For a society to progress, it requires both rationality and passion (in the form of emotions). thanks for sharing ur perspective of the importance of emotions. it seems in modern era, the role of emotions are undervalued by rationality :-)

I agree strongly with the argument, but we must not also forget to elect people of good calibre, whether or not they are of the PAP – kick out the incapable, even if they are shielded in huge GRCs, shoo in the good ‘uns, like Kenneth J :)

What do you think of the opposition member across the causeway, grilled throughout the nite and the very next morning found dead at the bottom of the block, sodomised as well?

Interesting Mr Khairulanwar Zaini?

excellent article! exactly what we need more.

Different countries value different aspects of leadership. Some countries desire economic growth, some countries desire stability, some countries desire climate change, human rights, freedom of speech and so on.

Historically, Singaporeans have voted for the PAP, and their main selling point has been rationality. The cooling off period gives people the chance to vote rationally, and by extension, gives the PAP an advantage because theirs is a policy system based on rationality.

But what’s stopping the Opposition from being rational as well? Are you also admitting that the Opposition has no rational arguments?

Surely, if Singaporeans have been voting for “rationality”, and the Opposition refuses to deliver the required commodity, does that also mean that the Opposition is out of touch with the ground, out of touch with people’s needs and desires?

Different countrby extension, gives the PAP an advantage because theirs is a policy system based on rationality.

But what’s stopping the Opposies value different aspects of leadership. Some countries desire economic growth, some countries desire stability, some countries desire climate change, human rights, freedom of speech and so on.

Historically, Singaporeans have voted for the PAP, and their main selling point has been rationality. The cooling off period gives people the chance to vote rationally, and ition from being rational as well? Are you also admitting that the Opposition has no rational arguments?

Surely, if Singaporeans have been voting for “rationality”, and the Opposition refuses to deliver the required commodity, does that also mean that the Opposition is out of touch with the ground, out of touch with people’s needs and desires?

Great article!! It really unveils the hypocritical face of the ruling party. I don’t think 24 hrs are enough to cool Singaporeans if they are badly affected by the many anti-Singaporean policies being hurled at them both physically, mentally and spiritually for the past 3 years. Only if our hearts and mind are at peace then can we cool down.

#5 – Singaporeans vote rationally meh? Fear and kiasu kiasi is rational meh?

Argh the system lagged, so the comment came up all jumbled. Here’s the correct one.

Different countries value different aspects of leadership. Some countries desire economic growth, some countries desire stability, some countries desire climate change, human rights, freedom of speech and so on.

Historically, Singaporeans have voted for the PAP, and their main selling point has been rationality. The cooling off period gives people the chance to vote rationally, and by extension, gives the PAP an advantage because theirs is a policy system based on rationality

But what’s stopping the Opposition from being rational as well? Are you also admitting that the Opposition has no rational arguments?

Surely, if Singaporeans have been voting for “rationality”, and the Opposition refuses to deliver the required commodity, does that also mean that the Opposition is out of touch with the ground, out of touch with people’s needs and desires?

A group of pigs, fat and nasty, well-fed themselves with greed for many years is about to go into a slaughter house is now requesting the butcher for a day cooling period. Is this a form of begging for mercy in the name of saying
that the butcher is not rational and not reflecting himselfl if he slaughter them for the beneifit of everyone in hunger? Should we let the pig go and continue to waste our money while not getting anything in return from them?

My apologies for the accidental spam. My internet connection might have been rather iffy lately. :)

8) VS on December 5th, 2009 1.23 pm

Well it depends on what that fear is. Some fear is rational, and some fear isnt.

If it is a fear of being arrested by ISD in the middle of the night and sleeping with the fishes, that’s an IRRATIONAL fear.

If it is a fear of losing out in the economic race with other countries, then that would be a RATIONAL fear. In this economic climate, staying still is not a viable option. The Chinese and Indians are ambitious, capable and willing to work incredibly hard. If we cannot compete with them, it is inevitable that the business, employment and income will go to them.

Good article, great reasoning.

I think the question that interests me most from this discussion comes from an electoral strategy viewpoint. If you were in the opposition, and you are facing a short campaign (not a bad thing, you need to spend less money) and few broad outlets (at least it allows you focus) – then how would you turn this cooling off day into an advantage?

There’s NOTHING rational about a fat dictatorial regime grabbing on to absolute power for almost 50 years. The Japanese got fed up and kicked their half century old monopolistic party out in favor of the opposition. They stayed calm and rational and did it in style. And they, truly and without shame, are indeed a First World country.

“For what are the opposition but emotional rabble-rousers? Screaming nonsense and tripe, inspiring tempers and rousing passions? What are they indeed, when compared to the staid, calm, rational, reasonable men in white?”

You serious-nonsense, tripe…?
Then the great men throughout history; like M. Gandhi, Martin L King, JFK..etc…and even the current Obama US President, must have had been the real bad boys of opposition. They created not just only passion but frenzy parallel to hysteria for their visions and inspiration.

You gotta have real issues to incite emotional passion, frenzy and connection. The MIW has NOTHING to endear or convince Singaporeans that the country is not spiraling downhill. Why not let these white rabbits “inflame” their rallies by jubilantly announcing that:
1) 1 cent discount on transport for elderly over 80 vs their yet again yearly fat increment?> yawn
2) One time one month waiver of town council fee for 3 rooms or smaller ? >yawn
3) All should be thankful for F1, Casinos, enough cash to burn in Temasek debacle? This demonstrates that Singapore is 1st class rich. Don’t play play.

and …etc…etc….etc…..Yul Bryner in “The King & I”

But there is one thing that the MIW can say in unison that will throw Singapore into a massive frenzy of jubilation;

“We all RESIGN! ”

….but, listen very carefully to the whisper small print immediately following…..
” you all slowly wait long long ” ;)

11) XiiAoGeNgEnX on December 5th, 2009 1.39 pm

Your comment on..”The Chinese and Indians are ambitious, capable and willing to work incredibly hard. If we cannot compete with them, it is inevitable that the business, employment and income will go to them…” as appertaining to “rationality”

Try this “rationality” doctrine of public administration discredited since the 1960s

http://www.d.umn.edu/~schilton/3221/LectureNotes/3221.RationalityVsMuddlingThrough.2003.Spring.html

In a relative “stable” world of isolated turbulence, it might work to some degree of success.

