Why MP Indranee Rajah needs a class in elementary logic
Posted on 28. May, 2009 by Christopher Ong in Opinions
During parliamentary debate recently, Workers Party Chief Low Thia Khiang argued that a stronger opposition presence would serve as a check against graft and corruption by the ruling party.
He was quickly rebuffed by MP Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC) who eagerly labelled Low Thia Khiang’s argument as not only ’simplistic’ but also ‘incorrect’.
Ms. Rajah’s counter is that if one follows Low’s argument, “the logical outcome is that every other country with an opposition should be squeaky clean and Singapore should be the most corrupt country in the world.”
Or is it?
How sound is Ms. Rajah’s “logic”?
An average student taking an elementary logic class can prove that Ms. Rajah’s argument is not only invalid, but also incorrect. (Even simplistic?)
Let us see how this is done.
Firstly, let’s examine Low Thia Khiang’s argument.
1. If there’s a great opposition presence in the parliament, then the ruling party would be less corrupt.
2. There is a great opposition presence in the parliament.
3. Therefore the ruling party would be less corrupt.
Expressing it in simple logic form:
1. If P, then Q.
2. P.
3. Therefore Q.
Ms. Rajah asserts that if we follow Low’s line of argument, two situations will develop. One — that Singapore should be the most corrupt country in the world. Two — that every other country with an opposition should be squeaky clean.
She calls it a “logical outcome”, but anyone can prove that her argument is logically invalid. Most certainly, this does not follow as a “logical outcome” from Low Thia Khiang’s argument.
Let’s examine her first claim, that Singapore should be the most corrupt country in the world.
1. If there is a great opposition presence in parliament, then the ruling party would be less corrupt.
2. There is not a great opposition presence in the parliament.
3. Therefore, the ruling party would be more corrupt.
Expressing it again in simple logic form:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Not P.
3. Therefore Not Q.
What Ms. Rajah has done here is to commit the simplest of logical fallacies, that of Denying the Antecedent. What this means is that the argument is invalid, and the conclusion (3) is not accepted even if the premise (1-2) is true.
Let us examine another similar argument that has committed the same logical fallacy.
1. If Mr. Tan is a Singapore citizen, then he is a human being.
2. Mr. Tan is not a Singapore citizen.
3. Therefore he is not a human being.
which shares the same logical body as Ms. Rajah’s argument:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Not P.
3. Therefore Not Q.
Verdict? Ms. Rajah’s first counter-argument is logically invalid, and incorrect.
Low Thia Khiang’s argument does not lead to the first “logical outcome” Ms. Rajah has proposed.
Let us go on next to prove that Ms. Rajah’s second-counter argument is also logically flawed.
Her second counter-argument is that, if one is to follow Low’s reasoning, that every other country with an opposition will be squeaky clean.
However, Low Thia Khiang’s argument that a great opposition presence leads to a less corrupt government should be seen as a necessary rather than sufficient condition.
Ms. Rajah’s second-counter argument that all countries that have a opposition will be less corrupt attributes sufficiency to Low Thia Khiang’s argument, when it is not clear that Low intended it to be that way.
Another nerdy way to say, Ms. Rajah, you’re wrong.
Does it logically follow if one argues: if there is a great opposition presence in parliament, then the ruling party would be less corrupt, that all countries with a great opposition presence would be less corrupt?
Ms. Rajah’s second counter-argument has yet committed another simplistic logical fallacy: Affirming the Consequence.
Reframing Low’s argument once again:
1. If the ruling party is squeaky clean, then there should be a great opposition presence in parliament. (Low’s argument)
2. The ruling party is squeaky clean.
3. There is a great opposition presence in parliament.
1. If P, then Q.
2. P.
3. Therefore Q.
Ms. Rajah’s argument:
1. If the ruling party is squeaky clean, then there should be a great opposition presence in parliament.
2. There is a great opposition presence in parliament.
3. The ruling party is squeaky clean.
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore P.
