Andy Ho's article in the papers today, giving what he purports to be the moral case for the death penalty, reads rather strangely. He starts by proposing a thought experiment about face-to-face killing (with all the bloodied hands it entails) and killing in the abstract, and then quotes a study that shows that most of us are much more comfortable with the latter.
It makes for interesting reading, because he continues to quote quite a few more observations showing this or that. They range from simplistic observations showing a correlation between Britain's abolition of capital punishment for most crimes except treason and its subsequent rising murder rates, and similarly, Northern Ireland's abolition of the death penalty, and its increased jailhouse murder rates. To that, I can only say that correlation is not equivalent to causation. For more on that, go here.
Taken together with an anecdote about Paul Tibbets, a thought experiment, and an opinion about what the majority of the public would think in a hypothetical hostage scenario, all this forms an argument that points surely to the conclusion that shows that the death penalty can be morally justified.
That's the funny thing. If Andy was really making a moral case for capital punishment, why does he have to resort to citing this or that as a crutch? A moral case that would be worthy of consideration would be made on entirely a priori basis, i.e. without resorting to empirical proof. For example, one does not need to cite any academic studies to show that rape is wrong. The same demand is made of anyone who says he or she has a moral case to make.
It is not really Andy's fault, but what really gets me is this: it is not exactly as if our government was undecided about the issue, and only made up its mind when these studies he quoted came out, is it? Did the whiteshirts postpone passing any law related to the death penalty before these studies were published?
Of course they did not. The government has already made its mind up ages ago. There is no open-eyed curiosity about the viability of the death penalty here; Andy is merely citing evidence to support the government's foregone conclusion. If that apologist wants to be taken seriously, he will have to do better than that.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
In Despair? Here's Something Cynically Cheerful Instead
It's ironic that people who misunderstand Akikonomu and others calling for increased protection of local labour, often charge them with being parochial about a situation that arises precisely because of parochialism, albeit one of a somewhat different kind. Anyhow, here's a clip from a song that came to mind. It's "Your Country" from a rather eclectic band called Gogol Bordello, and in my opinion, here's the part most worth listening to. Enjoy!
Gogol Bordello - Your Country
Gogol Bordello - Your Country
Saturday, November 3, 2007
"My Gang Better Than Your Gang!"
Remember that line from your childhood? There is a larger question to all the recent hooha that has been made over 377A: in wanting to live life the way you want it, will you also respect my wanting to live life the way I want it? Or will you force your way of life upon me?
If your answer to the above question is "that's democracy, pal", then I have to ask you what your definition of democracy is, for its most obvious Achilles Heel is that depending on how it is implemented, a tyranny of the majority may result. The best defenses against such tyranny lie in the constitutional limitation of government powers and a bill of rights for all citizens, but these are swords that have effectively been denied to us. Any claims of this country opening up are therefore largely non sequitur.
Perhaps it's best illustrated by a small-scale example involving five friends who are trying to decide where to go for lunch. Say the majority vote for a particular cafe, so the whole group goes there. In this case, it's just a single instance of where they go for lunch, so it's tolerable. But suppose this happens everyday? Suppose these five friends then vote on not just where they go for lunch, but how they are to spend their money, how they spend their time, what subjects they shall study in school, what houses to buy, how they should plan for retirement, and who they are allowed to go after? In further extension, suppose the majority three in this circle then declare punishments for anyone who violates these policies, and beat up any offenders in their group accordingly?
If this scenario is so patently ridiculous to you, then why should it be permissible at a national level? And yet this is precisely what is happening. In wanting to change the world for what they think is for the better, liberals and conservatives alike would do well to beware of this very convenient back door to fascism that their notions of democracy contain.
Saying that one champions a more enlightened way of life in comparison to everybody else sounds bankrupt once such a cop-out is necessary for one's vision to succeed. Whatever the justification, fascism is only objectionable because it is an ideology that is only embraced by bullies. Of the original circle of so-called friends, even if the bullying three that decide things all the time are expelled from the group, there is still no guarantee that of the the remaining two, one of them would not transform into a bully as well.
