In the previous article “Total Defense – (Total Control)”, KJ posited that Singapore’s doctrine of Total Defense is as much about the defense of Singapore, as it is about state indoctrination for social control. This article continues where it left off, and in collaboration with blogger Molly Meek, they attempt a further deconstruction of the rhetoric of Total Defense.
By KJ and Molly Meek
Discursive Impossibilities, Overdetermined Failures
It seems to be a sign of successful hegemony when our reactions to the unknown – the Other – dance in tandem with that very behavior prescribed by state-mandated ideology. In the Singaporean context, this would refer to the stubborn and permanent state of vulnerability and its citizens’ subjecthood, the erasure of their individuality, and the outright rejection of the in(de)finite possibilities of the Other (the impossibility of war, for example).
We are vulnerable, and we must continue to be vulnerable. So that we can continue to defend ourselves.
And so it seems that when we come to confront the issue of defense, ‘defensive’ is the stance we strike. When state ideology become naturalized in society and internalized in ourselves, but for some reason is questioned, or punctured, and our cognitive dissonance is jogged, our automatic response is: be defensive by taking offense.
This swiftness and passion with which we take offense, hint at a perceived importance of that something which must be defended. It could also be a front from which we hide the absence of a clear idea or object that needs to be defended.
What will Singaporeans defend?It seems, foremost, the ideology of defense itself.
1297, from O.Fr. defens, from L. defensum “thing protected or forbidden,” from neut. pp. of defendere “ward off, protect” (see defend). First used 1935 as a euphemism for “national military resources.” (Online Etymology Dictionary)
According to conventional wisdom, you are called upon to defend when you are attacked (though it is not necessarily always the right response). You expect to be called upon at any time too, and hence you have to maintain vigilance. And these ideological compulsions of vigilance and defense have rendered themselves irrefutable except to those of us who reject the ideology upon which these convictions are built.
We could start off by considering which actions might be classified as ‘defense’. In the most extreme cases (or rather, in what has become understood as the most extreme cases), one fights physically, takes up arms and inflicts harm upon someone else who has been defined as an enemy. The English novelist Jeanette Winterson’s The Passion provides a deceptively simple definition of ‘enemy’:
“Henri, What is enemy?”
“Someone who is not on your side.”
In this definition, it is worth reflecting upon how the conception of ‘enemy’ is fluid, but can be misguided, manipulated, or monopolized by those in power, with dire consequences for those without power. The ideology of ‘enemy’ regardless of who/what it inhabits on the other hand, is static as well as irrefutable.
In other cases, we might imagine the enemy as an entity that is always a potential, even if it doesn’t yet physically exist. (But as long as someone is not on your side… whichever side you might happen to be…). This entity’s potentiality consequently enhances its irrefutability. Thus, we try to always be ready for the extreme actions, i.e. force and violence, by equipping ourselves with the resources to draw our swords.
Yet, this does not tell us what the difference between defense and, for instance, fighting is (which can be a synecdoche or perhaps a representation of other acts of defense). In addition, we not only have to know what we are fighting for, but we also have to believe in the cause of our fight, and be made to see its relevance to ourselves.
In other words, when it comes to defense (whether in Singapore or elsewhere), indoctrination and ideology inevitably occupy a prominent position, often under the guise of nationalism. A soldier (again, this can be a synecdoche) will fight for the ruler if he can be made to believe that the act benefits the country, and that good done for the country is for the good of those he loves, and so his actions ultimately benefit himself.
Consider this: in the same novel The Passion, the protagonist Henri, a French peasant boy, joins the army and fights for France only because of his (inexplicable) love for Napoleon. This specter of Napoleon as king (and desire), of course, can be a metaphor for that which we form the basis for our allegiance, love, and defense. How else might Napoleon as the king and nation embodied, decree that he be loved and followed, other than to make sure that his vision appears to everyone as if it is their very own?
