Most intriguing.
MCA has not given up.
The stance of the MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat is being echoed by his underlings with the MCA leadership continuing to plug the line that the DAP should boycott the Kuala Terengganu by-election over PAS agenda on hudud.
Of course, no indication that MCA would boycott the by-election although there is no renunciation by the UMNO leadership of a series of hegemonistic agendas, whether the “929 Declaration” that Malaysia is an Islamic state or “ketuanan Melayu”.
Forty hours to nomination in Kuala Terengganu by-election on Tuesday morning.
Meanwhile, let the blogosphere respond to the MCA stance – for or against, the pros and cons, merits and demerits as to whether DAP should boycott Kuala Terengganu by-election over PAS agenda on hudud..
#1 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 8:34 am
I do not dispute the claim that there is a distinction between an electoral coalition and a ruling coalition.
My point is simply that this distinction is not really relevant to the rebuttal of OTK’s suggestion.
Jeffrey says:
‘OTK’s point that DAP’s support of PAS candidate in KT is equivalent to support of Hudud/Islamic State is strictly non sequitur ie an inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises, the premises being the fundamental prerequisite for formation/sustenance of an electoral coalition, and not ideological compatibility of its component parties, which is not prerequsite…..’
OTK or his supporters may say this to Jeffrey, ‘Well, you’re of course right that an electoral coalition that merely aims to win more seats does not require ideological compatibility of its component parties. And you’re of course right that we should not require that DAP must have ideologies compatible with those of PAS ON THE GROUNDS that PR is a ruling coalition, for PR is clearly not the ruling coalition. But that PR is not a ruling coalition and that voters should therefore not expect DAP and PAS to have compatible ideologies ON THESE IRREVELANT GROUNDS (irrelevant because PR is not a ruling coalition) does not mean that voters should not expect them to have compatible ideologies ON OTHER RELEVANT GROUNDS. The grounds that are clearly relevant to PR are these: An electoral coalition aiming to become the ruling coalition has to show the electorate that they are ready to govern, and to do this the coalition must at least have compatible ideologies among its component parties. Given that PR expressly aims to become a ruling coalition by taking over the federal government, and given that PR is already a ruling coalition in several state governments, voters are well justified to expect its component parties to share compatible ideologies.’
The above argument is phrased in terms of Jeffrey’s original formulation. However, I don’t think that DAP’s co-operation with a party that has ideologies that are fundamentally incompatible with those of DAP indicates its endorsement and adoption of those ideologies (e.g. PAS’ Islamic State). If OTK suggests this in his challenge, then this suggestion is clearly unreasonable. The most he can accuse DAP of is being unprincipled and in being an unwitting catalyst in the promotion of PAS’s agenda, not that DAP endorses PAS’s agenda.
#2 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 8:42 am
No bias, no bull please – and no bloviating!
#3 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 8:46 am
This is a by-election. In by-elections voting tends to favor the opposition – since Trengganu is under PR, that means BN.
#4 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 8:57 am
The relative probabilities of one scenario occuring versus other alternative scenario occuring are of course a crucial consideration in deciding which action to take. But that is not the sole consideration. The other consideration is the gains or losses incurred when one scenario occurs.
#5 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 9:16 am
Jeffrey says:
‘…indeed they are likelier exacerbated in victory when sharing power (the ultimate objective) becomes imminent or realised. This is especially so when the parties to PR coalition are only 3, arguably of equal power and voters pull. They may squabble and fall apart.
But one may ask (also on pragmatic grounds) will above scenario definitely happen?’
I don’t think we should ask whether it will definitely happen. Asking whether it is likely to happen should suffice. In non-mathematical contexts, we rarely need definite certainty. However, it seems that the more appropriate question to ask is the following (if we are assessing the relative merits of staying on in PR and forming PD): Is it more likely for DAP to achieve its purpose of co-ruling the country without compromising its fundamental ideologies if it stays on in PR in its current form than if it gets into a coalition with parties that share fundamentally compatible ideologies?
Both options have rather low probabilities. And I don’t think I’m well placed to judge whether one is more likely than the other. However, the consideration of the risk of being an unwitting catalyst to PAS Islamic agenda incurred in the former has led to my preference for the latter. Of course, this is based on the assessment that PAS fundamentalist Islamic agenda are very dangerous, much worse than UMNO’s corruption and racism.
#6 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 9:23 am
At the end of a speech in 2003, Lim Kit Siang concludes that ‘ it is most regrettable that the PAS Islamic State document has confirmed that the Political Islam of PAS is incompatible with democracy, pluralism, human rights, women’s rights, cultural diversity and modernity.’
