even funnier ss, when you’re paranoid enough to allege that umno recruits or have a group of hackers working for them as well.

        Your insecurity is showing, which could be translated as you (the oppo) really have such ‘facility’ and worried that this guerilla tactic has been exposed and same method would be used by umno as well.

        not speaking of others, i do admit my intelligence is much lower than the average commentators in here but PR industry made me a ‘jenny from the block’ – (wink!)!

  3. The DAPSters they dont even can talk proper BM..
    i think those SIAMISE and SULUK are better BM speaker than those DAP [supporters].

  4. Is the Star pro- Establishment ?

    Why, yes it is.

    Is the Star pro-MCA ?

    Maybe not. I am persuaded by Helen’s argument that it does not propogate MCA’s propaganda to the best of its abilities and in a sub rosa fashion props up the Jerusubang narrative.

    Will the Star reporters vote PR or BN ?

    Mostly probably PR. I offer no evidence for this but the simple logic of just because you write pro – Establishment crap does not mean you would vote BN. It’s all about the money, babe.

    Besides MSM hacks love to go on about the honorable traditions of the fourth estate or give the impression that “wink,wink” know what’s going down more so than the average Joe Rakyat but it’s just that cruel BN won’t let them print the TRUTH. The truth, I tell ya’.

    I stopped hanging out with Star journalist or NST for that matter a long time ago. Fuckers still bear a grudge against the shutdown and the newbies listen in awe of those brave journalist and the hard times they had to go through.

    So, yeah I wouldn’t be surprised that a Chinese dominated editorial team would vote Opposition. Not that I blame them though. Heck , going by this logic, even Utusan folks may vote PR but produce copious amounts of pro – Establishment propaganda.

  5. “Voter turnout in Klang was 76.2%. Klang had a voter base of 77,816 electors. Using this 76.2% uniform figure across ethnicity, we can project that those who turned up to vote on 8 March 2008 comprised:

    26,029 Malays
    36,628 Chinese
    14,458 Indians

    I’ll use the following percentages of opposition support to work out Charles Santiago’s votes.

    This set of figures below is the national trend. I don’t have Selangor-specific breakdown. It was estimated that the opposition (Pakatan, and again not DAP-specific) got

    64% Chinese support
    52% Indian support
    42% Malay support

    Using the percentages above, Charles Santiago should have gotten

    23,442 Chinese votes
    7,518 Indian votes
    10,932 Malay votes

    Added up, it would have given Charles Santiago a total of 41,892 votes.”

    You made a really big error there. The total number of votes on Mar 8 is 59,315 (jumlah undi). So your math and conclusion is wrong.

    Charles Santiago got 37,990 votes or 64%, versus 34% of his opponent. The percentage of Chinese voters in Klang is 47%, and they form the biggest voter ethnic group. There is no way Mr. Santiago would get 64% of the vote and a majoriti over 17,000 if the Chinese voters were racialist and would not vote a candidate of another race.

    “The theory you quoted from Amri Yunos’s blog analysis said that the Chinese were the most racialist voters. Not true, meh?”

    Unfortunately for Amri and gang, its a sweeping statement. Backed by voodoo mathematics ; )

    1. Firstly, thank you for pointing out my mistake.

      Where I went wrong was missing a step and the 41,892 votes referred to a 100 percent turnout and not 76.2%.

      Since I made an error, admittedly, I’ve struck out the Klang calculations in the copy above and reworked with Teluk Intan figures instead.

      The formula of national averages still holds for Teluk Intan. Mano did get less votes than he should have if he’d gotten 64 percent Chinese support.

      Secondly, my carelessness in calculation does not invalidate the theory put forward by Amri Yunos.

      Please have a look at Teluk Intan above and do double check my calculations. I don’t think they’re wrong this time! :)

      1. Two assumptions have to be taken for your Teluk Intan example;

        1) assumes a uniform turnout of 7 out of every 10 Malay, Chinese, Indian voters

        2) assumes Teluk Intan following the national trend of 42 percent Malays, 64 percent Chinese and 52 percent Indians voting for the opposition

        For all you know, more Malays or Indians could have gone to vote, and more Malays might have chosen the MCA man over the Indian DAP man. Then, there’s the factor incumbent Datuk Mah Siew Keong is a Deputy Agriculture Minister with formidible support base in Telok Intan.

        Ipoh Barat (where Kula won 65% of the vote) and Klang are also a strong counterpoint to Amri and your theory. Both seats have predominant Chinese majority.

        If you are going to make a serious racially charged accusation, consider all factors and variables. And make certain the math is correct. Generalising and making assumptions ends up in generalising and assumptions. As proven.

        1. re: “And make certain the math is correct”

          I’ve already acknowledged that I missed one step of calculating 76 percent of the Klang turnout. Put it down to my carelessness which I’ve not denied.

          However my personal remiss does not detract from the math formula.

          (a) Yes, I assumed a uniform turnout of 7 pax per each race. That’s the fairest.

          (i) I could have said that the Indians were highly motivated as the Hindraf rally was unprecendented causing the biggest swing to occur in the Indian votes and that’s how Samy Vellu lost his Perak seat that he’d held for multiple terms.

          (ii) I could also have said that more Chinese turned out and more Malays stayed at home since the results also showed that the second biggest swing (after the Indians) were with the Chinese voters. The Malay votes shifted the least among the 3 races.

          (iii) Hence I could have made the assumption that the variations between the voter turnout lent to 8 Indians out of 10, 7 Chinese and 6 Malays going to the polls. This assumption would have skewed the math in favour of my theory.

