This is a reply to Ong Kian Ming's comments on the analysis on Kedah. While I welcome Ong KM's comments, there are points where a reply is badly needed so as not to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, in regards to the main and significant concerns raised in the initial analysis.

Contrary to his total dismissal of the analysis, I suggest that the discussion started here amply testifies to its efficacy in helping clarify and focus public attention on the systematic and fraudulent electoral practices used by BN which robbed the people of their will, as though by stealth.

To start with, it is clear that Kian Ming did not refer to the attached table for his comments. Thus in the classic case of Jerai he said that he was `wondering where BK got his whopping' 23% figure from.'

If he refers to the table he will find the figure for BA's votes in Jerai in 2004 at 19,749, which is 23% more than the 16,041 votes obtained in 1999 election. He derived another wrong figure which came about from adding up the state votes under Jerai.

This clearly reflects how gravely mistaken he was to dispute the central contention of the initial analysis that PAS' votes actually increased in absolute terms only to be defeated by the undemocratic practice of gerrymandering.

He further claimed, referring to Jerai, that the initial analysis failed to take into consideration the increase in voters for the BN candidate and the higher voter turnout rate. Does he seriously mean that just with an increase in voter support alone - without an overwhelming voter import through gerrymandering - BN scored such a huge win with a 10,587 majority?

With average voter growth at 7.4% in Kedah, how did Jerai achieve a voter growth of 51% (21,607 voters) between 1999 and 2004? Looks like Kian Ming is the one who failed to apportion sufficient weight to gerrymandering as a 'winning' formula' for BN here.

Kian Ming also tried to downplay gerrymandering by citing examples of lower voter' growth e.g, Pendang (7.2%) and attribute it to natural growth. There are two problems here: firstly, there are many other constituencies which show abnormal voter growth which is clearly attributable to the voters/constituency boundary movements e.g. Kuala Kedah (+29%), Baling (+37%), Padang Serai (+16%) etc. Why be selective here ?

Secondly, Pendang, as pointed out by Kian Ming, was not a victim of gerrymandering (thanks for the info), and therefore can reverse the trend to deliver a victory to PAS. It just proves our point precisely that without gerrymandering, the opposition could have won in Kedah.

As to the ethical judgment on gerrymandering, Kian Ming objected to the use of the term`voter import' because it implies illegality. I leave it to the readers to judge for themselves if such electoral practices in Malaysia, seen as a fraud everywhere else, can ever be justified or condoned.

As to the first charge that the initial analysis failed to differentiate between gerrymandering - defined as boundary changes to alter voter numbers - and natural voter growth, I beg to differ on two grounds.

Firstly, even where there is no significant voter number change (within the natural voter growth rate), there is no guarantee that electoral fraud didn't occur by ways of planting phantom voters, removing known opposition voters from the electoral roll, moving them out of their usual voting district etc., all of which are designed to discourage voters from exercising their right.

As an objective analyst, who should we give the benefit of the doubt to? Without cleaning up the entire electoral roll, I think nobody can assure himself or herself that such notorious practices had not been undertaken in these constituencies.

Secondly, Kian Ming will say these are other kind of fraud but does this make such voter movements any more acceptable if our broader objective is to improve our electoral system to make it more free and fair?

As to the third charge that certain figures were miscalculated, I suggest Kian Ming reads the attached table before he draws doubtful inferences.

The BA figure quoted refers to BA's support when compared to the total voter figure including non-voting voters. Thus BA's support was 33% in 1999, which slipped only by 1% to 32% in 2004.

Even by using Kian Ming's figure, the point is confirmed in that BA retains considerable popular support at 40% and this should not be masked by their more dramatic lost in parliamentary seats no thanks to the absence of the one-person-one-vote system in Malaysia.

This is important as a backdrop to any other explanation for BN's `landslide victory' such as Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's personal magic; Anwar Ibrahim fading away; good economic prospects; effects of Sept 11/ Islamic militancy; PAS' Islamic state mission etc.

In Kubang Pasu and Alor Setar, BA support rose in absolute terms. This was raised to show a pattern of voter growth for BA despite a questionable `higher growth' for BN. Now, let us not be na V ve to suggest that there is nothing unusual about the abnormally high voter turnout here. It may not be strictly gerrymandering but fraud could be at play here and this should prick the conscience of all democratically minded citizens.

Overall, I thank Kian Ming for supplying some good information, like for example that some Kedah constituencies were spared the EC's gerrymandering interventions. But the overall analysis to try to assess the impact of gerrymandering in Kedah, while it could have been overdone or mistaken in some places, cannot be simply dismissed, as Kian Ming has done. He has chipped away at details but fails to challenge the main thesis that doubtful voter movement - chiefly via gerrymandering - had won Kedah for BN.

As to the personal aside, since his letter was marked with vehement personal references more than anything else, I would say that Kian Ming while hammering hard on my analysis on Kedah has kept absolute mum on survey by other analysts. Is he displaying solidarity with these fellow analysts wearing as he does another hat as chief of Gerakan/BN's think tank?

I won't dismiss his work entirely just because he fired some loose cannons at my analysis on Kedah but I do hope that the dismissive comments are not part of his job definition - to put down non-party/non-BN linked analytical efforts.

The Malaysian Voters Union ( Malvu ) will continue to come out with analyses from a people's perspective whenever the situation warrants it.