In a globalised turbulent world like today, you worried about Indians and Chinese development stampeding our economic prospects? Is it a bit too late now to realise the failure of techno-rationality more correctly described as the ’science of muddling though” (failures after nearly 45 years)?

It is decayed mindset we have to change because ‘rationalist” believes incorrectly of their complete invulnerabilities. Utter nonsense!!

We are in a mess. The incumbent seeks perpetuation of self-interest of hegemony. Time for fresh change and direction. What needs to be discarded
of irrelevance have to be discarded for progress.

The men in white have their conscience washed by soap.

They can give me a cooling off period, they can block off all the internet connections, they can blast the main stream media with their campaigns, they can threaten us with engaging the army to prevent a freak election, it will not stop me from voting the opposition party irregardless how inexperienced they may be.

I will be a sucker to vote for the men in white again to pay them sky high salaries to prevent corruption & to have them shut their ears to our complaints. I will be a greater sucker to vote them to see cost of living rise like no tomorrow while scraping through with a peanut wage with no minimum wage policies to protect us.

To the men in white. YOU SUCKS!!

In today’s Straits Times, Philip Jeyaretnam wrote:

“Unfortunately, what I said about my brother, Kenneth, in answer to the question on what I thought about his taking over the leadership of the Reform Party, was omitted.

I told the interviewer that Kenneth has ‘embarked on a serious project, and I am sure he will do a good job, knowing his capability’.”
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_462704.html 0

This shows quite clearly that the PAP controlled mass media will be used to the PAP’s advantage.

The PAP-controlled newspapers, TV and radio is going to be 100% biased against the non-PAP political parties. Singtel, Starhub and M1 servers are going to be very, very slow on the “cooling off” day. They would all be used to propagate the rule of the famiLEE.

A vote for the PAP would mean turning Singapore into a feudalistic society with the famiLEE calling the shots.

Goofy wrong-headed article. The author should have thought through it more carefully :)

Paras 1-4 astutely identifies PAP’s rhetoric of reason as mere political-marketing: PAP is the party of Reason, the opposition runs on the Emotion ticket

Contradictorily, the author then goes on to exalt emotions and knock rationality; and “plays into the PAP’s hand”. (I couldn’t have put it better myself.)

Don’t give PAP so much credit. They don’t own Rationality. The opposition are also more than Emotion-salesmen.

16) JW on December 5th, 2009 2.57 pm

Ya, next time, better to write in own letter than to have a journo phrase it for you.
I have stopped buying the news as I get FREE reading everyday from neighbor and friends and relatives.

There is no law that says i cannot do so.

Journos are responsible for what they write including how they phrase what was said in interviews and what they did not say that is important to correctly interprete what the interviewee said.

There is only 1 way out.

PAP rational?

Come on. If it was we would have
- casinos in 1985 not 2010
- F1 in the 1990s
- borrowed more
- changed CPF system.

If PAP rational it shld have not sued JBJ so much, juz left him in his play-pen.

Hello, thanks for your comments.

The vein of this piece argues not merely against the PAP’s rhetoric of reason, but against the appeal to reason itself. It transcends beyond whether the PAP has a legitimate claim on rationality (as how it would like to be perceived) – the essay argues against the inadequacy of rationalism as a mode of thinking itself.

We have priviliged reason over and above emotions, for no better reason than thinking that it will serve us better and more efficiently. We’ve seen the damaging impact of that: cold-hearted reason degrades humanity, as our merciless executions of teenage drug runners (not even drug barons, but mere mules!) would show.

The myth of reason addressed here is not about the PAP’s rhetorics, but about its role vis-a-vis emotions. We are conditioned to think of rationalism as premier, but in truth, our decision-making is based in emotions and intuition and refined by reason, the latter very much subordinate to the former.

Great Article Khairul. Unfortunately, Dictator Lee is just too thick skinned to be bothered by such news. There is no negotiations with a dictator when news write up ain’t music to his ears.

Its never a level playing field in an authoritative system. I figure there is NO WAY of defeating the Lee regime under their ‘TERMS’ in every election, when MM Lee himself confessed that election system in S’pore is ‘engineered’ in such a way that opposition can’t win!

The only possible way to defeat such a regime, is through Civil Disobedience. When all channels of negotiations are exhausted, when all MIW care for is only bank account every month, when they won’t listen to peasants cries anymore, what more have we left? And what more have we fear?

If you can’t win them gentlemenly and squarely, what other choice does one have but to engage in Civil Disobedience. No arms, no weapons, no riots. Just walk and walk and walk until they MIW, listen to us. There is nothing to lose but everything to gain.

They can’t be sending everyone to prison???? It’ll get too crowded…not enough space. They can’t be charging everyone for ‘Being subversive’, trying to overthrow them, with what? No arms, no weapons, how to overthrow them???

There is another method which I’ll share with readers here in time to come. This method is perhaps even more effective. No march, no walk but its the same kind of Civil Disobedience. Watch ths space……

Great weekend everyone…..

Singapore has severe shortage of people like Khairulanwar Zaini.
There may be many who write as well as him. But did they voice up?
That is the difference and why Mr Zaini is a cut above the rest.
If only more will speak up about issues like this.

I noticed weirdly how on the comments, people voted FOR anti-PAP arguments, then voted DOWN PAP arguments, no matter how rational, objective, valid and balanced they might seem.

Haha it’s not hard to realise most people who comment actively in TOC suffers from the syndrome that “All Things PAP is BAD”. Worse, their tirade sometimes become anti-Singapore, in the process of trying to bring the PAP down. This is the same syndrome i see with SDP. Look at how they have paint Singapore to be a pathetic country. Remember just a year ago when we were freshly it by the economic crisis, Dr. Chee went on a Youtube tirade to slam Singapore’s business forecast as gloomy. Surely this hurt the ordinary Singaporeans more than they do on the ruling party.

