Some of you who follow me on YouTube know that I’ve been conducting some coverage of the PKR Deputy President elections featuring former deputy President Rafizi Ramli, and incoming deputy President Nurul Izzah.

Sometimes it’s good to take a moment to think about the events that have happened over the course of the past, to understand things a little deeper, so I decided to do an analysis of the election results, which I’m sure many Malaysians were following.

It is my first time doing this, and I will share my thought process along the way.

When I look at the vote totals and also who got how many votes, I realize that we have been told earlier that there were about 32,030 people who were eligible to vote.

Yet, at the same time, when we added together the votes cast for Rafizi and also Nurul Izzah, the total was only 13,669. This was a 42.7% turnout.

Now, this was significantly better compared to previous PKR elections during which the turnouts ranged from about 10–15%.

But thinking about that made me realize something important:

Firstly, Nurul Izzah only has about 30% of the vote and she does not have a strong mandate.

Second of all, this system made it so that what we see seems to be a highly improbable result.

Now, some of you may know that PKR recently moved over to a delegate system.

The way that it works is that there are 220 divisions of PKR and they all select a certain number of delegates to end up making up the total pool of people who are eligible to vote.

In other words, this is not a random sample – This is not the general population.

Indeed, if it were, and we were dealing with just your average everyday social media poll, it is almost a foregone conclusion that Rafizi would have won. Don’t believe me? Look at any poll.

I even did one here a while ago with 1200 votes, which you can see here – http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxq5t-Nqjdp…

It’s not a huge poll, but you can also look at larger ones from people like Halim Romli or otherwise – they show the same result.

Yet, Rafizi did not win.

Of course, social media doesn’t reflect reality. Look at all you silly people reading this – you’re not a part of reality and figments of the imagination and NO poll conducted on social media could POSSIBLY reflect reality, kan kan?

Jokes aside, pause your mental gymnastics: it gets a little stranger than that.

Recall that PKR elections take place in two stages, beginning with divisional, and the winners of divisional elections get to select the voters for the deputy president elections. Each division leader (there are multiple in a division) then selects the people who make up the eligible delegate pool; repeated enough times, we end up with the total pool of 32,030 eligible voters.

So, the people who were selected to vote in this case were likely selected because perhaps they had views that aligned with the delegation leader/division leader.

Perhaps that’s not the case, but it could be reasonably construed that if such people were actually chosen, then on account of the way that the delegate system was designed, that at the very least they would cast votes.

Yet somehow or another, we see that the converse is quite true.

From the total split of online and in-person votes, we can see that there were 9,029 physical votes.

Given that there were only 13,669 votes in total and only online and in person votes were possible, this logically means that the total number of online votes cast was 13,669 – 9,029 = 4,640.

At the same time, we also know that the very fact of physical voting and showing up to the premises should mean that everyone who showed up in person cast a physical vote (unless they showed up for no reason and none of them voted? LOL), which means that if we apply the principle of complementarity, the entire remainder of votes eligible to be cast were from the total pool of online-eligible delegates – 32,030 – 9,029 = 23001 such votes were possible.

However, it looks like only a very small proportion of these voters actually made the choice to vote – When we calculate the total number of online votes divided by the total number of online-eligible votes, the percentage that we get is (4640/23001)*100% = 20.2%.

Now I find that extremely interesting.

All these people who were selected specifically so that they could take part in the election and could vote basically did not vote—even though they could have very easily signed in to the portal, put in their login details, and then cast their votes from the comfort of their homes.

…Weren’t they selected by leaders to do exactly that to determine the entire future of the party???

Now what does this say?

There could be a few things.

The first is that, well, perhaps all these people are just not online savvy and were unable to carry out the vote, or just missed the voting deadline.

Now this is possible, but it seems to point to a major gap.

Did the party not instruct its delegates on how to vote?

Did they forget to vote and forget the date?

That doesn’t reflect particularly well on the party, because it shows incompetence and poor organizational architecture.

But that’s just a couple of boring possibilities of several.

Here’s the next possibility.

What if people basically just decided not to vote because they didn’t care, really?

In that case, then it seems that the party was not really responsible in enforcing discipline or getting people to cast their votes. But then that too is just one interpretation of many possible interpretations.

Now here’s the last and unfortunate set of possibilities.

What if people decided not to vote because they felt that the result was already preordained, or that even if they voted, they would not make a difference, or they abstained because they felt that there was something seriously wrong with this process? Is it also entirely out of the realm of speculation to imagine that perhaps there could be a scenario whereby members have their votes not be anonymous, and their identities could be revealed to the party leadership, thereby causing them to choose not to vote in the first place for fear of voting against the party line and losing all their chances of being promoted in the party hierarchy…?

Well, that’s an unpleasant thought.

