RESPECT DOES NOT REQUIRE A DEFERENTIAL ATTITUDE

19 Mar 1995

        With all due respect to Dr Ow Chin Hock, respect and 
deference are distinguishable attitudes ("Respect: Hierarchy of 
positions must be maintained, says Dr Ow", STWE, 11 Mar). One may 
respect someone, as a person, without being deferential. Conversely, 
simply because one refuses to defer to someone does not necessarily 
imply disrespect on one's part. This is what it means to 'agree to 
disagree.'
        The "motivation, tone and manner" of a criticism are entirely 
irrelevant to its validity. It is the message, rather than the messenger, 
that is important. If a policy is "complete garbage", there is no need to 
mince words in saying so. The validity of the criticism remains, 
irrespective of the manner in which it is put across. Granted that a blunt 
criticism may hurt the self-esteem of the policy's originator, but that is a 
different matter altogether. Granted also that a criticism put across 
politely is likely to gain a more receptive audience, but for the Feedback 
Unit to advise critics not to offend the sensibilities of elected officials is 
rather strange.
        A office cannot confer any measure of respect on the office-
holder. Rather, it is the personal qualities of the officer that win that 
person respect; criticism of an officer should not be read as denigration 
of an office. Therefore, an officer who fails to live up to the demands of 
the office is not entitled to abuse the office as a shield against trenchant, 
and valid, criticism. A good leader deserves respect and support, but, as 
Winston Churchill put it colourfully, if found wanting, that person must 
be "pole-axed".  Deference is justifiable on the grounds of better 
argument, or greater power, but then we would have left the realm of 
reason for the realm of power.
        One cannot gainsay Dr Ow's advice to critics to apologise if 
they are "found to be disrespectful", but who will make that 
determination, bearing in mind that one cannot sit as judge in one's 
own case? One should not be compelled to apologise if one honestly 
does not believe that one had been disrespectful.
        With regard  to the recent furore over whether undergraduates 
in Singapore can think or not, I doubt the efficacy of the suggested 
'solutions', which have focused largely on the teaching method at the 
basic educational levels. So long as we retain a strongly hierarchical 
society that insists on deference being shown to 'higher-ups', merely 
tinkering with the education system is unlikely to solve mental 
passivity. Critical thinking, though it does not preclude showing respect 
where it has been earned, inevitably subverts deferential attitudes.
        Fortunately, a critical people is a resilient people. The Barings 
collapse led Tan Sai Siong to draw the lesson that finding the right 
person is crucial ("Wrong man can bring down a Barings - or a 
country", STWE, 11 Mar). She overlooked the fact that Nicholas Leeson 
was, for a long time, the right person for the job - earning a great deal 
for Barings. Most likely, Barings collapsed because it failed to develop 
structural constraints on rogue behaviour. The Barings people deferred 
to Leeson's judgement when criticism was called for. Thus it is with a 
country as well. To survive a rogue leader, a country needs a system of 
checks and balances, and a critical people able to take errant leaders to 
task in no uncertain terms. Ironically, for a measure intended to protect 
society, the insistence on deference serves to protect rogues only.

END

 _From "The  loyalties  which  centre  upon number one are enormous. If he trips he must  be sustained. If he makes mistakes they must be covered. If he sleeps he must not be wantonly disturbed. If he is no good he must be pole-axed."
Source/Notes: Epigram  after  the  Great  War,  vol.ii,  Their Finest Hour (1949), p.15
Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (OXFORD U. PRESS 1979)