Help me understand what makes a mandate!

From this, if you do the math, here is what happened in 2001:

a) Total number of persons eligible to vote: 2,036,923
b) Number that could vote because of the "walkovers": 615,267, ie, 30.21% of voters
c) Of the 615,267, the number that voted in favour of the PAP: 453,527.
d) That number, 453,527 comprises 22.27% of the TOTAL number of voters. BUT, the ruling party would instead like to say that they got 73.7% of votes in their favour - 453,527/615,267, those who voted in favour of the PAP divided by those who could, NOT what it should be - 453,527/2,036,923 which is those who voted in favour of PAP divided by total number of voters. Spin doctors lying with statistics - naturally, our compliant daily rags did not do the analysis as well.

So, with a 22.27% of votes in favour of the PAP, the PAP has a mandate to govern? MM Lee, the wise one with the databank, will say that "it is a reflection of how bad the opposition is". How did we let this happen?

22.27% gives 97.6% or 82 seats in parliament! Can this be allowed to continue? We need to be able to VOTE in the MPs, not to get in on stupid technicalities. Walkovers are unconstitutional.

Look at it another way:

a) Of the 84 seats, only 29 are elected MPs, 27 of them being PAPies or, in percentage terms, 32% of the 84 MPs are elected PAPy MPs. All 29 of them have a moral and legal right to represent their constituents.
b) A whopping 55 or 65.4% (almost 2/3s) are WOMPs and have no moral right to represent anyone. Legal right to represent is bestowed by a flawed walkover system.