          (iv) However I stuck to a uniform 7 across the board which is the fairest simulation, don’t you think?

          (2) I did not assume that Teluk Intan followed the national trend/average of 42-64-52. It didn’t.

          I just did the math – correct this time – to see whether it did or it didn’t. Since it didn’t, I offered a racial theory as to why it did not.

          (3) While I may have assumed a uniform turnout of 70 percent across the races, the difference in the total number of votes between the DUNs and the Parliament is not an assumption but a fact as per the actual results.

          Datuk Mah did indeed receive some 3,500 votes from Teluk Intan people who supported BN at Parliament level but supported the opposition at state level.

          ‘Split voting’ is not a phenomenon that is unheard of. The fact is that split voting occurred in Teluk Intan. The question is which race is responsible for it.

          (a) It is least likely that the Malays were the culprit. Takkan lah si pemilih Melayu yang sudah tak sanggup undi Umno akan rela undi MCA pula?

          (b) Were Indian voters the likely culprit? We’re talking here about some 3,500-3,900 voters who had already committed their support earlier to the opposition.

          So this Indian chap who had earlier ticked the Rocket (or the Moon) on his State ballot paper is now faced with the choice of DAP-Indian or MCA-Chinese for his MP.

          And you’re telling me that the Indian chose Datuk Mah over Mano?

          If there is no racial pattern in the voting, then the DAP would not have won 14 out of the 15 seats which had more than 60 percent Chinese voters. This is not my assumption. This is statistics.

          1. “(a) It is least likely that the Malays were the culprit. Takkan lah si pemilih Melayu yang sudah tak sanggup undi Umno akan rela undi MCA pula?”

            But SOME Malays may have been upset by the Hindraf protests to have second thoughts about the Indian candidate. You should consider that. While, there are SOME Chinese who may be prejudiced against an Indian parliamentarian, it is not representive of the entire community in TI, as Mano still won with a majority of 1,500.

            It is not even representive of the entire community in Malaysia, as Klang, Ipho Barat, to name a few… disprove your hypothesis.

            Consider also that he’s going against a well known MCA politician entrenched with a support base.

            And your math also assumes the voter turnout among the races is uniform, and assumes the voters by race group chose to the national average. That is a very simplistic assumption.


            (2) I did not assume that Teluk Intan followed the national trend/average of 42-64-52. It didn’t.

            But you said:

            The national average of support for the opposition (Pakatan across the board and not party specific) was estimated at:

            42% Malay support
            64% Chinese support
            52% Indian support

            Using the same percentages, the DAP Parliamentary candidate might have gotten:

            42% out of 13,252 votes = 6,891 Malay voters
            64% out of 16,059 votes = 10,278 Chinese voters
            52% out of 7,343 votes = 3,818 Indian voters

            On the assumption of Teluk Intan following the national trend of 42 percent Malays, 64 percent Chinese and 52 percent Indians voting for the opposition, DAP’s candidate M. Manogaran should have gotten 20,987 votes in total.

            However he only obtained 18,486 votes.

            1. (1) Talking about the Malays, this subset of the 3,500-3,900 electors are people who already voted for PAS (or DAP) in the DUNs. Now their next choice is who to vote for Parliament.

              You hypothesize that SOME Malays may have been upset by the Hindraf protests to have second thoughts about the Indian candidate.

              Your hypothesis is more likely to be true if they were pro-establishment Malays. We’re talking about anti-establishment Malays who had voted PAS (or DAP).

              PAS itself formed the backbone of the Bersih 1.0 protesters in a rally which took place a mere two weeks prior the Hindraf rally. If the oppo supporters were supportive of Bersih 1.0, why should they be “upset” about the Hindraf protest?

              (2) You really sound like Dave. You pulling the oppo stunt that Dr M meant Umno is Parti Syaitan when he used the idiom “better the devil we know”.

              Very simply Telu Intan underperformed if compared with the national average support for the opposition nationwide.

              e.g. of an assumption — I assume that you’re an ass, which means I believe in my mind that you are an ass

              If I had assumed that Teluk Intan was 42-64-52, then in my my I would have believed that the Chinese 2008 swing to the opposition in Teluk Intan was as strong as it was in the rest of the country (64% support).

              As it is, I didn’t know until I did the math. I don’t see how you can twist my sentence below:

              “On the assumption of Teluk Intan following the national trend of 42 percent Malays, 64 percent Chinese and 52 percent Indians voting for the opposition, DAP’s candidate M. Manogaran should have gotten 20,987 votes in total.”

              How about I rephrase it: Using the formula that Teluk Intan followed the national trend … (and the math will tell us whether the formula applied or not in the case of Teluk Intan).

              Do you know why some Chinese supporters of the opposition come across to others as putar-belit, putar-belit, putar-belit like their Dear Leaders?

          2. To add, I notice you are forming a conclusion first, then selectively picking data that agrees with your conclusion, while disregarding the data that don’t.

            1. Hullo, YOU were the one who provided me the three options of Klang, Teluk Intan and Ipoh Barat.

          3. And the data of Klang, Ipoh Barat disproves your hypothesis. Also note your hypothesis rigidly takes two assmptions without considering other factors.

            I guess there is no point debating with you when you insist the world is flat on the back of a giant space turtle, and disregard the proof to the contrary.

            1. Then how do you account for the split voting where the MCA Parliamentary candidate received some 3,500 to 3,900 votes from DAP (or PAS) supporters who were willing to back him but rejected BN at DUN level?

  6. Can I be a ice breaker, let’s just chill out. Intention needs a redirection when we are genuine in the approach rather than how it feeds us.

    [YouTube]

Comments are closed.