Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek, who looks like MCA Deputy President but has failed to reinstate his position, said: “Half of them support me and half of them support him (Ong Tee Keat).”

Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, who is still the MCA President, but more than half of the delegates have voted no-confidence in him, said: “47% of them support him (Dr Chua Soi Lek) and about 50% support me.”

Therefore, the conclusion is: “After they have agreed to work together as a team, MCA has become a party that owns nearly 100% of support.”

I recall a famous statement made by China Premier Wen Jiabao: “A small problem multiplied by 1.3 billion, will become a big problem; a large aggregate divided by 1.3 billion, will become a small sum.”

Wen's argument seems simple but very convincing, and it has become a “figure classics”.

However, some people do not agree with his logic and they wonder why he must multiply the “problem” while dividing the “economic magnitude”. Why can't he say: “A small aggregate multiplied by 1.3 billion, will become a large sum; a big problem divided by 1.3 billion, will become a small problem”?

In politics, figure games are really interesting. They keep rearranging the figures until they find a set of numbers that benefits them the most. Ong and Dr Chua are wisemen, how could they do not understand it?

Ong and Dr Chua are enjoy playing the game. In fact, we can also question why they do not say it the other way round?

Why doesn't Dr Chua say: “Half of them don't support me and half of them don't support him.”

Why doesn't Ong say: “53% of them are against him and about 50% of them are against me.”

Why the conclusion can't be: “After they have agreed to work together as a team, MCA has become a party that owns nearly 100% of opposing rate”?

Therefore, such political figure games told us a fact: although statistics speak, politicians can make it big or small, may or may not be needed or even topsy-turvy and distorted. The people must not lap up information without digesting it and simply accept it.

How ridiculous figure games could be? Former French Minister of Information Alain Peyrefitte cited an example: “A woman is faithful to her husband while another woman is unfaithful to her husband twice a week. Therefore, averagely, the two women are unfaithful to their respective husbands once a week.”

The above joke may be disrespectful to women but it has pointed out the problems of figure games. Justice is not a simple calculation. One will be misled if he or she does not try to understand the concrete situation of different parties but just looking at the surface figures and listen to only one party that claims itself to be justness. (By LIM MUN FAH/Translated by SOONG PHUI JEE/Sin Chew Daily)