24) Xanadu on December 5th, 2009 6.06 pm

Remember just a year ago when we were freshly it by the economic crisis, Dr. Chee went on a Youtube tirade to slam Singapore’s business forecast as gloomy. Surely this hurt the ordinary Singaporeans more than they do on the ruling party.

I pity your cognitive dissonance.

Khairulanwar Zaini #20,

“It transcends beyond whether the PAP has a legitimate claim on rationality (as how it would like to be perceived)”

Does heart-knowledge transcend intellectual honesty?

commenters should respect the views of readers who vote For or Against the views posted by other readers.

If people vote Against pro or non pro views, you should not think that you have the right to dictate the views of readers.

Cooling of day or not matters not. I for one will vote against the PAP and vote for a change and more opposition in goverment to right the wrongs of this government .

Agreed we probably wont be able to rid all of them at once but in time we will bring back true justice. There will be change ,it will come it has to come for it has been wrriten that no government can control the lives of every individual from telling them how many children to have , when to have them . No one is the giver of life but the man up there.

You can right the wrongs of the past , people who foolowed the two child family and other policies cos they say so and when mistakes have been made you cant simply say”I made a mistake”. Think of all the capable singaporeans we ost all these years who could have contributed to this country but left cos they wanted their childre to have a simple uncomplicated education, childhood and to live thier lives as they should be lived not under pressure with tuition for every subject from the time they start kindergarden.

So please vote wisely or forever hold your peace.

5) XiiAoGeNgEnX on December 5th, 2009 1.10 pm

Please do not distract us too much with your likely line of argument : -

Singaporeans voted XXX = Rationality
Rationality = ‘cooling’ period
Therefore Singaporeans are for ‘cooling’ period.

If Opposition and others are not for ‘ cooling’ period
Opposition and others are not = Rationality

So far so good as it is your axiom. But it breaks down quite easily once we begin to reconfiqure one part of the above.

‘Cooling’ period is not = Rationality .

Good logic does not necessary mean truth and if your axiom hold true, it could also mean.

“Different countrby extension, gives the PAP an advantage because theirs is a policy system based on rationality.”

So the absence of ‘cooling’ period after all these years = the lack of rationality all these years.

deduced from “Singaporeans and by extension XXX lack rationality after all these years” = Singaporeans voted XXX after all these years.

“… For what are the opposition but emotional rabble-rousers? Screaming nonsense and tripe, inspiring tempers and rousing passions? What are they indeed, when compared to the staid, calm, rational, reasonable men in white?”

The PAP has done more of the former than the opposition with their policies via the state propaganda machine, albeit not screaming.

Is it irrational to vote out an incompetent political party which lost a would be terrorist held under ISD custody and US$40 Billion of Singapore’s reserves?
After all adjectives like “staid, calm, rational, reasonable” are not mutually exclusive with ones like stupid, inept, incompetent.

Worse still does the ruling party have a viable gameplan for the future to dig us out of this economic gloom and doom? If it doesn’t, would it not serve Singapore’s best interests by voting in a few more voices who could possibly suggest genuinely alternative solutions who are not beholden to the establishment in anyway.

Soo Kam Chia #27,

“commenters should respect the views of readers who vote For or Against the views posted by other readers.”

Why?

Hello sllim,

That’s the entire point of the article: rationality does not carry much weight in the absence of emotions. And ‘intellectual honesty’ is not always an internally consistent term :)

Khairulanwar Zaini #32,

Do you think the opposition should hand-wave through a campaign of non-answers?

When is “intellectual honesty” not an internally consistent term?

Excellent article! This is just what we need, at this time of need.

I think too that we, as a nation, being led like sheep into the pen, have gone too far into rationality – so much so even our top leaders have grown a crutch mentality onto this rationality; so much so that our beloved Prime Minister has displayed this crutch mentality for the whole world to see, by proposing “A Cooling-Off Day …. to think rationally and vote rationally.”

Even a computer can “think” rationally! BUT it is devoid of emotions, feelings. What distinguishes between a computerised robot and a normal human being is feelings, intuition, sixth sense so to speak.

When a human being becomes devoid of feelings, rationality then becomes his soul and conscience in his life.

When perpetuating his grip onto absolute power becomes of paramount importance in his entire life, then rationality becomes his means to justify the desired end.

When ruthlessness becomes a necessary means to achieve an end, then rationality becomes the end to justify the ruthless means.

It is obvious to me, now, that the more brilliant scholars we put up there to lead us, the more Singapore is becoming a country which is not a country, but a mere “City” (or a giant MNC) based solely upon rationality, instead of both rationality (brain) and feelings (heart) together. It is just like a family with only a father but without a mother.

Hello sliim,

I think it is more important how the people think (and consequently, vote) – it does not matter if we vote in another party but remain fixated in thinking along PAP’s perspectives.

Just because it’s intellectual, it doesn’t mean it’s true; reason does not always lend itself to truth, only (sometimes) a close approximation. It is very rational to execute Vui Kong: he broke the law, the punishment is mandated – but it’s another thing altogether to say that it is the right thing to do.

Khairulanwar Zaini #35,

Do you think chronic conflation speaks more to dishonesty or delusion?

Hello sliim,

Chronic conflation of what, exactly?

Dec 4, 2009
Trader accused of GST fraud
By Elena Chong, Courts Correspondent

A BUSINESSMAN was charged in court on Friday with 62 counts of evading Goods and Services Tax of about $2 million.

This GST fraud case is the biggest to be brought to court to date.

Mahesh Kumar Goenka, 53, a director of two companies and also owner of another business dealing with electrical and electronic goods, allegedly made false entries in the GST returns which resulted in the undercharging of taxes between 2004 and 2007.

The companies are Lalasis Trading and Lachem Trading, and the sole proprietorship, Zirco International.