Thus egotism and self-centeredness become recoded into the notion of self-sacrifice. This displaces the self from the original rhetoric because when one sacrifices for someone else, or something, ‘someone else’ takes centrality rather than the sacrificial self as it originally was intended, since it does not make sense that we sacrifice ourselves for ourselves: I fight for myself (ultimately). But, I sacrifice for my nation (vaingloriously). It becomes a noble sacrifice, as ego and vanity become irresistible. The faces at the center of this discourse of defense keep rotating, until there is but a blurred defacement of the defender-subject, as well as the object of defense.
The supremacy of the defense rhetoric confers upon the individual a privileged place as an individual, only to then commodify every individual it encounters. But first, reification has to take place. Total Defense is a process of reification. It reifies state vulnerability and the perpetual need for its defense, and in the process exalting this ideology to a status of untouchability, like a body that has acquired immunity to what it calls ‘diseases’ (the enemies). And when Total Defense is instituted primarily as a form of political control, the reification of Total Defense as ideology commodifies it for mass consumption by individual citizens. Hence, the call: ‘What will you defend?’, when really, it is not about you.
Who does not know that there are various facets of defense? For instance, if you do not have enough money to feed the soldiers, there will not be an army to fight for you. Calling it ‘economic defense’ does not elevate it above the banal. Defense is constructed as an ideological factory that reduces the ostensible object of protection (‘Singapore’, including the citizens) into tidbits for mass consumption, which then becomes a loop of self-consumption. As our Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean suggests to the young ones: How about defending your favorite toy?
(Die defending your favorite toy?)
Defense becomes not about protecting Singapore, much less about defending its citizens. It becomes, rather, that Singapore and its citizens are about defense.
Hence: Are you defending a nation of which you are a part, or are you being used by a territory/group to which you are a tool, to defend itself?
Are you defending the nation, or are you being used by the nation to defend it?
When reification is entrenched, the ideology of defense becomes immutable, irrefutable, and irrationality commences.
‘What will you defend?’ is a question that privileges objects and mechanizes people.
When defense is total, so is reification.
Protected Territories, Protracted Defenses
Over at the Total Defense website, Total Defense is defined:
Total Defence about [sic.] the different things that we can do everyday in every sector of our society to strengthen our resilience as a nation. When we take National Service seriously, participate in civil emergency exercises, upgrade our skills, build strong bonds with different races and religions, and feel the pride of being Singaporean, we contribute to Total Defence. [Even without intending to?]
It sounds so persuasive that it can be seen as nonsense. The message is a fairly simple one: everything you do can be related to defense, which is why it is described as ‘total’. Of course, the relation can be a positive contribution, or an undermining of defense. But there doesn’t seem to be much sense here: I upgrade my skills and POOF! I have participated in the economic defense of Singapore. One can perceive one’s actions this way, of course. (The next time you are called up for reservist, tell them you have to upgrade your skills, or perhaps to make friends with your neighbor of a different race to foster social defense, to defend Singapore.) Surely the armed forces cannot prevent you from defending Singapore?
But it is important to note here that even the given definition of Total Defense involves a process of reification, where every single action of a citizen is tied to the defense of Singapore. This is intrusive, for it ties the individual irrevocably to the state, so much so that it is impossible to imagine anything truly individual. This is one aspect of its totalitarianism.
Total Defense consequently portrays the state as defending itself against what is actually its biggest potential threat – the people who could radically reconfigure the definitions and objectives, if not the very entity, of Total Defense. Simply put, should Total Defense be of utmost importance as the state’s ostensible defense against external enemies, then arguably, an even bigger threat would be the ones who can refute, reject, or alter the functions of Total Defense.
And who else might these people be in this instance, but the Singaporean citizenry?
If Total Defense is a tool for socio-political control, then citizens’ willing (but unwitting) consumption of Total Defense’ rhetoric and reification will invariably serve to strengthen and intensify state power over citizens. Thus, Total Defense renders the citizens totally defenseless against itself, against its originators – the state.
