On Intellectuals and Deliberate Withdrawal

A recent comment by my Singapore Angle colleague, Wayne Soon sets me thinking.  The article, "Weapons of the Weak: Everyday forms of Resistance among Singaporeans" gives examples of both open and covert "weapons" by Singaporeans against the establishment and advocates that these actions "represent a daily form of coping mechanism for many living in Singapore day in and out." A lively discussion proceeds after the article, and Wayne made this interesting comment, "Is deliberate withdrawal from political and social life by intellectuals (in Singapore) a weapon of the weak?" As a matter of fact, the same question can be directed at some societies where the intellectuals withdraw themselves in the midst of a crisis within the country. So, I have pieced together my scrambled thoughts and make a personal and modest attempt to address this question.

Sometime back, during a lunch in the Institute of Policy Studies, I was introduced to one of the former members from the now defunct RoundTable. For those who do not remember, in the early 1990s, there is a rise of non-partisan groups dedicating themselves to social and political discourse in Singapore. The most famous of the groups are the RoundTable and the Think Center. What happen in the end, is that some members of both groups ended themselves into politics and led to the dissolution of the RoundTable. There is often this claim that the RoundTable members went to our ruling party and the Think Center members moved to the opposition. I know that this is not true, since James Gomez (to the best of my knowledge) is also a RoundTable member. In essence, history offers a very good lesson to us about what happens to non-partisan groups. I made this sarcastic remark to this former RoundTable guy, "Yeah, some people touted Singapore Angle to be the RoundTable 2.0, but we learn from your history and hope that we don't end up like you guys."  That comment pretty sums up my personal opinion (and do note that it does not represent any group I am affliated with) whether I want to enter politics in the future.   The answer is of course, a categorically no.

There is a reason why I brought up that story. It is because whenever an intellectual is engaged in this kind of social and political conversation, there is a tendency for some to label them as possible candidates that will be co-opted to the establishment. Recently, someone asked Yawning Bread whether he might consider being co-opted into the ruling party, given MM Lee's stance on homosexuality, and he also gave the same categorical no. So my first point is that being an intellectual engaged in social and political discussions does not mean that you want to join politics. That comes to my next point.

In Singapore, as Ringisei, my other colleague made this astute observation about how intellectuals got themselves entangled with the establishment:

"Perhaps some factors include how the vocabulary, as used in the Singaporean context, is unhelpful. For example, 'scholarship' more commonly connotes the type awarded by the PSC rather than the pursuit of learning; 'academic' as a term of abuse when discussing policy and politics due to the low status of social science research in Singapore; 'rational' as furthering the chasm of the great affective divide due to a fetishization of a particular type of instrumentalist rationality by the ruling party that, in turn, contaminates other less instrumentalist appeals to reason."

I sense that there is a strong distrust towards rationality and reasoning in Singapore. In fact, there are warning signs that the Singapore blogosphere are moving towards an anti-intellectual streak. The reason for that is that people are resisting against the ways and means of the establishment. The more the establishment tries to put forward "rational" arguments, the more they respond emotively. Of course, the problem is that their perception is alway clouded that "rational" arguments cannot solve their problems.  I can understand their resistance towards intellectual for another reason, it takes away the connection that they make with the heartlanders.  The reason is simple, if a particular school of thought is dominated by the ruling party, the only way to distinguish yourself is to take the other position. The problem, I see in them is in taking the other position. The continual lack of strong intellectuals in the opposition reveals underlying weaknesses particularly in addressing difficult social issues such as the old people not having enough public assistance fund. Ultimately, the way towards a credible opposition is to mirror the ruling party, because it is difficult to defeat an opponent that resembles you. A good example is to look at how Tony Blair and Bill Clinton had managed to take their parties to become the ruling establishment.

Here is my personal opinion towards Wayne's question. I find it hard to argue that the deliberate withdrawal of intellectuals from social and political life is not a form of resistance against the establishment. In fact it is equally a form of resistance against the opposition as well. My personal view is that the ruling party is trying too hard to be good on rational reasoning that their public relations are at all time low and their recent policies have disappointed me, and the opposition is conversely the other extreme. There is another argument why intellectuals must not get themselves involved politically. If there comes a time when there is a need for them to speak truth to power, then their credibility will not be questioned because of their non-partisan stance. That I feel is the more important reason why intellectuals should not get themselves entangled with political life, since the party whip often overwhelms personal convictions (for example, our P65 MPs in their lack of engagement on the ministerial salaries issue).