#7 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 9:57 am
Undergrad2, I admire your stamina! Jeffrey is clearly a very intelligent fellow. Have you noticed the curiously automatic flavour of Lee Wang Yen’s responses? The strangely insulated-from-human-experience attitude? It is my belief that Jeffrey is, among other things, an expert programmer who has cobbled together an assistant from ELIZA and the Dada Engine (see elsewhere.org/pomo), probably written in Prolog, or one of those programming languages of the computationally gifted, and has merely to type:
argue(“Jeffrey”, TRUE, “guilt is a technicality”);
or
argue(“undergrad2″, FALSE, “life is like this”);
and then he sits back and watches you wear your fingertips out.
#8 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 11:34 am
The debate was sparked off by whether DAP ought to stay on in PR in its current form or forms or gets into a coalition with parties that share fundamentally compatible ideologies.
So it boils down which of the following views are likelier (in terms of balance of probabilities):
1. risk of DAP “being an unwitting catalyst to (advance) PAS Islamic agenda” (that DAP itself ideologically opposes) via PR platform on the premise/value judgment that the “ Islamic agenda is very dangerous, much worse than UMNO’s corruption and racism”;
2. the imperative of UMNO’s corruption and racism being ended notwithstanding risk of (1) above, the risk being mitigated by:-
(a) likely dilution of PAS’s influence when PR turns from electoral coalition to ruling coalition with other parties not ideologically opposed to DAP or similarly ideologically opposed to PAS then joining the victorious PR coalition;
(b) other factors like our constitution being presently not in line with PAS’s ideology, the likelier position of NGOs, Civil Society, PKR & DAP, other parties then joining PR in victory as well as whatever left of BN in the opposition then opposing PAS’s atempts to establish the Islamic state in a PR’ victory – and also demographic realities of the country with 40-45% non muslims not to mention many moderate muslims against it. The question to be asked is also whether PAS can force this issue even if it were the more dominant in the PR ruling coalition because if PKR/DAP or others defect/leave, the ruling coalition will also fall,
which have to be balanced against:
(c) if DAP leaves now, the whole enterprise of forming an alternative govt in replacement of the existing will collapse, and all gains on 8th March 08 would be reversed;
(d) even if PR is not victorious in next GE, in its present form it poses an imminent threat to BN, keeps it on its toes and exert pressure for it to re-invent, whether or not one views that were possible;
(e) though it is ideal for parties within coalition to be compatible or ast least not that incompatible as PAS/DAP alliance, and that it is entirely valid to surmise that their ideological asymmetry is likely to impede forming smoothly a federal government, the fact, if you look around, most political coalitions on opposition side are likely not that ideologically aligned/ symmetrical: they come togther because on their own they could not realise the objective of winning and sharing power, and for the sake of that end of winning and sharing power they have to compromise when they reach that point, the extent of compromise depending a myriad of circumstances and relative bargaining positions then.
Conclusion: So if one believes in (1) above vote for BN or abstain…..according to conscience. If one believes in (2) then, vote for PR or any of its component parties.Is there any other option?
#9 by Godfather on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 11:43 am
“This is a by-election. In by-elections voting tends to favor the opposition – since Trengganu is under PR, that means BN.”
Undergrad2, where have you been ? Trengganu under PR ? You must be having visions. But I like your logic that by-elections tend to favour the opposition. Others will then ask you for empirical evidence of such a statement.
#10 by Godfather on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 11:46 am
Prof Lee doesn’t answer the questions he doesn’t want to answer. He’s still dreaming about his PD, and his role as its first President.
#11 by Godfather on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 11:49 am
“At the end of a speech in 2003, Lim Kit Siang concludes that ‘ it is most regrettable that the PAS Islamic State document has confirmed that the Political Islam of PAS is incompatible with democracy, pluralism, human rights, women’s rights, cultural diversity and modernity.’”
Professor Lee, are you calling Kit a hypocrite ? OK, OK, you didn’t call him so, but are you insinuating that Kit is a hypocrite ? Are you supporting Ong Tee Keat and the MCA in this by-election ? Yes or No would suffice.
#12 by Onlooker Politics on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 2:20 pm
“I have never suggested that DAP should boycott.
I’ve been urging DAP to quit PR to form a third coalition without UMNO and PAS. When that happens, the question of whether to boycott does not arise at all.” (Dr. Lee Wang Yen)
Dr. Lee,
Did your Probabilistic Mathematical Calculations really tell you that DAP would have a high probability at high confidence level to win the Parliamentary Elections if DAP had decided to leave PR and to form a third coalition which you called PD?
Did you really take the following political realities into consideration when you established your basic assumption for discussing on whether DAP should leave PR and form PD?
Political realities in Malaysia:
1) There might not be an “Exclusive Or” situation between PR and PD during the nomination of an electoral candidate during the Parliamentary Election. Both PR and PD might nominate their respective candidate in the election and thus creating the vote division effect on PR and PD. PR and PD might eliminate one another in the voting process.
2) The leadership quality, as perceived by the electorate, in relation to the existing PR with DAP as an equal partner might be given a much higher score by the electorate than the leadership quality of the suggested PD without PKR and PAS.