Even though the notion of defense externalizes threats, the concept is self-sufficient, as threats can be purely imagined (and imagined for), even if they are not always manifested physically. But this compels one to trespass into the defensum, i.e. the forbidden territory that would trigger defenses, if not defensiveness, where accusations meet defenses, counter-accusations and counter-defenses, where sacrifices precede war, and where silence groans as cacophony, where there is neither dialogue nor truce, but conflict-orchestrated peace-keeping, and where it is necessary to read subversion as madness without denigration. To read subversion as against mandatory paradigms of proof.
What will you defend? (Yes, I will.) No, what? (But why?)
* * *
There are truths, there are truths institutionalized, and there are truths disqualified. Disqualification:
graduates refusing to retrain and sell fried chestnuts in the market could be seen as undermining Economic Defence, and decrying governmental social engineering in the form of HDB racial quotas could be seen as injurious to Social Defence. (Excerpt of ex-Wikipedia Article on Total Defense of which a trace is detectable at the talk page; the main article is questioned, but does not suffer the same fate)
[The last we saw, the main article was plagiarized from the Total Defense website (assuming that different authors are involved).]
Something happens when satire, which may be more truthful than what is allowed to exist, is expected to conform to encyclopedic standards of truth. You cannot make your point in any other style or form; you cannot make your point with deliberate ambiguity or ambivalence. Play by the rules or go to another site.
Perhaps Singapore is a kind of Wikipedic space. There is little to stop unrecognized forms from cropping up, but the entire Wikipedized community would appear to censor, to disqualify.
But which other site is there?
How could you defend yourself?
(Sorry, Wikipedia, you were merely a metaphor. A mere metaphor.)
Accusations and Defenses, Nonsense taking Offenses
Of self-reflexive apologia, inevitable schizophrenia, and a parodic table in the spirit of temporal efficiency and intellectual rationality, apparently offering irreverent interpolations and rupture within structure.
(And of course, presented for the leisurely self-indulgence of our dear readers.)
| Neutral Judge: I generally do not disagree with Objective Reviewer. But I don’t think the masses are all brainwashed. If everyone is brainwashed, then KJ would not have been able to make such a claim in the first place. The people on the ground have eyes to see for themselves. People like KJ are unable to convince others of their ideas, with his pseudo-intellectualisms which most people would find inaccessible. [molly: but you have accessed him, haven't you? otherwise, how would you know that he is being pseudo-intellectual?] With the better educated who are able to deal with the density of his words to reveal the dismal lack of substance in them, his ideas have no purchase because they are essentially hollow. Of course, no one can stop KJ from expressing himself, but what Singapore needs is not self-indulgent people like KJ, but those who are able to arouse people from their slumber and excite changes. [molly: so, it all goes back to what “Singapore” needs, not what KJ is! Poor KJ!][KJ: Err! Neutral judge’s judgements, rather than being neutral, are contradictory and value-laden! Neutral Judge certainly judges more than he neutralizes!] | Objective Reviewer: You are not being fair, KJ. You accord far too much to propaganda, as if Singapore is a conspiracy hub. As a government critic, you need to express balanced [molly: that depends on the sort of scales you use . . .] and well-substantiated views, not polemical senselessness. You have to work within the system. Play by the rules, even if you think they are unfair. It is counter-effective embarking on semi-fictive critique when you are dealing with real issues in the real world.By saying No to defense, you are effectively undermining the nation for the sake of undermining the government and you are not going to get much support. [molly: how does one gain support from those who do not even know they are supporting one's adversaries?] Such radical discourse will alienate the masses. No doubt, you might say that the masses have already been brainwashed by the dominant ideology, but you need to appeal to their sensibility before you can bring about change. |
