To Pak Sako:

I refer to the article ‘Debunking the Bersih 2.0 Critics’ in the Centre for Policy Initiatives website (July 4, 2011).

Kindly note that I am pro-Bersih; meaning I am for the constant and consistent cleaning up of the electoral process and system. Just because I do not subscribe to the manner by which Bersih wanted to achieve it, it does not mean I am with Bersih’s opponent. That is a very shallow way of looking at things.

Your article has lumped me together with those who are against Bersih in principle. I do not think my good friend Dr Chandra Muzaffar agreed with my approach. Nor do i have any contact with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Rocky Bru. Kindly re-read both my articles about the subject [published in The Malaysian Insider] titled ‘Bersih 2.0 — is there a third alternative?’ and [response to Pak Sako in the Anas Zubedy blog] ‘The Middle way is not a fallacy’.

Do you see me disagreeing with Bersih in principle? I would be happy if you do not play God and pretend to know what is in my heart; as though you know my intentions.

It is sad to see that even intellectuals like you fail to see that the country does not belong to only two camps. We are more colourful than that.

I wrote the article after chatting with more than 20 business leaders, top management of multinationals, local companies and entrepreneurs. By lumping us with the camps, you are alienating us. That is not very wise. Your idea and the ideas of your opponent are not the only option. Not wanting to listen to other ideas and avenues is nothing short of bigotry.

Kindly write a correction immediately. I would be happy if you also post my two articles as proof.

Thank you.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

*** *** *** *** *** ***

To Anas Zubedy:

I refer to your letter to the CPI where you draw attention to my article ‘Debunking the Bersih 2.0 Critics’.

You express concern regarding its reference to yourself and to your writing on Bersih 2.0; I address your letter to allay your concern and dispel illusions.

My article is about the use of faulty arguments to express a view or further an interest, whatever it may be. It is designed to show how to identify and counter such types of arguments. The case study I use is the Bersih 2.0 gathering.

By faulty arguments I mean, among other things, arguments that do not provide enough corroborating information or balanced information in proposing a view or advancing an interest.

Providing corroborating information is to state, for example: “based on the estimates of study X, an impact amounting to Y could be anticipated as a result of a coming event [perhaps with a statement of the degree of certainty]”. To provide balanced information is to state, for example, that “while there might be losses for one group, it must be conceded that greater revenue would accrue to another group” or “that considering all costs and benefits, we expect a net gain [or a net loss]”). Qualifications should be given for any non-provision of information so that readers get an accurate picture of things (e.g., “event ABC might cause losses or inconveniences to these particularly susceptible groups”, and not "there will be millions of ringgit of losses").

It is by this standard that my article makes some of its assessments.

You were picked out in my article to illustrate the above.

In your June 23 article ‘Bersih 2.0 — is there a third alternative’, you mention the loss of millions of ringgit to businesses. However, you fail to explain how the losses that you suggest could arise:

• You do not refer to any economic impact analyses to justify your claims.

• You provide no citation of past studies of different cases that might be suitably used as comparison.
  
  

• You do not mention of any reliable, systematic survey of a representative sample of the relevant businesses (e.g., “according to a set of businesses enterprises over the areas that will be immediately affected, questionnaire surveys reveal the following findings…”).
  
  

• You do not consider at all the positive spillover effects, i.e., the possibility of increased revenue for other existing businesses, new income opportunities, and the range of non-monetary benefits. In the absence of information, it would have been legitimate to just state as follows, “some, not all, businesses in the area, risk facing losses”, but you do not do that.

You are also named in the introductory section of my article. You are mentioned there as one of a number of prominent political commentators who have been critical of the planned Bersih 2.0 gathering. My article does not link you to the other critics mentioned in it. It does not imply or assume that you have any contact with them.

My article does not state or imply that you are against the Bersih movement or anti-Bersih. Equally, my article does not state or imply that you support the Bersih movement or are pro-Bersih. My article does not work by assuming what a critic's private interests are and judge them based on that. Its aim is to point out argumentative deficiencies, whatever the critic’s interest may be. As you do not state whether you support or oppose Bersih in your Malaysian Insider article (you only propose to “present a centrist’s point of view”, and speak about the “right to freedom of speech, expression and assembly” as well as mention that “both Bersih 2.0 and Perkasa should be provided an avenue to have peaceful demonstrations”), for me to speculate regarding your position with regard to Bersih or Perkasa would only be unfair to you.

You state in your letter to CPI that you are pro-Bersih. You go on to state that you support the “constant and consistent cleaning up of the electoral process and system”, even though you might not “subscribe with the manner in which Bersih wanted to achieve” its goals. Supporters can also be critics — in some cases among the best critics – but the question of whether their criticism is valid or good is an entirely separate matter. It is open to counterargument, and this should be accepted in the spirit of mutual learning and improvement.

In your letter, you accuse me of failing to see that the country does not belong to “only two camps”. You accuse me of “lumping” selected businesses “with the camps”.

These accusations are unwarranted.

Nowhere in my article do I state or imply that there are “only two camps”. My article also does not lump any group with any particular camp as you claim. My article also does not attempt to enumerate any camps or interests, whether anarchists, nationalists, democratic socialists, religious democrats, pro-business liberals etc. That matter is left open with the catch-all term “political interests”.

I also reject your emotionally-charged accusations about alienation and bigotry as completely baseless.

Regards,

Pak Sako