On a personal note, I often believe that if you are not involved in politics, there is a lot more that one can do on the grassroots level, for example, I find more joy in educating NUS students to be entrepreneurial and teaching them how to pursue their dreams. In fact, I am currently pursuing a different way (away from politics) in real life to assist people that are in need for the Public Assistance Fund. These are ways on how intellectuals can put their minds to good use. The challenge is to solve social problems without invoking any form of assistance from the State.

In conclusion, I emphasize on the importance of being moderate and caution that if our society continues to go along this path of anti-intellectualism, the intellectuals (dissociated with the establishment) might find ourselves in the line of fire till a point highlighted by my ex-colleague, Speranza Nuova that it will be sad to have a society to think that doing well becomes doing wrong.

Comments

[Many Teddies]

"Does it also says a lot about the intellectuals in Singapore?"

But the authority FOR them comes from a philosopher-king style gahmen!

[scb]

Bernard< I am actually asking how many intellectuals actively fraternise themselves proactively with the masses> As I see it many professionals and intellectuals fare worse tha the MIWs< at least their jobs require them to meet the people whereas the INTELLIGENT SINGAPOREANS BLOGS are participated by only a handful of bloggers and even less commenters> I personally enjoy the depth of the subjects put up by the IS< however been educated up to lower secondary level< I do find the level of the English used by the IS Bloggers too high and this itself makes it difficult for most to join in the discussions> That is to say it is quite exclusive naturally!

[Bernard Leong]

scb,

You may be right that the intellectuals may not be able to connect with the layman. I can't argue with you that there are no such thing as cliques. It may be due to the intellectuals are only interested in what they do, sometimes with no value to society. However, I find it strange if you think that every intellectual cannot be socially adapt to surroundings. Seriously, in the end, it's up to the individual, and it is his or her choice on how he choose to engage the common people.

[scb]

As I see it< the so called non partisan intellectuals themselves are not connecting themselves with the people at large ie the man in the street> Be it when they form groups to discuss social and political issues or even discussions in the blogosphere and plogospere> There is a high tendency for birds of the same feathers to flock together! Pray ask yourselves how many of you fraternise with the common layman!

[Bernard Leong]

The example with the Chinese intellectuals being involved with politics is a good one. In fact, one of our founding fathers, Dr Goh Keng Swee is also an academic who is also involved in politics (c.f. Lee's Lieutenants).

Here is my opinion on why both Dr Goh and the Chinese intellectuals are involved in politics during their time. There is a need for them at that point of time, and circumstances create heroes (or politicians). It is a time of struggle for independence and they are putting themselves forward in a turbulent time to unite the country and offer their services to serve the country. At present, we don't see that happening in Singapore because there is no crisis that will pull the intellectuals into the fray. Our stability has stopped people from being passionate about where the country should go.

The other issue as you rightfully pointed out in your comment in my blog, in Singapore, the intellectuals are either marginalized or institutionalized. In order to civil society to thrive, the key is the creation and cultivation of a proper center ground, where the intellectuals are non-partisan and be allowed to speak truth to power. The blogosphere provides that ground, and I am optimistic that it can exist in the blogosphere. However, its evolution cannot be determined by one group but many others who may agree that it is the best way forward for our society.

[Wayne]

A most interesting article. Your conversation with the particular former RT person is most interesting. I think I know who is he or she =)

I would say that withdrawal by intellectuals is part of a bigger longuee duree of one's life. For example, Chinese intellectuals at the turn of the century such as Liang Qichao, Kang Youwei, Hu Shi and Sun Yat Sen had periods of advising the government leaders, become leaders themselves in the political sphere, withdrawal from government to becoming academia and withdrawal from domestic society to travel to other countries. In the midst of their withdrawal, they sometimes return back to politics.

Yet there were other intellectuals like Cai Yuanpei, the first President of Beijing University, who eschewed political power throughout his life in favor of academic influence. But how people in China were like Cai? [and most Beida's leaders were government officials too in some sense!] In an East Asian context, creating alternative spheres of influence, known as the public sphere is EXTREMELY difficult. To most Singaporeans and certainly to most elites, the Hegelian notion of a autonomous public sphere where the state has delegated moral authority to permanently simply does not exist. Take for example Singapore's civil society; they tend to operate in somewhat extreme mode- either you are institutionalized or marginalized. Where's the middle ground?

Thus, can we blame people for constantly asking us whether want to join politics? If the independent public sphere does exist in the blogsphere, how long will such a public sphere and "civil society" translate into Singapore?

I think the more interesting thing about Singapore is the longevity of its intellectuals in political power. Even in China, very few intellectuals chose to or are able to stay in their positions as political leadership for long. Even Deng Xiaopeng and Mao Zedong had their own life cycles as an intellectual. This says a lot about the stability of the Singapore system. Does it also says a lot about the intellectuals in Singapore?