Read: Media’s silence on Yong Vui Kong a National Shame
Khairulanwar Zaini
Make no mistake about where the ‘cooling off’ period is coming from: a psychological gerrymandering to serve the PAP’s advantage. But that advantage goes beyond imposing their ideological hegemony through the mainstream media or insidiously undermining the potential mobilizing power of the internet.
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? 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 call for ‘disengagement and reflection’ serves therefore as a convenient foil for the PAP to declare: calm down, be rational, and vote us.
The appeal to reason plays into the PAP’s hand – sterilized and devoid of emotions, citizens will make an informed choice. So they tell us: keep in check those fierce passions! bridle in the tempers! and so pay tribute to the PAP’s imperialism of reason. This will indubitably be (re)affirmed by a compliant media, purveying the soi-disant myth of the incumbent’s hyperrationalism.
But are informed choices the ones borne out of pure reason? Emotions, far from being a vile consideration, are the key to decision theory. Without emotions, our ability to make decisions becomes disabled. Writing of a neurological study of patients whose emotional faculties were impaired (but logical capacity very much intact), psychology professor Jonathan Haidt found that patients deprived of distractive emotions did not make better ‘rational’ decisions. Instead, they failed to make any decision at all, because ‘in the absence of feeling they see little reason to pick one or the other’. In the absence of emotions, people become disempowered.
With the suppression of emotions, in the rule galvanized by pure reason, PAP becomes the power – an eternal, self-affirming, self-perpetuating power.
***
Nations, at their very heart are constituted by politics and engendered by emotions. The American thinker Emerson identified that a nation is birthed when ‘a community of people … feel that they belong together’. There is no objective reason for a nation to exist; it thrives on ideas, myths, passions. Emotions. The triumph of rationality is the defeat of a nation.
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.
The appeal to reason strengthens and solidifies the PAP’s position. The ‘cooling off’ period disguises their new lifeline: pandering the myth of rationality after their sweet promises of prosperity and the lullabies of fear have lost their traction.
It depoliticizes further a society already lacking in political option, shoehorning the PAP as the only legitimate, viable and reasonable party available to rational voters. See the real danger for what it is: the ‘cooling off’ period is not about the control of information, but the subliminal disabling of human agency and choice.
It elevates rationality as though it were the only variable that matters, pouring askance to emotions. All heart may make us foolish, but no heart makes us empty. We see an incipient groundswell of resentment in the defiant promises to maintain the heat on ‘cooling day’ through the internet. The battle however will not be won at this frontier, which has always been beyond the ineluctable clutches of the PAP. Victory lies in damning rationality and keeping alive our emotions.
This city may be mechanical, but the people need not be. Indeed, the people must not be: they must breathe life into her heart, invest emotions in her sinews, infuse passion into her bloodstream. 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. And now, reason will allow the PAP to perpetuate and lock its legacy. It is not sufficient that we vote the opposition for checks and balances, or some other rational consideration, for it only serves to validate the PAP’s myth of pure reason. We need to vote the opposition because we feel in our hearts, with our hearts, that the time for change is due.
Sometimes, ‘all fact, no heart’ does inflict real damage upon people. Particularly when a country has grown on nothing but facts and reason till it forgets how to be humane. How to be human. How to feel. How to love our country. How to love ourselves.
***
The rhetoric of rationality that spins the ‘cooling off’ period as reasonable (and therefore good) has also concealed the relative ease of electoral amendments: the PAP’s cloak of reason quietly undermines fair play – we need to ‘cool off’, we need to calm down, hence we introduce a rule that ultimately benefits us.
The philosophical elegance of elections lies in its privileging of pure procedural justice. The victor is not required of anything other than to win by the rules. Legitimacy is ultimately vested in the proper adherence to procedure, and how effective would it be if one could subvert the rules yet maintain legitimacy. Since the PAP is only required to win by the rules, they undertake to amend and revise the rules with impunity. All while shamelessly couching these changes as political liberalization. Deftly done, with one eye on legitimacy, and the other on perpetual incumbency.
We can emotively discern that that justice could not and should not be the advantage of the stronger. The PAP can muster a formidable assembly of cogent arguments, but we can intuitively discover its verisimilitude and perceive how these arbitrary changes of the rules (however benevolently cloaked) are unfair.
And we should remember at the ballot box these impulses. How unfair, how deceitful, how cowardly the PAP is. And how the PAP should be reminded of their transgressions, in that hard and only way that political parties will ever learn.
***
‘Reason is, aught only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them’. – David Hume
It is imperative that we turn the PAP’s sword upon itself: on ‘cooling day’, stiffen resolve and anger. On ‘cooling day’, hear out reason but let our hearts prevail. We owe it to Singapore that we awaken our emotions and subordinate reason. We owe it to ourselves to oust the mechanical clunks of rationality that plagues our lives and decisions. We owe it to our children to subvert this dystopia of power disguised as pure reason.
Remember Hume. Remember the blunders. Remember the empty myth of reason. Remember a Singapore of heart.
(Middle anst photo courtesy of PeoplePowerTayo and Wilfred Wong)
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
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
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!