Debunking the Bersih 2.0 critics
Misleading arguments and suggestions should not be left standing without a challenge. Here I show seven types of faulty arguments that have been made against Bersih 2.0 and comment on specific examples. It is hoped that the reader would be able to identify them on his own in the future, and be inspired to debate the critic to discover the truth or the best way forward for a given policy.
Written by Pak Sako, CPI
A number of political commentators have criticised Bersih 2.0 in the news media and blogs. Among these critics are Chandra Muzaffar, Anas Zubedy, Ahirudin Attan (Rocky’s Bru) and Mahathir Mohamad.
Their comments would have been welcome if they were honest and holistic assessments of Bersih 2.0. It would have been nice to see the use of sound reasoning. Instead we have faulty argument upon faulty argument, in article upon article.
This is regrettable not just for the dubious ethics with which personal political interests are advanced. It is also unfortunate because the trusting reader becomes confused as to what is true or false and becomes prone to accepting questionable statements and conclusions as truthful.
Misleading arguments and suggestions should not be left standing without a challenge. Here I show seven types of faulty arguments that have been made against Bersih 2.0 and comment on specific examples. It is hoped that the reader would be able to identify them on his own in the future, and be inspired to debate the critic to discover the truth or the best way forward for a given policy.
A. The middle ground
In dealing with what they see as a problem, the critics usually begin with an appeal to the middle path or ‘third way’. This is in spite of the fact that a middle ground might fly in the face of logic. They propose a fallacious kind of give-and-take — sacrifice a wheel or two here so as to keep a radiator or fan belt running there. This makes no sense when, for a policy choice or reformist action to truly work or have its intended effect, like a car you need to retain all of its necessary parts. Have yourself a very effective Bersih 2.0 rally, says one commentator, but do it in the pits of Putrajaya where no one hears you (Anas Zubedy in ‘Bersih 2.0 — is there a third alternative?’, The Malaysian Insider, June 23). Why rally, asks another commentator, when you can have dialogue with the Election Commission and national government — the very same parties that had four years since the first Bersih rally of 2007 to improve the electoral system but did very little (Chandra Muzaffar in ‘Understanding the context’, The Star, July 3).
The progressive option is not about having Bersih 2.0 or not having it. The progressive option is to reach an immediate agreement for commencing the reform of electoral processes, failing which a Bersih 2.0 march would proceed to inspire change through other mechanisms such as the ballot box. The Agong’s call for negotiations should be seen in this positive light. The government should take this as a golden opportunity to wrest the advantage. There is still time for half a week of intensive dialogue between Bersih, the Election Commission and the government to reach an agreement on reform action before 9 July.
B. Exaggeration
The critics also commonly play up unsubstantiated dangers and costs (e.g., by appeal to threat) and play down benefits and mitigating facts (the ignorance of counterevidence). Consider the following commentators’ statements pertaining to physical injury and business cost.
“In the first Bersih demonstration on November 10 2007, a number of people were injured. There were similar casualties in the Hindraf demonstration… in the same year.” (Chandra Muzaffar)
He reports not how many people were injured (10, 100 or 1,000), what kind of injury was sustained (scratches and scrapes or bullet wounds) and why (whether due to Bersih or Hindraf demonstrators quarreling among themselves or they were hurt as a result of unnecessary, heavy-handed police action). There is also a failure to properly discuss the desirability of the freedom to express fair demands and upholding democratic principles given the risk of scrapes, bruises and such.
It is also difficult to ascertain whether the commentator is sincere in his concern for the marchers and others nearby. Assuming that the planned march goes ahead, he does not ask for the authorities to fully cooperate with the Bersih 2.0 organisers to ensure safety and order. He does not ask of the police to refrain from possibly hurting the marchers. He does not suggest to the authorities to control or remove potential troublemakers such as Perkasa and their ‘war general’ Ibrahim Ali who openly threatened chaos. The commentator did not even encourage a peaceful, celebratory atmosphere.
“Traders and taxi drivers in the affected areas will inevitably suffer a loss of income. Here again, the past is a good teacher. In previous demonstration in Kuala Lumpur, people in various walks of life had to pay the price.” (Chandra Muzaffar)
“Merchants and business organisations need sales during the weekends to survive and make a profit to continue providing employment to the thousands under their care. We cannot afford to lose millions of ringgit every time the rakyat gather to voice concerns.” (Anas Zubedy).
Certain traders and taxi drivers might lose their regular daily income for that day fully or partially, but others at slightly different locations in Kuala Lumpur could benefit. The above two commentators refuse to see that benefits could also accrue to the shuttle-bus, energy, merchandise and food and beverages businesses as a result of there being a mass concentration of consumers about town.
There are also those benefits that are unquantifiable in monetary terms: the camaraderie between participants of different races and beliefs; the greatly broadened public awareness about the importance and urgency of electoral reforms; and the sense of empowerment people feel about being able to shape their collective destiny in pressuring reluctant national institutions to peacefully push through needed electoral improvements.
To be complete about it, there are other costs in the form of inconveniences to the public as a result of congestion. But these are not different to the price that Malaysians pay day in and day out when trapped in traffic jams and when having to shove about to board infrequent, jam-packed commuter trains.
It is difficult to imagine the catastrophic net business costs assumed by the second commentator as a result of a couple of hours of orderly marches (endangerment to “thousands” of jobs and losses running “in the millions”). Businesses have ample time to plan and prepare for contingencies, if any (Bersih announced the march many weeks ago). Businesses could also imagine that it is a public holiday. Would they complain so loudly about having to close shop if the sudden death of a monarch imposes an immediate one-day public holiday and road closures for processions?
C. Scaremongering
If middle-ground diplomacy and mild exaggeration do not compel the desired outcome, scare tactics might be used. Abusive ad hominems, straw-man attacks and deliberate omissions can be combined to make the following type of political statements:
“Anwar… [a] deeply flawed politician… the de facto leader of Bersih… wants to become prime minister… and will resort to any means to achieve his ambitions”; “PAS and DAP are also driven by the desire to gain power through the quickest route. For them also the end justifies the means.” (Chandra Muzaffar)
Observe the manipulation of emotion by using subjective statements such as “deeply flawed” and speculation (“will resort to any means”). There is little concern for providing evidence. We have also partial reporting; only opposition political parties are mentioned when all Malaysians, including the ruling Barisan Nasional supporters, were invited to join the Bersih march to advocate and demand for electoral reforms. The above commentator also ignores the fact that all rational political parties do seek power, and they do wish to attain it with the least possible cost or resistance, without recourse to violent acts or breaches of trust.
“If the stadium option had materialized, certain elements in Bersih, it is alleged, would have turned the stadium to a Tahrir Square, with demonstrators camping there day and night for weeks on end.” (Chandra Muzaffar)
Here we see the non-reporting of sources (“it is alleged”). Alleged by whom and upon what basis, we are not told. An honest commentator would just say he “fears” or “has a gut feeling that there might be” long-standing protests. Moreover, asserting a Tahrir Square scenario is, on its own, a domino fallacy (i.e., the unproven assumption that a particular event is the first in a series of steps that will inevitably lead to some specific, undesirable consequence).