Here are my main questions:

Q1. If these people were delegated, meaning specifically chosen to vote in the election and equipped with that privilege, then why is it that the overall voter turnout was so low?

Did they not care about the vote? Were they unable to vote? Did they choose not to vote for certain reasons of which we are not aware?

How were these ‘delegates’ chosen?

Q2. Why was the online voter turnout so low?

What does it say about a party’s future-readiness when 80% of its online-eligible delegates don’t even log in?

Q3. Considering that the delegated voter turnout was so low, is the election result truly a reflection of what the party actually wants?

Or is it really just a manufactured consensus brought about whereby the deputy president of the party received her presidency when she, at the end of the day, was voted in by barely 30% of the total eligible delegate base?

Q4: If everything has gone above the board and people have voted in larger proportions, then would the election result have been different?

Q5: Did party leaders have access to information about who cast what vote, and would that have given voters an incentive to toe the party line… Or else?

The Malaysian people may never really know the answer to this set of questions, but I think that they are relevant to put out there in the first place. It is interesting that this entire process is so opaque, yet somehow or another, we are sold a vision of profound democracy, reform, and a change to the old way of doing things in lieu of a new guard.

Should PKR really retain the election result given these questions that are at hand here, with no concept of a quorum, missing voters, and multiple open questions about what happened and why nobody is saying anything about it?

Oh yes, and I’m aware that this post is currently being shared to a few places – I am honored! Please feel free to share further if you find the questions it raises insightful.

Also, if you’d like, consider watching the context for my analysis here:

Sepupus, it’s not every day that I am genuinely shocked by a piece of news. 

It’s also not every day that I feel compelled to use an O.O react on Instagram. 

Today’s news gave me both opportunities in a double-whammy perfect storm. 

The Trump administration will be revoking Harvard’s ability to enroll international students. 

You might think that this is a simple matter that affects just one generation of students, as Singapore’s Calvin Cheng hinted, but no, that’s not the case. It affects multiple generations of students, and not just the ones who are going over to Harvard, but also the ones who are currently there.

1. Students who are currently enrolled at Harvard on student visas are being forced to transfer to other institutions or face visa termination. Even if they’re one semester from graduation, their legal status is now in jeopardy.
2. Students who were recently accepted and expected to enroll in Fall 2025 will not be issued student visas through Harvard. Even if they have flights booked or housing arranged, they cannot enter the U.S.
3. Students who are set to graduate this May might seem safe—but only conditionally. Those planning to stay in the U.S. under OPT (Optional Practical Training) could be blocked if their application depends on Harvard’s now-revoked SEVP certification.
4. The SEVP termination means Harvard can’t issue I-20 or DS-2019 forms, which are essential for F-1 and J-1 visa processes. So even paperwork in progress may be frozen or voided.
5. The revocation applies beginning in the 2025–2026 academic year, but its effects start immediately, especially for visa maintenance, transfers, and immigration compliance.
6. The rationale given involves accusations of antisemitism and Chinese Communist Party coordination, but regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the reasons, the collateral damage is enormous.
7. Harvard has pledged legal action and called the move “unlawful,” but unless it’s reversed fast, thousands of international students—past, present, and future—are caught in a geopolitical trap.
   Depending on how you view the matter of academic freedom, this is…

Well, I know you all better than you think. 

Most of you would probably immediately declare that this is unconscionable, an attack against freedom, a fight against the good of the world and the darkest evil – unstoppable sword, immovable shield, justice and destruction – the very recounting of the Bhagavad Gita itself by Robert J Oppenheimer (Harvard University 4.0 Summa Cum Laude I believe) himself when he said:

At the time that Oppenheimer had recounted these ominous words, nobody had died and it all seemed like a test that would merely remain a test.

Nothing really would happen, would it?

The United States wouldn’t dare use the atom bomb, would it?

Yet, on August 6, Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima, 80,000 people died.

On August 9, Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki, 40,000 people died.

Including long-term effects from radiation and injuries, the total death toll was estimated to be over 200,000.

What happened with Harvard may very well be one of those proclamations, except in slightly less poetic language, but with no less damage, including to many personal friends and acquaintances from Malaysia and beyond. 

Now, I know what some of you might say: FAFO. 

F*** Around and Find Out.

But I think it also illustrates a very interesting principle. 

Freedoms can conflict – Or, as Joseph Stiglitz has noted, Isaiah Berlin had originated, and Anwar Ibrahim had misattributed at the Khazanah Megatrends Forum in 2024 (yes, I paid attention to your speech. I know exactly what you misquoted and when you misquoted it. It’s good that people pay attention sometimes isn’t it, Dato’ Seri?)

“Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep.”