| Third Party: Molly, it is very rude and disruptive [molly: aha! that's the word!] of you to invade Neutral Judge’s and Objective Reviewer’s comments with those frivolous interpolations of yours. Such issues bring out the worst in you, showing that you simply fail to be constructive and engage others especially when the need arises. Go away, we don’t need people like that.Look at Neutral Judge and Objective Critic. Their comments are valid, well-reasoned and lucid, exemplary critique that Singapore needs and lacks. Unlike the many netizens who churn out nonsense, their writing is structured and make sense.KJ, you spout nonsense compulsively. If you know nothing about defense, do your research before you meander and ramble on and on. Stop bringing shame to the blogosphere. If you feel that your point has not gotten across [molly: maybe it is impossible for the point to get across other than by means of a desperate provocation because it is beyond the parameters of sanctioned intelligibility.], it’s your fault for failing to be lucid. | KJ: I don’t belong here |you are here, face it|, but the question is not “Will you defend”, which could also be a rhetorical question, so the question preempts and has defended itself against the possibility of a deliberate, subversive “No.” We can, of course, answer “Nothing”. But that would mean we would not defend ourselves, not even against the rhetorical violence |what’s that?| inflicted on us. This would be a self-contradictory reply. If we answer “Myself”. We would be acknowledging ourselves as the objective/objectified functional “what” in the question.“What will you defend?” Is “will” possibly an ambiguous indicator of the future, allowing for a constant deferment of the acts of defense which indefinitely prolongs the moment of projection of potential threats?|The story is seductive, but it fails the test of truth. You are making things up.|The person answering does not even have to articulate “I”. The question is “what” and the answer could simply be the object. The “I will” of the answer might present a semblance of agency, but it is ultimately redundant.The question is also notably not “What will we defend”? even as the word “we” would have generated a rhetoric of togetherness. Every individual exists as a target. By virtue of the existence of a question being asked, there has to be an “I” in some form—the speaking “I” of power. The questioning “I” is an unspoken but stable “I” that can be reproduced for every addressee whereas the redundant answering “I” exists only as a rhetorical complement to the absolute “I” of power. The self of “I will defend [insert right answer]” is only legitimate insofar as it is a product of the absolute self of Power personified. We, answerers of the question, can only be a self via the proxy of power. There is sovereign power and there are subjugated subjects. |
| -DELETED-[Moderator: That's not constructive, Molly.] [KJ: I thought we were tasked to be deconstructive?] |
KJ: I’m ashamed of my perpetual gibberish and myself. I don’t know what came over me. I think Molly drugged me. I can’t even make sense of what I wrote.[Derrida: You shouldn’t. Like me, you’re dead.][molly: stop it jacques. not everyone has the right to rise from their graves when they sense something is wrong. please, return to where you died!] |
on a personal note, i would only support Total defence only when Singapore ceases to be ruled by an opaque unreasonable, authoritarian regime that pisses on the common people.
Dear Pugdragon;
understand and emphatize with You. Many, including me, are liked You. I am disappointed with our state managers, however, i am not disappointed with myself. Call me Ah Q (Forest Gump/country bumpkin) and i will gladly accept; i am like a basic species, fill my stomach when hungry, have shelter from the elements and got family and mates to relate to and i am satisfy. Spend most of my time pondering about anything that come to mind, not very much in control of myself, most of the time my mind acts intuitively and instinctively, i feel very much part of Nature and do not feel good about all the artefacts and artifices completely engulfing and consuming us.
Our leaders do not seem to be humans to me, they are liked devoid of emotions, sentiments and grossly lack humanities. They are conceited and control freaks glorifying themselves to no end as though they are competent to run the whole world. But, You, i and others feel so deprived, oppressed and humiliated as they(leaders) treat us like machines and domesticated animals, exploiting the maximum out of us being their subjects. They do not feel any guilt or sin preying on us, they behave as though they are superior beings which of course we know they are not. They will be sick, grow old and useless like us too, but they do not seem to understand, so much for their intelligence.