Nine of the 62 charges accused him of omitting output taxes in Lalasis’s GST returns with intent to assist the company to evade tax. If convicted, he faces a fine of up to $10,000 and/or a jail term of up to seven years plus a penalty of three times the amount of tax undercharged on each charge.

He is out on $200,000 bail. His passport was impounded. The case will be mentioned on Jan 8.

The Straits Times

Well the MIW always told us that foreigners were talented.

//XiiAoGeNgEnX

if what you claimed is true, then why LKY kept bankrupting opposition?

Why punishing opposition wards citizens on upgrading?

Ask your pigs @ parliament to abolish GRC then and see if the election voting will give 80 seats or more to your pigs.

What we have is not just an aberation: 66% of the votes winning more than 90% of seat

What we have is more ridiculous: 66% of the votes winning more than 90% of seat AND no positive results on improvement of citizen life (except the pigs)

PAP is never cold on reason as suggested in this article.

It is a make believe.

They only serve themselve.

Always.

Khairulanwar Zaini #37,

terms, and concepts

The PAP is always about PRESERVING THEMSELVES..
not us – the people whom they assumed voted them in term after term.

Hello sliim,

I can’t speak for those who conflate, but there are those who do it because they are conditioned to do so, and those who do it because they can derive an advantage from said conflation.

May I ask though the point that you are trying to make?

Now, fast forward to election cooling day …

TV – repeat telecast shows, staring LKY or time period in the 60,70s, to reuse past success stories, especially those that depict Singapore as a poor country and raises from the ashes … doesn’t this remind u of current Channel 8 9pm show.

Internet – for some strange reasons, connection speed to opposition website is very slow. Maybe some1 employed overseas kids or hackers to bomb these websites.

Newspaper – carry articles, better to be from overseas to make PAP look clean, that give a bias opinion of the election. Of course PAP past success stories will be mentioned. Thats the only thing PAP got to show … the past.

To a MIW suck up (for all the right or wrong reasons regardless), NO amount of rationality is necessary. Suckups operate out of perceived need of benefit of some sort. Like parasites and leeches, they feed on the host. If the host dies, they perish, so it’s pointless to use rationality on situations when it threatens the livelihood and well being of both parties. Each serves the other.

Everyone is free to make choices but rationality is basically a mathematical system of logic, reason, EQ, morality, balance and the greater good. If one can still suppress the offensive acceptance and violation of common justice from the obvious constant barrage of incompetent greater errors that is now synonymous with the MIW and still spew praises for them, something is rationally irrational.
I simply call it -SUCKUPS to benefit a rational understanding.

A cooloing off day is for the politicians right….

We people should get togather at Hong Lim Park and have our own then……

Imagine….

Khairulanwar Zaini #43,

The points I’m trying (tried) to make (made):

1. You were intellectually dishonest when you said: “It transcends beyond whether the PAP has a legitimate claim on rationality (as how it would like to be perceived)”

2. You conflated PAP’s rhetoric of reason with a “Rhetoric of Reason” (that it’s superior) and rationality, “facts and reason”. It’s not even that hard to tell. Read the piece again as a “dispassionate” reader.

3. When I then asked, when is intellectual honesty not internally consistent, you dodged the question, changed the scope and went on about how being intellectual is not always true and knocked reason some more.

4. “rationality” is next-to-irrelevant for meting out the punishment for Vui Kong’s case. Is it a matter of rationality for enforcing the letter of the law? Whether that law in general (capital punishment) or in particular (Vui Kong) is just/humane is a separate issue. You declared as much: “but it’s another thing altogether to say that it is the right thing to do.” Yet you fudged the two.

Ask anyone who feels disenfranchised by PAP, are they simply nuts, or can they also give you a cogent laundry list of why PAP drives them crazy? (I bet most of them can.)

If they can’t, they are only Emotion-salesmen selling heavy, pretty, but empty boxes.

Hello sllim,

1. I don’t see how that statement is ‘intellectually dishonest’: it was merely stating the scope of the article ie. that I am not going to talk about whether the PAP do adopt rational policies (as it would like to be seen), but at a deeper level: whether operating by reason alone is sufficient to live and build a nation.

2. I have lost you here. Let’s go through this again: the cooling-off allows the PAP to privilege reason as the premier mode of thought, which plays to their advantage since they can claim the mantle of being a rational party (even without having to be so, because they have the mainstream media to perpetrate that impression.) I am not addressing the latter, but the first: is it really valid to pander to reason? That’s the thesis I’m aiming at. What conflation are you alluding to?

3. I answered you directly: by intellectual honesty not being internally consistent, it means that being rational is not always being true.

4. Rationality is the operating principle in the crime-punishment axis: you commit a crime, you get punished by the letter of the law. Does this mean he deserves to get killed? Not necessarily true. I am not fudging the two, but distinguishing between them. And very distinctly.

The entire article is supposed to expose the myth of rationality (not the myth of PAP’s rationality, I must stress again) – how it is inadequate for us to live through pure reason alone. Sure, the PAP has its rational faults, but if it could overcome these rational shortcomings, the incumbency is theirs in perpetuity. Singaporeans need a paradigm change, and not merely be fixated with rational considerations.

I am knocking reason: that’s the entire point of the piece. Reason is not sufficient for us to live or engage in nation-building – I thought the article would have made that clear.

I appreciate Mr Zaini’s effort to help people rationalise this issue.
Thanks!

#11
“If it is a fear of being arrested by ISD in the middle of the night and sleeping with the fishes, that’s an IRRATIONAL fear.

You must be the frog living in the well. Getting arrested by ISD is an irrational fear? Go check it up and you find plenty of cases happening
right in your wonderful country before you spill out what you have swallowed from
our MSMs and MIWS all these years!

“I am knocking reason: that’s the entire point of the piece. Reason is not sufficient for us to live or engage in nation-building – I thought the article would have made that clear. ”

Actually, ‘reason’ is not at fault here. The policies and actions of the PAP is perfectly reasonable… for their purposes.

