Technorati Profile
"Enlightened Despot"-ism Continued
Today is a day of intense and sustained introspection, for I have been accused of using my blog to launch a trashy (and also rubbishy, though in all honesty I can't tell the difference) diatribe against the now infamous Jamie Han. This delicate accusation has caused me to devote an entire ten minutes to serious rumination, from which I have emerged with an undeniable conclusion that I shall now proceed to pontificate upon.
And that which I shall pontificate upon is thus: (are you ready for this?)
1) I simply abhor anonymous comments and am severely irked by Blogger's inability of allowing commenters proper fields in which to leave their names. It invokes an unpleasant feeling that somebody has walked over my grave, after extinguishing my brief existence in a hit-and-run accident.
2) It also profoundly disturbs me that some of my readers do not possess any sense of humor whatsoever, and it therefore behoofs me to clearly elucidate when and wherefore I am being facetious, as well as when and wherefore I am being solemn. [begin facetiousness] While this will pose considerable damage to my cleverly timed punchlines, it is nonetheless of utmost necessity, lest I find myself at the sharp end of an anonymous blade. [end facetiousness]
[begin solemnity] In addition, even though the previous post was written half in jest, I will nonetheless, out of sheer goodwill and generosity, undertake the seemingly indomitable task of expanding on it in utter seriousness.
Firstly, allow me to state the way in which I am accustomed to presenting arguments and views, in occasions when I wish to taken seriously, rather then an uninformed hick who cannot tell the different between intrepidity and insipidity. It would seem appropriate here to caution that I do not advocate my style as "The Style", merely that it is one to which I am accustomed.
I will usually (as opposed to unusally, which is how this particular entry was written, not because I do not want to be taken seriously, but because it's day 2 of the Rooster year, and I should be given some slack, damnit) state my main thesis up front, together with the key supporting articles of evidence which support my thesis. Thereafter, I will usually spend some time examining the construct of each article of evidence, and expound on how they work together as a coherent whole, before elaborating on the articles of evidence proper. If I apply this to what was introduced by Mr. Han:
"
[...]
You were talking of general principles in history of looking at the past, and you said that in Singapore, one of the general principles is unity. I do not disagree with you that in this multi-racial society we need unity, but what I am against is... Are you fetishising unity at the cost of plurality? You said that, maybe it is not part of our culture that we need consensus building and stuff like that, but as the sociologists would tell you, culture is always being made. So...
I'm not questioning your decisions in the past, I'm sure at those times, there was a need for consensus and stability. But I think we have come to the stage where stability is already here and that, in order to progress, the minority viewpoints have to be heard. And I'm not saying that the People's Action Party is corrupt or anything now.
The truth of the matter is this: No matter how enlightened a despot is, ultimately, he'll turn into a tyrant if there are no checks and balances in place.
[...]
we all know that in reality these channels are either directly or indirectly controlled by the government."
What is gleaned follows:
(a) I am questioning your decisions NOW (as juxtaposed by the usage of "in the past")
(b) There is no need for consensus and stability now (as juxtaposed by the usage of past tense)
(c) PAP is not corrupt but stability has become of less or no importance, and minority viewpoints have to be heard, in channels not controlled at all by the government
(d) I conceivably think you are a despot and the people need measures to protect us from you.
(e) I do not think you are a despot, but am simply making a generalization which may or may not apply to you.
(f) I think you are using unity as an excuse to exercise your authority
(e) is clearly a supporting statement, and therefore cannot be the main point Mr. Han was attempting to make. (In my opinion, if (e) possibly applies to nothing, then it is useless. A statement should be meant to apply to something, rather than waffling around.) (a), (b), (d), (f) are shaky at best, simply because Mr. Han does not come straight out and say it, and all of us know that saying that one is not claiming the negation of a statement does not give the statement itself uch credibility. "I am not questioning your decisions in the past" is not analogous to "I am questioning your decisions now", because the statement "I am not questioning your decisions at all" can be equally true. I am therefore forced to accept that (c) is his main thesis.
On further examination of the exchange:
"I just wanted to say: One, that you are using the fear of the past in order to prevent progress; and second, you are picking examples of countries which suit your argument but I can raise a dozen others to counter with you."