When you think about it though, whatever the size of a given population of people, a tyranny of the majority will result at some point, for one cannot infinitely subdivide minorities in order to cater to each and every person. The issue then becomes one of marginal utility, and a few questions come to mind:
1) What is the size of the group that one is trying to cater to?
2) How significant are the differences between this group and its immediate superset?
3) How much effort would it take to cater specifically to the needs of this group?
Even with these pragmatic considerations in mind, a lot can still be done. To any who might presume to lead the country in a superior manner to what we currently have, it must be asked: to what extent would such a grotesque transformation and fate be avoided? Unless we all make a concerted effort in this direction, we will continue to watch re-runs of our tired human history over, and over, and over again.
If your answer to the above question is "that's democracy, pal", then I have to ask you what your definition of democracy is, for its most obvious Achilles Heel is that depending on how it is implemented, a tyranny of the majority may result. The best defenses against such tyranny lie in the constitutional limitation of government powers and a bill of rights for all citizens, but these are swords that have effectively been denied to us. Any claims of this country opening up are therefore largely non sequitur.
Perhaps it's best illustrated by a small-scale example involving five friends who are trying to decide where to go for lunch. Say the majority vote for a particular cafe, so the whole group goes there. In this case, it's just a single instance of where they go for lunch, so it's tolerable. But suppose this happens everyday? Suppose these five friends then vote on not just where they go for lunch, but how they are to spend their money, how they spend their time, what subjects they shall study in school, what houses to buy, how they should plan for retirement, and who they are allowed to go after? In further extension, suppose the majority three in this circle then declare punishments for anyone who violates these policies, and beat up any offenders in their group accordingly?
If this scenario is so patently ridiculous to you, then why should it be permissible at a national level? And yet this is precisely what is happening. In wanting to change the world for what they think is for the better, liberals and conservatives alike would do well to beware of this very convenient back door to fascism that their notions of democracy contain.
Saying that one champions a more enlightened way of life in comparison to everybody else sounds bankrupt once such a cop-out is necessary for one's vision to succeed. Whatever the justification, fascism is only objectionable because it is an ideology that is only embraced by bullies. Of the original circle of so-called friends, even if the bullying three that decide things all the time are expelled from the group, there is still no guarantee that of the the remaining two, one of them would not transform into a bully as well.
When you think about it though, whatever the size of a given population of people, a tyranny of the majority will result at some point, for one cannot infinitely subdivide minorities in order to cater to each and every person. The issue then becomes one of marginal utility, and a few questions come to mind:
1) What is the size of the group that one is trying to cater to?
2) How significant are the differences between this group and its immediate superset?
3) How much effort would it take to cater specifically to the needs of this group?
Even with these pragmatic considerations in mind, a lot can still be done. To any who might presume to lead the country in a superior manner to what we currently have, it must be asked: to what extent would such a grotesque transformation and fate be avoided? Unless we all make a concerted effort in this direction, we will continue to watch re-runs of our tired human history over, and over, and over again.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Unacknowledgments
It's really funny how, in Thio Li-Ann's post-377A parliamentary debate article, she makes a very concerted appeal to readers to refrain from "allowing public debate to degenerate into fruitless name-calling and distorting issues by speaking misleading half-truths.", for fruitless name-calling is something that both sides are guilty of. It's also easy to spot. The second part however, is an offence that she seems to be not aware of having committed. Like a well-hidden sniper, the eloquence with which she expresses herself makes her a little harder to spot as an accusing black pot, but it can nevertheless still be done. Here are some choice lines from her most recent essay.
"A central goal of debate must be to lend clarity to the issue, as where PM Lee stated that Singapore law recognises only racial and religious minorities. Thus , the politicised term "sexual minorities" is legally vacuous."
