How to Straighten a Wet Thread Using Convoluted Logic

I have said it in an earlier article. We are all waiting for PAS now. But PAS cannot blame anyone for being angry at the party and making negative inferences about it. We can’t, using the much used term- say shut the F**k-up to some people who want to express their views. In this important issue of Khalid’s recalcitrant holding on to the MB’s post, there are bound to be strong differing views. That also include expressions on PAS political inertia even after accepting its rationalisation that it’s not like replacing a ketua kampong.

In the last few hours I have seen many attempts at bullshitting. It’s all just attempts to straighten a wet thread. One PAS exco member says, they are staying behind to safeguard the RM3.2 billion cash reserves from falling into the hands of UMNO. Pray tell how. That is only possible if UMNO takes over the Selangor state government. With 12 people how is that possible? With Khalid, they will have 13 people strong. With 13 pas members, a government made up of 26 people, some made excos and other back- benchers, UMNO still cannot form a government.

My guess is Khalid will wait for a right time to recommend dissolution of the Selangor state assembly. It won’t even go to the stage of ascertaining a vote of confidence.

So to the stragglers, we can only say, you stay because you want to or are ordered to do so. Let us not insult the intelligence of others. It’s irrelevant even if the statement is issued by an ustaz. It’s not a word of God.

There is also an attempt at verbal semantics- by applying the philosopher‘s art of disputing everything. It goes something like this; How are we sure the people in the minority are wrong and the people in the majority right? That kind of approach would require an extraordinary skill in dissecting a human brain to discover what is inside their minds. You have signals from the majority and you want to belabour the obvious.

The practical and conventional method is a better way to discern higher legitimacy. What is the method? Accept the practical and the conventional. Surely the majority counts for something. The people in the majority must by definition have a better legitimacy to affirm a proposition. If the majority proposes that Khalid is no longer fit to become MB, do we reject that affirmation by saying- no, the majority is wrong, the minority is right?

If we do the unconventional because we are motivated by vengeful thoughts, then we celebrate the tyranny of the minority because we have applied a dubious logic. Even in a judgement where there is a dissenting view, while it is respected,the views of the majority is upheld in the judgement.

The sentiment is the same in politics. The voice of the majority is taken as a more valid affirmation of a proposition. If I say a person has more support because he has the bigger number of votes than a person with less number, that proposition ought to be accepted.  We are certainly trying to straighten a wet thread if we question whether the voice of the majority does represent a more legitimate proposition. If we reject the proposition that the majority represents a more legitimate preference, then we are living in a philosophical world and not the world of the reasonable man. In the world of the philosopher as well as the lost man, nothing is how it seems to be.

That would amount to saying that the 52% who voted for the PR or rejected the BN in GE13 cannot be accepted a representing a more legitimate voice than the 48%. If we keep insisting the 48% is a truer representation of people’s sentiments, there must something wrong with us.

We apply a convoluted logic then, when we tell people the 30 ADUNs who supported Wan Azizah do not present a truer picture of support but propose that the 26 people who support Khalid in potentia, represents the truer voice. I use the term in potentia- because as long as the purported support exists potentially, Khalid may not even have 26 supporters. 12 of them are certainly opposed to us in Pakatan. If Khalid counts the 12 as his supporters then he is clearly aligned to UMNO and if PAS comes in to support Khalid, that makes then accomplice to UMNO in insisting that Khalid is still MB.

What did Khalid claim actually when he met up with HRH the Sultan of Selangor?  This is not a question of forming a legitimate exco. Perhaps it’s true that in order to form a legitimate exco- you only need 4 other persons. But you still do not command a majority of the exco. Didn’t Khalid sack more than 4 excos, which means he does not have a majority even within the exco?

The issue is not a legal one. This should be obvious to everyone. The issue here is of political legitimacy. Khalid hasn’t got political legitimacy because he was sacked from PKR and he does not command the majority of the ADUNs in the Dewan. If he has not got the political legitimacy, then on what basis and authority can he sack members of the exco?

He holds the office of MB on a purely legalistic arrangement. That is until November when the Dewan sits and deliberates on the dewan business. The first order of business will surely be the tabling of a vote of no confidence.

Khalid is holding everyone at ransom now. Khalid is punishing not only the other legitimately elected reps and ADUNs, but he is holding the whole state of Selangor at ransom. In law, he may hold on to the MB post, but in substance he is rejected by the people.

I am not ready to concede that the people of Selangor want Khalid to stay on. From where do we get this information? The information is spread around by the chattering crowd who whisper along the corridors and maintain that all the accusations against Khalid are not true. It is the Goebbelsian logic of repeating lies sufficiently frequent so they assume the status of truths. Certainly to those who employ convoluted logic to straighten a wet thread, lies are true, and truths become lies.