AUGUST 12 — The political graphic circulating on social media, proclaiming “DAP Dominasi!” and “Undi PH = DAP Berkuasa,” appears powerful because it presents numbers as if they constitute an argument.
DAP’s state seats are placed alongside those of PKR and Amanah, followed by its parliamentary strength, to create the impression that Pakatan Harapan is essentially an instrument of DAP domination.
But this is precisely where political arithmetic becomes political fallacy.
Counting seats is easy. Understanding power is considerably harder.
The central weakness of this discourse, frequently associated with the political messaging surrounding the Hadi-led PAS, is the assumption that the largest component within a coalition automatically controls the coalition, the government and ultimately the country.
It does not.
Political science has never defined power simply as possessing the largest number of legislators within one coalition.
Power depends upon institutions, constitutional authority, coalition bargaining, bureaucratic capacity, control of executive offices, federal-state relations, political legitimacy and the ability to assemble sufficient partners to make decisions.
Malaysia makes this distinction particularly important.
DAP may possess more parliamentary seats than PKR or Amanah individually, but Malaysia does not operate under a system in which the largest party inside a governing coalition automatically acquires absolute executive authority. The prime minister is not appointed by DAP.
Under Article 43 of the Federal Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoints as prime minister a member of the Dewan Rakyat who in His Majesty’s judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority.
That constitutional mechanism alone demonstrates why aggregating DAP’s seats and declaring “DAP dominates” is analytically deficient.
There is an even larger mathematical problem.
If numbers alone prove domination, why stop the calculation at DAP?
One would have to aggregate the parliamentary representation of UMNO, PKR, Amanah, GPS, GRS and other parties supporting the federal administration.
Once this is done, DAP becomes one component in a much larger political architecture rather than the omnipotent actor suggested by the graphic.
Selective arithmetic is not political analysis.
The same problem arises at the state level. A party winning many seats in Penang does not automatically translate into equivalent political power in Johor, Pahang, Sabah, Sarawak, Kelantan or Terengganu. Malaysia is a federation of thirteen states and three Federal Territories with radically different electoral, demographic and political configurations.
Indeed, the graphic itself inadvertently demonstrates this reality. DAP’s strength varies considerably across the states listed. That is evidence of geographically circumscribed electoral strength, not nationwide domination.
The more fundamental mistake is the confusion between representation and control.
Forty members of Parliament represent forty constituencies. They do not constitute 112 MPs, which is the basic majority threshold in a 222-seat Dewan Rakyat when all seats are filled.
Nor does holding forty parliamentary seats give DAP command of the Malaysian civil service, the Conference of Rulers, the armed forces, the police, the judiciary, the Islamic administrative system, the state governments or the constitutional machinery of the Federation.
Malaysia’s institutional structure simply does not permit one party possessing forty parliamentary seats to “dominate” everything.
Yet the narrative survives because its purpose is not merely mathematical. It is psychological.
The repeated elevation of DAP into an overwhelmingly powerful political adversary serves a strategic function: it encourages Malay-Muslim voters to interpret elections through communal anxiety rather than institutional reality.
Every DAP victory can then be presented as evidence of expanding domination, while every setback suffered by its opponents can be portrayed as an existential loss.
This is where the Hadi-led PAS discourse encounters a serious contradiction.
PAS cannot simultaneously portray the Malay-Muslim political community as overwhelmingly important to Malaysian electoral politics while suggesting that a party with forty parliamentary seats can effortlessly dominate the entire political system. Both propositions cannot comfortably coexist.
If Malay political power remains deeply embedded across Malaysia’s constitutional institutions, public administration, state governments and numerous political parties, then DAP cannot plausibly exercise the near-total control implied by such propaganda.
More importantly, Malaysian politics cannot be reduced to Malays versus Chinese, Muslims versus non-Muslims or PAS versus DAP.
PKR is multi-ethnic. Amanah is predominantly Malay-Muslim. UMNO remains a major Malay political organisation. GPS and GRS represent powerful East Malaysian interests. Sabah and Sarawak possess constitutional and political leverage that cannot simply be absorbed into Peninsula-centric calculations.
Coalition government therefore operates through negotiation.
This distinction matters because parliamentary democracy is ultimately about assembling consent.
A party with forty seats that cannot persuade another seventy-two MPs to cooperate with it cannot form a government. Conversely, a smaller party strategically positioned between competing blocs may exercise influence disproportionate to its numerical strength.
Political power is relational, not merely numerical.
This is Political Science 101.
The obsession with DAP’s numbers consequently risks preventing PAS itself from confronting a much more important question: what does PAS intend to do with power?
Malaysians are entitled to ask about economic growth, investment, wages, education, water security, industrial development, artificial intelligence, logistics, climate resilience, healthcare and Malaysia’s competitiveness within ASEAN.
A political movement cannot indefinitely substitute an enemy for a governing programme.
Malaysia faces enormously complex challenges heading towards the next general election. The country needs parties capable of explaining how they intend to govern an advanced, multi-ethnic, federal and increasingly digital economy.
The politics of arithmetic cannot answer these challenges.
Nor should Malaysians allow themselves to be persuaded that democracy becomes dangerous merely because one coalition partner wins more seats than another. That is precisely what elections are designed to determine.
DAP can be criticised. PKR can be criticised. Amanah can be criticised. UMNO, Bersatu and PAS must equally be subjected to scrutiny.
But criticism should begin with facts rather than fear.
The graphic proclaiming “DAP Dominasi” therefore reveals less about DAP’s supposed omnipotence than about the weakness of a political discourse that mistakes aggregation for domination.
Seats are representation.
Coalitions create governments.
Institutions distribute authority.
The Constitution constrains power.
And ultimately, Malaysian democracy belongs neither to DAP nor PAS, neither to PH nor PN, but to Malaysians themselves.
Any political movement that deliberately collapses these distinctions may succeed in producing anxiety. It does not necessarily produce an argument.
* Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies, and director at the Institute of International and Asean Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