If Dr. Lee has already make an assumption that “there will be equal chance of winning for both PR with DAP as equal partner and PD without PKR and PAS” without taking into the consideration of the above political realities, then the assumption thus made would be faulty. If the assumption was faulty, then noone would be able to claim that his argument would be valid.
Noone could have drawn a true/correct conclusion from an invalid argument based on a faulty assumption.
#13 by Onlooker Politics on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 2:25 pm
Sorry! “has already make” should be “has already made”
#14 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 2:40 pm
Onlooker Politics,
Did you really read my post before commenting?
I say in a post at 09:16.06 that both options have rather low probabilities.
Positive expected utilities do not depend on one option having a high probability
#15 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 3:13 pm
Onlooker Politics says:
‘If Dr. Lee has already make an assumption that “there will be equal chance of winning for both PR with DAP as equal partner and PD without PKR and PAS” without taking into the consideration of the above political realities, then the assumption thus made would be faulty. If the assumption was faulty, then noone would be able to claim that his argument would be valid.
Noone could have drawn a true/correct conclusion from an invalid argument based on a faulty assumption.’
This statement is highly problematic. The following are the problems:
1. An argument with faulty/false premises can be deductively valid. Deductive validity depends on the argument form, not on the truth of its premises. A valid argument with faulty assumption is an unsound argument. So, if you just want to say that my argument has a faulty assumption, just say that my argument is unsound. If you want to claim that my argument is both invalid and unsound, you must first make sure that I’m giving a deductive argument (since all inductive arguments are deductively invalid), and then show that that deductive argument is invalid, and then show that at least one of the assumptions is false. Since you’ve only been trying to argue that my argument is unsound in the sense of relying on a false assumption, you should just stick with that claim.
2. I say ‘you’ve only been TRYING to argue that my argument is unsound’, because I’m not really sure what you want to claim. Do you really want to claim that I have made a faulty assumption that “there will be equal chance of winning for both PR with DAP as equal partner and PD without PKR and PAS”? I’m not sure. Your use of the word ‘if’ in your claim that ‘If Dr. Lee has already made the assumption…’ seems to show that you’re not sure if I really make that assumption. But if you’re not sure whether I’m guilty of making that faulty assumption, why is there a need for you to preach about the importance of not having faulty assumptions in one’s argument? Unless you think that I’m really guilty of making that assumption, that preaching is totally irrelevant.
3. Now, do I make that so-called faulty assumption that “there will be equal chance of winning for both PR with DAP as equal partner and PD without PKR and PAS”? There’s actually no need for you to guess, and thus no need for you to use the word ‘if’, since the answer to this question should be obvious if you really read my post carefully (if at all) before commenting. I say in a post at 09.16.06 that:
‘Both options have rather low probabilities. And I don’t think I’m well placed to judge whether one is more likely than the other.’
So where do you get the idea that there is a possibility that I’ve been making the assumption that “there will be equal chance of winning for both PR with DAP as equal partner and PD without PKR and PAS”? Please note also that my ‘options’ are not exactly the same as the options mentioned in the so-called faulty assumption you say I have have a possibility of making.
#16 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 3:23 pm
Have I ever suggested that DAP should form a coalition without PAS AND PKR?
I’ve been suggesting that DAP should form a coalition without PAS and UMNO. ‘Without PKR’ is not part of my suggestion. I’ve even suggested that DAP should persuade Anwar’s to lead PD.
Of course, you may want to claim that it’s unlikely for PKR to ditch PAS for DAP. That’s another story. By the way, I’m not sure about the truth of this claim. Those who make this claim have to give us some reasons.
#17 by Onlooker Politics on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 3:31 pm
“Positive expected utilities do not depend on one option having a high probability.” (Dr. Lee Wang Yen)
Dr. Lee,
Can you please elaborate further on what kind of Positive Expected Utilities can DAP stand to gain from each and every alternative option recommended by you?
I do not see the positive expected utilities arising from any option which you have hypothesized here if both options offer low probabilities for DAP to achieve its purpose of co-ruling the country with other party or parties without compromising its fundamental ideologies.
#18 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 4:44 pm
Thanks, Jeffrey, for spelling those considerations. I think this is a good way of discussing the issue.
However, these are some problems.
Firstly, I don’t think that the issue boils down to the relative probabilities of your (1) and (2). These relative probabilities may play a major role. But the issue does not boil down to them. This is because in decision theory, the expected utility (overall gains and losses or benefits and costs) of a particular action depends not just on the probability of a certain scenario and the probabilities of alternative scenarios ocurring when one takes that action. They also depend on the utility value (the gains/benefits and losses/risks) of taking that action for each of the scenario. (Before someone charges me of talking about ideologies at the expense of pragmatism, please note that the evaluation of expected values in decision theory is precisely a pragmatic approach)
Secondly, I don’t think that the alternative scenarios to be compared are your (1) and (2).
