non sequitur

1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

Rather than engaging with the serious allegations that former staff have made about The British Institute, they have instead resorted to sneaky, weasel-like techniques to avoid incriminating discussions. One can easily see why this was deemed preferable to a frank, honest debate about their culture of pervasive illegality. What really can you say when we have put out screens dumps of the Australian manager Luke Preece explicitly ordering his subordinates to ignore Indonesian law and hire expats on VKU visas? If it was a court case, the evidence would absolutely damning: an open and shut case. But this is not a legal contest we are talking about; this is the court of public opinion.

In order to maintain a semblance of dignity and respectability, they have mostly directed vitriol against their accusers, conducting a non-stop smear campaign through various stooges. Part of this smear campaign has involved the clever use of non sequiturs to try and mount a counter-case against their accusers. These non sequiturs are logical fallacies but they sound reasonable enough on the face of it. One of these non-sequitur has been repeated more than all of the others combined, so we presume that it is the most plausible sounding. Therefore, we intend to debunk it thoroughly in this post.

The non sequiter in question goes like this: If TBI is as corrupt as we say, and we worked there for many years, doesn’t it necessarily follow that we must have been corrupt too?

Let’s alter the non sequitur slightly so you can see how illogical it really is. Imagine someone said to you: If someone really did embezzle a lot of money at the last company you worked for, and you really did work there for a number of years, doesn’t it necessarily follow that you must have embezzled money too.

Um, you what now? That whole statement is an obvious fallacy. The conclusion doesn’t flow from the premises as a matter of logic. Clearly, embezzlement is precisely the kind of activity that would be kept out of public view. Just because one person is engaged in it, that doesn’t mean their colleagues would necessarily have been implicated. Even if a small group of people were involved, they would surely have covered it up in a veil of secrecy and conspiracy.

There are 300 people working for TBI. Did we ever say that they were all knowingly involved in illegal activities? Absolutely not. We have named the TBI Mafia as a core of 5 corrupt people out 300. While we knew Head Office was nepotistic and that they didn’t pay tax, we didn’t learn about Luke’s role in the corruption until after he had turned on us and former victims had revealed their experiences. Yes, there were all sorts of stories about sexual harassment, stolen money and unprofessional behavior but the people involved had often been fired or had left. It had long seemed that TBI had been unlucky but a better day was just around the corner. The full picture of corruption at the top was well-hidden for a long time. For example, people didn’t come forward to tell us about Binsar’s sexual misdeeds and robberies until 3 months after we had left Indonesia. The idea we must have been aware all along is pure nonsense. One more lie to add to all the rest.