Ian On The Red Dot

Just finished a rather heated discussion with a colleague about the US Presidential Elections. Actually, more specifically, about the Democratic Party’s nomination for candidate. And I realized why the PAP might just want the ordinary people to stay out of the way.

We (i.e. a lot of the people desiring change in our current system) assume that people have the desire to be informed, and if not, have the ability to seek out information and the facility to take that information, digest it, analyze it, interpret it and then make informed, well reasoned decisions.

But is that really the case?

Is the average Singaporean, or for that matter, is the average individual in the world like that. We all have our bias, we all have our preferences and a lot of us, if not all of us, are susceptible to let emotions overrule our logical facilities.

More importantly, none of us will ever have the complete view of the world, nor ever understand what we see even if it is everything.

And if there is one thing about people, we like to experience instant gratification as opposed to strive for long term satisfaction. This is a problem when a group, society, organization or country needs to solve problems - a lot of the times, the right solution is not obvious and if it is, it is usually painful for those involved.

So politicians pander to the worse in human nature - fear and greed. Give the people their regular goodies. Throw gold off the wagon. Make people fearful they will lose out to others, that their estate will not be upgraded and they lose out in the race. Play to the lowest common denominator, stay in power and then do what’s needed to fix the problem.

Of course, power tends to corrupt and good intentions is never a justification for bad actions, and sometimes the best laid plans of man fail.

But do we want to trust the average individual?

Are the average individual even willing to accept that arguments for any issue are nuanced - there never ever is a clear line between one side and the other. Are they willing to invest time and effort to understand every aspects of the issues that concern them. Or are they just ever too willing to just look for convenient signposts.

Or is it just plain arrogance to think that one group of people, while having themselves an incomplete view of the world and with that a incomplete understanding of the world, might just have a better view and the rest should stay out of the way.

Do we dare trust our fellow citizens?

Or is that too much to ask.

Which demands the greater price? Which gives the greater rewards?

To trust and maybe fail. Or not to trust and maybe fail.

Knowing human nature, which choice has the greater probability of failure?

Knowing human nature, is failure an inevitability in either choice?

And if failure is always an inevitability, which gives us a better chance of renewal.

Comic book fans will probably know of the big stuff happening in the Marvel Universe now - the Skrull’s Secret Invasion. Here is an interview with one of the guys responsible for this story arc.

In any case, from SingaporeDaily, I learned about ‘PAP’s infiltration’ into the Singapore blogosphere.

Big deal…

But since everyone is speculating, I thought I would just throw in one comic book reference. It has long been speculated that Iron Man was for Registration during the whole Civil War story arc because he knew or kind of suspected the Skrull’s infiltration and being pro-registration would allow him to infiltrate whatever the Skrulls were trying to do and bring them down from within. Or something like that. I haven’t been able to follow what’s going on because of work and a lack of time.

But maybe, just maybe TOC is engaging in a counter-intelligence play.

Or whatever.

Back to watching “House”.

Via SingaporeDaily, I read a few posts about Minister Mentor. And I realize the conceit behind everyone who bashes Minister Mentor and the PAP - be it criticizing their policies or questioning their characters. I too have been guilty of that conceit.

Before I go further, let’s establish my position on a few things:

1. Has Singapore come a long way and accomplished many things since our independence?

Yes, it has.

2. Was there a good foundation to build upon when we became independent?

There arguably was a good foundation to build on.

3. Was it a tumultuous time for a young nation like Singapore with the conditions of the world and the region?

Yes, it was.

4. Was the survival much less the success of Singapore a given?

No, it wasn’t.

5. Were there different paths Singapore could have progressed down?

There probably was.

6. Did we take the best path?

None of us can ever tell for sure. Hindsight is 20/20 vision. If you can, please do not waste your talent and go be a fortune teller or win the lottery or something. Or if you’re really up to it, join the civil service, rise up in ranks and serve the nation.

7. Were Minister Mentor and the PAP responsible for choosing and shepherding us down a good path?

Yes, they have.

8. Now, is the future success of Singapore a given? When I talk about success, I’m not just talking about economic success but success that includes social, political, environmental issues.

No, it isn’t.

9. Does PAP and Minister Mentor have the monopoly on the solutions and ideas to steer Singapore in the best if not right direction?

Of course not.

10. Do they exhibit the tendency to think they know best?

Yes. But I think all leaders need to have some measure of stubborn confidence in their own abilities, ideas, thoughts and decisions.

Now, here is where I feel there is a certain sense of irony. While we criticize Minister Mentor and PAP for being elitist and arrogant and not listening to us, are we not being conceited with the assumption that our opinions have merit?

When we say that there is a better way to do something (even though we might not be clear how exactly) or that something is the wrong way to do something, isn’t that opinion based on some perspective of the world that we have.

Isn’t it conceit to think our perspective is more valid than that of Minister Mentor and the PAP?

And if we are so sure ours is the right one, then why don’t we do something about it. The common excuse is that the odds are stacked against us - that the government has done everything in its power to silence our voice and rendered us impotent.

But is that really the case?

And even if it is, were things that easy for the PAP and Minister Mentor when they argued for independence from the British? Was it that easy for them when we were thrown out of Malaysia?

How can our government ever take us seriously if all we do is talk about how things can be better and how hard it is to be better instead of being people of action?

And how can our government ever take us seriously if we do not know how to win by playing by the rules of the day?

We can choose two things - wait for the day the rules change so that we can get into the game. Or we can play by the current rules and slowly be the ones to push for the rules to change.

So back to my original point. We are all conceited to think that our perspective of the world is valid be it more valid, less valid or equally valid.

But what have we done in our own small little world (let’s start there before talking about the nation or the world) that makes it a little better to back up the opinion that we should be people worth listening to?