You may agree or disagree with what is happening here, but really what is the most likely predictor of whether you would agree or not is not necessarily the reasoning that would be brought to bear in this decision, but instead the socio-cultural, religious, or ideological alignment with which you connect. 

There is such a thing, of course, as freedom to speak.

But at the same time, there is such a thing as a freedom to not be harmed and to enjoy a peaceful and safe environment. 

Now, to whom should we grant infinite blanket freedom to pursue their right?

For whom should society fight?

Should there be an arbiter to determine it?

Or should the two groups participate in a complete contestation, where in the inevitability of time, the clearest principle shall emerge as it has for the hundreds of generations that have come past. 

The strong shall live, and the weak shall die.

I leave it to you to determine what strength should consist of.

“But wait!!! These things should not contradict!!!” say our woker class. 

How fitting. It is after all only in the wokest yet ablest minds that sufficient room for mental gymnastics exists to transform these things into an amalgam of perfect compatibility. 

Perhaps literature will result! 

Something like Wael Hallaq’s Impossible State.

Something like a full on thesis on statehood, self determination, and society. 

Well, let a million theologically irrelevant flowers bloom. 

It is in those woke minds that the most narratives about one-sided injustice will be born, as will a hundred and maybe even a thousand statuses about how, allegedly, it didn’t start on October the 7th, even though, in a very real and practical sense, these people will deny aspects of the narrative that were not convenient to them in order to join the solidarity party and prune the stories that they considered unworthy or unfitting while looking in the mirror and telling themselves they were on the side of justice. 

How adorable. 

Well, I’m sure that if you own a superior mind to mine, you won’t be affected as you can see both sides and know well enough not to engage in a pointless(?) discussion. 

Let’s be clear that the situation in Gaza is not conscionable, and it’s not something that people should accept, but what we see here is insane. 

It is expansive, it is sweeping – it is on a whole new level. 

To all of you who are affected by this and what the Trump Administration calls the “Big Beautiful Bill”, I am in no doubt that this will be a transitional or generational break for you. If the status quo holds, it is certain that things will change. 

As I observed, many of you you are much smarter than me, both in the Naval Ravikant get-what-you-want-out-of-reality way and academically I am sure, and I am sure that you can adapt, but my condolences. 
It is genuinely sad, it is genuinely unfortunate, and if this plays out in the way that the status quo suggests, it will be deeply deleterious to the lives of people I personally know, including many of the people I’ve talked to on this channel. 

I mean this genuinely when I say that I am sure that you will adapt to something better, even if on the surface of things it appears that the sky and the world have just collapsed, and I hope all of you members of the audience will keep them in your prayers. 

V. 

In the journey of life, change is inevitable and I say that unironically.

Why “unironically”?

Because people have repeated “change is inevitable” to high heaven and it often comes off like a word hash brown, fresh off the shelf of a cooling rack; toasty, delicious, yet ultimately unhealthy, factually fast food language.

Yet so as the hash brown is delicious, so is the language of ‘change is inevitable’, only to be appreciated if it is savored properly.

If it seems a little strange to you that I’m writing about hash browns and change, know that it is for me too, but it is one of those changes I see from 2025 – the sort that involves taking on random streams of thought and fashioning them into the rivulets that add into a current that move forward, summing into a flow.

I do wonder a little bit about whether there’s a consistent pattern though.

I find that I’ve become a bit more thoughtful about things like these – that I have a higher discernment for what constitutes quality thoughts, while at the same time holding the small blessing of being able to evaluate things in light of a larger goal of social change and transformation through the development of content, ideas, and otherwise.

It sometimes feels like I am in the middle of a grand dialectic with the world, one where I stand in the marginal territories of an evanescent frontier, fighting against a world that I do not want to come to pass, aiming to reshape it to my will.

I think about so many things.

Biology, willpower, society. Mind, hand, money. Power, politics, philosophy.

Birth, life, age, death; competition, progress, history; nation, spirituality, world; destiny, history, legacy.

It seems to me that these words now come out easily from me, not from the outer rim of the deeper examined mind, but instead from the surface – not from a deepened reading, but instead from the unironic expression of my outwardly expressed thoughts.

On observing myself and the pattern of these thoughts, it seems a little strange to me.

Is it really normal that such things would come out just on a casual reading of things?

Sometimes, it seems silly that all these thoughts should reverberate inside the mind of a single person, and sillier to contemplate and realize that it is a mind that may not be richer than that of any single other person I’ve seen in my life even if they were less articulate, less able to express what proceeds from the edge of the tongue, yet one that may not be less rich than that of the someone with the higher-resolution pen there to inscribe in quantum spectrality truth in construction a reality filtered through prisms grander than I dare imagine.

We live in a grand world, a pool filled with many incredible people.

I suppose it is not too much to ask to make a small mark in that world, yes?