But no less substantive. If not, Thio herself would not have preceded the above with the following:
"While acknowledging "space" for homosexuals to live quiet lives, PM Lee firmly stated that homosexuality activists "push this agenda", that would elicit "push-back" from the morally conservative majority. In other words, don't aggressively push the bedroom into the public square."
Thio curiously reaffirms Lee's mistake in speaking of agendas as if they're dark, evil things that should be feared when they surface and are identified. Come on, everybody has agendas. You do, and I do. Even if Thio is blind to her own fanning of moral alarmism, she very definitely has an agenda with regard to 377A as well, as evidenced by her remark at the end.
"Terms like "dignity" and "tolerance" are empty apart from a theory of human nature, human good and community. To go beyond sound-bites to substance, we must not gloss over the real issue."
Again, what is interesting here is not Thio's accusation of pro-repeal arguments as being a largely empty one, but her implication that anti-repeal arguments have much more substance.
"Furthermore, specific isues should be debated, rather than making emotional and vague apeals to "fairness", "equality", "inclusivity" and "tolerance". The concrete issue is: what should we exclude or include? What should we not tolerate? "Tolerance" must not become the refuge of a person without convictions."
Ahem. So apparently I'm now a vague, emotional person without convictions. Silly, it's easy to tell what should not be tolerated: any behaviour that can be deemed to be morally unethical. If such an argument can be made convincingly in court, then it should be publicly acceptable as well. The truth is, a lot of what Thio's said recently wouldn't hold water in court, simply because it lacks the spine that only evidence can provide, which so far, is largely on the pro-repeal side. The most revealing quote however, was early in the essay, when she wrote the following:
"To say the law should ignore moral questions is to impose a "hidden" morality by default. Hedonism, a recipe for societal suicide, is the philosophy underlying the argument that the law should not interfere with private sexual behaviour. As philosophy affects law, we need wisdom to know what the law should encourage or hinder."
Ah yes. Only gays are hedonistic, because they have anal sex. What Thio needed to add there, was proof that only gays are hedonistic, for I don't think any of us could survive life for long if we did not catch a movie every now and then, or go for an ice-cream at the nearest Swensens. You get the idea. By her definition, we should already be in the throes of societal suicide.
There's something that I think isn't being said here, and that is the assumption that gays will kill us all, just like in that largely misunderstood biblical tale about Sodom and Gomorrah. It's therefore justifiable to criminalise anal sex, because these men and women are walking, talking, fornicating WMDs hell-bent on societal suicide. Yes, I'm putting words in her mouth here, but how unreasonable is it to assume? Anyone holding such beliefs, not just Thio, would be justified in reaching the conclusion above. Assuming that this is true, what then needs to be highlighted is that Thio's logic is at least partially informed by religion. Aren't church and state supposed to be separated?
Evidently, it is not so easy for some. At the very least, we can take consolation in the fact that the reality many gays contend with has very little to do with 377A. The tug-of-war that has ensued over the signpost that it is though, has been instructive. At least we're on the moon now.
"A central goal of debate must be to lend clarity to the issue, as where PM Lee stated that Singapore law recognises only racial and religious minorities. Thus , the politicised term "sexual minorities" is legally vacuous."
But no less substantive. If not, Thio herself would not have preceded the above with the following:
"While acknowledging "space" for homosexuals to live quiet lives, PM Lee firmly stated that homosexuality activists "push this agenda", that would elicit "push-back" from the morally conservative majority. In other words, don't aggressively push the bedroom into the public square."
Thio curiously reaffirms Lee's mistake in speaking of agendas as if they're dark, evil things that should be feared when they surface and are identified. Come on, everybody has agendas. You do, and I do. Even if Thio is blind to her own fanning of moral alarmism, she very definitely has an agenda with regard to 377A as well, as evidenced by her remark at the end.
