jump to navigation

The ugly side of pragmatism May 11, 2011

Posted by laïcité in Politics, Singapore, Society.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Over the past few weeks leading up to the elections, I’ve found that one word seems to be mentioned a lot by PAP supporters: pragmatism.  Even the PAP itself is an embodiment of pragmatism. In contrast to other political parties that bring up the idealistic notions of “human rights”, “first world parliament” and “freedom of speech”, the PAP is a party that espouses the practical notions of stability, efficiency and economic progress on a national level. Going by the election results, it seems that most Singaporeans still identify with this pragmatic approach to governance.

At face value, pragmatism isn’t all that bad. When lofty ideals and academic theories are brushed aside in favour of policies that deliver the goods in real life, who can really complain when wealth and development are achieved at such a fast pace? Singapore itself is a testament to the power of pragmatism – in a mere half a century, it has become an economic and technological success, thanks to the pragmatic approach of ignoring (or silencing) critics and bulldozing ahead with policies in an unhindered manner not unlike a dictatorship.

But pragmatism is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself. Pragmatism has succeeded in bringing our country from third world to first (economically, at least,) but then…. what? Is this all there is? Money? At the end of the day, we live in an exceedingly wealthy country. Most of us would be considered among the richest people in the world. But are we the happiest? Do we have the best quality of life? How much of our happiness, our sense of empathy, our humanity, have we compromised in the pursuit of wealth?

“Pragmatism” has simply become an euphemism for the ideals that we are willing to compromise, and the ugly traits we are willing to take on, all in the name of pursuing wealth. As long as an approach has a “pragmatic” label stuck onto it, it suddenly becomes legitimate, never mind that it goes against basic human rights, our own sense of morality, or even personal dignity.

As long as the ends always justify the means, there is nothing wrong with putting political dissidents in jail or suing them to the point of bankruptcy. Never mind the right to free speech, never mind the benefits of the marketplace of ideas, never mind the injustice done to people who have not even done anything wrong. As long it makes us politically and financially stable, it’s all okay, right?

As long as we hold pragmatism dear, there is no problem with having economic investments in Burma, directly or indirectly supporting the military junta. Who cares about Burma, who cares about the lives of the average Burmese people, who cares if they ever attain democracy? Our GIC makes money from them! Who cares if we’re economically on semi-friendly terms with North Korea? Money is money, right? We’re not being selfish or money-centric, we’re being pragmatic!

As long as pragmatism remains the ultimate goal, why should anyone care about anyone else? Notions of helping the poor escape the poverty cycle, or ensuring that the working class get a decent wage, or protecting the rights of the marginalized have  become too idealistic for the pragmatic Singaporean to consider. What’s more important are the practical issues: HDB upgrading, making sure my kid scores As in school, getting a promotion at work, making more money. Rights, freedoms and empathy have become the furthest things from our minds.

Perhaps this is because our society has become so “meritocratic”, so cutthroat that it now becomes pragmatic to see the world as every man for himself. Or perhaps this efficient, fast paced society has alienated us from each other, making us lose the will to empathise with each other – an attribute that is such an intrinsic part of our humanity. Ultimately, what makes a country liveable has less to do with its GDP, but more to do with what it does with its wealth. There is nothing pragmatic or desirable about a dog-eat-dog society that only aims to make its rich richer.

As I watched the PAP colors fill up the Singapore map graphics during the elections, what disappointed me most wasn’t the fact that the PAP would be in near parliamentary hegemony again for the next 5 years. Instead, what I was most dismayed by was the fact that given a choice between the status quo and an idealized future, 60% of Singaporeans were too pragmatic to even give idealism a chance.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Kev - May 11, 2011

Hi Laicite, I think my sentiments are somewhat akin to yours. At one point in time, have learnt to tame my optimism for change, and any hopes that a more balanced parliament might evolve. But that said, the greater thing that disappointed me was simply that the results pointed to a great disconnect between us as citizens and also the effects that the policies are bringing about on us. Idealism is not only sacrificed or placed on the line, but even more so, I believe that Singaporeans chose to ignore the growing disconnect between each other, to choose to vote for themselves and themselves only, not necessarily each other as fellow citizens.

laïcité - May 11, 2011

Hi Kev, I totally understand. For me, this realization happened when I was in a conversation with a friend who was pro-PAP. I mentioned all the issues that I cared about, and that I thought the PAP would not be the best party that could address them: the poor, the marginalized, the neglected people in society that truly need help in the form of policy change.

I was appalled when her response was “I’m too pragmatic for that”.

2. jan - May 11, 2011

very good piece. thank you. for all its idealism, one could almost describe it as… pragmatic. ;-] your very last sentence says so much and is so chilling.

u are so right when you say sporeans no longer care about each other, only for themselves. may i add that they also do not care for their country.

3. Kev - May 11, 2011

I guess that when your friend loses her job and whatever she has, then the tables will be turned on her, and people can tell her, “I am too pragmatic for that”, with regards to the option of helping her. People need to realize that when they lose whatever they have, then whatever they use against the poor and disadvantaged will turn against them. Pragmatism should not be the option for a society to run itself, and if you look at it, the way our country is run like a mega-corporation without any real compassion or sympathy for its citizens, treating them like subordinates in a company who need to pay their dues even if the bosses or leaders are wrong, is simply not healthy as a style of governance in the long run. Just wait till the bubble really bursts and all the things come crashing in in loads. Does it then mean that the leaders tell its people, “We are too pragmatic for that,” when they call for help as a country?

4. ron kallungi - May 21, 2011

Another liberal propaganda web site that claims it uses only reason, science and facts, but then claims anyone who opposes homosexuality as being immoral, for whatever reason is a homophobe.
Uh, sorry to tell you, name calling is childish and non scientific and not based in fact or reason

laïcité - May 21, 2011

If you judge someone based on their sexual orientation, you are a homophobe. If you judge someone based on their race, you are a racist.

Simple as that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: