Thursday, April 03, 2008
It has not been in my nature to give my two cents worth on a subject matter I feel lacking in maturity to discuss, the maturity I refer to being the lack of tenable opinions rather than sagacious insight that only comes with time and experience. I often view myself with contrite when in retrospect I reflect upon my own actions and words that were evoked out of obscurity and blinded by a misled preconception that my right to judge and ideate gave me a moral high ground. If one believes that to see the true nature of a system is to see its flaws, that sort of mentality is contemptuous in my opinion. I believe that with everyone eager to offer their two cents worth, one must have a plan before others are willing to listen. This is not a contest of "the importance of being earnest", at least if we want to be taken seriously and not with frivolity. Notwithstanding the fact that I continue to hold opinions that scarcely penetrate the issue of political organisation, I wish to make a few points regarding people who I view are pale to decry the current status quo.

Firstly, is there anything inherently aberrant about filling top positions with top academic minds? I think not, at least not for now. There is much to be seen from that who excel academically and that transcends intellectual bandwidths. Academic rigour goes beyond textbooks and libraries and even before we even discuss the feasibility of a learning curve like this, we must agree that in our generation it has taken place. To obtain the distinguished levels of academic achievements, one must have endured an exceptional level of discipline and rigidity, asceticism and commitment to ones goal or destiny. It is hardly a feat accomplished by the average person, much less capricious individuals who have not been attuned to maintain composure and focus when under tremendous pressure and competition. The academic is one who has continuously been trial and tested to strive and persevere throughout his entire live. He has succeeded in proving he is capable of endearment in the face of overwhelming emotional and mental barriers.

By what we make out of his 'elitist transcript' in today's terms, he has constantly been in a network of compatriots like himself/herself, and in this circle they continue to reinforce each other with their confluence of ideas and opinions. Even if they fail to make the most judicious choices, they can and will at anytime draw on a repository of scholastic information, which will be their vantage point over the uneducated man. Is it possible to perceive lawfulness from transgression, fairness from impartiality, discrimination from acceptance, foresight from pontification perennially as creatures of err all the time? If that is your concern, then the question is, even in their shoes and with their Harvard diplomas hanging on their walls, will they have the moral high ground? Have they been so esteemed that they are cloistered, only to perceive the society they live in for confined boundaries?

I believe in a saying that "certainty is the cancer of all leaders," and I believe that this saying applies to all who come into power. However that is not reason enough for us to judge our leaders in a less than deserving light. Can we assume and direct an ambiguous intellectual concern of ours at those we have yet to come into contact with? Or have we been too assuming of our perceptions of their precepts and backgrounds, like how we think they have made assumptions about us. Let us not wallow in our ungrounded prejudices and accept the reality of the situation by being proactive. Let us table this peevish crusade of elitism by redefining what it means to contribute to society. Can we not contribute from where we stand? As professionals, as heart Landers and as Singaporeans can we not conceive of our own identity and responsibilities? If enacting change or contributing is only achieved by scavenging a way to the top, that is YOUR ELITIST MINDSET. What is it that you or I can offer to society? If it is just your words and drunk ambitions, save it for your bedtime delusions. "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country," and in this context, "ask not what right you have to lead society but how you would lead and how you would contribute," only then, will we achieve a reconciliation of differences and create more opportunities ahead, without a fixation on a bouleversement that will not come in the near future.

ys
by ~me~ at 11:42 PM ©

---