"Terms like "dignity" and "tolerance" are empty apart from a theory of human nature, human good and community. To go beyond sound-bites to substance, we must not gloss over the real issue."
Again, what is interesting here is not Thio's accusation of pro-repeal arguments as being a largely empty one, but her implication that anti-repeal arguments have much more substance.
"Furthermore, specific isues should be debated, rather than making emotional and vague apeals to "fairness", "equality", "inclusivity" and "tolerance". The concrete issue is: what should we exclude or include? What should we not tolerate? "Tolerance" must not become the refuge of a person without convictions."
Ahem. So apparently I'm now a vague, emotional person without convictions. Silly, it's easy to tell what should not be tolerated: any behaviour that can be deemed to be morally unethical. If such an argument can be made convincingly in court, then it should be publicly acceptable as well. The truth is, a lot of what Thio's said recently wouldn't hold water in court, simply because it lacks the spine that only evidence can provide, which so far, is largely on the pro-repeal side. The most revealing quote however, was early in the essay, when she wrote the following:
"To say the law should ignore moral questions is to impose a "hidden" morality by default. Hedonism, a recipe for societal suicide, is the philosophy underlying the argument that the law should not interfere with private sexual behaviour. As philosophy affects law, we need wisdom to know what the law should encourage or hinder."
Ah yes. Only gays are hedonistic, because they have anal sex. What Thio needed to add there, was proof that only gays are hedonistic, for I don't think any of us could survive life for long if we did not catch a movie every now and then, or go for an ice-cream at the nearest Swensens. You get the idea. By her definition, we should already be in the throes of societal suicide.
There's something that I think isn't being said here, and that is the assumption that gays will kill us all, just like in that largely misunderstood biblical tale about Sodom and Gomorrah. It's therefore justifiable to criminalise anal sex, because these men and women are walking, talking, fornicating WMDs hell-bent on societal suicide. Yes, I'm putting words in her mouth here, but how unreasonable is it to assume? Anyone holding such beliefs, not just Thio, would be justified in reaching the conclusion above. Assuming that this is true, what then needs to be highlighted is that Thio's logic is at least partially informed by religion. Aren't church and state supposed to be separated?
Evidently, it is not so easy for some. At the very least, we can take consolation in the fact that the reality many gays contend with has very little to do with 377A. The tug-of-war that has ensued over the signpost that it is though, has been instructive. At least we're on the moon now.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Knocking On Nature's Door
They're here! Agagooga has sounded the alarm, and the creationists have gotten their allegedly God-made foot in the door. But if the events unfolding overseas are anything to go by, I don't think that rubbishing them is going to matter one bit to these people.
The reasons are extensive, and they all stem from the fact that humans are prone to magical thinking, or non-scientific causal reasoning. Magical thinking is very much like science, except that it does not distinguish causation from correlation. This leads to interesting religious concepts such as karma, or magic. If I stand under a wooden porch, and it then promptly collapses on me, there is a scientific explanation that can be pointed to, i.e. termites have chewed out the pillars that support the roof, but people who believe in karma would instead ask why the roof happened to collapse on me at exactly the moment I stood under it. Believers in magic might attribute this to someone having cast a spell on me, or say that I was jinxed. Although there are independent chains of logic at work here, it is magical thinking that causes these independent chains to intersect. What is worth noting is that synchronicity, a Jungian concept that is frequently used by people of the TAR(thoughts affecting reality) persuasion, is also very securely fastened to in the magical thinking boat as well. The power of thought's ability to influence reality is great indeed, but it does not literally mean that anything is possible.