Our leaders want us to defend their assets, families and the country which they treat it like their company(businesshouse). They force us to do it by conscription not by imbueing us with love for them who in turn have the duties to build this land into a nation. Thus far, they have proven incapable of fulfilling the Duty to conceive(build) nationhood though they proved very capable of giving themselves World Record Remunerations.
To conclude, i am powerless and therefore incapable of protecting much and i am also worthless and hence there is nothing to protect, however live i will and make noise when i am still breathing.
#50
So what is ‘informed patriotism’? Choosing not to defend your country because you don’t like the leaders? That sounds like an excuse for cowardice to me.
The point we’ve been trying to make here is that undermining nationalism and patriotism is the wrong channel for venting your frustrations with the government.
The right approach is to defend your country by voting out bad leaders!
“Choosing not to defend your country because you don’t like the leaders? That sounds like an excuse for cowardice to me.”
For some people, country = leaders
For some people, country = me, my family, friends, my leaders
For some people, country = hotel
For some people, country = you may retire your old bones not in your own country but to a place called JB (not Jurong Birdpark but a place called Joooohoooore Baaaaaahru)
For some people, country = not to defend a screwed-up system where a few annoited trumpeters have a chance to blow their music while inventing a system where they give themselves a long-term period to make good music, if it happens to be lousy music in the first place.
Depending on how each group is looking at the above based on their own experience on the relationship with their country, defending a country may mean different thinga to different people.
The posts are progressively steered in a good direction. They’re fruitful & constructive. This shows that we’re not mere sheep who follow the herd brainlessly without questions. It’s high time the government stop looking at us as objects of exploitation devoid of human rights who will never question them due to lack of individuality.
We voice our dissents, usually valid ones, we got jailed. Eh… That’s not exactly very nice, isn’t it? Everyone gets scared to voice their opinions no matter how sane or easily-justifiable they are for fear of being arrested. Since when is speaking out a crime? Sigh…
Ask us before deciding to pump the population to 6.5 or 5.5 million, most of us would probably say “no” due to fear of overcrowding. But alas! We ain’t got a voice!
KJ, your article really set me – my heart and mind thinking a lot of the hidden agenda behind the idea of total defence. Thanks from a formerly loyal die hard military man who is now a intellectual of peace , prof wannabe and a aspiring researcher .
Smallvoice-
of coz after high school their laughter wld turn into shudders.
shuddering at ur superficial views on nationalism and defence.
only sgreans can comment on sg politics? duh. sounds like a mini LKY and his dictatorial pretensions.
“Ask us before deciding to pump the population to 6.5 or 5.5 million, most of us would probably say “no” due to fear of overcrowding. But alas! We ain’t got a voice!”
They should have some top-top-top planners (not those kecang puteh ones) to live / work really in the heartland close to busy roads & travel in sardine-packed public transport for them to really appreciate.
Most importantly, ask them to read Joseph Stiglitz and not those pro Wall-Street types.
Okay, the government increases the population level to a unpleasant one & this makes being outside one’s home more bothersome. This is done to boost the economy at the expense of the citizens’ comfort & social security. The government, being seemingly inhuman & only caring for its own selfish desires, did not consider the feelings & opinions of fellow citizens.
SMRT, very likely being government-linked, attempts to solves the overcrowding problem caused by the government by removing seats in the train, not by increasing the frequency of trains. More people can squeeze into the train, but of course, at the expense of comfort.
The government attempts to solve the problem of road congestion caused by overcrowding caused by itself by increasing ERPs & maintaining or lowering the costs of vehicles. How is that supposed to help? More people will still get vehicles & cause heavier conditions on the road due to lower initial price of the vehicle. It only helps in generating more income for the company receiving the ERP payouts. The problem of road congestion is not being tackled at all.
Our commuting lives become more intolerable & yet the government doesn’t seem to care at all.
