The Tao of Toilet Paper
Weekly column written for the Singapore Unbound newsletter. Sign up here.
Now that I have your attention with that rather silly subject line... I've been reading some journalism comparing the responses of different political systems to the COVID-19 global crisis, and so adducing the superiority of one system to another. Much of this journalism strikes me as lacking in facts, context, and nuance. It reads much more like instant ideology rather than patient analysis. It caricatures complex ways of life to score cheap points. It is the chattering class's equivalent of street-level xenophobia.
We can't tell from this pandemic which political system is better for three reasons:
1. The crisis is not over yet. The results are not in.
2. Even when the crisis is over, the results will be evaluated according to different sets of social values. The raw numbers of infections and deaths, though tragic, are only a part of the picture. What have we gained or lost by moving so much of life on-line? by giving up our privacy to state surveillance? by abandoning the elderly when medical resources dry up? As the philosopher Karl Popper argued, you cannot logically infer values from facts. The same facts may support completely sets of values. Values must be debated in their own realm.
3. Even if a set of values can be agreed upon, should we judge a political system by its handling of crisis? A crisis, by definition, is an extraordinary disruption. A system built upon the management of crisis is not necessarily the system we want for ordinary life.
And this is why Singapore makes for an intriguing case study. Singapore has been praised in some quarters for its handling of COVID-19. It can be justifiably proud of what it has done so far and will continue to do. I am personally very moved by the above video of the National Development Minister, who has been leading the country in its fight against the virus, as much as I have been disheartened by Trump's press conferences. Singapore's political system and culture outfits it well for crisis because the national narrative, challenged but not changed, has always been that Singapore exists in a state of constant crisis. We have the Communists, the terrorists, and global economic competition, to thank for it.
Now that we are living through an actual crisis—the tragic loss of lives, livelihoods, and illusions—when it is over, and it will be over, will we learn to distinguish between rupture and the everyday? The danger lies in the continuation of political practices and norms necessary to managing a crisis into the management of the customary. The danger lies in the loss of space for silly pranks.
Jee Leong Koh
March 26, 2020
*
After writing and sending out the above column:
An ST reporter, interviewing me about COVID-19, told me that the Singapore Embassy sent Singaporeans in the US a solicitous email asking if they are planning to leave the US for Singapore. The last question on the form is, to paraphrase, if you decide to remain in the US for now, what must happen in the US for you to decide to leave? To the reporter, I said altogether spontaneously, it's not a question of what must happen in the US; it's a question of what must happen in Singapore. Unless Singapore repeals 377A, the anti-LGBTQ law, I will never go back to live in Singapore.
Now that I have your attention with that rather silly subject line... I've been reading some journalism comparing the responses of different political systems to the COVID-19 global crisis, and so adducing the superiority of one system to another. Much of this journalism strikes me as lacking in facts, context, and nuance. It reads much more like instant ideology rather than patient analysis. It caricatures complex ways of life to score cheap points. It is the chattering class's equivalent of street-level xenophobia.
We can't tell from this pandemic which political system is better for three reasons:
1. The crisis is not over yet. The results are not in.
2. Even when the crisis is over, the results will be evaluated according to different sets of social values. The raw numbers of infections and deaths, though tragic, are only a part of the picture. What have we gained or lost by moving so much of life on-line? by giving up our privacy to state surveillance? by abandoning the elderly when medical resources dry up? As the philosopher Karl Popper argued, you cannot logically infer values from facts. The same facts may support completely sets of values. Values must be debated in their own realm.
3. Even if a set of values can be agreed upon, should we judge a political system by its handling of crisis? A crisis, by definition, is an extraordinary disruption. A system built upon the management of crisis is not necessarily the system we want for ordinary life.
And this is why Singapore makes for an intriguing case study. Singapore has been praised in some quarters for its handling of COVID-19. It can be justifiably proud of what it has done so far and will continue to do. I am personally very moved by the above video of the National Development Minister, who has been leading the country in its fight against the virus, as much as I have been disheartened by Trump's press conferences. Singapore's political system and culture outfits it well for crisis because the national narrative, challenged but not changed, has always been that Singapore exists in a state of constant crisis. We have the Communists, the terrorists, and global economic competition, to thank for it.
Now that we are living through an actual crisis—the tragic loss of lives, livelihoods, and illusions—when it is over, and it will be over, will we learn to distinguish between rupture and the everyday? The danger lies in the continuation of political practices and norms necessary to managing a crisis into the management of the customary. The danger lies in the loss of space for silly pranks.
Jee Leong Koh
March 26, 2020
*
After writing and sending out the above column:
An ST reporter, interviewing me about COVID-19, told me that the Singapore Embassy sent Singaporeans in the US a solicitous email asking if they are planning to leave the US for Singapore. The last question on the form is, to paraphrase, if you decide to remain in the US for now, what must happen in the US for you to decide to leave? To the reporter, I said altogether spontaneously, it's not a question of what must happen in the US; it's a question of what must happen in Singapore. Unless Singapore repeals 377A, the anti-LGBTQ law, I will never go back to live in Singapore.
Comments