First Rule of Kencing Club: When pressed for facts do a Synonym Taichi if you cannot belit anymore

Ong Kian Ming of MERAP has been in contact with me on twitter.

Siap panggil gua bro...

Very eager to provide a counter to my post.(here)

I will dissect his counter post a little bit today....saje buang masa gua malam jumaat sebelum gua tengok DVD ciplak clear copy John Carter with my kids....

I have been asked many questions with regard to the 3.1 million potential non-resident voters which I first highlighted at a press conference together with members of the Bersih steering committee on April 23. I subsequently wrote about this issue in greater detail here.

In response to these questions, I would like to make the following points: 1. That not all 3.1 million of these potential non-resident voters are dubious voters.

2. There are many reasons why voters are not registered in the same constituency indicated by their IC address.

3. That one of the reasons is because of politicians registering their supporters in their respective constituencies even though these voters do not and have never lived in these constituencies.

4. A manifestation of this practice is the presence of addresses with many voters registered in them or voters registered without house numbers.

5. That the Election Commission (EC) has decided to move to a new registration system where a new/transferred voter could only be registered in the constituency indicated by his/her IC address.

6. That the EC still refuses to acknowledge the problem of non-resident voters as well as the problem of many non-resident voters being registered in the same address.

7. The example of the locality where Mimos (Malaysian Institute of Microelectronic Systems) ‘misinterpreted’ the electoral data has a large number of newly-registered Kod 71 voters.

8. It is difficult for politicians and the EC to locate voters without house numbers, especially in the urban areas.

Not all are dubious voters but… I have never said that all these 3.1 million potential non-resident voters are dubious voters. What I wanted to highlight was that there were 3.1 million voters in Peninsular Malaysia whose IC address did not correspond with their voting constituency and that these voters were identified in a National Registration Department (JPN in BM) project called ‘Projek SPR’. (here)

This is what he said in the BERSIH press statement few days before the riot to provide modal for Ambiga and gang

Today, I want to announce that upon further investigation and analysis, another 3.3million cases of doubtful voters which needs further investigation have been uncovered. Among this 3.3 million voters are: (1) 3.1 million voters whose IC addresses shows a different voting constituency from the constituency in which the voter is actually voting in. (here)

Dubious Vs Doubtful

Lu kasi Synonym Taici ka brader??


He goes on to say this

For those who doubt that I have access to this data, please see screenshots of the 11 CDs representing data for each state (right)

Errrr....Kian Ming 11 or 12 ...I now doubt whether you can really count...BTW can't read whats on the  CD can see picture of CD only....would this logic extend to the  Anwar/Azmin Video as well...you show blurry picture and I'm suppose to believe?

OK let us assume that he has the 2002 data.

He goes on to say this about me...referring to me as "Blogger"..refer my comments in BOLD RED

Hence, it would be wrong, as this blogger has done, to say that we should not be concerned about this 3.1 million voters because there were still 1.1 million Malaysians who were still holding on to their old Malaysian ICs in 2005 or the fact that there were 3.6 million intra-state migrants according to the 2000 population.

DUDE DID I SAY THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE "CONCERNED"? I SAID IT IS EXPECTED AND CHALLENGED YOU TO PROVIDE THE EXACT NUMBER OF THE PROBLEM AS OF NOW 

The 1.1 million Malaysians who still had old ICs in 2005 would not have been included among the 3.1 million if their IC address was the same their voting constituency.

SO HOW MANY WAS INCLUDED?

Just because one upgrades from the old IC to a new IC does not mean that the person’s IC address would have changed.

SO HOW MANY CHANGED IC ADDRESS?

In addition, some of the 3.6 million intra-state migrants in 2000 would have maintained their voting constituency according to their IC address. Just because they have moved, does not mean that they would have changed their voting constituency or their IC address.

SO HOW MANY DID NOT CHANGE AFTER MOVING AND HOW MANY CHANGED AFTER MOVING? 

Inter- and intra-state migration certainly increases the complexity in defining and understanding the problem of non-resident and resident voters and I appreciate the efforts of this blogger for pointing it out. However, it is voters in category 3 which I am most concerned about since these are non-resident voters who have never lived in the constituencies they were registered in 2002 when the Project SPR exercise was completed. Those in category 3 are those which I would define as dubious voters.

Let me ask you a simple sekolah rendah question?

So how many out of the 3.1Million in 2002 is dubious or doubtful or whatever those 2 words mean in your alternate universe?

How many exactly in Category 3?

What is your estimate out of the 3.1 Million in 2002

And what is the problem now?

This was our last conversation before i made this posting

I will not layan changing goalpost providing Johor "current" data analysis.

Show me what you got on the 2002 data first since you claim that you've got it.

Ada brani?


UPDATE 112am 19thMay
His response on Category 3 Problem

Refer here