JUNE 12 — Making an argument means taking a position on a subject and this requires it to be supported with evidence in order for the argument to obtain legitimacy and credibility. It is crucial that the right kind of evidence is used, and in the right amount, for it to be effective.
When a professor asks for examples, references, proof and more details in comment boxes of an assignment, that indicates more evidence is needed to strengthen the arguments.
There are two sources of evidence: primary and secondary. The former refers to original evidence obtained by the researcher themselves while the latter refers to data that is already available which were gathered, analysed and interpreted by other researchers.
Evidence is easily available, the only problem is to ensure that they are credible, scientifically produced and legitimate. Independent blogs and opinion pieces (including this one!) may not be the best source due to them not having gone through the rigorous process of peer review.
Having said that, be careful of predatory academic journals, despite the contents being written by academicians, these ‘fake journals’ are not credible sources. This is not to say the writers are bad but it is only to highlight that the writing most likely did not go through the review process and could contain errors.
Papers in (legitimate) academic journals present a more recent development compared to academic textbooks although the latter remains a credible and important source of evidence. Newspapers, magazines and TV documentaries are also reliable sources but its use should be clearly highlighted.
Observations through an ethnographic exercise is also an important source of evidence to understand social behaviour but as with any academic endeavour, it is crucial that the exercise is undertaken scientifically and not just as a casual “personal observation.” Similarly, interviews and focus groups are commonly used methods of gathering evidence and as with participation observation, require proper procedures to be observed.
Surveys allow researchers to obtain views about an issue from a large group but are only effective if the survey design, and data processing and interpretation is done correctly.
Personal experience, despite being a legitimate source of evidence, should not be the sole source especially if it is used exclusively without including any other forms or sources of evidence.
Certain topics may allow for the use of personal experiences but whether it can be generalised to represent the views of society is debatable as it represents a single view without support from an adequate number of samples.
Personally, I would discourage the use of personal experience as the main support for an argument, perhaps it could be included as part of the author’s reflections but not more than that.
Evidence, however, does not speak for itself. It is the writer’s job to explain how and why the evidence supports the argument, explain its significance and how it is linked to the topic discussed. Evidence will remain just a piece of information unless its connection with the argument is made clear. Evidence serves to explain the writer’s description, it elaborates the reason why they see a certain issue in a certain way. It legitimises their observations and conclusions.
Evidence can be incorporated into an essay in various ways; it can be a direct quote from a legitimate source, or by paraphrasing text into the writer’s own words.
Summaries of findings and statistics are also common and good forms of evidence. The key thing to ensure is, their source must be legitimate and clearly identified to avoid plagiarism.
A recent post in the opinions section of the Malay Mail, despite addressing an important topic, somewhat lacks sufficient evidence to support the arguments and claims. It opens with “All Malaysians are racists, but none will admit they are more racist than the other” which is a
sweeping statement that requires to be supported by credible evidence. This is not to say the statement is false, it may very well be true but needs to be backed by solid proof for it to stand.
The author proceeds with identifying the “Malay stereotype” but again did not identify the origins of this label. Absence of evidence could make readers wonder if the label is the writer’s own assumption or a figment of his imagination.
He then went on to provide the logical reason “why is the civil service full of Malays.” Is the “logical reason” the best and accurate explanation? The logical reason does not seem to address the root cause of the problem.
What about evidence-based reasons that could provide a better explanation and understanding of why other races are less inclined to join the civil service?
When presenting evidence, there is also the need to be objective, perceived lower salary and negative perceptions of work culture sound like “logical reasons” to avoid a certain sector too! It is
also logical to not wanting to be part of a sector that one criticises.
Going on the “logical” train could unearth many conflicting and confusing conclusions which is one reason why evidence-based reasoning should be preferred.
The writer went on to claim that civil servants are seen to be “lazy, too conservative and do
not deserve good pay despite us making average lower pay than those in private (sic) sector.”
The question is, who made this claim? Was it based on a thorough study of the civil service and civil servants? Was there a rigorous analysis of the differences in public-private sector pay?
Again, this is not intended to dispute the statement but instead a request for further evidence to confirm its legitimacy and to determine if there is any truth in the claim.
“Malays have always worked for the government ever since before independence” is an interesting point, but why is this the case? Could this be a legacy of the divide-and-rule policy practised by the British? Did this policy shape the mindset and worldview of the Malays?
Simply saying “it has always been the case” does not fully explain the phenomenon, readers would want to know why the situation is the way it is. A paper on occupational prestige written by Syed Hussein Alatas could shed some light on how society views different occupations.
The author went on to ask ”why do you think Malays prefer to set up their own SMEs, join GLC or go work in civil service?” Yes, why? Is it because of what he claims to be the unfair hiring process and the private sector not giving Malays the chance?
Even if this is true, it needs evidence to be taken seriously. And by the way, SMEs and GLCs are also part of the private sector.
The claim that “those from Chinese vernacular schools and do not have good things to say about other races and refuse to mix with others” is another strongly worded allegation. Is this evidence-based or based on personal, single institution experience?
While it may be true, making statements without presenting evidence to back the allegation is irresponsible especially if one cannot prove that the observation happened purely by chance. Such
careless statements could also be a source of “fitnah.”
Out of curiosity, could the same be said of the alumnus of Malay-only residential schools? I am not making an allegation, but merely demonstrating that if the need for evidence is absent, anyone can make any allegation.
Is the requirement for (Mandarin) language proficiency in certain occupations racially motivated and discriminating? Perhaps on the face of it many would say yes, but there is also a possibility that upon further investigation, the ability to speak a certain language is essential to the job, especially if the business only/mainly deals with Mandarin speaking customers?
What about job advertisements that require “Arabic speaking candidates only”? Are they also deemed racist even if the job requires one to deal exclusively with Arab speaking customers? Without evidence, statements and claims can be misconstrued and could lead to misunderstandings.
The author also quoted “a lot of news” where a Malay is not hired for many reasons but did not explicitly specify which news report. Perhaps there are some truths in the claims but without evidence, it cannot be taken seriously or even considered to be legitimate.
The writer dedicated a whole paragraph to explain the many times he tried to be friends with the Chinese but failed due to them not wanting to mix. He went on to say this group (who refuse to be his friends) “graduate with their same circle of friends” and are also “the same people who accuse Malaysia of being a racist country that doesn't want to accommodate others.”
While the first part of the paragraph presents an example of a problem (unsuccessful attempts at friendship), the second part (claims that these people accuse Malaysia of being a racist country) appears to be an emotional response to the first without being academic and evidence-based.
I am not sure the writer meant by “graduate with their same circle of friends.”.
Claiming that landlords perceive that “Malays cannot pay rent on time. Renters worry that Indians will trash the place” is another careless accusation because it is devoid of any proof.
Is this hearsay or dare I say, “fitnah”? On the issue of affordable housing, it should be given to those who could not afford to purchase regular-priced homes, it should be based on need and not race — is the author saying there are no poor non-Malays/Chinese?
It is not the intention of this article to demonise the opinion piece. I find that it does not allow me to reach a conclusion because the writing is somewhat one-sided, it lacks objectivity, has zero evidence to support any of the allegations and appears rather emotion fuelled.
The focus of this article is evidence-based reporting, the opinion piece on Racist Malaysian is
only used for academic illustration purposes.
While presenting evidence and quoting references is important to ensure integrity of academic writing and news reports, does the same apply to opinion pieces? My view is, in addition to softer and tone, evidence should be part of any writing if the writer intends for it to be taken seriously and not seen merely as a piece of emotional rambling.
* Nur Azam Perai studies human social relationships and institutions.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