But it runs into problems when their purposes run counter to the long-term benefits of the people.

It can be reasonably argued that many of the policies will hurt us in many ways in the long run.

Hence it is UNREASONABLE to expect the policies to still be in place.

The PAP likes to see itself as the embodiment of reason. By steeplejacking the word ‘reason’ for themselves, they are painting anyone who disagrees with them as unreasonable.

Being a person who loves reason, I am quite offended that we would even begin to agree to let them stake the claim on reason and rationality.

Rationally-speaking, values of compassion, democracy, taking care of the weaker ones amongst us, open debates, etc etc… all these are beneficial to the nation.

Disregarding these, as the PAP is wont to do, is IRRATIONAL.

They stole and soiled reason.

We have to claim it back.

It is easy to shout for change, for freedom of speech for liberty the way the westerners do… but most people, especially the common folk, the aunties and uncles do not want that. they want to be able to walk home safely at night, to ave food on the table, to have running water and electricity. and they strongly believe that it is only the PAP who can provide them with these.

to be fair i salute those who have passion for politics and for change but it’s not going to change the mindset of the older ones. i kow because my parents and my in-laws are such examples. we can vote the PAP out of the entire parliament but how confident are we that the opposition is as competent in running the country?

A+ clap clap clap!

“…opposition is as competent in running the country? ”

The first thing to re-examine starts with how quickly one jumps to the conclusion that they are competent.

Khairulanwar Zaini #48,

As conflations go, yes, it’s easy to get lost.

Responding to a question specifically asking “when” with “not always” and considering that a “direct” answer, makes it pretty clear this will go nowhere.

I’ll leave you with a comment I read on TOC. The familiar “reasoning” goes like this:

1. LKY accepts the theory of evolution
2. PAP is synonymous with the theory of evolution
3. Let’s hate PAP/reject the theory of evolution and reject the theory of evolution/hate PAP

hell, I don’t mind the 24 hours cool down period.

… I see it as the time for political parties (PAP and opposition) to stop campaigning, and for the PEOPLE to start campaigning. ie. TOC and other blogs should be filling up the www with all kinds of info (summaries of the rallies, etc) for people to read.

- pictures of PAP rallies versus opposition rallies should be shown.
- fallacies in arguments should be highlighted
- past promises (can include swiss std of living, world cup 2010, etc) not fulfilled should be featured

Anyway, my point is instead of bemoaning how advantageous it is to PAP, why not brainstorm how it can be turn to our advantage?

Hi sllim,

Here’s the thesis: rationality is not sufficient for humans to operate by. PAP, by pandering to that myth of rationality, is collateral damage. I’m aiming at the very practice of rationalism: PAP’s apparent/perceived pure rationalism failing is thereofre a corollary.

You asked when intellectual honesty is internally inconsistent: I’ve shown you that on occasion reason does not approximate with the truth, particulary with the illustration of the death penalty. Citing occasions is an appropriate manner of addressing ‘when’ questions, I believe.

52) Powerhouse on December 6th, 2009 6.25 pm
we can vote the PAP out of the entire parliament but how confident are we that the opposition is as competent in running the country?

That’s easy. The PAP is already not competent. I will just highlight what I think are the more serious example.
- super upward spiral of HDB flat price. I have no idea how the next generation is going to afford one without being in PERPETUAL debt.
- Incomes of the low wage earners have been nearly stagnant for more than a decade at least… with this kind of time line, you can’t explained it away using the economic crisis.
- now the huge influx of foreigners may also be suppressing the middle income range…

so the opposition don’t have a lot of ground to make up at all… that is, if they need to in the first place.

A superbly written critique, the quality of which will never be found in the sterile words of robotic ST journalists.

Let Lord Tennyson’s poem and a chinese proverb below be a spur to Singaporeans to use their long-repressed emotions and give vent to the truth using the power of their vote.

” Ours not to reason why,
Ours but to do and die:
Into the Valley of Death,
Voted the 3 million natives;
Death births life anew.”

Khairulanwar Zaini,

Q: When is “intellectual honesty” not an internally consistent term?

“A”: Just because it’s intellectual, it doesn’t mean it’s true; reason does not always lend itself to truth, only (sometimes) a close approximation. It is very rational to execute Vui Kong: he broke the law, the punishment is mandated – but it’s another thing altogether to say that it is the right thing to do.

Rationally, I would never back a politician who responds like that, and not just because I wouldn’t know I was given an “answer”. Emotionally, I wouldn’t have it any other way. (FYI, this delineation is all very artificial.)

Hello sllim,

You have to provide me with more meat to work with. It has to go beyond merely stating that it resonates neither rationally or emotively with you. Generally disabling discursive position to adopt.

@52) Powerhouse on December 6th, 2009 6.25 pm

“but how confident are we that the opposition is as competent in running the country?”

Can your parents or you guarantee that they/you will have healthy children, and all will become scholars and achieve great things in life? If not, then don’t have children right?

So are you worried that if the opposition forms the next government, the entire police force will resign and thus result in the streets being unsafe?

[...] to Election: An Extra Cooling Off Day for the Fixing – TOC: The treason of reason – The Secret Political Blog: The poison chalice: the PAP finds another trick in the book – Diary of [...]

Powerhouse #52
“how confident are we that the opposition is as competent in
running the country? ‘
If you stay with this kind of thought, we will stay stagnate with
the status quo
We need the courage to experiment change in order to progress.
Besides how can you be presumptious that the opposition in
Govt wouldn’t do a better job as if the PAP has been a wonderful
govt recently.

Premise: I’ve the money to renounce my citizenship and pursue a higher standard of living in France.

Conclusion: I shall “quit” Singapore within the next 4 months. Goodbye reservist, bonjour Champs-Élysées.

PEOPLE.. just bear in mind that, we vote for a government to work for us, not the other way round.

there is definitely something wrong when citizens start fearing their government they voted in.

