"Trash from 3rd world countries" What does this quote say about the integrity of the author? What is the probability that the logic you nicely display is throwing pearls for the... It seems to be a minority but they are getting loud. Just check out TRE or TRS and you will be warped back to WWII and Hitler's propaganda against the Jewish people. Are these people the PAP replacement?
Actually, you stated the truth. The age limit and amount for CPF have both been raised to the point that few people can actually redeem that money, other than using it to pay off your housing loans. These ranting guys and chicks need to take a reality check. Screaming and shouting at someone whom you barely know is not going to change the situation; changing the government and those in power as well as their policies are the only ways. I remember how years back when I popped by in Malaysia to spend one day for a short getaway, I messaged a friend back in Singapore about escaping the propaganda of Singapore media and news, and when he knew that I was watching "Captain America", he suddenly blurted into this whole racist thing of "get rid of the Pinoy Hydra pig, Captain America!" If I was right in front of him, I would have given him a tight slap on his face to get him back to reality. The foreigners are not the issue because they capitalized on a messed-up system!
Oh my. How naive I was - Singapore has become far more racist in the last few years and I want to get to the bottom of the issue and I believe I know the answer. Now I want to talk about one of the pyschometric tests that is often used by HR/recruitment agencies to test new candidates for a job - this is an interesting test where there are no right answers set in stone, but it allows the tester to see candidate's power of reasoning as well as the way s/he presents his/her ideas. The candidate is given a story - here is one that I have used before in my role as a gatekeeper:
 |
| Whose fault is it? Who bears more responsibility? |
A woman is having an affair because her husband is always at work, working long hours and neglects her. Her lover lives on the other side of town on an island and she has to cross a bridge to get to his house on the island. She has been sneaking to her lover's house for a few months late at night, after her husband has gone to bed and she would return before he wakes up in the morning. One night, after visiting her lover, she is on her way home when she notices a madman on the bridge. Afraid to cross the bridge, she runs to a boatman and begs the boatman to take her across the river because there is a madman on the bridge. The boatman said, "I will take you across the river if you pay me £50. I won't do it for free." The woman did not have £50 on her, so she has to either wait for the madman to go away, perhaps by returning to her lover's house to wait there - or risk running across the bridge and hope for the best. The woman waited for an hour but the madman showed no sign of leaving. She begged the boatman again but he refused to lower his price. The clock then struck 5 and the woman knew that her husband would be awake in an hour, if he woke up and discovered that she was not in the house, there will be trouble. So in blind panic, she ran across the bridge. The madman pounced on her, pushed her off the bridge into the water and she drowned.
That's the story. Which character is most responsible for this woman's death? Please rank the following characters in terms of how much responsibility they should bear (from most responsible to least responsible):
1. The woman
2. The husband
3. The lover
4. The boatman
5. The madman
At the 2011 general elections in Singapore, the PAP were open and honest about the direction they wanted to take Singapore in, their stance on foreign talents and immigration as well as a range of other policies. 60.14% of the electorate voted for the PAP, thus giving them the mandate to rule for another 5 years. As part of their policy on foreign talents, many migrant workers from places like the Philippines, Vietnam, China and India came to work in Singapore. Some Singaporeans have become extremely unhappy with this influx of foreign workers in Singapore.
 |
| Well if you say so... |
So you should know the drill by now. Who is most responsible for this situation (the influx of foreigners)? Please rank the following characters in terms of how much responsibility they should bear:
1. The 60.14% who voted for the PAP.
2. The 39.86% who did not vote for the PAP.
3. The PAP
4. The foreign workers from China, Philippines, India etc.
Now once again, there is no right or wrong answer for this - different people will have a different opinion. Do you hold the 60.14% most responsible for this situation. As Singaporeans, they have little to gain by voting in the PAP - they should have taken the time to study carefully what the PAP were going to deliver, what they stood to gain, what they stood to lose if they voted in the PAP again. As for the second group the 39.86% who did not vote for the PAP, well consider this: in a democracy, you do only have a single vote as a voter - but you have the power to influence your friends, your family, even strangers through social media. How much effort did this 39.86% make to influence the 60.14%? Could they have done more to swing undecided voters or to hold the PAP up to scrutiny?
This is the part that well and truly confuses me about Singaporeans - perhaps this is because I am so used to living in Europe after all these years (I left Singapore in 1997) and am used to multiparty politics. Here in the UK, we have all kinds of parties stretching across the political spectrum from extreme right wing to extreme left wing and everything in between. There are three mainstream parties (Labour, Tories, Liberal Democrats) and a large number of smaller parties to choose from when it comes to election time. The voter can then decide which politician and which party they like best and it can be a tough choice at election time (as discussed in my previous post on the issue).