I believe life as a Singaporean under the current government is portrayed exactly the same way in NS. You are expected to have a leap of faith. You must believe in higher authorities blindly without questioning them. I personally find that disturbing.
#56
The price of peace is eternal vigilance. High ideals can only be afforded by those who can defend them. As a military man, I thought you would understand that.
Has anyone read “The Lucifer Effect” by Dr Phillip Zimbardo? That book has forever opened my eyes to the nature of man, and it is not pretty.
If you want peace, you must prepare for war. This is something that all military men would to say to justify their existence. True to some extent. Indeed, I was indoctrinated since young that I must be strong and tough or else I will be bullied. War strategy books from Sun Zi , Clausewitz , military technology and tactics.
And I am no armchair general. I personally fought wars myself. I went to fight against rivals in studies , physical fitness at school . Well, it was the competitive educational environment of Singapore that encouraged me to take it up. That’s another part of the story. So I was a self-professed military man since 9 years old till last year – for 16 years.
Anyway, I come to realize that war preparation is not the best answer, merely an stop gap deterrent which could fail and be a lose lose situation. The world is suffering from a global recession and global warming threatening the future of humanity. I am kinda drawn towards pro-peace movement now. maybe I am tired of war. It is also because of the environmental issues that tells me that maybe the world should band together for a globally coordinated solution for our planet. Another thing is globalisation. I saw during my studies in America , many people from many cultures coming together. It was not hard to envisage that the world will be unified as a one country altogether in 2 generations down the road.
By then, no more wars. People coming together to work for a common goal . I know this is too idealistic for now. But this is another audacity of hope for the unity of the world and the future of humanity.
This is what that is making reconsider my formerly militaristic thinking.
bernard, I find it comforting to hear about your ‘change’. The hyper-militarism of the Singapore state under the control of a totalitarian govt is worrying. It’s not even about national interests when party survival is tied with the country, and all the major institutions of the country contolled by a small group with vested interests.
Within International Relations, the ‘realism’ espoused by people like smallvoice and panache are considered outdated. Hobbes and machiavelli might still be relevant, but they’re by no means the only perspective, let alone the only correct one.
ASEAN is an example of being a war-free zone for the last 3 decades not because of come crude national interest/balance of power but also liberal institutionalism and social norms.
Hi # 56 Bernard
I’m examining Total Defense as part of my PhD research (though it’s more about political theory), and it’d be great if I could ask you about your military experience. Could you kindly email me at cavalierioflute@yahoo.com ?
# 62 – You’re right. Realism vs liberalism is an age-old debate. Power/force is pertinent but that’s not to say they’re absolute, immutable, one-dimensional. Those who argue for radical change will always have to face the reactionaries who can’t see beyond the surface. But that’s just par for course.
Cheers : )
#62
“Within International Relations, the ‘realism’ espoused by people like smallvoice and panache are considered outdated”
Disagree. Political realism has and always will form the fundamentals of international relations. Liberalism is but an extension. This is exactly what Total Defense is by the way. Forge inter-dependence with other countries (liberalism) but insure against war (realism). I guess the success of liberalism has made people complacent…
#61
Thanks for sharing, Bernard.
Yes, nobody wants war. Maybe one day there will be no countries, like in John Lennon’s song…
Dear #62 Totally de senseless, #63 KJ and #64 Panache,
I’m worried by your careless usage of the various -isms. The rather liberal (pun) employment of terms such as liberalism, realism, totalitarianism, institutionalism and even hyper-militarism is not going to help the discussion unless their precise meanings are understood. Or else, they just serve as convenient labels and badges of prestige.
For eg, KJ’s proposition – “Realism vs liberalism is an age-old debate” – doesn’t quite make sense. Realism is not, by definition, not opposed to liberalism, but to idealism. Liberalism is more opposed to conservatism or authoritarianism.
We can go on and on like this … without much progress.