Firstly, your (1) and (2) are not strictly scenarios at all, as they include risks, which should be a factor considered in utility values rather than the alternative scenarios. This makes evaluation of expected values I suggested earlier more difficult. But this is not really a very significant objection as we can try to reformulate it to make evaluation of expected values easier.
Secondly, your formulations of (1) and (2) make me wonder how one should make the comparison. (1) is the risk incurred by DAP if it stays on in PR. (2) is the need to end UMNO’s racism and corruption. I wonder how one should compare a risk with a need. Perhaps what you mean is this: (1) is the need to leave PR (‘the need’ is suggested by the risk of staying on in PR); (2) is the need to end UMNO’s racism and corruption. This reformulation of (1) makes it easier to compare (1) and (2). I shall operate on this reformulated version of (2) henceforth.
However, even if we reformulate (1) in the above way, there is still a problem. In evaluating expected values, we have to evaluate the probabilities of mutually exclusive alternative scenarios. But (1) and (2) are not mutually exclusive: the need (or the fulfilment of the need) to leave PR is compatible with the need (of the fulfilment of the need) to end UMNO’s racism and corruption.
Of course, you might rightly or wrongly think that the fulfilment of the need to leave PR makes the fulfilment of the need to end UMNO’s racism and corruption less likely. But that is another issue. Even if you’re right about this, it does not mean that (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive. Mutual exclusivity requires logical incompatibility.
Thus, we should formulate at least two alternatives that are mutually exclusive (of course, there could be other alternatives). I suggest the following alternatives (which I do not claim to be exhaustive):
A – A non-BN coalition which includes PAS governs Malaysia.
B – A non-BN coalition which does not include PAS governs Malaysia
We have to then
1) assess the relative probabilities of A and B occuring
2) assess the utilities (i.e. gains and losses) of the action of DAP’s staying on in PR given scenario A and given scenario B
3) assess the utilities of the action of DAP’s leaving PR and forming PD given
scenario A and given scenario B.
4) use (1)-(3) in the evaluation of the expected values of the action of DAP’s staying on in PR and the action of DAP’s forming PD.
If one proposes a new alternative, we can apply the same steps to expected values.
Having pointed out the structural problems in your considerations, I shall discuss some of the problems of your considerations taken on your own terms in a subsequent post.
#19 by Onlooker Politics on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 4:47 pm
“I’ve been suggesting that DAP should form a coalition without PAS and UMNO. ‘Without PKR’ is not part of my suggestion. I’ve even suggested that DAP should persuade Anwar to lead PD.” (Dr. Lee Wang Yen)
Dr. Lee,
Thank you very much! You have finally spoken up on my behalf the most ideal situation of having a coalition with PKR by DAP excluding PAS and UMNO. I think this most ideal situation is also what most DAP supporters dream for all along these years.
Let’s pray that the most ideal situation will happen to DAP in the near future after Kuala Terengganu by-election!
#20 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 4:57 pm
expected value is a function of the probabilities of a set of mutually exclusive alternative scenarios and the utility value of each of these alternative scenarios.
Thus, a scenario that has a low probability of ocurring may have a high utility value. Of course, whether it has positive expected value is another story.
Suppose I buy a lottery ticket. The probability that the ticket is the winning ticket is 0.1. The cost of the ticket is $10. The prize money for a winning ticket is $1000.
The expected value of buying the ticket is this:
E(v)=P(Winning)x(utility value of the winning ticket)+P(losing)x(utility value of the losing ticket)
E(v) = 0.1x(1000-10)+0.9x(-10)
Note that while the probability of the scenario of winning is low (0.1), its utility value is high (1000-10=990)
#21 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 5:21 pm
Below are my responses to Jeffrey’s specific considerations:
JF: (a) likely dilution of PAS’s influence when PR turns from electoral coalition to ruling coalition with other parties not ideologically opposed to DAP or similarly ideologically opposed to PAS then joining the victorious PR coalition;’
WY: PAS may block this dilution by contending that Malay Muslims should dominate PR. There have been news about the negotiation between Anwar and PAS leaders on the issue of the number of Malay Muslims in the list of potential BN defectors.
(b) other factors like our constitution being presently not in line with PAS’s ideology, the likelier position of NGOs, Civil Society, PKR & DAP, other parties then joining PR in victory as well as whatever left of BN in the opposition then opposing PAS’s atempts to establish the Islamic state in a PR’ victory – and also demographic realities of the country with 40-45% non muslims not to mention many moderate muslims against it. The question to be asked is also whether PAS can force this issue even if it were the more dominant in the PR ruling coalition because if PKR/DAP or others defect/leave, the ruling coalition will also fall,
WY: I agree with you on this count
JF: (c) if DAP leaves now, the whole enterprise of forming an alternative govt in replacement of the existing will collapse, and all gains on 8th March 08 would be reversed;
WY: the gains on 8th March will be reversed if PR cannot function effectively in its five states and as a federal opposition due to bickerings on fundamentally incompatible ideologies. Besides, PD might reduce the number of BN MPs if MPs from MCA, MIC, SUPP, SAPP, GERAKAN, etc. join PD.