I do believe that curing people of magical thinking would be easiest if they were taught to be logical while still young, but this places the onus entirely in the hands of the parents, and if that's not what they're for, then their irrationality will only be perpetuated in their kids. It's helped by the fact that children have demonstrated a strong tendency to undergo a phase of magical thinking when they are very young...for example they might attribute rainy weather to their depression. If starting young is difficult, it doesn't get any easier during adulthood, because of confirmation bias. People tend to look for evidence which supports their beliefs, instead of seeking refutation, as stipulated in the scientific method. The reluctance is understandable, since to shatter one's beliefs can result in cognitive dissonance. I can personally attest to that, for during my third year as a philosophy major, something clicked into place, and I then saw and was haunted by a now completed jigsaw puzzle that I fond truly horrific. It took me about six months to adjust to the ramifications involved, and renounce a religion that I had previously been a devout follower of. This personal experience of how unpleasant it can be is also what keeps me from becoming too testy with my folks when discussing religion.
Neuroscience has also shown that the human mind has been demonstrated to have a great capacity for pattern identification, but is ill-equipped to differentiate between meaningful patterns and perceived ones. From an evolutionary perspective, magical thinking actually makes sense. If I spot something in the grass that looks like orange and black stripes, it's better to play safe and get lost, instead of venturing closer to confirm that it's a tiger.
In other words, magical thinking is here to stay. If there's anything about Singapore that prevents evangelistic creationist Christians from going amok as seen elsewhere, it's that we're multi-cultural to a point where no one religious denomination is so dominant that it can bully its way around the courthouse, parliament house, or classroom without other groups voicing objections equally loudly. At least, that's what I hope things'll be. Others have expressed worries to me that we're on the verge of becoming a Christian theocracy, but my fingers remain crossed for now.
The reasons are extensive, and they all stem from the fact that humans are prone to magical thinking, or non-scientific causal reasoning. Magical thinking is very much like science, except that it does not distinguish causation from correlation. This leads to interesting religious concepts such as karma, or magic. If I stand under a wooden porch, and it then promptly collapses on me, there is a scientific explanation that can be pointed to, i.e. termites have chewed out the pillars that support the roof, but people who believe in karma would instead ask why the roof happened to collapse on me at exactly the moment I stood under it. Believers in magic might attribute this to someone having cast a spell on me, or say that I was jinxed. Although there are independent chains of logic at work here, it is magical thinking that causes these independent chains to intersect. What is worth noting is that synchronicity, a Jungian concept that is frequently used by people of the TAR(thoughts affecting reality) persuasion, is also very securely fastened to in the magical thinking boat as well. The power of thought's ability to influence reality is great indeed, but it does not literally mean that anything is possible.
I do believe that curing people of magical thinking would be easiest if they were taught to be logical while still young, but this places the onus entirely in the hands of the parents, and if that's not what they're for, then their irrationality will only be perpetuated in their kids. It's helped by the fact that children have demonstrated a strong tendency to undergo a phase of magical thinking when they are very young...for example they might attribute rainy weather to their depression. If starting young is difficult, it doesn't get any easier during adulthood, because of confirmation bias. People tend to look for evidence which supports their beliefs, instead of seeking refutation, as stipulated in the scientific method. The reluctance is understandable, since to shatter one's beliefs can result in cognitive dissonance. I can personally attest to that, for during my third year as a philosophy major, something clicked into place, and I then saw and was haunted by a now completed jigsaw puzzle that I fond truly horrific. It took me about six months to adjust to the ramifications involved, and renounce a religion that I had previously been a devout follower of. This personal experience of how unpleasant it can be is also what keeps me from becoming too testy with my folks when discussing religion.
Neuroscience has also shown that the human mind has been demonstrated to have a great capacity for pattern identification, but is ill-equipped to differentiate between meaningful patterns and perceived ones. From an evolutionary perspective, magical thinking actually makes sense. If I spot something in the grass that looks like orange and black stripes, it's better to play safe and get lost, instead of venturing closer to confirm that it's a tiger.