Allow me to state the obvious: if a UK voter has left wing views, he would vote for a left wing party. If a UK voter has right wing views, he would vote for a ring wing party - pretty obvious so far? Now this doesn't quite happen in Singapore. Now the PAP have been honest and upfront about their policies - from NS liability to CPF to HDB flats to immigration/foreign talents - you know what they stand for. If you like what they do and vote for them, then fine, you have understood how democracy works. But if you don't like what they do yet you still vote for them, then you have only yourself to blame if you do not get the government you want. You are paying the price for your political apathy.
This reminds me of an incident in a Vietnamese restaurant in London that I witnessed. A short guy seated at the table next to me complained to the waiter that there was something wrong with his dish of beef noodles. The waiter asked him what was wrong with it and the short guy said, "well I just don't like it." The chef then came out of the kitchen and informed the man that the beef Pho was one of their most popular dishes and that several other diners in the restaurant were having the same dish (including myself). I then pointed out that I was having the same dish and there was nothing wrong with it. The short guy then confessed, "actually I don't really like beef, but I thought this might be different." The chef then asked, "if you don't like beef, why did you order a beef dish then? You could have had chicken, fish, prawn, lamb, pork or a vegetarian dish! You order beef, you get beef!"
Now there must be a certain proportion of the 60.14% who do not vote for the PAP because they like them, but because of a number of other reasons. One commonly stated reason is that Singapore's opposition has had no experience in running a government or that the opposition is not united - thus putting Singapore in their hands could lead to an uncertain future. Whilst that is true, it still doesn't mean that this voter actually likes and condones what the PAP is proposing. So if you vote the PAP, you get the PAP. The most unreasonable voters are the ones who did vote for the PAP and expect them to do things that they never said they would do. That's like ordering beef and expecting it to taste like fish or tofu, then complaining about it. Seriously dude, what were you expecting, huh?
Others like my mother vote for the PAP out of a mixture of feat and ignorance - my mother is afraid of the PAP. I remember her telling me years ago that if the PAP lost in our ward, they would open up the ballot boxes and find out who dared to vote for the opposition and punish all them. She feared she would lose her job as a teacher if she voted for the opposition. Now to the PAP's credit, they never made such threats and my mother's paranoia was not based on any real evidence (I have no idea where she gets such crazy ideas) - yet she blissfully remained ignorant all those years. What about people like that amongst the 60.14%? Surely there should be a real urgency to focus one's energy to educate people like that. We need to tackle the 60.14% the right way to get the message across - I would not recommend following Roy Ngerng's example.
This is precisely why I say that all the anger directed at the foreigners in Singapore is a total red herring - remember, all you need is a swing of under 11% to remove the popular vote from the PAP, yet we are no where close to achieving this swing of 11%. The 39.86% only have themselves to blame when they focus their energy on blaming the PAP and the foreigners when really, they should blame the 60.14% and channel their efforts to change their minds. It is easy to portray the foreigners as the villains, when really, it is people like my mother who are at fault - it is older Singaporeans like her who keep the PAP in power. Now when you look at my mother - she is this docile, petite little grandmother from Ang Mo Kio: it is hard to imagine her as the villain (or at least the person to blame for the current state of affairs). This is why we have this status quo: the 39.86% are ultimately to blame for not focusing on the real cause of the problem and failing to identify who is most responsible for the current state of affairs. The foreigners are the scapegoats and they are the red herring that is stopping the 39.86% from getting what they want. Time for a reality check.
So people. Stop blaming the foreigners. Stop being xenophobic. Start blaming the older Singaporeans who vote for the PAP, they are the ones who have to bear the most responsibility for the crap Singaporeans are facing today. That's it from me on this issue. Please do let me know what you think by leaving a comment below. I am particularly interested to see who you think is most responsible for the mess Singapore is currently in. Many thanks for reading.