If I am in my old militaristic self – all army barmy and all that. I will say this. I remembered reading about Chinese history. The most humiliating chapter of Chinese history when China was weak and backward. China was bullied by the Western powers and slapped with a series of unequal treaties. China was nicknamed as the sick man of Asia. Such a big country reduced down to its knees begging for mercy from smaller countries like Britain , Japan. Ok, We must also put some of this on the ignorance of then Chinese about the world outside China. Then China do had to take in some flak for looking down on the outside world as barbarians aka superiority complex.
At the same time, I looked at Singapore’s history. British singapore’s air of complacency thinking that they are unbeatable. lulled into a state of invincibility. And we know what happened.
At the same time, I was bullied and looked upon by some classmates in school. I was derided as someone stupid and not fit to be in the elite GEP primary school. My school was one of then few primary school. At first, I was really in down spirits, looking at my mediocre results. But my Dad spurred me up. And I remembered reading about the Singapore story. Singapore succeeded against all odds to survive to this day. So I used this and my family’s encouragement to spur myself up to the challenge and fought all the way to the ‘impossible’ of getting into EM2. This is how I got into becoming a self professed military man. I used military strategies and tactics to toughen myself in improving my academic results and then physical fitness. Essentially everything I have in my life is hard won by battles.
So I am a battle hardened intellectual warrior with a turbulent history of 16 years.
Totally de senseless, Thanks for the kind words.
KJ, I am honored and surprised that you would want to know more about my military experience for your Phd research. Well, it is gonna be a long story of my 16 years. Above mentioned is only the introduction. You sure that you want my story ? Personally, I am now a aspiring researcher, intellectual of peace and professor wannabe. If God , fate and luck really permits me, I will go all the way to pursue Phd – field of study not decided yet. This time, it is not for academic competition rivalry with some people. It is really for myself. To push myself , to see how far can I go, for the hope of inspiring the next generation for the sake of a better future of humanity and our environment. lofty aspirations. kinda inspired by the audacity of hope expressed by President Obama. Since you are a political science student, What do you think of Obama ? By the way, which country do u study in ? Hope you can be more specific about your university in the email. thanks . Let exchange pointers. Here is my email . sgmilman@yahoo.com.sg
Can you decode my email name ? ? hahha
Panache – thanks for your comments. Frankly speaking, you remind me a bit of my old self before I became a militarist. not wanting to go to war. till being forced with no choice. Before I knew it, I got caught up in it and go into the kill . battle after battle , war after war. Let me get this straight, I am not totally against war. War is a means to an end, not the other way round. There are other ways to the end. War must be the last resort. I am well aware of the need of having a strong credible defence force.
Indeed, it was hard getting rid of my militaristic thinking. it is like my own personal weapon. Over the years, it has become institutionalized into my life. Now I am rethinking it for modifying a little bit to allow more freedom and creativity for my intellectual pursuits.
#66
Hi smallvoice, we are using ‘realism’ and ‘liberalism’ here in the context of international relations.
Dear #68 Panache,
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of those -isms more as political ideologies. Sorry to all.
However, even in the context of International Relations, the debate is more between Positivist and Post-positivist theories rather than between realism and liberalism as the latter 2 are both in the same Positivist camp. Liberalism as an IR theory is a largely incoherent one unless it is subsumed under Utopianism. So those who think they are the spokesmen for liberalism should reconsider their position.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that you and I are both realists. If I can speak for myself, I do not pledge my loyalty strictly to any one theory. But I think, whether in politics, epistemology or IR, the realist position should form the foundation for any intellectual discussion. Or else, paralysis in discourse will ensue.
Dear smallvoice:
“I’m worried by your careless usage of the various -isms. The rather liberal (pun) employment of terms such as liberalism, realism, totalitarianism, institutionalism and even hyper-militarism is not going to help the discussion unless their precise meanings are understood. Or else, they just serve as convenient labels and badges of prestige.”
