This article was first posted on The Offline Citizen.

by Joshua Chiang

You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you might find you get what you need.

– Mick Jagger

Everyone makes compromises. It cannot be helped. That’s life. Unless you are a dogmatic idealist, you will find out sooner or later that reality often charts its own course stubbornly refusing to conform to anyone’s vision of what the world should be.

Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition can be said to be true if and only if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that impractical ideas are to be rejected. (source: Wikipedia)

I have always believed that one should not adhere too blindly to any ideology. The worst evils in the world were often caused by the most committed ideologues. Far better is it to see the world as it is, and work around the constraints of the real world.

So why it is that nowadays, the mere mention of the word ‘pragmatism’ is enough to make me feel as if someone has insulted my mother? (Ok, let’s justpretend that I am not one who is easily offended for the moment)

“Being ever so pragmatic, our approach to racial integration is a healthy mix of tolerance with active promotion of the value of common destiny – to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.”

– ‘Do it the Singapore Way‘ ST Forum (Feb 8 2011)

If there’s a word commonly used to describe our Government, (apart from the ‘D’ word) it is ‘pragmatic’. And for some reason, we have become a pragmatic society as well. “When you have a family to feed and bills to pay, pragmatism suddenly looks a lot more appealing,” wrote a friend on my Facebook wall.

I think it is not too far-fetched to say that ‘pragmatism’ has become etched into our national psyche. More interestingly, we have created our own brand of pragmatism. American economist Bryan Caplan once compared the pragmatism practiced in Singapore with what’s practiced in the US:

In the United States, he said, pragmatism was synonymous with populism. The pragmatist does not commit political suicide by force-feeding policies, no matter how sound, to a hostile public.

In Singapore, however, pragmatism takes on the exact opposite meaning. No matter what the polls say, a programme will be implemented based on a sober assessment of its merits.

– from a Straits Times article

He went on to describe Singapore’s brand of pragmatism as virtually a synonym for utilitarianism. So far so good. Political realities in both countries are very different. For reasons I do not want to go into, we seem to be able to put up with unpopular policies more.

But here’s the catch – What is reality?

If we can agree that an ultimate reality lies beyond the understanding of most people, and practically everyone has an incomplete picture of the world depending on where’s he/she’s standing at that point in time, then the next question is – who defines our reality?

Is it the person who insists on his perceptions as being the only hard truths that would keep Singapore from going ahead?

Before you go, “Of course not! I am my own man!” Think again. Think of what the word ‘pragmatism’ means to you. Then think of what the word ‘idealism’ means to you. If you have a somewhat negative reaction to ‘idealism’ then you may wanna stop and consider if you have become afflicted by the disease of ‘pragmatitis’. Pragmatitis is the belief that pragmatism as defined in the Singapore context is the only way we can survive. It is also a belief that for its lack of humaneness Singapore pragmatism is efficient and effective, and policies are made based on a sober assessment of all the information available.

Unfortunately, if you have pragmatitis, you have bought into a myth.

Singapore pragmatism, like any ‘-isms’ is an ideology, and its adherents equally stubborn. If I ask you to list down what you think are our decision makers’ sacred cows, you may have come up with a list that includes – no welfarism, mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers, GDP as the benchmark of progress, no national symbols on swimming trunks, etc.

It doesn’t matter. The fact is, the sacred cows exist!

All these sacred cows are based on premises decided upon by the ones in power. It is how they see the world – and they aren’t even necessarily the people with the most accurate information! It doesn’t necessarily mean that the world is such.

For example, the presence of the mandatory death penalty is based on the premise of deterrence. The big question is – how accurate is this assessment that death penalty is a better deterrent than no death penalty? Without any research or comparative studies done, your guess is as good as mine. Please don’t confuse unexamined beliefs with facts.

So the big question is really whether the reality that the incumbents see, and want you to believe are in fact real. Does materialism really bring happiness? Is the desire for freedom really nothing but a human construct? If that is so, then how do you explain people who are poor but happy? Why do people who we generally acknowledge as have much greater insights into the human condition often talk about compassion, respect for human dignity, as the ingredients of creating a happy society and not rely on bread alone? Who do you think has a firmer grasp of reality? Who do you think are the true pragmatists?

If happiness is the goal of all human beings, and that one of the pre-requisite for greater happiness in the individual and the collective is a shift away from a self-centered materialistic culture towards a more selfless, fairer, more democratic, more compassionate society, then isn’t it unpragmatic to not do so?

____

The writer is also the Chief Editor of The Online Citizen. When he is not busy writing for The Online Citizen, he moonlights as a blogger for The Offline Citizen in which he posts stuff not related to TOC. Recently he’s been finding the lines increasingly blurred.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Flip-flop on government’s position?

MOM minister’s words do not give me any comfort or reassurance, says Gangasudhan.

马国巫统党选开打 7人角逐党魁宝座

(18日讯)马来西亚最大反对党巫统,即将在本月30日举行党选,现任代主席拿督斯里阿末扎希、巫统元老东姑拉沙里和巫青团长凯里等多达7人,将角逐该党一哥宝座,引领该党重振江山。 巫统执行秘书拿督阿都劳勿夫,在本月17日下午新闻发布会向媒体披露,该党党选提名截止,本届巫统三机构选举共612人参选,其中7人角逐巫统主席一职,乃历届党选最多党主席候选人的一次。 有三人角逐署理主席、九人争三个副主席职位,121人竞逐25各最高理事职。 该党仍会筛选候选人名单,交由报穷局审核他们的资格,所有候选人在今天下午5时抽签决定顺序。 针对另4名党主席候选人,阿都劳勿在媒体追问下三缄其口,仅表示更多详情将由巫统秘书拿督斯里东姑阿南在今天宣布。 这也是巫统党主席职位在1987年当选后首次出现竞争,姑里、阿末扎希和凯里,俨然成为该党“老中青”三代之争,新一批领导人肩负带领巫统走出509败选的低谷。14.5万名有权投票的代表,将作出决定该党未来走向的抉择。 自前首相纳吉在第14届马国全国大选后,为选举结果负责,于5月12日卸下巫统党主席一职,前副首相、纳吉副手阿末扎希顺理成章巫统代主席。 然而,接掌代主席至今一个月,扎希仍未完全稳定巫统内部军心,例如玻璃市大臣风波闹了一个月,反而交给玻州拉惹端姑赛希拉祖丁遴选大臣;再者,他在6月7日曾拜访现任首相马哈迪,也成为党内反对派攻击的焦点。 81岁的东姑拉沙里自1962年入党,曾任巫统副主席和财政部长,是党内元老派,现为候任话望生国会议员。声称有信心击败现任代主席阿末扎希,让巫统扮演号忠诚且负责人的反对党角色。 1987年巫统党选时,姑里挑战时任党主席敦马哈迪失败,结果在1989年离开巫统另起炉灶,成立46精神党。 东姑拉沙里当时团结主要的反对党,以期在1990年的大选击垮国阵,达到改朝换代的目的,但出师不利,后来46精神党解散,东姑拉沙里在1996年率团重投巫统怀抱。 新生代凯里越级争上位…

Workers dorm under MES Group linked to grassroots charged 2nd time in 3 years

It was reported in the mainstream media today (5 Jul) that a…

Clean sweep for Legion of Racers simracers at eRacing Grand Prix Southeast Asia

Singaporean simracers Ar Muhammad Aleef Mohamed Rafik and Jason Tay have clinched…