50 Years of PAP: The worship of Prominence and the Degeneration of the ‘Opposition’

“

S/he who fetishises Prominence will access it via Hindsight,

As opposed to Insight.

~ ed

One thing that never ceases to amaze me in Singapore is how the proposition is mirrored in the opposition.  They both, for instance, tend to fetishise prominence, and thus discount insight where it is not paired with the said prominence.  And, as a consequence, they inevitably undermine their own relevance in the progressive march toward democracy with a subconscious-led infighting that does more to serve the interests of the proposition than the efforts of all the king’s horses and all the king’s men put together.

As I had said before, the problem with those who seek instant gratification by desiring to act against injustice with immediacy – for its cathartic and self-validation benefits – is that they will tend to seek out well-worn(out) ways of ‘opposing’ as all one has to do is to do what has already been done as opposed to seeking and contributing greater insights to the movement by a relatively more tedious study, research and introspection.  And as a result, they will inevitably laud the efforts of those whom have accessed these ways in the past and acquired prominence for their efforts.  From here comes the worship of prominent oppositional voices, and through that, the worship of Prominence in itself. 

Just as the supporters of the proposition congregate around their prominent icons, as do the Young PAP along with numerous others amongst the population around Lee Kuan Yew for instance, we have a similar congregation amongst the opposition whom unquestioningly, and with glazed eyes, are fixated on their thus-transfigured icons such as, for instance, Chee Soon Juan and JB Jeyaratnam, and to a lesser degree, James Gomez, Catherine Lim, and ‘Mr Brown’, amongst others.  While I do indeed respect the achievements of the former two, I do not, like most, allow their prominence to lead me to believe that they are prototypical oppositional figures.  The most I can justifiably accord them is credit for tenacity in the face of much odds.  They, and especially the former daring duo, didn’t allow themselves to be bowed or booted out by the proposition and stuck by their beliefs and quest for justice.  However, when it comes to insight, that is another matter altogether. 

Insight, I would divide between 2 categories.  The first, and most obvious, is an understanding of the technicalities of the status quo and the tweaking required to improve it.  The second, and less obvious, is the appreciation of the fundamentals of the status quo and the attempts to reevaluate the basis upon which arises the superstructure of ‘reality.  The former leads to renovation, whilst the latter deals with relocation.  I would place these oppositional deities in the ‘renovation category’.  They are contractors, whilst the activists, their workpersons.  Lee Kuan Yew, however, I would place in the latter category.  He appreciates the fundamentals comprising the socio-psychological-political reality and relocates the human persona to ensure its amenability to a status quo of his construction.  Unfortunately, to date, no opposition leader seems to be able to discern that which he has.  But the oppositional activists still perceive their leaders as deities and generally follow them without question.

Why the need for these deities?  

Well, in significant part, their deification validates the means by which these oppositional voices are able to ‘get active’ immediately, and from this, as stated, immediately enjoy its self-gratifying, cathartic and self-validation benefits with little self-preparatory effort.  It enables ‘activists’ to reduce the psychological tensions that emerge within themselves from their own experience of injustice, or/and, the conflict between the socio-political reality and their laudable sense of justice.  And we must keep in mind that these desires would be more pronounced amongst all oppositional minds given their marginalised status relative to those of the proposition.  Their negative feelings will be more enhanced and thus the need to give them a vent, more pronounced.  Without these oppositional deities like Chee or JBJ, they might have to grope around for means and methods that have yet a deity to validate them. In other words, there is a subconscious appreciation amongst many ‘oppositional’ minds that the perspectives, means and methods they utilise is validated for its significance and viability by those whom had gone before them and acquired prominence whilst engaging in them.  In other words, it is ‘prominence’ that is perceived to validate the methods, perspectives, and their leaders who engaged in them as opposed to its relevance.  The equation, if it gets you attention, it must be relevant, would hold true in their eyes.  This is not unlike a child who engages in bad behaviour in order to garner an otherwise inattentive parent’s attention.  Once the attention is acquired, the method is validated. 

In this, local ‘oppositional’ minds are not alone as they also have the company of many amongst the global oppositional elite and their congregation of followers.  But in this, one could say that their so-called ‘activism’ is based on their being most active in desiring to alleviate themselves from the negative feelings and stresses that comes from their being marginalised, or their sense of the injustice in society.  In this, it could be seen as a self-indulgent act as opposed to a socially conscious one.  For if one was truly socially conscious, one would not get activistic with immediacy and just simply slip on the shoes of their predecessors, but engage in enough study and critical introspection before, or in the course of, doing so.  As this is not generally the case, ‘activism’ here is more of a feel-good activity to alleviate the consequences of feeling bad.  And this is most evidenced by their reverence of oppositional figures, or their claims to empathy when all they are doing is just serving their own self interests.  For in such reverence, they are able to act immediately and alleviate negative affect.  And in this, they are not too dissimilar to those on the side of the proposition who also act out of self-interest.

In conversation with ‘Activists’ with regards to their revered leaders

I recall a few conversations I had with local ‘activists’ at different times with regards to their ‘revered’ oppositional figures.  I have compressed these to a series of single conversation below for clarity and relevance.  These illustrate my view of the problem with oppositional deities.

I

When asked what I thought about JB Jeyaratnam.  I said,

“Oh, personally, you have to give him credit for his tenacity.  He never gave up and kept plodding on despite the numerous potholes on the path to democracy.  He was a firebrand of an activist and his speeches, tone, language and resilience was nothing short of inspiring.  But the problem, at some point, was that he became a traditionalist and ceased to tune his ways to the ever-changing political and problematic milieu.” 

I was then asked, “So you think JB lost his way?” 

I replied, after a little thought, “It’s not so much that JB lost his way, but rather, it was a case of ‘the way’ having lost him.” 

In response to the looks of askance that greeted this statement, I added, “His methods were great, but whilst a chankol (sort of a spade) may be appropriate for plouging a path of mud and earth, it becomes quite irrelevant on a path of mud-turned-tar.  He failed to consider the need for what I would term ‘oppositional congruence’.  That is, identifying the new locale of the traditional or initial (governmental) source of a problem, or the spread of a problem to new locales, or the evolution of a problem to seemingly non-problematic locales, amongst others.  In that, JBJ failed to realise that a problem can, if it is allowed to persist long enough, begin to spread to others like the population, culture, or even the opposition themselves.  That is when that it is not only the government that has to be contended with, but the people, the culture, the opposition, and especially those dancing in reverence to the rhythm of a revered opposition leader as do monkeys to an organ-grinder.  And it is then that an oppositional leader descends to being little more than an organ-grinder in relation to monkeys, whilst, unwittingly, being a monkey her/imself in relation to the organ-grinder that is the proposition (government)”.

II

In other conversations pertaining to another prominent oppositional figure, I stated,

“He is a most personable fellow.  I met him close to a decade ago and I liked him immediately.  His smile, tone, and approach seemed genuine to me, and I couldn’t help but be warmed by his sincerity.  However, he seemed a bit unsure as to the fundamentals of what really was The Problem and betrayed a face-value appreciation of it.  I suppose to most, whom have not appreciated the fields of sociology, psychology, history, political philosophy, etc, etc, he would indeed seem insightful.  But as I’ve always said, to know better, you have to know more.  If you can’t prove the latter, you cannot trust the belief in the former, and along with this, your opinions of leaders.”

When I stated that this oppositional figure was ‘another Lee’, an activist, in one conversation, immediately interjected with, “No he is not.  I know him personally.” without asking why I said this.  Though I didn’t say it at that time, my thought was, ‘on what perspectival basis can you claim that you ‘know’ him if you decided to be an activist without the requisite study and introspection?  Isn’t that similar to those who look up to Lee, and whom you view as ill-informed?  A sheep ‘knows’ a shepherd in a way entirely different from a human.  Your knowledge of a person is determined by your own self-perceptions in relation to that person.  If you are a follower, then you will know him from downside looking up.  Prove your intellectual individualism before arrogantly claiming that you know’ him.’  But what I did in fact say was,

“Though I like him as a person, and definitely give him credit for his tenacity as I do JBJ, I was quite disenchanted when I was told to just follow the leader of the youth wing and not rock the boat with my ideas as I was ‘new’.  He said it very nicely, but in that I couldn’t help thinking that his basic approach was not dissimilar to Lee.  Of course, those ‘knowing their place’, underdeveloping accordingly in the opposition, and having become an ‘activist’ without the requisite studies and introspection, would not encounter this.  The leaders of the youth wing, then, also exhibited this and mirrored authority in the proposition and the working arena in Singapore as well.  Novel ideas suggested by ‘newbies’ or those lower in rank seemed to indicate to them their own ineptness and they disliked that to the point of discounting these ideas and even insinuating that I was a spy for the proposition.  My propositions, for the record, included the construction of a library for political studies for all those joining the activists; conducting seminars whereby we could exchange ideas on the fundamentals of democracy, the various means and methods by which this is being compromised besides the obvious; strategies to take on the Young PAP on the ideological front and perhaps inviting them to open debates; amongst others.  These were discounted by the leaders of the youth wing, as are ideas in the working arena when they are not passed top-down.  And when I brought this up with the leader of the party, he responded as I’ve mentioned above. 

I suppose when power and prominence is valued above all else in the general milieu, by way of intellectual underdevelopment ensuing from the fetishisation of conformity and uniformity amongst others, the only way to maintain one’s self-respect and hence, command the respect of others is by way of seniority and control as opposed to debate and reason.  Oh, they aren’t averse to debating with those perceived to be their foes, but engaging in this amongst ‘their own’ seems to be anathema to them. 

I couldn’t help, at that time, but wonder why these oppositional leaders did not push for education amongst ‘their own’ in ways that would enable the ‘proles’ amongst the opposition to become a viable source of ideas that do not necessarily conform to the ideas of its elite.  I personally expect this in my own personal social circles and despise hero-worship.  The moment people start admiring me, I always perceive this as an impending excuse to live in my shadow.  In that, I can only lead and not learn, and that bores me as it leads to my own underdevelopment.  So the same applies to these revered lords of the opposition and their followers.  If I was a leader of the opposition or any group, I would say, if you want to learn from me, do so that you might oppose me.  In that, I’m a teacher worthy of my position.  This is lacking in the opposition and in their leaders.  And in that, I see a deficiency amongst them all despite their achievements.”

And to all of this, the activists remained silent and without acknowledgement before moving on to another topic which basically involved their reciting the perspectives of their leaders which seemed most superficial and trite.  I sensed that the belief with which they were reciting these lines was based on it being the opinion of their leaders.  There was little or no analyses on their part, and as it was with the leaders of the aforementioned youth wing, my analyses of various issues was passed over without question or acknowledgement.  Seems that little has changed from a decade ago.

III

“I also remember a Catherine Lim (Dr. Catherine Lim to some) writing an article some years ago with regards to popular disaffection with the government.  The government took her to task as it began to create quite a supportive furore amongst oppositional voices.  When I read the article, my first thought was, why was there such a fuss being made by the government over this?  She was simply stating what were obviously the sentiments amongst some in the population.  To me, it contained little, if any, insights.  Then I realised that the reason why the government was annoyed by this was not that she had anything insightful to say, as it was already being said by many non-prominent oppositional voices, but that her credentials meant more would pay attention to her.  And the oppositional minds themselves rallied around her statements for as much reason.  In this, I thought, the insightful, whom are not paired with prominence or/and credentials are protected from scrutiny and appreciation by an opposition whom have been trained by the proposition to equate value with either. 

I suppose, if I was in the government, what I would do after training a population to value either would be to accord prominence to those oppositional voices whom aren’t insightful and thus ensure the underdevelopment of those whom are appealed to by the said prominence.”

Throughout these various conversational occasions, compressed and illustrated in the above, I could sense hackles rising around me as I begin to ‘blaspheme’ against what was taken to be the immutable sanctity and perpetual relevance of these oppositional deities.    These statements of mine were generally met with uncomfortable silence and no questions were asked thereafter as they moved on to other oppositional topics.  In other words, information was reflexively being discounted on the fly – a phenomenon that is endemic here, and one that I did not experience in, for instance, in the UK. 

I recall an MRT station staff stating, in the aftermath of JBJ’s passing, that there would never be another one like him.  I thought to myself, ‘I would certainly hope not.  What we need is not another JBJ.  The purpose of a giant is not only to provide its descendants to stand atop their shoulders to see farther, but to stimulate the rise of other giants whom may afford others their shoulders as well!’  But, unfortunately, all we are seeing here is low-res copies of the original.  Pathetic state of affairs actually.  But who was I, a ‘nobody’, to dare criticise these people who have verifiably done much for The Cause? 

That’s where the problem lies 

How is it that these oppositional figures can be verified to have ‘done much for The Cause?’  In the local context, it can only be ‘verified’ by their prominence.  As I have stated, when prominence and power is lauded above all, and this transmitted via the intellectually diminishing means of uniformity, conformity and subservience, people will necessarily become stupefied enough to laud nothing more than the said power and prominence be they in the proposition or opposition.  And where these oppositional figures are supported by a whole train of activists who seek immediate gratification by simply accessing well-worn traditions when it comes to appreciating the idea of ‘opposition’, they would not possess the requisite perspectival intelligence to tell the difference between ‘value by prominence’ as opposed to ‘value by insight’ as their own perspectival development will be largely led by the ‘insights’ of the prominent. 

They seem to be well prepared by the general milieu (the perspectival infrastructure that transmits these ideas to the subconscious) to ensure that their own perspectival development does not develop outside of the perspectives and pronouncements of their thus-created icons.  And being thus disabled, they will themselves be ignorant enough to confuse the obvious observations by oppositional deities for insight. 

And to exacerbate matters, the advent of ‘blogging’ immediately accords all ‘bloggers’ peerage on the simple basis of their utilising a shared platform to host their views.  In that, a ‘peer’ is discerned by her/is utilising a blogging platform.  In this, the propensity to discount insight because it is coming from another ‘blogger’ is amplified.  ‘It is just another ‘blogger’ after all, just like me, so why should I accord her/im more credit as I do the prominent?’, seemed to be the unstated thought of all bloggers.  And in that perception is betrayed their own preinstalled depreciation of themselves as a source of insight as opposed to their leaders-by-prominence.