These terms and definitions are always going to be contested and they should be. Only undergrads like you hold on to terms memorised from textbooks like they’re gospel :)
A simple national defence issue is now mired in sophisticated terminologies and highest level philosophies.
We are not a nation of scholars but people of near slave classes.
National defence does not only involve the learned nor it is the exclusive duty of the educated.
Please come down to layman level.
For the record, I subscribed to political realism when I was a dedicated military man.
Now that I subscribe more towards political pragmatism as a intellectual, recognising that there is a need to strike a balance between theory and real life practice. of course, I also do refer to other theories as well.
Singapore under PAP is a very pragmatic society. PAP always stresses upon the need to be practical in policy making for the reality of Singapore. Indeed, I agree to majority of PAP policies – 50% to 60% . What I don’t agree , is the heavy handed methods on clamping down of opposition and the uneven playing field for opposition. I believe that it should be a fair fight. Nevertheless, nothing is absolutely fair in life.
Panache, I never really understood the song “imagine” by Lennon. Found it too idealistic . Perhaps it is utopia !
maybe when we come into contact with other alien life from other planets. misunderstandings might happen and worsen into conflict. Earthlings vs Aliens. Just like Qing dynasty Chinese came into contact with the British, war.
HG wells ” the time machine” – when I read it, the future of mankind came to me .
What will the unification of the world mean ? With global warming looming in the long term future, should the govts leave it to the scientists to take over to save the earth ? Only time will tell .
There will be no unification of the world nor will there be free movements within Earth unless the Earth is unihabited by any species.
Humankind is the most selfish and territorial especially amongst their very own species, this is indisputable fact. No human no sovereignty, no sovereignty no defence needed.
74) The real, many species are territorial & work in packs as they learned it gives them strength in numbers & greatly enhanced their survivability.
Humankind has discovered this fact too, but has evolved with an ever-increasing greed level. Some leaders (governments) of modern packs (countries) work against the members of their own pack (citizens) & set conditions unfavorable only to himself & use nationalism as a deceptive motivation for subjects’ loyalty.
Would you fight to defend a pack if the leader of the pack leeches off you & the pack mostly consist of members of other species?
Think natural. Think in the ways of a naturalist. That way, you can see through illusions perpetuated by society.
Deat Pugdragon;
your point is gladly accepted and would like You to know that the pack will maul and kill each other too when they fight within themselves for a bigger shares of fortunes and loots, this i can assure You, because it is the nature of greed.
The humankind supposedly is wise and concientious but inexplicably most are overwhelm by greeds. Can’t really blame mankind, even gods want to stay away from them by staying in heaven, they can’t stand the humankind. Think of it, gods are unkind and selfish too.
My earlier quote “… & set conditions UNfavorable only to himself & use nationalism as a deceptive motivation for subjects’ loyalty.”
I meant “favorable.” Sorry for the mistake.
76) Don’t blame, humans are social creatures & it’s natural that their thoughts will be shaped & affected by ever-evolving society that they live in.
Here’s a really good example. Some Singaporeans in the past wear tattoos as a symbol of gangsterism, & some Singaporeans tend to associate tattoos with gangsterism. Lately, Singapore has been exposed to the artistic nature of tattoos by other societies in other countries & more Singaporeans disassociate tattoos with gangsterism.
The link of tattoos to gangsterism has been cleared almost completely. However, the link of gaining more power & financial wealth to the only way to achieve success in life has not.
As long as the latter link is not cleared, governments will continue to use their people for their own good & not benefiting the citizens fairly.
I don’t want to be forced to contribute to a group, much less defend its leader, where despite my contributions & efforts, I can see old, unfed members who have contributed in their younger years.
Pugdragon;
Respect your Rights to defend your freedoms, your freedom from unreasonable, unconscionable demands, coercion, aggression, oppression and inducements.
Succumb not to the bullies and crafty people.
Wish there are more Singaporeans with principles like You.