JF: (d) even if PR is not victorious in next GE, in its present form it poses an imminent threat to BN, keeps it on its toes and exert pressure for it to re-invent, whether or not one views that were possible;
WY: but why can’t PD pose a threat to BN? Furthermore, this assumes that PR in its current form can rule effectively in its five states and thus presents itself as a strong opposition threatening to unseat BN. But the fundamentally incompatible ideologies among PR members may impede this. We are already seeing this.
JF: (e) though it is ideal for parties within coalition to be compatible or ast least not that incompatible as PAS/DAP alliance, and that it is entirely valid to surmise that their ideological asymmetry is likely to impede forming smoothly a federal government, the fact, if you look around, most political coalitions on opposition side are likely not that ideologically aligned/ symmetrical: they come togther because on their own they could not realise the objective of winning and sharing power, and for the sake of that end of winning and sharing power they have to compromise when they reach that point, the extent of compromise depending a myriad of circumstances and relative bargaining positions then.
WY: Yes, we should compromise. But members in a coalition aspring to govern a country should not be so ideologically incompatible that it requires its members to compromise some fundamental ideologies. Since PAS’s political Islam is deemed as incompatible with democracy, women rights, cultural diversity, human rights, being PAS’s equal partner would entail making at least some compromises on these things.
#22 by Onlooker Politics on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 5:26 pm
Dr. Lee Wang Yen,
Thank you. I see what you mean now.
Even though the probabilities are low for both hypothesized options in order for DAP to achieve its purpose of co-ruling the country with other party or parties without compromising its fundamental ideologies, the positive expected utilities which can be derived from any one option will be high.
If DAP is given the mandate along with other equal partners to form the Federal Government, it will surely be a very happy situation almost similar to the happiest situation whereby Karpal Singh or Lim Guan Eng has striken the No. 1 prize-winning lottery such as Lotto in Carlifornia or ToTo in Malaysia.
Therefore, it is worth-betting on putting in all effort in order to defeat Barisan Nasional in each and every battle encountered by DAP in the by-election or the general election. Even though the stake of the effort may be high, the positive expected return may also be high.
#23 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 5:28 pm
For those who are interested in the pragmatic considerations of whether to stay on in PR or to form PD, they should consider the process of evaluating expected values outlined above.
If the probabilities of A and B do not differ much (though both are low), then the crucial considerations will be the gains/benefits and losses/risks of the action of staying on in PR and those of the action of forming PD.
I’ve a vague impression that this consideration favours forming PD. However, I must admit that I have not considered the detailed arguments. Given that I’ve already spent far too much time here, I leave the development of the detailed arguments to others.
#24 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 5:35 pm
Wang yen, it is interesting you brought up the decision theory, I can’t remember much of it off the cuff except some set of analytical techniques of different degrees of formality designed to help a decision maker canvass & choose amongst options based on benefit/utility vs cost as against availability of substitutes (which one can use to prescribe options for DAP or/ as well as decide on a choice of marriage partner between the available! :)
Probably DAP HQ should have a paper on such a thing but we guys just say what’s on our mind in a blog like this than to really work on a decision grid regarding what we suggest. Thanks, anyway for the re-formulation, I’d respond if I have the reason or time (later).
#25 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 6:19 pm
Thanks, Jeffrey! You’re a great thinker and discussant.
#26 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 6:49 pm
This blog will lose its color without writers and readers like “Godfather” and “OrangRojak”. It will turn from grey to black.
#27 by katdog on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 9:16 pm
Mr. Lee is suggesting we should target something of very low probability as it is more ideal. Interesting argument but pointless as we are talking about probabilities that are too far in the future. In politics (and real life), totally unpredictable things could happen creating whole new possibilities in an instant.
Arguing that DAP has a better chance of creating a more ideal situation via PD in the future and should therefore leave PAS now is putting the eggs before the basket.
Using the same argument i could then propose that it is as equally possible that if DAP remains, PAS can eventually be convinced to give up it’s Islamic state. So Mr. Lee, which probability then should we consider to be of ‘higher utility’? A or B?
We could go on and on about all manner of ‘ideal’ fanciful probabilities. But fact is, people make decisions (and plan) depending on what is most likely to occur. We then determine among these probabilities based on what is most desirable yet likely.We then implement actions to drive events towards the most desirable outcome.
#28 by katdog on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 9:49 pm
Given a price money of $1000 in the real world, the actual probablity of winning (as determined by the organisers) would most certainly be at least 0.01. In other words, for every 100 tickets i sell i would make $1000 but would then have to pay $1000 to the winner (since there will be 1 winner for every 100 tickets i sell).
Therefore the Utility value is actually
= 0.01 (1000-10) + 0.99 (-10)
= 9.9 – 9.9
= 0
That means, when i take your calculations to the ‘real world’ the actual utility value is zero! In fact in the real world, the actual probablities will be far worse (organisers need to make a profit man) and therefore the utility value would actually end up as negative!
