EARLIER this month, during an event at Universiti Malaya, the Investment, Trade and Industry minister, Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz, addressed the BlackRock-MAHB issue.
He pointed out that those who criticise the company’s involvement due to its alleged connections with Israel should also consider their own use of products from companies where BlackRock is a major shareholder, such as Apple and Facebook.
He extended the argument by questioning where the line should be drawn in dealing with such companies. This directly implied that avoiding any company associated with BlackRock would lead to unwanted and impractical consequences, particularly in our so-called connected and modern world.
The argumentative techniques Zafrul used are known as tu quoque (literally “you also”, or “appeal to hypocrisy”) and reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity). These techniques, part of logical fallacies or rhetorical strategies, are used to persuade or dissuade an audience.
The technique itself is neither inherently good nor bad, it is just a tool that, if used correctly, can effectively convey a message. However, relying solely on logical fallacies can undermine an argument’s credibility if the audience perceives them as manipulative, or in Zafrul’s case here, elusive.
A more practical and pragmatic approach may include providing detailed information, such as clear and transparent details, about the decision-making process and safeguards in place to ensure that BlackRock’s involvement does not compromise Malaysia’s interests or ethical standards.
Addressing ethical concerns directly by outlining any due diligence conducted to ensure that BlackRock’s business practices align with Malaysia’s values and policies is crucial.
Highlighting the specific benefits of the deal for Malaysia, such as economic growth, improved airport management and increased investment, supported by real data and tangible projections, can emphasise the positive aspects.
Also, opening a dialogue with critics to better understand their concerns and explaining the government’s perspective in a more detailed and respectful manner can create better understanding and acceptance by all parties involved.
The point I am trying to make is that teaching our younger generation, starting with children, to argue with logic and evidence in a respectful manner is crucial in this current age of social media. This I believe, will prepare them for a world where emotional and manipulative arguments are abundant and prevalent, at any time and all the time.
Developing critical thinking skills in children will help them to evaluate information, identify biases and make informed decisions.
Encouraging respectful conversations, online and offline, will promote empathy and understanding, which are essential elements for a healthy society.
Logical arguments tend to have a more lasting and meaningful impact too, thus fostering a more informed and rational public discourse later on.
To implement these values, we can start by educating children about common logical fallacies and how to recognise them, through interactive activities and discussions.
Creating opportunities for structured debates and discussions on various topics, emphasising evidence and respect, can shape their ability to argue logically.
Using examples from social media, news and everyday situations can illustrate the difference between logical arguments and manipulative tactics, helping them apply their skills in real life.
Also, teaching children to critically evaluate information on social media and other platforms, understanding the importance of credible sources and evidence-based reasoning, is an important skill in today’s digital world. Particularly so in a multipolar world we are heading now.
By teaching our children to argue with logic and evidence in a respectful manner, we can help create a generation better equipped to handle the complexities of the digital age. This approach will hopefully strengthen their individual capabilities and at the same time create a more rational and respectful society.
Isn’t that the future that we want?
The writer is an associate professor of biomedical engineering and former director of the Corporate Communications Centre at Universiti Malaya. Comments: [email protected]