Allow me to state the obvious: if a UK voter has left wing views, he would vote for a left wing party. If a UK voter has right wing views, he would vote for a ring wing party - pretty obvious so far? Now this doesn't quite happen in Singapore. Now the PAP have been honest and upfront about their policies - from NS liability to CPF to HDB flats to immigration/foreign talents - you know what they stand for. If you like what they do and vote for them, then fine, you have understood how democracy works. But if you don't like what they do yet you still vote for them, then you have only yourself to blame if you do not get the government you want. You are paying the price for your political apathy.
 |
| The current British PM David Cameron with Deputy PM Nick Clegg. |
This reminds me of an incident in a Vietnamese restaurant in London that I witnessed. A short guy seated at the table next to me complained to the waiter that there was something wrong with his dish of beef noodles. The waiter asked him what was wrong with it and the short guy said, "well I just don't like it." The chef then came out of the kitchen and informed the man that the beef Pho was one of their most popular dishes and that several other diners in the restaurant were having the same dish (including myself). I then pointed out that I was having the same dish and there was nothing wrong with it. The short guy then confessed, "actually I don't really like beef, but I thought this might be different." The chef then asked, "if you don't like beef, why did you order a beef dish then? You could have had chicken, fish, prawn, lamb, pork or a vegetarian dish! You order beef, you get beef!"
Now there must be a certain proportion of the 60.14% who do not vote for the PAP because they like them, but because of a number of other reasons. One commonly stated reason is that Singapore's opposition has had no experience in running a government or that the opposition is not united - thus putting Singapore in their hands could lead to an uncertain future. Whilst that is true, it still doesn't mean that this voter actually likes and condones what the PAP is proposing. So if you vote the PAP, you get the PAP. The most unreasonable voters are the ones who did vote for the PAP and expect them to do things that they never said they would do. That's like ordering beef and expecting it to taste like fish or tofu, then complaining about it. Seriously dude, what were you expecting, huh?
 |
| "You order beef, you get beef..." |
Others like my mother vote for the PAP out of a mixture of feat and ignorance - my mother is afraid of the PAP. I remember her telling me years ago that if the PAP lost in our ward, they would open up the ballot boxes and find out who dared to vote for the opposition and punish all them. She feared she would lose her job as a teacher if she voted for the opposition. Now to the PAP's credit, they never made such threats and my mother's paranoia was not based on any real evidence (I have no idea where she gets such crazy ideas) - yet she blissfully remained ignorant all those years. What about people like that amongst the 60.14%? Surely there should be a real urgency to focus one's energy to educate people like that. We need to tackle the 60.14% the right way to get the message across - I would not recommend following Roy Ngerng's example.
This is precisely why I say that all the anger directed at the foreigners in Singapore is a total red herring - remember, all you need is a swing of under 11% to remove the popular vote from the PAP, yet we are no where close to achieving this swing of 11%. The 39.86% only have themselves to blame when they focus their energy on blaming the PAP and the foreigners when really, they should blame the 60.14% and channel their efforts to change their minds. It is easy to portray the foreigners as the villains, when really, it is people like my mother who are at fault - it is older Singaporeans like her who keep the PAP in power. Now when you look at my mother - she is this docile, petite little grandmother from Ang Mo Kio: it is hard to imagine her as the villain (or at least the person to blame for the current state of affairs). This is why we have this status quo: the 39.86% are ultimately to blame for not focusing on the real cause of the problem and failing to identify who is most responsible for the current state of affairs. The foreigners are the scapegoats and they are the red herring that is stopping the 39.86% from getting what they want. Time for a reality check.
Hi limpeh, sorry for going a bit off topic but I live in the UK too and I've been getting a lot of election advertising from all the major parties for the EU elections coming up. Given that the UKIP seems to be doing very well in all opinion polls, what do you think are the chances of the UKIP doing so well in the european elections and general elections that they eventually replace the libdems as the third party in the UK?
ReplyDeleteWe shall see asdf. After all, this is just the local elections and the European elections for MEPs - we will see if UKIP actually does get an MP into parliament one day. I think UKIP are totally vile and despicable, but then again, they tend to attract the racist and xenophobic vote - people who hate Eastern Europeans will vote UKIP, For them, a truly meaningful breakthrough would be to get an MP into parliament and they have yet to do that (they have a chance to try to achieve that next year).
DeleteInteresting. I blame:
ReplyDelete1. the woman --- she should not have cheated on her husband who worked long hard hours. If she felt neglected, she should talk to him or get her own life/job, or leave him the right away if all else fails.
2. the lover --- for committing adultery with a married woman. There are morals to live by in life.
3. the boatman --- I am saying this only because at that time of the night, he couldn't have been too busy anyway. Even $20 quid would have been good. We need to reassess the market and be flexible. Also, I am sure he knew the mad man was around. We have to show concern for the community even when we do business.
4. the husband --- not much to blame here except for being too obtuse to notice that his wife was cheating on him.
5. the mad man --- he's mad. Blame the government for not taking care of him. Why was he allowed to lurk around the bridge? How come there was no police patrol?
Erm Di, as much as I said that there are no right or wrong answers, I do believe that you misunderstood the exercise (you see - this exercise lets the gatekeeper find out if the test subject can read instructions carefully, something I am sure as a teacher you tell you students to do all the time).
