COMMENT This six-part series of articles will look at the Kinrara-Damansara Expressway (Kidex), the Bible issue and water restructuring, at length.

In each of these cases, I will reference other similar controversies Selangor Menteri Besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim dealt with in the past, how these might shed light on the present problems, and end with an article covering sketchy land deals, Bank Islam and the PKR elections.

To start things off, this article will briefly discuss where I am coming from, and analyse the shift of perception in cyberspace.

Following that, one instalment will discuss Khalid’s principles and approach to governance more generally, to set a framework through which we can interpret his approach to the contentious issues mentioned above.  

When someone offers an opinion, we do at least one of two things: we weigh the opinion, and we speculate as to the opinion giver’s motives.

Most opinion givers prefer to be judged on the content of their arguments alone, but given that too often it is vested interests and veiled motivations that inform opinion and propaganda, it is fair to question what lies behind any individual’s opinion.

Given what I usually say about Khalid, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether I’m being paid (in cash or kind) by Khalid or by his supporters to write what I write.

I worked for the Selangor government for three years, from late 2010 to late 2013. I helped mostly with communication work, and managed the menteri besar’s website and social media accounts.

By the end of my engagement with them, my monthly earnings were just over the five figure mark.

Towards the middle of 2013, it was decided that my services were no longer required. The possible reasons range from simply being too expensive, to all sorts of conspiracy theories.

I was never given a very full explanation of why, and having figured I had little to gain from doing so, I essentially have never asked. I have never been paid by them (in cash or kind) since my last day in November 2013, and by now, it would basically cripple my credibility to work with them again.

Getting fired would be a believable reason to turn against Khalid, but it would make no sense to praise a man for cutting costs, and then criticise him when those costs equal your pay. Khalid did not change, so there was no reason for my opinion of him to.

I remain on good terms with my former colleagues, and often discuss with them the facts and figures (all of which anyone is welcome to disprove with solid evidence) that often inform my writing.

I am indeed paid to write, but by Malaysiakini alone, to the tune of a low three figure sum per article - a source of income for which I am grateful, having not yet had other regular paying work since leaving Selangor.

Issues creating discontent, or...?

My most recent articles (in both Malaysiakini and The Star ) have been about why politicians have turned on Khalid. It is very obvious now that there has been some movement in cyberspace as well.

In recent articles concerning politicians, I basically asked: are issues creating discontent, or is discontent creating issues?

With regard to cyberspace, the subsequent question is: are politicians influenced by public discontent, or is public discontent influenced by politicians?

One key way to answer this question is to analyse whether the grouses being brought forward are justifiably grounded, or whether they are largely misinterpretation, spin or fabrication. To ascertain this, we will go through the issues mentioned above one by one in the articles that follow.

Directives from the north

In the last few weeks, attacks against Khalid intensified, with a number of key Pakatan Rakyat leaders stepping up their criticisms. For political observers, the exact details of who said what very strongly suggests top level directions.

For instance, when prominent members of a certain party started firing comments in the media, it became clear that clear instructions had come from Penang to attack.

I’m no believer in some super-funded Red Bean Army, but having watched and participated in large scale cyber campaigns against the Barisan Nasional, one comes to recognise patterns that indicate instructions and coordinated intent.

Success in a cyber campaign comes when people outside the campaign start believing and reproducing the opinions you want them to reproduce.

On this front, I will unabashedly admit that the campaign has achieved some success. There seems to me to be no empirical evidence to suggest, one way or the other, whether cyber opinion reflects public opinion on a larger scale, especially outside English-speaking urban centres, but within cyberspace itself, some level of shift is quite clearly evident.

As an aside, good fortune has recently exposed me to the concept of discourse analysis, which I would like to employ here.

Between those who are pro- and anti-Khalid, it may be insightful to note to see who uses virulent and angry language focused on hubris, and who actually addresses the issues within the articles and discusses the facts and figures calmly. The comments section of these articles will serve perfectly for our sample size.

I firmly believe that it is paramount to respect public opinion, no matter what that opinion is. This is not, however, the same as saying that public opinion is always accurate.

In this day and age, the influence of spin doctors can hardly be overstated. I have no delusions of one writer prevailing against so much and so many, but I think all of us have a duty to help uncover the truth.

The following articles will thus represent my understanding of said truth, and it will of course be up to all of us to weigh them as we see fit, and determine whether emotion and incitement inform our opinion, or facts and figures.

NATHANIEL TAN realises that he has probably written more on this subject than anyone alive. He also realises what a dork this makes him. He tweets @NatAsasi .