This impressively concrete exchange throws out even more possible main arguments. Unfortunately, they do not particularly stick together with the formal thesis that was established, and therefore drives this writer into a tizzy. Mr. Han's points has now expanded to include:
(a) PAP is not corrupt but stability has become of less or no importance, and minority viewpoints have to be heard, in channels not controlled at all by the government
(b) MM Lee is impeding progress by invoking "fear of the past" in citizens
(c) MM Lee carefully selects examples to support his argument
With these, Mr. Han must now support his claims that:
a) Show that stability is not of paramount importance to the country's progress
b) Show that minority viewpoints are not being taken into consideration
c) Show that government control has stifled or ignored minority viewpoints in feedback channels
possibly d) further explain his statement on despotism, and how it should be applied to the situation here
e) "Fear of the past" always impedes progress
f) MM Lee has taken concrete actions to invoke fear of the past in citizens, thereby causing them to act in a manner which they otherwise will not have.
g) There are substantial significant and applicable counter-examples that have proven contrary to MM Lee's viewpoints
possibly h) Show that there is a valid and tested model in implementing minority viewpoint without leading to tyranny of the minority.
These points are not productive by themselves because philosophical and practical issues remain to be debated. They will merely serve to support Mr. Han's thesis. Brief exchange as it was, it is a tall order to back up the claims that Mr. Han has made. In not doing so, his claims are paper thin and no better than fiction (to this writer anyway). Perhaps his mini-speech would have been less sensationalist if he merely narrowed the scope of his viewpoints, on account of the limited time available.
Many supporters of Mr. Han have applauded his derringdo in a country of apathetic youths. I do not applaud outspokenness that serves no purpose and is not backed by reason, no matter how novel, unique, daring, eloquent and rare it is. Break the norms by all means, if something is wrong and needs to be fixed or improved upon, not simply because it is novel to do so. I would not like to think that these people will similarly applaud Dr. Chee Soon Juan. Let us not forget that outspokenness is distinct from quality of ideas. It is not enough to possess the former without the latter, and the loud will not inherit the earth based on volume alone. Perhaps these supporters have in mind the vociferous political state of Tai- ahem- wan, as well as the flash mobs and mass demonstrations. Given free reign, outspokenness and derringdo, in the absence of reason and logic, can well degenerate into a farce. [end solemnity]
[begin facetiousness] In case anonymous readers are going to viciously and foolishly assault me in writing for being pedantic, prosaic, stupid, long-winded et cetera ad infinitum, I shall offer advance warning that comments to this post will be monitored and moderated. Detractors are going to have to flame me elsewhere- I did not pay money to be told that I suck, stink, am a shithead, should drop dead, am the pus in the pimple on the backside of humanity, should stop blogging, should have my domain hacked et cetera ad infinitum. I am the Lee- I mean law here, and only fawning comments will be allowed for this one. [end facetiousness] <- this is a pain, I swear
And that which I shall pontificate upon is thus: (are you ready for this?)
1) I simply abhor anonymous comments and am severely irked by Blogger's inability of allowing commenters proper fields in which to leave their names. It invokes an unpleasant feeling that somebody has walked over my grave, after extinguishing my brief existence in a hit-and-run accident.
2) It also profoundly disturbs me that some of my readers do not possess any sense of humor whatsoever, and it therefore behoofs me to clearly elucidate when and wherefore I am being facetious, as well as when and wherefore I am being solemn. [begin facetiousness] While this will pose considerable damage to my cleverly timed punchlines, it is nonetheless of utmost necessity, lest I find myself at the sharp end of an anonymous blade. [end facetiousness]
[begin solemnity] In addition, even though the previous post was written half in jest, I will nonetheless, out of sheer goodwill and generosity, undertake the seemingly indomitable task of expanding on it in utter seriousness.
Firstly, allow me to state the way in which I am accustomed to presenting arguments and views, in occasions when I wish to taken seriously, rather then an uninformed hick who cannot tell the different between intrepidity and insipidity. It would seem appropriate here to caution that I do not advocate my style as "The Style", merely that it is one to which I am accustomed.
I will usually (as opposed to unusally, which is how this particular entry was written, not because I do not want to be taken seriously, but because it's day 2 of the Rooster year, and I should be given some slack, damnit) state my main thesis up front, together with the key supporting articles of evidence which support my thesis. Thereafter, I will usually spend some time examining the construct of each article of evidence, and expound on how they work together as a coherent whole, before elaborating on the articles of evidence proper. If I apply this to what was introduced by Mr. Han:
"
[...]
You were talking of general principles in history of looking at the past, and you said that in Singapore, one of the general principles is unity. I do not disagree with you that in this multi-racial society we need unity, but what I am against is... Are you fetishising unity at the cost of plurality? You said that, maybe it is not part of our culture that we need consensus building and stuff like that, but as the sociologists would tell you, culture is always being made. So...