DeleteWe are not asking you if you like the individuals involved or not - clearly in this rather messy situation, there is no one who is completely nice or likable. The exercise is asking you to justify your ranking - so for you to condemn the lover for committing an 'immoral' act (of adultery) and rank him no. 2 on this list - that just tells me you didn't understand the exercise. Perhaps you can blame him for not ensuring that the woman got home safely, like what kind of man allows a woman to travel across town alone late at night? Did he just go to sleep after their encounter, with little regard for her safety after she leaves his house? As much as adultery may seem wrong or immoral to you, how does that relate to the relative amount of guilt/responsibility he should bear for her death? After all, in this story, she could have gone back to his house and either stayed there for the night or asked him for help - but she chose not too (a bad choice on her part one may argue, So you see, you made a mistake in not answering the question properly in this exercise.
Sorry I had to respond like that, but I have seen people make this kind of mistake in this exercise before - you're not the only one. It boils down to this: answer the question that is asked when you're taking a test.
As for me, I think the order should be:
1. the woman (for reasons you have stated)
2. the boatman (for reasons you have stated)
3. the lover (for reasons I have stated)
4. the husband (for reasons you have stated)
5. the madman (for reasons you have stated)
PS. It's either £20 or 20 quid, not $20 quid. Quid = 1 pound. We don't use dollars here in the UK :)
Oh, I didn't read carefully. I was so eager to pontificate. Such a juicy gossipy kind of test. Guess I didn't get pass your gate then. Yes? I know about the quid = £. I was in the middle of watching my son at a tennis match. He won silver!
DeleteI would rank
DeleteMadman - From a legal point of view, while mad he commit the "actus reus" or the guilty act, without his act she won't have died. While being mad does prevent him from being guilty because of the lack of "mens rea" or guilty mind, he still has committed the act of pushing her off the bridge. I don't believe it is fair to blame the government for this man. he could have been hiding his madness, he could have only bouts of madness which comes and goes which no one could know off, this could be his first instance of madness and therefore no for knowledge. It might be that this bridge is off limits and illegal to cross at night.. etc etc
Woman - poor decision making on her part, rather risk her life than pay the boatman, she could have gone back to the lover and ask for money to pay the boatman, or just stay there the night. I believe she should bear most of the responsibility because she knew the risks and still decided poorly. But unfortunately as stated above the madman did commit the act so but for his act, the crime wouldn't have been committed.
Boatman - opportunist but not legally wrong, can't blame him for taking advantage of market forces, he should show more concern for the woman.
Lover - didn't know anything was wrong, no notice of the problem therefore second least responsible. The reasons LIFT has stated is probably the most valid, although one could argue that this arrangement has been going on for so long that there was nothing amiss to alarm him. could be that the first few times he would walk her back but after a few times of no incident both of them / the woman could have decided it was not required for him to walk her back or she might be afraid that her husband / neighbours might see them walking back at night
Husband - husband is the victim, being cheated on or ignorant of being cheated on can't really fault him on this.
I know my woman / madman reasoning is a bit contradictory but if there was a lawsuit for compensation from the woman's family, it would probably be that madman would have to pay 20-30% of the compensation value for his act while the woman would have deemed to be contributory "guilty" and therefore the compensation reduced by 70%.
The other 3 have committed to legal wrong and therefore cannot be part of the suit. (an omission to help is not a crime).
Best answer so far Ian. If I was the gatekeeper, I would say that you passed this test with flying colours!
DeleteWhat about case 2, ie. the 2011 Singapore GE? Who do you blame then and in what order?
PS. Di, I refer you to Ian's model answer. He scores full marks in this test. :)
DeleteWhy didn't I think of the legalities? I have watched enough Good Wifes and Suits to have thought of that. I went the Desperate Housewives route --- much more fun to pontificate. Tsk, tsk, woman, how could you cheat on your hardworking husband?! This was fun. Well done, Ian!
DeleteI think I pretty much had the same answer as Ian although I did went back and forth about whether the woman or mad man was more responsible for the crime. I mean, he IS mad but you're right. His was the hand that push the woman over so technically, he's most at fault.
DeleteAbout the general election, I would go:
1. PAP. Because they came up with the policy that allowed all these foreign workers to come. 不怪他们怪谁 (literal translation: don't blame them blame who).
2. the 60% who voted for PAP. They gave PAP the mandate to rule so yeah, kind of their fault too from where I'm standing.