It can only be attributed to my pet peeve: anti-intellectualism. Most Singaporeans have no qualms sneering at CSJ for being “dumb” to go against the gahman. “Got money meh?” is the oft-cited response. Give them HDB, medisave, MRT and free schooling and they are swayed. These are the very same philistines who walk into a haute cuisine restaurant, asking if they serve buffett.

I feel that the article is slightly off. There is nothing wrong with cold, dispassionate reason. I shall gladly vote PAP out with cold, dispassionate reason given the opportunity. There is no lack of justification.

I agree that FEAR is PAP’s greatest weapon. And fear is an emotion, in fact, the most instinctive of our emotions since it concerns survival. PAP has mastered the use of fear to control us. The pertinent question is: is acting under the influence of fear rational and reasonable?

We must find, inside each of us, the strength to overcome fear. Fear of a poor economy. Fear of losing our jobs. Fear of falling property prices. Fear of higher crime rate. Fear of ISA. Fear of CHANGE.

Fear is the chain that binds us. Cast away your fear and let reason guide your actions.

To Zaini:

Further to my above posting, I feel that to appeal to the emotion of voters concedes the high ground to PAP. You will have lost the battle before it has even begun because you just admitted to being a ‘rabble-rouser’!

The opposition parties must make themselves a viable alternative to PAP under the scrutiny of cold, dispassionate reason. The cooling-off period is a red herring to paint you as rabble-rousers.

Hello Panache,

At the risk of missing the entire point, the thrust of the article is this: there is nothing wrong with emotions, but there is something wrong with operating by pure reason.

Mr Zaini is commendable. As a reader, i seldom see the authors proactively engaging the readers. Mr Zaini , well done. I support you.

To Zaini:

Precisely my point. I could argue that there is nothing wrong with operating by pure reason either. In fact, given a choice between operating by pure reason versus operating by pure emotion, many would choose the former in their leaders. The emotional response is widely perceived to be reactive, ill-considered and wrong.

As I have said, the objective of the ‘cooling-off’ day is to paint the opposition parties as rabble-rousers who appeal to baser emotions like envy and anger. Arguing against reason simply makes you fall right into the trap.

The key to turning this against them is to recognize that fear is the emotion that they use. Have the ‘cooling-off’ day by all means. In fact, welcome it. Use is as a day to ‘cool-off’ from fear. Call it the ‘no-fear’ day instead.

Outstanding, truly analytical and excellent in contents and substance.
We need more people like this who dare and have strong conviction.

Mr Zaini has nothing to gain and he seems to have Singapore, interest at heart by looking and observing so well the situation here in Singapore..

Hello Panache,

I do hope you’ve read the article: pure reason is not infallible, as we would like to perceive or privilege. Our decision-making ability is grounded in emotions, and then thereafter sharpened by reason – the basis lies in intuition, not rationalization.

Pure reason is disabling.

We could view this from another perspective: by acceding to the PAP’s dichotomy of reason being good, emotions bad – and hence avoiding emotions – you are falling into their dehumanizing trap.

Please do read the article again: humans do not live by pure reason, and neither are nations built on it. I am not excessively swining towards the rule of pure emotions either, but I am staking a claim for the reduced role and attenuated privilege of reason: “On ‘cooling day’, hear out reason but let our hearts prevail. We owe it to Singapore that we awaken our emotions and subordinate reason.”

Pure reason will get you PAP in perpetual incumbency – because they do not have to be rational, but only have to appear so: the compliant state-owned media will look to that. The root of our malaise is also due not so much to the PAP per se, but to them encouraging us to pander to that myth that reason trumps all.

And I’d just like to point out to readers that, for the most part, the second component of Malay names is patronymic. Zaini is my father’s name, I am usually referred to as Khairulanwar (:

Reason vs Emotions = False dichotomy.

Khairulanwar Zaini #61,

Meat:

“What the ‘cool off’ does is to canonize the rhetoric of rationality – to disable voters from choosing anything but the PAP, the very embodiment of reason. For what are the opposition but emotional rabble-rousers? …. When rationality triumphs, Singapore ceases to exist: rational Singapore is the Potemkin village. But the PAP will flourish. Without our emotions, our passions, our dreams, Singapore becomes nothing and the PAP becomes everything.”

“And now, reason will allow the PAP to perpetuate and lock its legacy.”

Absurd slippery slope aside, you (are) confused between rhetoric of rationality, rationality, reason and Pure Reason. They are not identical/interchangeable.

“We have seen the corruptible ramifications upon our humanity when reason alone prevails: the Disneyland with the rational death penalty, generous salary scales as reasonable incentivization, economic rationalization to deny the minimum wage.”
Equivocation. Rationalization here has nothing to do with Pure Reason.

“With the suppression of emotions, in the rule galvanized by Pure Reason, PAP becomes the power – an eternal, self-affirming, self-perpetuating power.”
Intellectual dishonesty: “It transcends beyond whether the PAP has a legitimate claim on rationality”

Also a fantasy/conspiracy theory leap from political rhetoric to reality. Notwithstanding the fact that “cool down” is not equivalent to no Emotion/Pure Reason, and Pure Reason only exists theoretically. Emotion-Reason is also a (folkish) false dichotomy.

P.S. In what sense are you (mis)construing my question when I asked about intellectual honesty?

Your piece makes a very strong case why being rational is so important.

Khairulanwar Zaini -

“The appeal to reason plays into the PAP’s hand . . . ”

So whose hand (not the hand that feeds us) should we all be irrationally played into (i mean intelligently) – SDP, UMNO, etc.???

Please don’t tickle our toes. Here is precisely what the rest of the improvished world wants to get into & you are suggesting we join these countries. Are you ok?

Go read “Singapore practises good governance, has strong leadership” by Zakaria Abdul Wahab from Bernama (Malaysia), just released a couple of days ago. Some Malaysians have of late regain their senses.

So much for sanity or insanity. My Goodness! Fortunately Singaporeans can think but not foreigners or the ex-S.

“but not foreigners or the ex-S.”