Another similar argument to show why Ms. Rajah’s logic is invalid:
Low’s argument
1. If you are pregnant, then you are female.
2. You are pregnant.
3. Therefore you are female.
Ms. Rajah argues that the logical outcome of this would be:
1. If you are pregnant, then you are female.
2. You are female.
3. Therefore you are pregnant.
Verdict: Ms. Rajah’s second-counter argument of the ‘logical outcomes’ that would follow if we were to adopt Low’s reasoning is invalid.
Indeed, under critical circumspection. Ms. Rajah’s attempt to rebut Low Thia Khiang by suggesting ‘logical outcomes’ that would follow if we adopt his reasoning fails miserably. An average student in an elementary logic class can show as we have did that the ‘logical outcomes’ that Ms. Rajah has proposed DO NOT follow from Low Thia Khiang’s arguments.
Perhaps the greatest irony here is that her ‘logical outcomes’ would fall under the very same labels she attaches to Low’s argument?
Challenge: Approach Ms. Rajah’s counter-arguments from different angles and prove/disprove her logical consistency. Post your arguments as comments.
28 Responses to “Why MP Indranee Rajah needs a class in elementary logic”
Leave a Reply
Advertisement
Polls
Loading ...
haha at the risk of sounding a geek: Not-P can be falsem thus assuring the validity of the statement. Her assumption is that P is false, which invalidates the entire argument, since the argument doesn't say anything more.
It's a good example of illogical rhetorics disguising as logical arguments however.
Thanks Guojun.. indeed there are more 'nerdier' ways to prove that her arguments are logically invalid, you could have approached and attacked her logical validity from a variety of angles. I hope my examples conjured up late night is lucid enough though..
kent ridge common is sooooo boring…
Hi readers,
There is an interesting article on this issue found at http://sturmdesjahrhunderts.wordpress.com/ — definitely a worthwhile read.
Dear Christopher Ong,
If you enjoy splitting hairs so much, why not dissect the illogical use of logic of your own Kelvin Teo in his article "‘Opposition’ versus ‘ruling’ party on 2nd May and a simulation for the next General Elections"??? (http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=2760)
This article makes all kinds of strange unwarranted analogies and draws tenuous links beacuse there is no rationale whatsoever to say that the old guard of AWARE is like oppositional political actors and so on and so forth… yet you guys still published it thinking it is logically watertight?
Dear Tong Tong:
I did qualify the use of \\'ruling\\' party with the inverted commas, in a way, I am just trying to draw an analogy of the AWARE saga to current politics. Nowhere did I say that the old guards of AWARE are opposition political actors, but they are opposition to the \\'current ruling regime of Josie Lau and her colleagues\\' at that time. Unless you disagree with that, perhaps we can discuss further. Perhaps, you can enlighten me why there is no rationale in saying that the old guards of AWARE were an opposition to the Josie Lau regime et al.
And another reason for that article is I want to examine the use of use Internet technology to mobilize support for events of socio-political significance e.g. facebook and all.
Sincerely yours
And what makes people like me scoff at what you write is because it tries to come off as some kind of reasonable clear thinking analysis. Hello?? There is good analysis and there is utter rubbish. That piece by Kelvin Teo is utter rubbish. Please stop selling this kind of nonsensical snake oil and try to pass off as high and mighty thinking.
Plus, anyone who doesn't take a class in elementary logic can point that sort of rubbish out. And I think your logic professor probably forgot to tell you that your logic only works inside your head. There is no obligation whatsoever for reality to fit your theorising.
Dear Tong Tong:
Thanks for your comments. I was wondering if you would mind engaging discussion in the relevant thread. Opposition’ versus ‘ruling’ party on 2nd May and a simulation for the next General Elections\\"??? (http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=2760)
Sincerely yours
Saying it is so doesn't make it so. And don't even bother saying that it is a qualified opinion. It is not qualified because you got the premises wrong.