3. the foreign workers. They're the ones who are physically here. If they chose not to come, then there wouldn't be foreign workers in Singapore. They are lower on the list because they're simply going wherever that offers them the best environment. Wouldn't you leave for greener pastures too if you could? They've only taken advantage of what's been offered to them.
4. the 40% who voted opposition. I feel like they've tried. Maybe 40% is after the hardcore anti-pap people already got everyone they know to vote opposition? If they didn't the number might have been smaller? Of course all this is just conjecture but like you say, no right answers.
I blame:
ReplyDelete1. The woman, because she should have spoken to her husband if she felt neglected
2. The lover, because like you said, he should have escorted her home due to it being so late at night
3. The husband, because he should not be neglecting his wife
4. The boatman, because he is not obliged to help the woman get away with committing adultery
5. The madman, because he is mad and cannot control his actions
Ah, you have almost given me the perfect answer until you brought in the word 'adultery' - you see, this test is designed to see how rational you can be when exercising your judgement in a case like this. You see, the boatman has no idea why this woman is on the island and needs to cross the bridge so urgently at that time of the night - she did not tell him that she was having an affair, as far as the boatman was concerned, it was an opportunity to charge her as much as he wanted because he knew she was desperate for his services. So yeah, you can argue that it is immoral of him to try to take advantage of the situation - but your reasoning failed because you didn't consider that he has no knowledge of the affair at all, for him, it was a straight forward business opportunity that presented itself in the middle of the night.
DeleteWhat about the 2011 S'pore GE case then? Who do you blame and in what order?
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realise that flaw in my reasoning. For the 2011 GE I blame:
Delete1) The 60% who voted for the PAP, they should have known what voting PAP means.
2) The PAP, LHL apologized and promised to do better next time, which might have gotten some people to believe that the PAP will really change
3) The other 39% because they I feel they did do a lot to drum up support for the opposition, like the articles posted on TRE.
Here are my answers for the 2 scenarios:
ReplyDelete- The woman get most of the blame. Without cheating she wouldn't put herself into the position that she needed to get back in a hurry. If she is not happy with her husband she should do what adults do and communicate instead the problem goes unsolved.
- The boatman comes 2nd since he can't forgo a tiny profit to save a person's life.
- The lover has some blame too since it really takes 2 hands to clap. If he has refused the woman's advances then there won't be an affair to speak of.
- The husband could be blameless or he could have some share of the blame. If he were living in a high cost country with low or stagnant wages and he is working hard to support his family is he really to blame? If he is blowing his wife off to go drinking with his buddies or golfing then definitely.
- The madman is blameless. He is doing what he knows (or does not), he is insane after all.
- The 60.14% who voted for the PAP would share most of the blame, if they voted blindly or without knowing the manifesto of the party they supported they are all to blame.
- The foreign workers from China, Philippines, India ranked 2nd. Why? Because they were greedy and even took hefty loans to pay agents to bring them to a country like Singapore (or Middle East) to be exploited with no guarantee of breaking even.
- The 39.86% who did not vote for the PAP ranks 3rd. Hard to blame them really. Its almost impossible to convince anyone much less close family members to vote against their beliefs. Changing someone's belief system starts from young which is why PAP's propaganda machine is so effective.
- The PAP is blameless, they are just doing exactly what they promised, no surprises there! If you're a extreme right wing supporter and willingly voted them in, you would be angry if they broke their promise to bring in cheap labor by the busloads.
Konichwa Choaniki. Well, I think Ian's response above is the best - he did consider that the woman could have either gone back to her lover to borrow enough money to pay the boatman for the safe passage across, or stayed there for the night (and face whatever consequences in the morning - would be better than being killed). Or consider this, maybe the husband is to be blamed: are the consequences of being found out so great that she is willing to risk her life? What would her husband do to her that made her want to take such a risk? As for the lover - your reasoning failed again, you're talking about the affair - you're not talking about what happened that night, the events which led to her being pushed off the bridge and drowning. You see, this test challenges you to focus on the events, answering the question, rather than allow your own personal opinions (in this case, on adultery) to influence your judgement - I again refer you back to Ian's analysis (ie. the model answer). He considered why the lover may have let this woman walk back home across town in the middle of the night - those are the considerations we have to think about when weighing up his relative responsibility, not whether it is right or wrong to have an affair with a married woman per se.
DeleteAnd well done for being the only one to do story 2.
Like I said, there are not right/wrong answers, but I am surprised you were so harsh on the foreign workers - some of them did do rather well out of coming to Singapore. If Singapore was such a horrible place where they only got exploited, they wouldn't keep coming. There must be something good about Singapore to attract these people and your outlook there is just too negative.