This is a whole downward and pathetic spiral that leads to the increasing irrelevance of the opposition in the progressive movement toward democracy.  In this, their own minds serve as the potholes delivering a bumpy ride on the highway to democracy.  And in this, it is not just a local phenomenon, as I first observed it in the global milieu some years ago as I studied and wrote about the oppositional and ‘new social movements’ in the west, amongst others, before returning, briefly, to study the local scene. 

Mutual antagonism amongst the proles in the opposition 

When we worship prominence in itself, we will not only tether our intellectual development to the loins of a Deity-by-Prominence, but also value ourselves in terms of how we value (I say ‘loins’ because we’ll be on our knees in the face of a revered leader). 

When it comes to peer relationships amongst the proles on both sides of the thus illusory opposition vs. proposition divide, we will either seek company and coalescence amongst those whom are similarly afflicted with the malaise of confusing their knees for their feet, or disregard those whose shoe size do not fit comfortably around their knee caps. Hence, in the local milieu, be it in the propositional or oppositional camps, this Internal Harmony act, scene 50, idiocy is reinforced by the company it keeps. And besides this, with the worship of Prominence, ‘insight’ or ‘worthy of attention’ is identified via source as opposed to consideration. – one of the reasons why the prominent oppositional Singaporedaily.net online newspaper selected my post on Lee Kuan Yew’s quotes for linking as opposed to an article of mine featured above it entitled, ‘In Praise of Lee, 2009 a.d. to 220 b.c.’, that could arguably be of greater perspectival advantage to the opposition if they were to consider its contents.  Can it be that even to the opposition, the insights of one of their own pales next to the pronouncements of the icon of the proposition? 

Ah, Freudian slips abound indicating that ‘opposition’ is a close synonym for ‘proposition’ in spirit, if not in content.  Where the spirit is compromised, so is the content.  And if they chance upon some verifiably oppositional voice who is able to afford insights which does not diverge too far from the pronouncements of their revered leaders; does not contradict them; or is easily understood with the aid of their top-down bestowed formulae; quite a few unashamedly plagiarize in their own writings and statements without due credit being accorded to its source – as I’ve experienced quite a few times over the years.  Those whom are not prominent don’t deserve the credit.  Well, I suppose nothing is to be personally gained by giving credit to one who isn’t prominent enough to validate them.  This is experienced, not only in the oppositional scene, but in the propositional milieu, the working arena, and as I have experienced, in social circles as well in Singapore. 

Said a good Chinese associate of mine who is currently working in the UK, ‘Ahh, it’s ok ed, one day people will recognise what you are saying.’  To this, I laughing said, ‘No. when they do become objective enough to appreciate these points, they will take these ideas without recognition of the source so that they can get more prominence in their circle, or bolster the prominence that they already enjoy.  As it is the culture of the general populace in all arenas, so it will be in the oppositional scene as well…as it already is.’

In this approach, these ‘house negroes’, (as opposed to ‘field negroes’ – ref. Malcolm X’s speech on the difference between either.) playing at activism underdevelop not only themselves.  With such a stance and due to their relative numerousness, they set the perspectival trend for future entrants into the oppositional market.  They, by remaining in the ignorance-inducing twilight of the shadows of their leaders, will not learn enough to question the foundations or superstructure that thus serves as a mausoleum wherein their own potentials as great thinkers and truly oppositional voices will remain interned with a stake in the head.  And this will afflict the new entrants into the activist scene with an identical debility just as they themselves were. 

Their leaders are also underdeveloped as they will remain unquestioned and will thus be validated by such worship to carry on doing what they have always been doing with the aid of similarly validated and trite perspectives. 

And last, but certainly not least, the non-prominent, whose ideas are appreciated silently via plagiarism, or/and with little, if any, validation, can lead to their ceasing to produce novel perspectives and just join the diarrheal flow of either propositional and oppositional camps; inciting their move away from involvement in local politics; or, in the worst case, cause them to be inactive completely.

These factors play a significant role as an inbuilt mechanism – of propositional origins – amongst the local and global ‘grls n bois’ playing at being opposition whose motivation seems to emerge, not from their ill-understood idea of the ‘democracy’, ‘egalitarianism’, and ‘progress’ they purport to placard for, but from a childish, ignorant, and ID-ian (ref. Freud’s ‘ID’) clamour for instant and self-validating gratification that has, thus far, seen the idea of ‘progress’ being more redefined than refined by the proposition whom certainly find an advantage amongst such an ‘opposition’ that confuses itself for one.  That, i dare say, gives a wholly different and self-gratifying meaning to the idea of 'activism' and 'activists'.

Ed