That’s why mama always told me never to gamble as i would surely lose.
Now please go ahead and calculate the utility value for the probability of success by a third coalition that did not consist of PAS or UMNO and tell me what’s the final value. While of great value, the probability of success is so remote that the final utility value would actually be negative a.k.a. Not worth it.
#29 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 10:44 pm
undergrad2: without writers and readers
Thanks undergrad2! You’re also a great thinklet and discussorator. I miss limkamput too – he makes some good points when you’re not yanking his chain and driving him crazy.
Jeffrey: DAP HQ should have a paper
No need! Not for me, at any rate, I have fully mastered the bathroom hose now.
Jeffrey – or anybody else who comments here – DAP have a fairly complete and functional, if not very interactive, website for their organisation – how much of an organisation is there? A DAP HQ paper? Do they have the idle manpower to spare? I use ‘man’ in the all-inclusive Homo sapiens sapiens sense, naturally. It was curiosity in DAP’s organisation that made me attend their local ceramahs here – and my attendance that makes me doubt they have any spare manpower at all. There were small things (not academic papers!) that could easily have been done better if they’d had an idle eye or hand to spare.
Is there even a tropical island with a mansion that has a swimming pool which slides back to reveal the DAP rocket? Exactly how impressive is DAP HQ?
Just curious, that’s all.
#30 by Godfather on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 - 11:27 pm
I can’t deal with such theoretical neophytes. Not only do they have no sense of reality, they are really puzzled as to why we ourselves demand a dose of reality.
#31 by sirrganass on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 1:01 am
Hello, the game is over. let’s go back to work:
“Menurut Ketua Penerangan KeADILan, Tian Chua, kehadiran pimpinan KeADILan dan DAP hari ini menunjukan kerjasama yang erat bagi membantu kemenangan Pas di kerusi berkenaan.
“Boleh dilihat penamaan calon hari, kesemua pimimpin tertinggi KeADILan dan DAP yang hadir hari ini menunjukan komitmen untuk memastikan kemenangan besar Pas di Kuala Terengganu,” katanya ketika dihubungi hari ini.
Pada penamaan calon hari ini, Timbalan Presiden KeADILan Syed Husin Ali hadir hari ini mengetuai kepimpinan KeADILan yang memberi sokongan.
Diantara pemimpin KeADILan yang turut sertai perarakan dan pehimpunan di Pusat Penamaan Calon di Stadium Negeri, Kuala Terengganu ialah, Naib Presiden Azmin Ali dan Mustafa Kamil Ayob, Menteri Besar Selangor Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, Ketua Angkatan Muda KeADILan Shamsul Iskandar dan Ketua Wanita Zuraida Kamaruddin.
DAP pula diketuai oleh pemimpin utama parti itu, Lim Kit Siang serta turut kelihatan Exco Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Teresa Kok dan beberapa pimpinan utama parti berkenaan.
Dengan kehadiran ini, menurut Tian, beliau berkeyakinan bahawa Pas akan memenangi kawasan ini dengan majoriti yang besar.
—-
It’s fun, you know, having realising that we are working together as a team – despite the ideological differences! Hudud or no hudud, See you all in KT! Good luck!
#32 by Lee Wang Yen on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 1:23 am
To Katdog,
1. Have I claimed that I’m giving a description of what a real world lottery is? Why in the world should I give such a description? There is such a thing called ‘a simplified example to illustrate some point’.
2. If you read my post in context, you’ll find that the point of the illustration is not that an alternative with a low probability can yield positive expected value (i.e. positive E(V)). The example is to illustrate that an alternative with a low probability can nevertheless have high utility value (note that this does not refer to E(V). In this case, the utility value for the scenario of getting a winning ticket is 1000-10). Since the example is devised to merely illustrate this point, other details are irrelevant. Even if the expected value (E(v)) of buying the ticket is negative, it is irrelevant to the point I am illustrating to Onlooker Politics. Do you notice that I say in that post that ‘Thus, a scenario that has a low probability of ocurring may have a high utility value. Of course, whether it has positive expected value is another story.’ I have highlighted the point of illustration explicitly.
#33 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 1:51 am
Assume a lottery ticket is bought. Dr. Lee Wang Yen estimated the probability that the ticket is the winning ticket is 0.1 or 10%, whereas katdog estimated the probability that the ticket is the winning ticket is 0.01 or 1%.
Based on Dr. Lee’s estimation of 10% probability of winning, the expected value of the lottery ticket is 90. Based on katdog’s estimation of 1% probability of winning, the expected value of the lottery ticket is zero.
No matter how, the utility value of the lottery ticket for both events of probabilities remains the same, i.e. (1000-10)=990.
katdog could have been given the full discretion to disagree with Dr. Lee on the likelihood of success in getting DAP to achieve its purpose of co-ruling the country with other party or parties without compromising its fundamental ideologies. However, katdog shall not be able to change the utility value of the lottery ticket since the cost of the lottery ticket in both cases remains the same, i.e. $10, and the prize money for a winning ticket remains at $1,000.