This is one reason I feel you university-types are cut off from what is happening on the ground. For all the theorising and thinking, you people are just mired in small talk. Worse, you left a digital trail behind for all the world to judge your follies and inane "analysis".
You can find the translation of Low Thia Khiang’s speech which Indranee Rajah failed to rebut.
ttp://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/mp-low-thia-khiangs-speech-on-the-presidential-address/
Dear Tong Tong:
In what sense is the premise wrong? Perhaps you can elaborate so that it will beneficial for discussion.
Sincerely yours
I have translated Low Thia Khiang’s speech which Indranee Rajah failed to rebut
It was originally in Mandarin. The translation is available here at:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/mp-low-thia-k...
eh Tongtong pls lar I think u posted ur comments at the wrong article lol.
This is the ‘quality’ of MPs you get with GRCs.
How to respect them when they use such logic?
I have a vision coming on… tongtong must be one of those christian fundies still sore over the AWARE saga and his resentment at those who disagreed with josie & co's tactics! You know, the binomial If-you're-not-with-us-you-must-be-against-us-god-wills-it! mentality.
Pfft who needs logic when you're psychic! Do i get to wear the apostle/prophet hat now?
Indranee Rajah is a litigation lawyer and a Senior Counsel. I have seen her in action before and she is very sharp and smart. Obviously she is not as stupid as her parliamentary speech makes her seem – she just thinks her *audience* is stupid.
Unfortunately, she is right. Singaporeans by and large *will* get fooled by her fallacious argument. Only a discerning minority will be able to spot the logical fallacies she has made, and this minority probably doesn't support the PAP anyway. Therefore, Indranee Rajah's "logic" will appeal to precisely the segment of society that the PAP wants to court – the majority "heartlanders" who don't necessarily think logically and don't know what phrases like "denying the antecedent" mean.
As much as I have suspected, No Need Logic.
Indranee Rajah is one of the directors of Drew&Napier and is also known to be a very sharp and quick witted lawyer. Her caliber obviously extends to beyond what her parliamentary rebuttal against Low Thia Khiang portrays.
You have made a poignant remark on this particularly on the potential perspective of the common people — the majority base of voters perhaps — and I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
Whoa.. chill it, sista. You sound like you have a lot of pent-up frustration against Kelvin Teo's posts and perhaps here isn't the best place to discuss them.
In case you didn't know — and you most certainly sound like you don't — the Kent Ridge Common serves as a shared publishing platform for students and alumni of NUS, but this doesn't mean that one writer necessarily endorses another writer's view (even if our articles appear on the same website.) If you look at the Disclaimer on KRC, each and every author is solely responsible for his/her respective article and his/her views do not represent that of the publication as a whole, or anyone else on the publication for that matter.
And as far as I know, there is no "editor" in the strictest sense of the word to speak on KRC which rules the publication with an iron fist. Beyond the first few articles of a new writer that were collectively moderated, most of us here have free rein in what they publish. Of course, this does not eschew personal responsibility in what we write.
Indeed the intention of my article is not to prove whether the premises are sound/unsound, or whether they fit the brand of reality you subscribe — but to show the logical fallacies latent within Indranee Rajah's argument. And I do not think that this is 'small talk', thank you.
If you think my analysis is 'inane', what more about your comments (this isn't the first) that "Kent Ridge Common is soooo booorring". Best regards and please take care of your health anyway.
Hey nice article, rather esoteric but I enjoyed this one. Of course the discerning layman could sum up your two proofs of MP Rajah’s failed counter-arguments by saying:
1)Just because there is no great opposition in the Singapore parliament doesn’t necessarily mean that the PAP is more corrupt. This is simply because the degree of corruption in any party is depending NOT JUST on the extent of opposition but also on other factors like institutional checks and balances and the integrity of the party members themselves.