Well for the 1st scenario I wasn't thinking about the present only but past and present aka the complete picture. Not sure why that would disqualify my answer since a jury would also consider all circumstances to assign blame like maybe the mad man was a hitman hired by the husband then he would get all the blame.
DeleteAs for 2nd story, when I said foreign workers I meant that. Expats don't count since more often then not the company sends them overseas and they don't really have a choice. And for someone from Japan or even Europe to come to Singapore mostly it would seem a step down (unfortunate but true, Singapore is not the best country in the world).
My dad is in the marine industry which hires lots of foreigners and he has shared anecdotes of some workers actually believing that money comes out of the walls from stories shared probably about ATM or some other stuff. So yes there are quite alot of opportunistic foreign workers, from those working ladies to other blue collar workers who paid lots of money because they believed from agents or hearsay that they could get rich in Singapore.
For me, the madman represent the foreigners in Singapore and the madman is the party that should take the least blame.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that Singaporeans reap what they sow especially for the 60.1% who voted for PAP. But you are not on the ground in GE2011 and there is something that you did not know.
First, most of the 60.1% who voted for PAP is not like the scenario that you mention where a customer ordered beef noodle who don't like beef.
While walking the ground before polling day in GE2011, there were many request from the residents. The requests were stuffs like can they get a new car park or a childcare centre near their homes, allow their children to go to their preferred schools, more money handouts from the government, etc, etc, etc.
All the request were of personal interest nature. Many voters told us that PAP had promised to fulfil those demands and what can they gain from voting the oppositions? In fact the main topics discussed with the residents that we make our rounds were if we are able to satisfied their needs!
The location that we walked around is Tampines. While there is a huge number of Filipinos in Tampines(in fact Tampines has the highest concentration of Filipinos), the voters primary concern is to fulfil their personal request! Most voters in Tampines are middle class PMETs and not some backward place filled with illiterates.
We were informed that Lee Kuan Yew had a report from the grassroot of the kind of requests that the residents make before the election. The situation is similar in other constituencies where residents make demands of personal nature instead of asking what the political parties can do for the country.
This is the reason why Mah Bow Tan booked a dinner costing of $1,000 per table with Marina Bay Sands for celebrating his victory even before polling day. He knew he will win once they agreed to those demands and he had strong backing from Lee Kuan Yew(Mah Bow Tan was Lee Kuan Yew's favourite).
This is the reason why Mah Bow Tan can win despite he was highly unpopular for his COE, ERP and HDB housing policies.
PAP's power base is about 30% of the voters. These are PAP members themselves, the grassroot and those that benefited from PAP. So, it means that another 30% of the voters were 'fence sitters'. They will fall on whichever side that promise them the most benefits.
How can you say that Ian's response is the "model answer" and at the same time claim that there're no right or wrong answers? This reminds me of my literature teachers back in secondary school who said that there're no right or wrong answers in literature and yet often passed off their own interpretation of a text as the model answer. Talk about Orwellian doublethink.
ReplyDeleteStarting from the most blameworthy in my view—
1. The PAP
2. The 60.14% who voted for PAP
3. The 39.86% who didn't vote for PAP
4. Foreigners in Singapore
Would you blame the Nazis for its atrocities, or would you blame Germans for voting the Nazis into power? I'm not implying that the PAP is guilty of crimes against humanity like the Nazis; that's not the point of my analogy. The point is that the PAP should carry more blame than the 60.14% of voters, since PAP is directly in control of the policies they make, unlike the voters.
You may blame the 39.86% for not trying to engage the 60.14%, but it's hard to fault them for failing to change the latter's minds because it's really hard to do so! The foreigners are least to blame as they've no control over Singapore's policies, directly or otherwise. However, many of them are at fault for not trying to assimilate.
P.S. Of all the stupid ideas coming from the 60.14% I think this one takes the cake: "I have faith in god and god put the PAP there, so even if I don't understand how things work, I am sure god and the PAP have their plans and know what they are doing."
(Source: limpehft.blogspot.com/2012/12/extreme-apathy-can-you-stand-up-for.html)
Well, I am referring to Ian's answer as the model answer as he clearly justified his choices - he explained clearly why he had picked the order he chose and the mistake that some other people made were to simply condemn the woman and the lover for adultery when really, the exercise was to rank them in order of responsibility for her death, rather than say whether or not you like them or not.
DeleteIt boils down to this: answer the question that was asked, do not simply say what you think because it may not be relevant to the question that was asked.
This is why I cited Ian's answer as the model answer because he approached it in a logical manner, dealing with the task at hand - he clearly had read the instructions and had understood the purpose of the exercise. This is a fictional story to begin with, so it's not about whether or not you like the characters involved in this story - it is about using your power of reasoning to rank them in order of responsibility.