No doubt, the utility value of getting DAP to achieve its purpose of co-ruling the country with other party or parties without compromising its fundamental ideologies is perceived to be high. Even though katdog has obtained an expected value of zero for the lottery ticket because it is estimated that the probability of winning is only 1%, we may still find that the lottery ticket is worth-buying in view of the high utility value that may be obtained from the lottery in the event of winning.
Even though Dr. Lee could be wrong in giving an over-optimistic estimation of 10% probability of winning, that would not have changed the utility value, i.e. 990, of the lottery ticket. Therefore, katdog will have to revise his proof in the event that he wishes to convince people on the non-viability of forming PD as suggested by Dr. Lee. Even though the probability of success by DAP in enticing PKR to join PD may be low, the existence of chance for success is always there. katdog may be able to prove that it is not worth-trying for DAP to leave PR and form PD by showing to us that the cost of getting the success in forming PD is overly high and therefore no economic value can be found in it which renders any worthwhile consideration of trying it.
However, in reality DAP may have to risk the chances of losing the political power to form state government in Perak and Selangor in the event that DAP really tries to leave PR and form PD.
#34 by Lee Wang Yen on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 2:27 am
Katdog says:
‘Now please go ahead and calculate the utility value for the probability of success by a third coalition that did not consist of PAS or UMNO and tell me what’s the final value. While of great value, the probability of success is so remote that the final utility value would actually be negative a.k.a. Not worth it.’
If you read my response to Jeffrey in which I outline the method of evaluating the expected values of the action of DAP’s staying on in PR and the action of DAP’s forming PD given scenario A and B, you’ll find that what matters is not the absolute values of these expected values. What matters is the relative expected values of the action of DAP’s staying on in PR on A and B and the action of DAP’s forming PD on A and B. Even if both are negative, my contention that it’s better on pragmatic grounds for DAP to form PD than to stay on in PR could still stand. This happens when the negative expected value of the action of DAP staying on in PR given A and B is smaller than the negative expected value of the action of DAP forming PD given A and B (for example, if the former is -10 and the latter -5).
Of course, I wish to emphasise the ‘even if’. There is no reason to think that these expected values will certainly or most likely be negative in the case of A and B. Of course, Katdog is right that most real-world actions of buying lottery tickets have negative expected values. This is because a typical real-world lottery ticket has a very low probability of being a winning ticket and thus also a very high probability of being a losing ticket. For example:
E(V) = P(winning ticket)x(Utility value of winning)+P(losing)x(Utility value of losing)
E(V) = 0.001x(1000-10)+0.999(-10)
=0.99-9.99=-9 (negative value)
This is because in cases of lottery, the utility value of buying the losing ticket is always negative. But the utility value of B in my proposal is not necessarily negative. Whether it is negative depends on, for example, whether the action of staying on in PR given B (and for that matter, given A, and other alternative scenarios) incurs more risks than benefits.
In any case, I should emphasise that the lottery example is meant only to be an illustration of one particular point (and I have already specified the intended point of illustration. I think Katdog and Onlooker Politics have read too much into that example.
#35 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 2:31 am
Jeffrey: DAP HQ should have a paper
No need! Not for me, at any rate, I have fully mastered the bathroom hose now.” OrangRojak
I see you found comfort in Malaysia’s squatting toilets which are a pain in the ass of foreign visitors. Some Malaysians insist on squatting even on benches in Hyde Park! If there is one art Malaysians have mastered, it is the art of squatting.
#36 by Lee Wang Yen on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 2:39 am
My original non-real-world example of lottery ticket was only meant to illustrate to Onlooker Politics that it is possible to have a scenario with low probability while the utility value of an action given that scenario is high. That example wasn’t even meant to illustrate my outline of the evaluation of expected values of the action of DAP’s staying on in PR and of the action of DAP’s forming PD given A and B, which I suggest in a post in response to Jeffrey’s considerations. The problem happens when Katdog uses the lottery example for the latter. This led to his mistaken suggestion that the expected values of the latter (i.e. those that has to do with A and B) must be or most probably are negative. I’ve already explained in my last post why this is not the case.
#37 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 2:42 am
“Is there even a tropical island with a mansion that has a swimming pool which slides back to reveal the DAP rocket.” OrangRojak
Once Mahathir poked fun at the DAP and compared it to the Rockettes – picture long legged girls in Broadway, Manhattan kicking their legs into the air in unison. Would love to see Lim Kit Siang doing those high kicks!
#38 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 2:44 am
Good Lord, it is Lee Wang Yen!! I’m outta here!