Leave the ex-Singaporeans alone. I can’t wait to start my new life in a better country come next April. =)

Hello sllim,

The PAP panders to this myth that reason is supreme. The ‘cooling off period’ does that: we must calm down (negate emotions) and choose wisely (read: rationally). The PAP maintains their power because they only need to appear rational, a task conveniently achieved by the mainstream media.

How is reason/rationality/pure reason dissimilar in the sense that it will have a significant impact upon the thesis that reason should be subordinate to emotions?

And for the last time, Singapore (not just the PAP, though they are responsible for asserting and pounding this assertion) values reason over emotions. My thesis is otherwise: we need to hold emotions primary, and let reason refine our intuitive judgments. Otherwise, appealing chief to reason (and emotions just being an afterthought) is a disabling position. That is why I supplied Haidt.

It is economic rationalization that deems the minimum wage unsustainable, it is the strict rationale of crime begetting punishment that allows for something as unconscionable as a mandatory death penalty.

Like I said: the matter is not the veracity of PAP’s rationality, but the impression that it is. The PAP privileges reason, and then appears to the electorate as a the party of reason and hence effectively perpetuating its incumbency. You can fight the PAP’s claim on a superstructural level (by trying to prove that it is irrational, while they employ the mainstream media to rationalize away their actions), but I’d rather undermine the entire structure that places reason as the premier mode of thinking.

For all the charges of a false dichotomy, please do read the essay again: the position is nuanced – it is not to subvert reason in its entirety, but to establish that reason should be subordinate to emotions.

It would be good if someone could establish why reason should be privileged over and above emotions, without having to adopt a self-reifying position that subordinate emotion just because it is not rational.

Hello Paksorn,

The point of the article is this: Singaporeans need to change their perspectives, and avoid the privileging of reason and discounting of emotions. The appeal to reason, when stretched too far, can become oppressive to human agency – but that will be another essay altogether.

Here’s what I can offer you: appealing chief to reason or rationality do not built nations or allow people to live fully. It can built countries with huge skyscrapers and high GDP growth, it can allow humans to attain such a wondrous mechanical efficiency, but it will fail as a means to liberate us into a more fulfilling life.

It is entirely rational to want a better life. Emotion is an integral part of defining what this better life constitutes, particularly with regard to the people that you love. I do not understand the need to make either rationality or emotion subordinate to the other. And I do not consider protecting the people I love to be irrational, even if protecting them harms me in some way.

Individuals vote, not some Singapore Hive mind. If PAP policies appeal to you, by all means vote for them if you so choose. If they do not appeal to you, then don’t. If you are angry that the PAP has compensated you poorly for your son’s death during NS, vote for the opposition. Again, only if you so choose. Listen and read and think and feel but, in the end, vote for whatever reasons you so choose.

Emotion could be among these reasons, or it could be entirely cold hard $. Some may judge you for that, poorly (the PAP?) or well (Khairulanwar?) but with or without emotion, you have a right to choose. If you do feel that it is time for a change, you may want to consider taking personal responsibility for influencing the decisions of the people around you by sharing your reasons. Or even sharing how such decisions should be made, although it may be somewhat more difficult for such a message to resonate with your audience.

And sllim,
A hundred years from now, I harbour some small hope that this essay would have made a little contribution towards something much greater. I harbour no similar hope, however, for technical criticisms of this piece, however astute. Or, for the matter, for my own comments which I am writing for my own reasons.

And there is no such thing as accidental dishonesty. If you are acusing Khairulanwar of intellectual dishonesty, you must believe there is an intent to decieve at some level. Do you really? Because while I can certainly see the errors you describe, I can’t for the life of me detect any malice behind them.

“practises good governance, has strong leadership”

stick without real democracy can still give you strong leadership (e.g dicta.
stick without real democracy can also let you practise good governance easier . remember, fix the opposition.

however, strong leadership + real democracy gives you real leadership.
what is the point of foreigners saying how good your country is when you own people do not recognize as such.

It is the locals who have to fall into line of the stick (whatever the costs may be) that creates the condition for your so-called “strong leadership” & “good-governance” to happen not foreigners.

Hello Kenneth,

I think you’ve framed rationality in a slightly different manner, but our ideas are in similar vein. While you consider emotions as within the ambit of rationality, I consider rationality as one of pure reason alone. Protecting the people you love at your expense is irrational in terms of cold blooded reason, but we do feel it is right at the emotive level.

That said, the article shares the idea of not excessively privileging reason, which Singaporeans are wont to do.

“And sllim,
A hundred years from now, I harbour some small hope that this essay would have made a little contribution towards something much greater. I harbour no similar hope, however, for technical criticisms of this piece, however astute. Or, for the matter, for my own comments which I am writing for my own reasons.”

Took the words right out of my mouth.

@ Kenneth

“It is entirely rational to want a better life.”

What do you think of Khairulanwar’s response @ #82? Of slightly different manners, similar veins, and “rationality as one of pure reason alone”?

“Individuals vote, not some Singapore Hive mind. If PAP policies appeal to you, by all means vote for them if you so choose…. Listen and read and think and feel but, in the end, vote for whatever reasons you so choose.”

From your reading, what do you think of Khairulanwar advocates in terms of how/who to vote?

“A hundred years from now, I harbour some small hope that this essay would have made a little contribution towards something much greater. I harbour no similar hope, however, for technical criticisms of this piece, however astute.”

I wouldn’t consider a disagreement with an article/author, and backing it up, “technical” criticism. And what is this contribution you hope for?

If you “can certainly see the errors you describe”, what hopes do you harbour of political discourse if the non-critical-thinking in “The Treason of Reason” becomes media-widespread? Small?

“If you are accusing Khairulanwar of intellectual dishonesty, you must believe there is intent to deceive at some level. Do you really?”

Yes, initially I thought Khairulanwar was just “goofy” and “wrong-headed”. The ensuing dishonesty might well be self-deception and I am just “corollary”. Refer to #17 and #20 (In particular, “It transcends beyond whether the PAP has a legitimate claim on rationality”).

