In Memoriam: JBJ. Is 'supposing otherwise' irrelevant to Singaporeans?
“
Till Democracy has been verifiably
realised, ‘opposition’, or ‘supposing otherwise’, will be relevant.
And
upon the realisation of Democracy, ‘opposition’, or ‘supposing otherwise’,
will serve as the evidence of its
realisation.
~ edsperience
The main local newspaper, The Straits Times, with reference to the passing of the lion of the opposition, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam, wrote,
“Yet, the old warhorse refused to believe that he was irrelevant to Singaporeans.”
In ‘After America’, in the New Yorker, Zakaria writes,
They believe in autocracy.” This is indeed what Chinese rulers have believed for thousands of years, drawing support from some highly abstract ideas expressed in Confucian philosophy.
Perhaps that explains why the Straits Times might not have deemed their statement on Mr. JB irrelevant in itself. Where autocracy is deemed relevant, ‘opposition’, or what I prefer to term, ‘supposing otherwise’, in the face of an officious party, would indeed and predictably be perceived as ‘irrelevant’.
Additionally, the statement above by The Straits Times can also be perceived as a subtle attempt to identify ‘singaporean’ with supporters of the party in power whilst portraying the supporters of those who dare to ‘suppose otherwise’ as foreign to the singaporean identity – which has increasingly been promoted as ‘heartlanders’ in recent years. In this, again, we see what might be an attempt to cement the age-old Chinese tradition of one way of thought – which, they have yet to realise, will only work against their interests in a global village where creativity and all-round intelligence is that which produces the innovative spirit that will enable them to fair well in the said traits. They really ought to take a leaf out of the Indian tradition of ‘all roads maketh the highway’, and which has produced IT professionals, doctors, lawyers, philosophers, etc.
It is a corollary of just such a perspective that enables a statement such as that made by The Straits Times to be published, in the front page, without its editors turning a bright red with embarrassment.
Till Democracy has been verifiably realised, ‘opposition’, or ‘supposing otherwise’ will be relevant. And upon the realisation of Democracy, ‘opposition’, or ‘supposing otherwise’, will serve as the evidence of its realisation. And thus, Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam, as the most insightful and tenacious amongst the opposition, will always be relevant. If Mr JBJ refused to believe that he was irrelevant to Singaporeans, it could only be because he believed Democracy to be relevant to the maximal development of their potentials as human beings.
I have given a brief and logical ‘otherwise supposition’. I wonder if The Straits Times would be able to proffer an equally logical ‘otherwise supposition’ in the face of this proposition.
ed
postscript : It may also be assumed that the above statement by the ST was complimentary. However, when the entire local context is taken into consideration - i.e. the gross marginalisation of the opposition, the selective reports and failure to print oppositional statements, etc - the assumption that it was not complimentary is quite plausible. I am, admittedly, 'supposing otherwise' in the above article, but look forward to a clarification from the paper in question. It is via such discussions that the writer, and readers, are practiced in the art of thought and the consideration of related issues and principles. And, It is the dialectical relationship between presumption and clarification/refinement that underlies the democratic process does it not ;)