In other words, magical thinking is here to stay. If there's anything about Singapore that prevents evangelistic creationist Christians from going amok as seen elsewhere, it's that we're multi-cultural to a point where no one religious denomination is so dominant that it can bully its way around the courthouse, parliament house, or classroom without other groups voicing objections equally loudly. At least, that's what I hope things'll be. Others have expressed worries to me that we're on the verge of becoming a Christian theocracy, but my fingers remain crossed for now.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Left Words
Growing Gracefully
Much is talked about anti-aging, the truth is we can't stop aging but we can certainly grow gracefully. Come find out how this can be done, a workshop not to be missed. Your detailed body composition measuring body fat, body water percentage, visceral fat level, muscle mass, BMR/metabolic age, bone mass will be carried out individually. With these information you can therefore fine-tune your fitness programme, improve your dietary intake, using natural nutraceutical means to ensure your body function the way it should be.
____________________________________________________________________
The above is an excerpt I found in a newsletter recently sent by the staff recreation club management. Is "old" such a taboo word that it warrants cutting its usage even when the occasion is simply screaming for it? You'd think that, being addressed to a small community of professors, the SRC management would be able to avoid restraining itself unnecessarily like this when organising and publicising events that run counter to the predominant ageism in Singapore.
Much is talked about anti-aging, the truth is we can't stop aging but we can certainly grow gracefully. Come find out how this can be done, a workshop not to be missed. Your detailed body composition measuring body fat, body water percentage, visceral fat level, muscle mass, BMR/metabolic age, bone mass will be carried out individually. With these information you can therefore fine-tune your fitness programme, improve your dietary intake, using natural nutraceutical means to ensure your body function the way it should be.
____________________________________________________________________
The above is an excerpt I found in a newsletter recently sent by the staff recreation club management. Is "old" such a taboo word that it warrants cutting its usage even when the occasion is simply screaming for it? You'd think that, being addressed to a small community of professors, the SRC management would be able to avoid restraining itself unnecessarily like this when organising and publicising events that run counter to the predominant ageism in Singapore.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Smart Democracies are Stupid???
Thursday's frontpage caught my eye rather quickly, with its headline about how "At SICC, more democracy may not be a good thing". The main thrust of its author's (Yap Koon Hong) argument was that the Singapore Island Country Club had lost developmental momentum, and was being overtaken by rivals like the Tanah Merah Country Club and the Sentosa Golf Club, because of the way it had changed the way it was managed. It is chaired by someone appointed by its landlord, the Public Utilities Board. The chairman in turn had the power to appoint the president, treasurer and club captain positions in the general committee, whose remaining members consisted of elected members, with the chairman smiling on benignly.
In 2003 however, a controversy broke out when then-president David Wong raised the notion of getting an early extension for the SICC's 30-year lease and proposed a co-payment scheme which his members found outrageous and revolted against. The success of this revolt removed the perception that they could not hope to successfully challenge a PUB appointee, and more challenges to his authority were subsequently made, eventually leading to a stalemate. David Wong resigned, and lawyer Giam Chin Toon was picked by the SICC chairman, Koh Yong Guan to be the next president. With the new president in place, Koh slowly transitioned the general committee from being one that was partially elected to being one that was fully elected. Giam also ended a long-running scheme which allowed committee members to act as supremos for various club activities, and clipped their power bases. This stirred up another bee's nest, which remains buzzing to this day.
Koon Hong brings up the fact that the Sentosa and Tanah Merah establishments are run by appointees as supporting evidence for the argument that having appointees works. Another fact he brings up is that the membership consists of local millionaires, billionaires, captains of industry etc., who are largely very opinionated and commanding, and so they end up squabbling to the point of bringing the club to a standstill.
Koon Hoon implies that people who can think and are all leaders in their own right can ruin a democracy. To go the other way round, he's also suggesting that a democracy can only work when the electorate is largely made up of people who can't think as well, and are mostly sheep. To me, it seems as though he wants an authoritarian state of affairs for the club, even though it may officially be a democracy. Sound familiar? To drive the point home, let's push the contrast up a bit, and call for citizens that don't think at all, and are unquestioning minions. You'd have something not too different from North Korea, which actually insists on calling itself a democracy.
