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.

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.

Lamers…

A factor of time.

Nature has to take its course.

Mainly because PAP is un-reasonable.

How about consciously choosing to be apathetic behaviorally?

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

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.

“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 :)

Took the words right out of my mouth.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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.