Ms Sun Xueling
Blk 308B Punggol Walk
#01-364
Waterway Terraces 1
Singapore 822308
Dear Ms Sun,
General Infallibility
1. Extracts from an article at aeon.co:
Mistaken
General infallibility is a tempting proposition. Treating an individual’s attitudes and preferences as givens – as matters beyond debate or criticism – might seem to promote human dignity by forcing us to treat all views as equally worthy of respect. But such an outlook is likely, if anything, to have the opposite effect. This is because taking seriously a person’s capacity to make mistakes is critical to taking seriously their capacity for rationality. Only by recognising that people are capable of error can we properly value anyone’s goals or engage in rational debate.
General infallibility is a modern, democratised version of the infallibility traditionally claimed by religious and authoritarian leaders. Although, unlike those other forms of infallibility, it applies to everyone, like papal infallibility it has some bounds. Everyone agrees that errors can occur where others are very immediately affected. No one would suggest that those giving medical advice or, say, forecasting the weather, can never make mistakes. Yet, today, it is a quite prevalent view that it’s wrong to regard others as mistaken in their tastes and purchasing patterns.
Liberalism has long held that each of us should be regarded as, in effect, sovereign – ultimately entitled to choose – in our political, consumer and religious preferences. The doctrine I am highlighting is different. It goes further: it says that each person is not merely sovereign but free from error in those preferences.
Let’s be clear about that difference. The proposition that elections should determine, directly or indirectly, what action the government takes is pretty much inherent in the idea of democracy. But it is not inherent in democracy that elections should end discussion of the policies voted upon. Political liberalism does not justify forestalling debate, nor does it justify the habit that certain politicians have of presenting polling data as if it were an argument in itself for the merits of a position (the ad populum fallacy) – but such an approach makes perfect sense if something like general infallibility holds. Similarly, there is a difference between believing that music and books should be free from censorship on grounds of taste (as liberalism urges) and believing that no one ought to pass comment on anyone else’s taste (as general infallibility implies). The latter opinion finds expression in the view – in a world of online ratings and ‘likes’ – that there is something inherently snobbish about professional arts criticism.
Claims that the subjective beliefs of individuals must be treated as infallible also provoke much criticism. Unfortunately, a common, almost reflexive, response is to insist that some people have better credentials to be taken seriously than others, whether because of differences in educational attainment, intelligence or moral fibre. This is a poor move. It smells of chauvinism. It also betrays a lack of commitment to rational discourse, since it proposes that ad hominem considerations – the characteristics of the speaker – should pre-empt listening to and assessing the evidence and argument put before us.
General infallibility creates the illusion that people are essentially mindless. It holds that we believe what we believe, and value what we value, for no reason at all, or at least for reasons that are unintelligible to anyone else. Under those conditions, no one can engage with anyone else’s views or take them seriously. If, today, identities are becoming increasingly tribally defined, with each group living in its own ‘bubble’, this is an illusion that we urgently need to learn to see through.
To err is human. Missteps, misapprehensions, misspeakings, momentary lapses and mess-ups are part of the fabric of life. Yet we are capable of making mistakes precisely because we are thoughtful, intelligent beings with complex goals and sincerely held values. We wouldn’t be able to if we were otherwise. Regrets: we’ve had a few. But we are the wiser for them.
2. Almost all government officers who replied to my letters have a sense of infallibility that included transgression of rules. To the article in Item 1, which distinguishes between traditional and general forms of infallibility, I should add credulity in Item 4 of MP’s Responsibility (72), which is bonding through the construction of a shared story. Infallibility and credulity, it could be expected within a group.
Starting with noise from the neighbour, selling of our flat and subsequent issues that I wrote to them and to MPs, who referred the issues to them, they avoided addressing the problem. They are able to do so from the time I wrote to HDB Branch Office in 2008.
As a group they have far-reaching influence. My concerns were ignored. They gave misleading replies, monitored my activities and made transactions difficult. These transactions were outside of the complaints. It was pervasive and possible in Singapore where the government has a hand in all aspects of society.
The wrongdoings need not be corrected because they have the clout. No one outside the group could rectify the wrongdoings even after I submitted official documents to prove wrongdoings.
I therefore ask that the wrongdoings be brought up in parliament. There being a separation of powers between parliament and government agencies, i.e., between legislature and executive.
If the problem cannot be brought up in parliament, it will show that parliament and government agencies are plagued by the same group of people and talks of honesty, integrity and accountability do not hold up.
3. At the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) of 25 Nov 19 you said the problem was of an individual, not of policy, and I refused to accept the replies from four Ministries.
After which I showed in Debunking (72) that the problem is a group of officers and they did not reply to my queries.
Both Rules, Character & Morals (72) of 25 Nov 19 handed to you after you spoke to me and Debunking (72) of 29 Nov 19 sent four days later showed that the solution is by way of Parliament. Both included recent pronouncements from PM and DPM to similar effect.
I am waiting for your reply.
Yours Sincerely,
hh
cc
Mr Lee Hsien Loong
Mr Heng Swee Keat
Mr Teo Chee Hean
No comments:
Post a Comment