Missing The Mark by the Proverbial Mile – A Critique of Janadas Devan.

Recently, I read with a mixture of disbelief and amazement how senior writer, Janadas Devan wrote about the parliamentary debate concerning S377A – the article entitled: “377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism,” was nothing short of a vitriolic attack on NMP Thio Li-Ann’s parliamentary speech. 

Describing Prof Thio disparagingly as ‘a formidable warrior,’ who represents the ‘moral conservative majority’ – Mr Devan commits the sin of presumption by presupposing Prof Thio is above all a moralist, concerned only with handing out good conduct marks to cautious centrist and awarding failing grades to just about anyone who doesn’t subscribe to her ultra conservative stance – never mind that this is hardly the case.  

Mr Devan sets out to argue two points rather unsuccessfully – the first, ‘pluralism’ which he defines as among other things, ‘autonomy and retention of identity for individual bodies’, a ’society in which the members of minority groups maintain their independent cultural traditions’, ‘a system that recognizes, more than one ultimate principle or kind of being’, as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it.” 

What I find incredulous is how Mr Devan fails to understand the term, ‘pluralism’ beyond it’s mere dictionary meaning. The explanation for his preference to interpret ‘pluralism’ narrowly is seen here: 

“I had always assumed that it was necessary to separate religion from politics as well as public policy, for it was impossible to separate public policy from politics, and both from the state.” 

Mr Devan is not moved by curious facts to investigate how Prof Thio’s definition can be seen to be valid.

Instead he’s all together disinterested in the history of moral philosophy for it’s own sake. After all he continues to insist only secular elements can and should make up the whole idea of a plural society, as though societies were, after all, governed by philosopher kings just as Plato hoped they would be.

Although common sense suggest any discussion concerning pluralism ought to even include a discussion on whether religion could provide the underpinnings to support a stable and peaceful society.

He compounds his erroneous position further by stating:  

“Once one understands the milieu from which this statement issues, one would understand the origins of Prof Thio’s profound understanding of pluralism and secularism. It does not derive from the Enlightenment……” 

Here Mr Devan imposes a single and rather ridiculous theme on his narrative; that the ‘good’ Enlightenment as he would have us all believe, emerged exclusively from the bedrock of the rationalist and secular movement. vis- a- vis ‘Enlightment’ (according to Mr Devan) ONLY includes the usual litany of traits associated with – reason, nature, liberty, equality, the brotherhood of man or wolfs etc.

What is conspicuously absent from his definition of ‘pluralism’ and ‘enlightment’ is the idea of ‘virtue’ which doesn’t refer to Prof Thio’s virginity, but used in this context, it’s a term of art, that relates to, ‘social virtues’ i.e qualities that makes us useful members of society – compassion, benevolence, sympathy – which even British philosophers, such as Edmund Burke and John Wesley (luminary in the Enlightment Movement) believed were attributes which naturally, instinctively and successfully bound whole communities and people together.

Where may I ask did these qualities originate from? Religion or Reason – Wot, you mean to say, you didn’t ask Mr Devan? 

Mr Devan is a vivid writer, but oddly naïve, childlike even in the way he assumes how urgent a matter, it is to understand, who thought what and to award them Brownie points for how well, they managed to skirt, the broad line separating religion and politics from being blurred; but never once did he tarry to even discuss, how much impact religion exerts on the politics of their age, or to wonder what conditions must be obtained if they are to have an impact in our period to make sense of something as alien and controversial as homosexuality to the masses.

He is also a “presentist,” less concerned to emphasize the otherness of how homosexuality has historically been perceived as abhorent by certain quarters in our society. This it appears is an incomprehensible concept to him. Instead he’s preoccupied with fleshing out his own opinions by allowing the subjects he has choosen to base his discussion on, to talk to us under in his terms! That of course makes him a propagandist, rather than someone who truly has a claim on the ‘truth.’ 

Neither does he seem to comprehend the perils associated with relying solely on a rational and secular means to profile governance. This brings with it, the danger of any party political process spiralling into socialism and at best Stalinism at worst. That thought he does not really challenge – I wonder why?

Perhaps, he’s not aware Hume, particularly, argued that ‘our moral judgements are not based on reason alone.’ What prompts our approval is, by and large, a matter of perception as to how we consider the conduct of others will either benefit or harm his or fellow beings. The moral sense that Hume was referring too was less a sense than the everyday disposition of how man makes sense of himself alongside his community.

Two things sprung out directly from this enquiry of the moral sense – first and foremost was Hume’s downplaying of reason and rationality; and, second, and most famously in Adam Smith’s ‘Theory of the Moral Sentiments,’ which emphasized our capacity for empathy. Again, where does empathy come from reason or religion? Please go and find out Mr Devan!

Again Mr Devan is not interested with the implications; how these Enlightened  thinkers made sense of their known world.

Mr Devan is too casual about all this to even see the need to dwell deeper into the history of moral philosophy. If he bothered, he would have realized the benign role religion has always played in nourishing a well ordered and peaceful society.

This was even affirmed by Hume and Gibbons, who were agnostics. Yet, neither saw the merit of depriving the poor of the comforts of faith or to forego whatever disciplinary power religion might exercise over the rich and ambitious – both were unianimous in their belief, religion coupled with politics  encouraged the good currency in society.

Mr Devan, seems totally disinterested in considering, the utility of religion in shaping much of what we consider today as law and how interwoven it is with the whole idea of statecraft, as it consistently serves to provide ample underpinnings for good morals. Although it is less than clear what the private beliefs of Adam Smith, Hume and Gibbon were during the turn of the 19^th Century, even these luminaries who were at best indifferent to the follies and absurdities which the literal approach of religion would have on the affairs of politics, believed that religion was good for all of us and should never be completely excluded from the legislative process.

This for some curious reason seems to be convenient lost to Mr Devan (personal attack on Darkness deleted). 

Mr Devan will undoubtedly insist that his resolute stance against finding a happy balance between politics and religion is grounded on some cosmopolitan ethos that stands justifiably against everything that is parochial, narrow, and insular. It’s a position that he has aptly demonstrated, he’s able to hold and defend to it’s illogical end. 

Only I fear it comes at great expense to The Straits Times which on the day his article was published reads somewhat like a fairy tale written by a rather petulant child.

(By LHL and Montburan (Siglap Read Club) – Law / Homosexuality – EP 9973738872 – The Brotherhood Press 2007)  

Click On The Brotherhood Press Articles Tag To Read The Latest Articles!

377A – The Psychology of Culture War.

Publish Date: November 5th, 2007 / Written By Blue Bell.