As in English literature, sure some answers are better than others and it boils down to the way you justify your answer. There are well written answers and poorly written ones - it boils down to your power of reasoning and this is what this test has set out to do. Have you understood the purpose of this test? So you can put the characters in any order "responsibility" you like - but be prepared to justify your answers in a convincing way.
PS. I do not agree with Ian's order personally, I wouldn't have ranked the madman as the most responsible person, I think that because of his insanity, I would rank him as the least responsible, but there you go.
Delete@Puppet I think its abit unfair to compare the Nazi's tactics with the PAP one. Although people voted the Nazis into power, Hitler used his powers and violence to dispose all of his political opponents and dismantle the democratic government until he became sole dictator. PAP has been actually very one tracked since independence, their manifesto has always been about economic growth and they have always been very business friendly. Lots of rich elites would have voted for them willingly since they know what they are getting.
DeleteI'm sure if enough people disagreed with PAP's manifesto they could vote them out and baring a coup like Thailand, well another party could come into power.
Hi LIFT,
DeleteThank you for the article, I enjoyed it. While I agree that the 39.86% bear part of the blame for not persuading the other half to reconsider their vote - at the same time I also cannot quite blame them for their limited ability to persuade on an individual level (I have tried with friends, close people, etc).
The problem is much deeper when other factors come into play - society's level of critical thinking, risk aversive behaviour, political apathy due to other pressing issues, deeply entrenched with the education system, controlled media, etc etc. The best thing the individual can do now, IMO, is to create robust, intellectual discourse on political matters in a hope of 'nudging' us to making better decisions in the future (and making an informed vote). It will take time, and I feel this is the best way.
About the question you posed regarding the woman's death. (I love these) Who is responsible? Based on the phrasing of the question, the legal one is:
1. The Madman
2. No one else
But since everyone loves to inject morality into their perspective, we deviate from the actual question, so... who is guilty of her death, morally?
1. The Boatman
2. Everyone else except the Madman. (And they all share the same level of blame)
Why? The boatman was the closest link to her death - he knew her plight and thus placed her in a position of danger, knowing well that she might attempt something reckless given her desperation. We may further add that he valued money over her safety, thus pushing the boatman up the rank.
But everyone else shares the same level of blame? Yes IMHO. Everyone is linked in virtually endless cycle of blame, we may even retrace events prior to this, so as a thought exercise:
The husband neglects the wife, leading her to seek a lover
The lover accepts the wife, even knowing she is married
The wife accepts the lover as the solution to her neglect, knowing it is 'wrong'
The local government failed to secure the bridge, leading the hazardous conditions for the accident
The local city and those in the know of the madman, for not having taken action in time to secure him
The list goes on, not just at this time, but backwards - you could even blame the woman's parents for not instilling better 'morals' in her.
Enjoy!
Well Puppet, if I were the company looking for people who would make rational decisions from a strictly business point of view, then all blame must first go to the mad man. Then it is up to the mad man's defence team to plead insanity. So, I understand Ian's point.
DeleteThis is my take on the imaginary scenario:
ReplyDelete1. The woman (Most responsible): She got into the affair knowingly aware of the risks that she had to take, and she went as far as risking the madman. So ultimately, whatever the consequences, whether her husband knows of the affair or not, she is responsible because she made that choice to cheat on him. In the same way, she had to be responsible even if she encountered a pervert or madman in the process, because they are all part of the 'package' of a double life at night-time.
2. The madman (2nd most responsible): Unfortunately, I am of the mind that crying out disability or mental handicaps is not simply convincing enough to excuse a person from culpability. If we all do that, there would be no need for justice anyway, because everyone would be excused under the aegis of being 'handicapped'. Take that case of West Virginia's first execution of a woman whose IQ was below average, but who was basically the mastermind in instigating her lover's murder of her husband for alleged insurance money. Yes, I think that it is her fault for plotting the murder, regardless of her level of intelligence. The madman is guilty for injuring the woman.
3. The boatman (3rd most responsible): He could jolly well do the woman the favor, and demand payment later. If not, I do not see much of a point in his job with constant demanding of that rate even when there is nobody around.
4. The lover (2nd least responsible): Unfortunately, as it goes again, it depends on whether you see it as a duty or responsibility of the lover to protect the woman. I see it as his charge to keep her company, during the moments when she goes to find him, but I do not see those duties extending once she leaves the boundaries of the 'household'.