Without even considering that they may have political processes that are improperly-defined and need tweaking, or simply bad people in charge that need more patience to deal with, using gridlock as an excuse to promote the rejection of a political ideology altogether and embrace a more authoritarian one, is to prematurely jump to conclusions, and merely reveals the political bias of the person who thought of the suggestion. Considering that Mr Sim Kee Boon, a prominent member who also happens to be Tanah Merah Country Club's first and only chairman, is proposing a candidate for election to be the club's next president, it is with disbelief that I read the following quotation from him: "Democracy per se is of little use to members of the club, except for those who want to do the politicking."
As a candidate, Mr Sim should be fully cognizant of the fact that politics inevitably arise in the conduction of the affairs of daily life, and are hence inseparable from them. If anything, the presence of politicking is a good thing, because it shows that people at least care enough about the issues to get involved. Any benefits that might be enjoyed from apparent political apathy are short-lived at best, and will eventually be overshadowed when incompetence seeps into the leadership, causing dissatisfied members take their patronage elsewhere. It is, unfortunately for SICC, already the case. Time will tell if they can plug things before it gets worse.
In 2003 however, a controversy broke out when then-president David Wong raised the notion of getting an early extension for the SICC's 30-year lease and proposed a co-payment scheme which his members found outrageous and revolted against. The success of this revolt removed the perception that they could not hope to successfully challenge a PUB appointee, and more challenges to his authority were subsequently made, eventually leading to a stalemate. David Wong resigned, and lawyer Giam Chin Toon was picked by the SICC chairman, Koh Yong Guan to be the next president. With the new president in place, Koh slowly transitioned the general committee from being one that was partially elected to being one that was fully elected. Giam also ended a long-running scheme which allowed committee members to act as supremos for various club activities, and clipped their power bases. This stirred up another bee's nest, which remains buzzing to this day.
Koon Hong brings up the fact that the Sentosa and Tanah Merah establishments are run by appointees as supporting evidence for the argument that having appointees works. Another fact he brings up is that the membership consists of local millionaires, billionaires, captains of industry etc., who are largely very opinionated and commanding, and so they end up squabbling to the point of bringing the club to a standstill.
Koon Hoon implies that people who can think and are all leaders in their own right can ruin a democracy. To go the other way round, he's also suggesting that a democracy can only work when the electorate is largely made up of people who can't think as well, and are mostly sheep. To me, it seems as though he wants an authoritarian state of affairs for the club, even though it may officially be a democracy. Sound familiar? To drive the point home, let's push the contrast up a bit, and call for citizens that don't think at all, and are unquestioning minions. You'd have something not too different from North Korea, which actually insists on calling itself a democracy.
Without even considering that they may have political processes that are improperly-defined and need tweaking, or simply bad people in charge that need more patience to deal with, using gridlock as an excuse to promote the rejection of a political ideology altogether and embrace a more authoritarian one, is to prematurely jump to conclusions, and merely reveals the political bias of the person who thought of the suggestion. Considering that Mr Sim Kee Boon, a prominent member who also happens to be Tanah Merah Country Club's first and only chairman, is proposing a candidate for election to be the club's next president, it is with disbelief that I read the following quotation from him: "Democracy per se is of little use to members of the club, except for those who want to do the politicking."
As a candidate, Mr Sim should be fully cognizant of the fact that politics inevitably arise in the conduction of the affairs of daily life, and are hence inseparable from them. If anything, the presence of politicking is a good thing, because it shows that people at least care enough about the issues to get involved. Any benefits that might be enjoyed from apparent political apathy are short-lived at best, and will eventually be overshadowed when incompetence seeps into the leadership, causing dissatisfied members take their patronage elsewhere. It is, unfortunately for SICC, already the case. Time will tell if they can plug things before it gets worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