2)MP Rajah’s second argument is just an inverted version of her first. In fact she only has one major counter argument, which is that Loh assumes that no opposition in parliament means corrupt ruling party, which she suggests (and we agree) is untrue (since we know that the PAP is one of the least corrupt ruling parties). Your work has already been done in the ‘first counter-argument’ of hers that you tackled.
http://sturmdesjahrhunderts.wordpress.com/
"True, Singapore has an efficient, non-corruptible government. But aren’t such high salaries which increases substantially once in a while, and the near-invulnerability from criticism due to 1) Zeus Lee’s protection, 2) a subservient state media which sings your praises, 3) an apathetic population and the corresponding low need to take responsibility for errors, potentially corrupting?
That such forms of rhetoric are used already shows that maybe, ideologically, corruption is in the works. To put it in a less flowery way: maybe the Gahmen is clean because politicians are stuffed so full of money that it makes it impractical, even foolish, to accept bribes. But, comparing to the average person who starves and the Gahmen’s regular refutation of welfare, is it any wonder why people see this as a form of corruption itself?"
You agree.. not we with regards to the corruption…
With regards to Low's thoughts, the increased presence of oppositional voices in parliament could serve as a check on graft and corruption if the activities of the government are more transparent than it currently is to both the opposition and those in the pubic gallery.
Perhaps, if the presence of oppositional voices reaches a point that sub-committees comprising appointees could be selected by both sides, then 'checks' could be significant – but even then, they must have full access to all information, which is currently not the case. Hence, in this case, both sides come across as haggling over the price of a cart whilst the bull has yet to be conceived.
Indranee's argument is silly of course.
Not entirely because of the common view of the logical fallacies in her argument, but because of the phrase, 'squeaky clean'.
In this, an argument is discounted simply because it does not deliver the best possible result – that is, a 'squeaky clean' government. This could easily be proven in the case of other nations, but this perspectival sleight of hand serves to distract the masses from the fact that it can nevertheless serve as a 'check' amongst other checks.
By discounting these checks individually, a government can basically discount all checks whilst keeping mum about the fact that the power of a check lies not in itself, but in this singular check being effected in tandem with a combination of other checks.
The best way to counter a gang of assailants is to lead them down an alley that is wide enough for people to go through it in single file, and then engage these assailants one at a time within a space where they cannot be a threat as a 'gang'
Therefore, we could say that Low played into the PAP's hands with his argument. This is not an 'Indranee vs. Low' situation. It is Low vs a perspective that is reinforced via the promotion of a culture that trains people to appreciate nothing but the most salient. And in the stance of Low's argument, he basically shows that he himself is one amongst the victims. For the cause, one has to look at the overarching culture being promoted here. But that is something most, whose pride is based on such things, would not consider doing.
You can be sure that such arguments would not, generally, be forwarded in, for instance, in the UK or India, for fear of eliciting the laughter of the masses. You won't find many laughing here.
I think Ms Ranee's logic and arguement is sound.
Singapore is what it is today is because as a dominant party under LKY it self regulate and ensure that the country is corruption free. Let us not kid ourselves, opposition cannot prevent corruption. Just look at Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Phillipines etc
Low Thia Kiang asked a lot of question in Parliament which is good, but he has not caught any PAP MP or minister in a fix. So to try and get the people to vote in more oppositions to fight corruption is a lame try and Ms Ranee rebutted it well. It has to be taken into that context.
The ruling Party is aware that more opporsition asking difficult questions is good for parliament. That is a good and responsible ruling party at work. They are helping themselves by allowing more opposition voices. Opposition needs sharpening and training too. So be contented with NCMP for a while, get the necessary exposure.
We do not want another JBJ.
Low Thia Kiang will get his pension and he deserves it.
Well it can also be argued that a pluralistic entity can be a bigger deterrent against corruption since there are more watchdogs. If there is only one entity, then who watches the watchman?
Sincerely yours
nice share, thanks a lot
typo: this does NOT eschew personal responsibility in what we write.