THE COST OF PRAGMATISM
(originally published in Trends, September 1995)
18/9/95
Idealists, Singapore's self-styled pragmatists warn, are false prophets who fail to weigh the economic cost of the ideals they extol. Ironically, these hyper-pragmatists gloss over the social cost of their "economistic" approach to social organisation. Part of their hostility towards idealists stem from their need to preserve the fiction that their approach is cost-free: like the famed monarch of yore, pragmatists have no wish to hear the truth about their fine new clothes.
Pragmatists prefer to engage in whatever gives them the highest material returns. An immediate consequence is a narrowing of the mind. There is something tragic about a modernising Singapore which is populated by a people regressing towards a pre-modern stage of development. Whereas modern persons are able to conceive of paths to fulfilment free from the dictates of society, pre-moderns fit themselves unquestioningly into roles prescribed by society.
In Singapore, personal achievement and quality of life are increasingly defined in purely economic terms. The effect is a stultifying sameness of ambitions that the frenetic acquisition of physical marks of distinction cannot hide. A pervasive kiasuism ["fear of losing out"] is merely the external manifestation of a hobbled thinking unable to comprehend that what is avidly pursued by others may actually be of no real value. Too stunted to scale the heights of original thought, Singaporeans compete instead to be pioneers in the realm of trivia, paying ridiculously inflated prices for "limited edition" consumer items. But the attempt is doomed from the start, for individuality is ultimately expressed through what we are, rather than what we own.
Singaporeans' wholly pragmatic, economistic outlook on life saps their vitality as a people to such an extent as to call Singapore's continued dynamism into question. Even as Singapore's social cohesion frays under the assault of kiasuism, creativity is vanquished by a numbing uniformity in thinking. Education no longer trains the mind and frees the spirit to explore new avenues of thought. Instead, it has been ruthlessly yoked to the pursuit of narrowly defined standards of success. It was entirely foreseeable that an increasing number of schools would abandon the teaching of capricious Literature once parents and educationists lost sight of the ultimate purpose of education in the glare of the league table. Singaporeans are parvenus, materially wealthy, but intellectually impoverished.
Political resilience, vitally dependent on a vibrant social discourse able to devise novel solutions to unexpected problems, is insidiously weakened by the loss of creative thinking. It is further eroded by a meanness of spirit engendered by materialism. Altruism is quite incompatible with a pervasive cynicism that calculates the cost of everything and appreciates the value of nothing. The vexing problem of political renewal is just the most obvious sign of a political distress that will not be solved through further applications of the economistic approach. The present situation is inevitable given Singapore's materialistic focus on the hardware of political infrastructure rather than the software of political activism. It is exacerbated by an insistence on a degree of social control that displays a low level of tolerance towards those who dare to critique the existing paradigm.
Idealism and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. A thriving society must be able to keep the two counterpoised, tempering the excesses of one with the other. In the course of Singapore's struggle to survive, Singaporeans have built an altar to cold pragmatism, forgetting that it was the passionate ideal of nationalism that enabled anything to be built at all. Patriots willingly sacrifice themselves for their country because they are seized by a wholly idealistic love of country. Pragmatists cannot be relied upon to do the same. At present, a reservoir of idealism from the previous generation sustains us, but it is rapidly running dry.
The state has played a crucial part in creating the hyper-pragmatic Singaporean mentality. It will have an equally important role in any serious attempt to reverse this present trend. It is wrong to dismiss the trend as the outcome of individuals exercising their freedom of choice; to do so is to ignore the constraints imposed by an environment that is generally hostile to idealism. Those who are entrusted with authority should tolerate, if not encourage, a greater degree of diversity in opinion. If you chastise a person each time he or she expresses an unconventional view, it would not be long before that person learns not to bother. Even worse, onlookers will soon arrive at the same conclusion. And thus apathy spreads.
Naturally, there will be dud ideas, but Singaporeans need to tolerate these for the sake of the gems. A system designed to weed duds out will inevitably also suppress the gems because no system can be sufficiently sensitive to discriminate between them at the nascent stage. It may perhaps be justifiable to make an exception in the case of ideas that create a clear and present danger, but these are likely to be few and far in between.
The fact that the state is to some extent responsible for the present situation does not, however, exculpate its citizens. When Singaporeans are engrossed in making a fast buck through stock or property speculation, or when their pursuit of wealth becomes an end in itself, then they have chosen the materialistic path to fulfillment. It is a valid choice, but make no mistake, it is not cost-free. Personally and socially, the materialistic way exacts a huge toll in human spirit.
Yet, materialism is a choice. It is not a natural law that human beings are bound to obey. People can choose to lead either empty lives in private worlds filled with pretty baubles, or more meaningful, fulfiling lives that contribute towards their society. In the final analysis, if one does not wish to go where everybody else is rushing to, why not take a different road?