#39 by SearchforJustice on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 3:06 am
What is the controversy about? PAS has already declared clearly that, if ever implemented, Hudud would only be applicable to the Muslims. The Malays and other Muslims have more reasons to worry. Why are the non-Muslims, including MCA, making a big issue out of this? Why should DAP boycott the KT election? As the self proclaimed \protector\ of the Chinese, MCA would do better service by trying to persuade UMNO to cease calling Malaysia an Islamic State and to take a more liberal attitude in regard to the Christian Herald issue.
#40 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 3:51 am
“Why are the non-Muslims…..making a big issue out of this?” SearcforJustice
People like Lee Wang Yen is scared to death at the thought of having his foreskin separated from him at the airport.
#41 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 3:58 am
Ooooops ‘are scared’ in case Prof. Lee comes out with one of his theories!
#42 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 11:52 am
“This is because in cases of lottery, the utility value of buying the losing ticket is always negative. But the utility value of B in my proposal is not necessarily negative.” (Dr. Lee Wang Yen)
Dr. Lee,
Could there be a typographical error in the above sentences? I guess you actually meant that the sentences should be phrased as follow:
“This is because in cases of lottery, the estimated utility value of buying the losing ticket is always negative. But the estimated utility value of B in my proposal is not necessarily negative.”
In your evaluation on the acceptability of either one of the hypothesized options, I believe it will be good if you are able to take the certainty equivalent value of each option into consideration during your decision making process. The power and privilege to form the state government in Perak and Selangor are the certainty equivalent value which is now being enjoyed by DAP. What certainty equivalent value can you expect to derive for DAP if DAP has to leave PR and form PD?
Definition:
Certainty Equivalent is the amount an agent would rather walk away with rather than gamble at winning some increased amount at a given probability. Studies show in the $1000 coin toss that most people would rather walk away with $400. Thus $400 is the certainty equivalent of a lottery consisting of a $1000 pay off at 50% odds.
#43 by FY Lim on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 2:17 pm
Well, we have seen a whole lot of statistics being thrown in by Lee Wang Yen, Jefferey , Undergrad 2 and onlooker politics in their discussions. This should be left in the realms of the academics and has no place in Malaysian politics.
Whether DAP should leave the coalition PR and form PD is not dependent on the the probability result but rather the people’s mind in which the population is not homogenous but rather made up of Malays , Chinese , Indians , Kadazan-dusun etc.
Politics is a different ball game altogether and Uncle Kit is seasoned enough to comprehend the whole equation.
Because of the coalition, the PR could form the state govt’s in Perak, Penang, Kedah and Selangor in the last GE. DAP by itself will never dreamt of being in the govt in Selangor, Perak and Penang and more so with a CM in Penang.
Lee Wang Yen’s hypothetical assumption of DAP forming a PD without PAS is just to throw a wedge among the component parties in PR. You have to understand that without PAS, there will be no alternative govts in the PR states unless you want BN to continue ruling.
BN had ruled with arrogance by putting an ex non-UMNO CM to public disgrace with the tearing of his picture and stomping on it ;issuing threats when losing an argument like getting the non-Malay pendatangs to go back to China and India ;threats of another 513 , massive corruption and non-transparent contracts ; does not care for your liberties and packing the controlled media with lies and deceit ; does not care to follow what had been agreed in the Education Act and crying for abolishment of mother tongue etc etc etc.
The above had been going on for 51 years and yet there are some among you who still want to pepetuate with BN govt. rule. Unless you were one of the small benficaries of the UMNOputras or MCAputras policy.
What is so bad about hudud law implementation after all. It is expressedly for the Muslim community only and will not affect the non-Muslims as defined in the Federal Constitution. Why are we scaring the non-Muslims ? Have PAS govt ever chopped off a thief’s hand ?
In fact PAS govt had issued land for non-Muslim places of worship in Kelantan.
#44 by Lee Wang Yen on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 2:28 pm
To Onlooker Politics,
I just answered your questions in a post. But I was surprised that it went into moderation.
#45 by Lee Wang Yen on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 2:30 pm
To Onlooker Politics,
There are different terms for ‘utility values’. Some statistics textbooks refer to it as ‘values’. Philosophical literature usually uses the term ‘utility’. Thus, I have chosen the term ‘utility values’. I haven’t seen ‘estimated utility’ or ‘estimated values’ or ‘estimated utility values’ in mathematical and philosophical literature. But some books may use these terms. Given the variety of terms used in mathematical and philosphical literature, it doesn’t really matter which term we choose to use, so long as it is one of these widely used terms.
#46 by Lee Wang Yen on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 7:03 pm
My response to the second part of Onlooker Politics’ post went under moderation too. I wonder why it hasn’t appeared yet.
#47 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 9:01 pm
I guessed it’s the way the host tells you it is time you take your philosophy of rational thinking etc to another blog – preferably your own.
The rest of us (except for a few) here feel you should take the hint, pack up and hit the road.
#48 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 - 9:38 pm
The moderator is welcome to redirect Lee Wang Yen’s reply addressing to me to my email address:
onlooker.onlooker1@gmail.com
Thank you.