5. The husband (Not responsible/least responsible): While he might be guilty of working long hours, I do not see how he should be held culpable for his wife's choice. His wife's choice is her choice, not his. He did not put a gun to her, ordering her to go and find a lover and put herself into all these risky circumstances. She CHOSE to.
Limpeh/Alex, you suddenly remind me of something with the story about the man who wanted something different in the beef noodles he ordered. A friend of mine actually proudly claimed in the aftermath of the Population White Paper that her MP, that Singh guy, spoke up against it(he did not vote or was not present anyway at that balloting sessions), but seriously, when I asked her why she even voted for the PAP to begin with, she said, "Surely I can disagree with what/whom I voted for, even if I voted for them." I said then, "They won't listen to your disagreements. You know that, don't you?" It's hard to change what people have been drummed with nonstop day-in and day-out(the ideas that the "opposition is no good" and that "we will try to have alternative voices via the NMP system, even if we have all PAP MP seats in parliament"). The attempt to convince her went nowhere, and she was still of the delusional mindset that voting for the PAP can still yield some difference somehow.
The business of politics in Singapore is a tricky one.
ReplyDeleteFor decades, we know of only one system. We know no other. We hear ( sometimes ) of others but have never had a whiff of one. The machinery is also designed to fit the one and only party. So we do not even have faith that the system, the machinery will be able to look after us in as a neutral way as we expect. It has never been tested. Not even a practice drill.
This coupled with an innate fear of losing all, guides people to vote for the 'safe' choice... the known evil. The incumbent knows this very well and capitalises on it. On the other hand the challengers are all too busy with being 'right'. They miss opportunities to deal a final blow to the solar plexus, and a upper cut to the chin.
The decades have also tamed anyone who is charismatic enough. Not that there are none. They prefer to use their gifts and strengths for financial rewards... even if it means dancing with the wolves. Oh! I wish another will present him/her self to articulate my woes & dreams... but none will stand up.
So, I continue to hope and hope that where I live, that there will be another contest so that I can vote any other except the PAP. Its the only path available to me... like the woman who had so many choices, even one with certain death is a choice.
Thanks for the sharing, enjoyed your postings.
I personally cannot find anything wrong with Roy Ngerng's approach. I read the article that he is going to be litigated for and it's a minor wonder that he is facing a lawsuit of this magnitude for bringing up an issue of utmost importance to all of his fellow citizens, whereas the ones who lambast LHL with unspeakable words face no repercussions. It's a shrewd move on LHL's part because those who practice critical thought and strike sensitive spots in the PAP government's armor will get spanked and cause other of Ngerng's ilk to clam up, and that will give more market share for the sort who know nothing but to spew useless vitriol.
ReplyDeleteWell played, LHL.
On the other hand, serving litigation to Ngerng is going to make people wonder if something's got to give with the CPF if LHL has reacted with this level of harsh vengeance. It's definitely going to work against LHL for the long-term.
@Kevin @LIFT and basically everyone else, just read this article today which i find very relevant to this blog post. Basically it explains why it is very difficult or impossible to change someone's mind even if facts are shown.
ReplyDeleteSo blaming the minority who voted opposition is not fair really. Humans are just illogical beings.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/mariakonnikova/2014/05/why-do-people-persist-in-believing-things-that-just-arent-true.html?utm_source=www&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=20140519
First of all, the question of who is to blame in the story of the adulterous woman... that question is a silly and meaningless one. It's like asking which part of a car is most responsible for its function; The engine or the car body?
ReplyDeleteBut if I had to choose, I would have to say the woman. Who comes second? Everyone else but the madman. Why? Not for any reasons of morality...
Let me explain.
I see this story as a summation of various choices and their consequences.
First, the husband.
He made one conscious choice that had a part to play in the tragedy.
He chose to marry the woman.
Next, the adulterer (male).
He too made one conscious choice.
He chose to enable the affair.
And the boatman?
He made one choice too.
He chose not to take her across for free.
The madman, on the other hand...
It can be argued that he made no conscious choice at all.
He is, after all, mad.
What about the woman, you ask?
She made many choices.
Note that at each point when each of the other players made their choice that drove the sequence of events as they occurred... she made a choice too.
She chose to marry her husband. She then chose to cheat on him. She chose to leave her lover's house in the early morning. She chose to cross the bridge and risk the madman.
At the very least, she made as many of the choices that led to her death as all the choices of all the other players put together.
At the very least, she had a hand in every event that led her down that path through destiny's maze.
From that, it is clear to me that she is most at fault.
Conversely, the madman is the LEAST at fault. Even though his was the hand that shed her blood. Why? Because he's the only one with an excuse. He's mad.
He might very well not have been able to make any conscious choices at all.