Or #76 and #79 (the “distinction” Khairulanwar makes between identical and similar; and the suddenly uncharacteristic usage of “similar” in #82).

“… while I can certainly see the errors you describe, I can’t for the life of me detect any malice behind them.”

I can’t either, and I didn’t claim Khairulanwar isn’t well-intentioned and/or self-deceived and/or plain mistaken. That said, if the deception (in the piece) is intended, that’s ample malice towards PAP. And I can’t for the life of me detect why :)

It is extremely childish and gullible to fall for the argument that if PAP goes then Opp that takes over will be bad. at best, a lousier than PAP opposition is only a speculation. however it is a fact that Opp constitutients are more prudently run than investment losing PAP wards.

What makes us so sure that only PAP can be good? Singapore is evolving. so while the early PAP maybe good, then it should evolve to be better. and again history shows us that the only way to prevent corruption is to evolve into a balance of power. One thing for sure, and this is cold, hard historical rational fact is that 1 party rule that continues will become inbred and corrupt. I think maybe can see the direction PAP is heading after so long a rule. the signs are there and i do not need to repeat.

So we should be rational and heed history’s teaching – dilute PAP’s power by 50% to ensure good governance. Do not listen to PAP’s self-serving nonsense abt ensuring self-renewal and criticisim. what they keep saying, especially LHL, is IRRATIONAL. It is only rational to him because it serves his purpose and not Singapore’s. Let us be rational and listen to history and not PAP.

Now emotions are impt too. As a rational student of history, i explained why rationality tells us we must vote against PAP.

My emotions tell me the same too. As a father, i canot bear to see my daughter grow up in a place that will be to oexpensive to survive, where her hard earned CPF and savings will be used for somebody’s wife to buy chips at the international stock mkt casino on a bad day, and for her future leaders to only care abt making millions instead of serving the people. where her leaders will be inbred, yes-men who think for the familee and party more than teh citizens. If I dont vote against PAP, then as her father, i have failed her to do my part in ensuring a bright future for Singapore.

I love my daughter and i love Singapore. Emotions n rationality both tells me i can no longer vote for PAP.

I must heartily disagree. There is nothing treasonous with reason. The treason is in how PAP uses reason on a highly selective basis to make their policies sound amazingly justified and dresses it all up as a non-existent “Asian pragmatism”. It’s something like how the American Republicans like to call guns, homophobia and liberal-bashing an “American way of life”.

There is nothing treasonous about Apathy is there?

How about consciously choosing to be apathetic behaviorally?

I think this is not treason.
But what about you guys and gals?

I disagree with young01. There is much that is treasonous when it comes to PAP’s reasons.

Mainly because PAP is un-reasonable.

After all is said and then, it still boils down to there is only 1 way out.

A factor of time.

Nature has to take its course.

In the entire world, let me emphasis this, the ENTIRE WORLD, the cooling off is for the people to debate and discuss. Only in tiny singapore, we cannot discuss political news Zzzzzzzz And they still hung the banners on cooling off days in Australia!!!

Lamers…

Reason is not the be all and end all. The world is everything that is the case. Forgive my brevity =)

#20 Khairulanwar /// We are conditioned to think of rationalism as premier, but in truth, our decision- making is based in emotions and intuition and refined by reason, the latter very much subordinate to the former ///

I am so happy that you have included “intuition”, as a distinct factor (besides reason and emotions) in this excellent article of yours.

In any culture, intuition is held in higher esteem than an accurate common-sensical appraisal of the facts as perceived by the physical senses, which include reason and the emotions.

Intuition can be defined as a combination of (historical) empirical data, deep and heightened observation and ability to cut through the thickness of surface reality, and a knowing and sensing that is beyond the conscious understanding.

IMHO, it is this quality of “intuition” that the PAPies have been so very successful in eroding from the minds of the populace, leaving behind zombies and robots that flourish here now.

sllim,
Most people tend to be very good at fuzzy logic. Too good, sometimes, in that they understand a meaning that was never intended. ESPECIALLY when poetic licence is abused.

I believe that I understand what Khairulanwar was saying in #82.

When I first read his article, I found several terms quite jarring. But I am willing to examine the basic premise that Singaporeans have been wrongly conditioned to associate emotion with poor decision-making. I interpret his article as a response to this observation and an effort to reverse this conditioning by 1) sparking awareness of said conditioning, and 2) providing supporting arguments to convince the unconvinced.

I note that his article does seem to resonate with the majority of readers who have chosen to leave comments. So I applaud a good effort.

From my reading, Khairulanwar is advocating that people vote against the PAP, based (primarily) on what their heart tells them. I don’t see anything wrong with him having such an opinion. If you do, then I would venture that attacking how he conflates “rationality” and “pure reason” may not be the best way to convince the casual observer.

The “contribution” that I hope for is political plurality. Not the plurality system, but plurality in terms of political representation. I believe this to be in the long term interests of Singapore.

Your first post made some sense to me and I understood the next few as responses but from post #36 onwards you completely lost me. And I was sad (emotional response!) to see the conversation get derailed.

I think that political discourse is important. Clarity of terminology is certainly a critical enabler for political discourse. But, honestly, it doesn’t detract all that much from the main point in this essay.

And my question (on malice) was simply based on a wrong assumption.

Khairulanwar ,
I do not think the question as to whether emotions can or should be considered within the ambit of rationality should be debated here. But my view is that rationality is demonstrated in the selection of optimal options in the course of pursuing one’s goals. Rationality is always independent of how “optimal” is (subjectively) defined. But, like I said in my earlier post, I really don’t see this discussion adding very much value.

I disagree that Singaporeans are “excessively privileging reason.” In fact, I agree with earlier posters who see fear, which is an emotional response, as a stronger explanation for their actions. Individually, of course.

[...] to Election: An Extra Cooling Off Day for the Fixing – TOC: The treason of reason [Recommended] – The Secret Political Blog: The poison chalice: the PAP finds another trick in the [...]