Sunday 20 January 2019

When Tharman meets Tommy on tolerance and 377A.

They talked about many things relating to inequality. You name it, the per capita income, stratification, the Oxfam report, the Human Capital Index, some escalator moving upward, and even a toilet attendant. 

Tharman met a toilet attendant in a loo and he described him as a “gentleman”. They had a chat and he said that he “was struck by how good his English was”. 

Here’s further info on the toilet attendant.

“He started working...eight years ago - full-time job, all the benefits, started off with $1,200, now earning well above $2,000. His employer had sent him for training, including English language training with Kaplan, even had to sit a rest on a computer.”

That’s an interesting info on how some employers are investing in human capital. And although the IPS conference was about diversities, inequality and class divide, there is one part towards the end (of the article) that caught my attention. 

This is what Professor Koh said in the dialogue: -

“There is a new challenge in Singapore - this is the challenge of growing intolerance.”

Prof Koh recounted with Tharman that “a mutual friend of ours was recently invited by one of our religious organisations to speak at a conference on a secular topic. He accepted, prepared his paper and then he was disinvited. Why was he disinvited? Because he signed a petition to repeal the 377A. You know, we can disagree, but there is no need to demonise each other”.

Here is Tommy’s plea: “And I would make also a plea to the Government to show greater tolerance. I hope that going forward, the Government will no longer ban movies, withdraw book grants. Let’s be big-hearted. We have reached a stage of political and cultural maturity where we could accommodate different points of view. It is a plea.”

Lesson? I know I should be writing about inequality and diversity, but intolerance is one subject that is related to that too. 

I myself have received some feedback, directly and indirectly, about my writings too, especially about 377A. I have come to know of late that I have undermined my beliefs because I took the “neutral” stand on 377A. I did not sign the petition for stay (neither did I sign to repeal). 

Maybe, if there is a word or two to describe me, I am agnostic about 377A. 

The truth is, I don’t quite subscribe to the slippery slope argument because I am wary of another slippery slope, and Tommy’s friend was a victim of it - he was disinvited because of his view, that is, he signed the petition to repeal based on his conviction and suddenly whatever he has to say about an unrelated topic is tainted by that personal act. As Tommy said, he was demonised.

If I may peel the many layers of intolerance, I believe at its core, it is about the right to be right. And this right to be right ossifies into an obsession when you endow it with religious fiat. 

That is also how face-value tolerance can easily mutate into intolerance when being right becomes monopolistic, exclusive and institutionalised. This is where the insidious effects of groupthinking comes in. That is why they say madness in an individual is the exception, while it is a rule in groups.

Somehow, there is a mental club in their mind and membership has its privileges. And membership is simple: you just have to think like them, period. Your beliefs, your creed, your actions must gel (or flow) with theirs, and dissent is treated as a form of rebellion. 

There is a saying that in our infinite ignorance, aren’t we all equal? But there are those out there who are strongly opposed to that view. They feel that they are not equal to those who disagree with them. They are simply superior to them because their views cannot be wrong.

That is what the obsession to be right has turned some of us, that is, we become intolerant of people who are tolerant of others. Mind you, such tolerance is not because they agree with their lifestyle or belief. On the contrary, they have their disagreements but such disagreements do not cause them to demonise another. 

Let me end with this common saying often used by those who feel that those who disagree with them have strayed and betrayed the faith. 

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

First, we need to define evil. We don’t condemn someone or group as evil based on some differences of opinion. 

Second, good men? We all have our flaws and the only thing good or redeeming about us may just be our ability to despise ourselves for our hypocrisy, inauthenticity and self-serving motives. 

And lastly, “do nothing”? Well, it really depends right? Just because someone is doing, or thinking about it differently from another doesn’t mean that he is doing nothing right? 

In fact, in the larger scheme of things, it might just be the wise thing to do at that time (for it is said that the fool is silent because he has nothing to say, but the wise is silent because he has a lot to say). Cheerz.

No comments:

Post a Comment