Examining assumptions

Rasa jelak bila baca kenyataan2 popular di media. Kadang2, kenyataan ini diburungkakaktuakan dan diperbesarkan - usually by the media people - tanpa mengambilkira konteks, asal usul, dan assumption yang mendasarinya. Here's an example.

=============
Utusan Malaysia, 30 Ogos 2008
Jangan rampas mandat rakyat – PM
KUALA LUMPUR 29 Ogos – Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi hari ini menempelak percubaan pihak tertentu untuk menggugat kestabilan negara dengan merampas kuasa secara tidak sah tanpa mandat majoriti rakyat...
=============

Yes, I'd agree be pissed off too if someone try to hijack the majority decision. However, the emotional outburst is warranted only if the 'mandat majoriti' valid in the first place. I think this is assumption with which the 'pihak tertentu' is not convinced. Corruption, vote rigging, gerrymandering, dodgy electoral processes, and so on may invalidate the 'mandat majoriti'. If the mandat majority was obtained illegally or immorally, then it is only fair to give it to the one who won it legally and cleanly. The popular vote, i.e. total votes casted in all constituencies, suggests there is a reason to question the validity of the mandat majoriti.

Comments