I'm not questioning your decisions in the past, I'm sure at those times, there was a need for consensus and stability. But I think we have come to the stage where stability is already here and that, in order to progress, the minority viewpoints have to be heard. And I'm not saying that the People's Action Party is corrupt or anything now.
The truth of the matter is this: No matter how enlightened a despot is, ultimately, he'll turn into a tyrant if there are no checks and balances in place.
[...]
we all know that in reality these channels are either directly or indirectly controlled by the government."
What is gleaned follows:
(a) I am questioning your decisions NOW (as juxtaposed by the usage of "in the past")
(b) There is no need for consensus and stability now (as juxtaposed by the usage of past tense)
(c) PAP is not corrupt but stability has become of less or no importance, and minority viewpoints have to be heard, in channels not controlled at all by the government
(d) I conceivably think you are a despot and the people need measures to protect us from you.
(e) I do not think you are a despot, but am simply making a generalization which may or may not apply to you.
(f) I think you are using unity as an excuse to exercise your authority
(e) is clearly a supporting statement, and therefore cannot be the main point Mr. Han was attempting to make. (In my opinion, if (e) possibly applies to nothing, then it is useless. A statement should be meant to apply to something, rather than waffling around.) (a), (b), (d), (f) are shaky at best, simply because Mr. Han does not come straight out and say it, and all of us know that saying that one is not claiming the negation of a statement does not give the statement itself uch credibility. "I am not questioning your decisions in the past" is not analogous to "I am questioning your decisions now", because the statement "I am not questioning your decisions at all" can be equally true. I am therefore forced to accept that (c) is his main thesis.
On further examination of the exchange:
"I just wanted to say: One, that you are using the fear of the past in order to prevent progress; and second, you are picking examples of countries which suit your argument but I can raise a dozen others to counter with you."
This impressively concrete exchange throws out even more possible main arguments. Unfortunately, they do not particularly stick together with the formal thesis that was established, and therefore drives this writer into a tizzy. Mr. Han's points has now expanded to include:
(a) PAP is not corrupt but stability has become of less or no importance, and minority viewpoints have to be heard, in channels not controlled at all by the government
(b) MM Lee is impeding progress by invoking "fear of the past" in citizens
(c) MM Lee carefully selects examples to support his argument
With these, Mr. Han must now support his claims that:
a) Show that stability is not of paramount importance to the country's progress
b) Show that minority viewpoints are not being taken into consideration
c) Show that government control has stifled or ignored minority viewpoints in feedback channels
possibly d) further explain his statement on despotism, and how it should be applied to the situation here
e) "Fear of the past" always impedes progress
f) MM Lee has taken concrete actions to invoke fear of the past in citizens, thereby causing them to act in a manner which they otherwise will not have.
g) There are substantial significant and applicable counter-examples that have proven contrary to MM Lee's viewpoints
possibly h) Show that there is a valid and tested model in implementing minority viewpoint without leading to tyranny of the minority.
These points are not productive by themselves because philosophical and practical issues remain to be debated. They will merely serve to support Mr. Han's thesis. Brief exchange as it was, it is a tall order to back up the claims that Mr. Han has made. In not doing so, his claims are paper thin and no better than fiction (to this writer anyway). Perhaps his mini-speech would have been less sensationalist if he merely narrowed the scope of his viewpoints, on account of the limited time available.
Many supporters of Mr. Han have applauded his derringdo in a country of apathetic youths. I do not applaud outspokenness that serves no purpose and is not backed by reason, no matter how novel, unique, daring, eloquent and rare it is. Break the norms by all means, if something is wrong and needs to be fixed or improved upon, not simply because it is novel to do so. I would not like to think that these people will similarly applaud Dr. Chee Soon Juan. Let us not forget that outspokenness is distinct from quality of ideas. It is not enough to possess the former without the latter, and the loud will not inherit the earth based on volume alone. Perhaps these supporters have in mind the vociferous political state of Tai- ahem- wan, as well as the flash mobs and mass demonstrations. Given free reign, outspokenness and derringdo, in the absence of reason and logic, can well degenerate into a farce. [end solemnity]
[begin facetiousness] In case anonymous readers are going to viciously and foolishly assault me in writing for being pedantic, prosaic, stupid, long-winded et cetera ad infinitum, I shall offer advance warning that comments to this post will be monitored and moderated. Detractors are going to have to flame me elsewhere- I did not pay money to be told that I suck, stink, am a shithead, should drop dead, am the pus in the pimple on the backside of humanity, should stop blogging, should have my domain hacked et cetera ad infinitum. I am the Lee- I mean law here, and only fawning comments will be allowed for this one. [end facetiousness] <- this is a pain, I swear
1 Comments
Post a Comment
<< Home