Ministries are created to govern the needs of society. Sure, the problems that the world currently face cannot exactly be classified solely under the jurisdiction of politics or economy. Still, that aside, the presence of a ministry governing finance and trade indicates the nation's commitment towards boosting such sectors of its society. Israel, for example, has a Ministry of Agriculture. Yet, there is no need for that in a country like Singapore; hence the lack.
Of course, in Singapore, things are always a little more complicated; there are statutory boards, and then there are ministries. Most boards fall under a ministry, but some do not. Whichever one it falls under, the physical embodiment of a particular field of development is still always indicative of a government's priorities.
Why then, I must query, is there nothing about the moral development of the society?
The newspapers endlessly report about Singaporeans exhibiting very self-profiting acts of disconsideration, often at the expense of others. The reports often draw tirades of chiding from other readers. Still, the issue remains that nothing is being done about it. In this aspect then, we are great hypocrites. We insist on instilling in our young a strong sense of moral and values, yet do nothing to reinforce this when mature in age. Our actions regarding this suggest something very sinister: that to us, moral development is something very childish. Sure, it does nothing to boost our GDP per capita; it in fact stands very firmly in the face of upward mobility -- the monetarily successful have always been the more mercenarically driven. So then it must come to this: do we want a people who can make our country rich or do we want citizens who invite respect?
Thus far, we have been content with banishing such considerations into the categories of parental nurturing. Yet, sex education, an issue similarly categorised, receives a lot of support from the government in terms of parental talks. Why then the disparity? Perhaps, it is because morality is a very dilemmatic issue. For even as parents tell their children of morals to live their life by, they often end with an additional clause of "but discernment must always be exercised." It is as though the passing on of moral awareness is but merely a formality; one that parents themselves do not fully agree with.
And so we are faced with negative reinforcement of the same ideals that morals are impractical, but good to have. The children who grow up without proper inculcation of morals are eventually tasked with passing on the same morals -- but how, when their belief in it is heavily eroded? These same people then eventually grow up to become a part of the government, and similarly then banish the teaching of such morals to the arbitrary umbrella of "family jurisdiction."
And thus the cycle continuously repeats itself. And thus people will keep complaining. And thus everything stays the same.
Perhaps it might be a childish proposal, but is it not time we had a Ministry of Moral Development, then?
The fall of a tree.Remember the tree I wrote about several entries back? The one that to me seemed to be the remnants of a worn, tattered mast. As I was walking home from work today, I saw it lying upon its side; its roots still clogged with the soil it had uprooted. The tree had fallen. Where a row of trees once divided a street, there was now one less.It must have fallen across the street away from where I stood. Another tree across the street looked ruffled; its branches on one side brutally torn away, revealing its white insides. Still, the great mast had fallen alone; there was no other casualty. Thus the old adage is again proven: while they stand united, they fall divided.Still, what had caused such a fall? Or was it inevitable; already destined to be? Something had been lost this day. Something had changed.
Would the tree have died anyway? It was, after all, already looking frail; its leaves had already been hanging on to its branches but just barely. I have seen potted plants dry up and shrivel, its stem becoming limp before it began to rot away. Was the tree to have died like this? Yet, it was hardly thinkable that a trunk so huge could shrivel; would it become like a rope and flop over? Not likely, for nature (and here I must proclaim my support for creationism and not Darwinism) is kind and would never allow such magnificient creatures to end in such shameful disgrace.
How then do trees die?
The lifespan of a tree is often so huge that they can outlive us many times over. Perhaps it is because of this that we rarely stop to ponder the fragility of the ecosystems; they never appear to ever die. Forests often look the same: same pillars of red reaching up into a vast expanse of green, same litter of brown across the forest floor. And so, excepting vast deforestation, we tend to take it for granted.
Yet, look around at the wooden furniture that we have. Cut off from the soil, it still is: it neither grows nor wither. So what then is the conclusion of the matter? I propose that trees then never really die. Excepting physical force, chemical weathering or biological decomposition, trees endure; even if their life processes ground to a halt.
Now, that is something truly thought-provoking, is it not?
It is rather pompous how we like to exclude ourselves from nature. Mankind was granted the mandate to be a more superior species -- whether you are a Darwinian or a Creationist, it does not matter -- but even emperors consider themselves a part of the people. It was Aldo Leopold's lament that we do not see ourselves as belonging to the land, and so abuse it the way we do now; his sighs of desperation hold true even today.
For even in our language do we betray such arrogance. Why are man-made items termed artificial, and seen as the opposite of natural? It is as though "natural" has a pure, traditional connotation -- words which mankind in its dissociation from very subtly revel in. For if we are no longer traditional, then surely we must be advanced. Or perhaps, the disparity between the 2 words reveal much more conscience than we realise: for if "natural" were healthier, then we acknowledge that the less we tamper with something, the better it is for us. So what we do, I must admit, is rather ingenious. We take the natural items, process them through artificial processes, and label the product as having been "made from natural ingredients" -- as though there could be any other alternative.
But what am I leading to, you might ask.
Well, the world is presently faced with one of the biggest turning points of perhaps human history: the culmination of economic, ecological and impending political collapse -- ooh! Ecologists like David W. Orr have argued that all three in truth stem from the same cause: that of a poor education system that neglects to teach moral and social responsibility to the children. Of course, then you hear economists proclaiming that economic development spearheads scientific discovery, in turn promising the best solution to all our problems today. After all, they would say, did not barren Australia get tamed by irrigation technology? Surely then technology is our best hope for survival; for this, we need economic development. What then do the politicians say? None have denied the economic problem, although many hesitate to also acknowledge the environmental crisis; they almost certainly stand with the economists on this.
On the side of the economic issue, I have nothing to say. We have the most brilliant of minds working on a solution, and they are the best people to do so. After all, besides them, no one else can really understand what the state of the economy is. They came up with a whole myriad of theories that seemed awesome on paper but have now terribly backfired, and we simple-minded folk are none the wiser.
So, perhaps I could foray a little discussion into the environmental issue. The present state of the subject matter goes as follows. Activists are lobbying for humans to keep their hands off ravishing the environment any further; non-activists want to maintain their extravagant lifestyles as per normal. It is, however, the lone voices of a few that cry for something subtly different. They call for harmony. Now, harmony neither demands a complete hands-off nor permits unrestricted hands-on. What it calls for is the ultimate realisation that we are inevitably a part of nature; we live not in spite of it, but because of it.
Aldo Leopold once said, and David W. Orr concurs, that we humans must stop looking upon the resources of this Earth as commodities solely for our usage. This is not to say that we cannot use the resources that nature has granted to us but rather that in using it, we need to consider the ecological consequences -- when we take something, the Earth loses something; and if we take it all, does not the Earth then lose all? A simple concept, to be sure, but one that many people seem to have forgotten.
Clearly what we then need is some form of renewed connection with nature. In this respect, it is not a departure from nature -- to leave alone and give time to heal -- that we need but instead, a deeper involvement in the environment. We need to firstly see that we are not distinct from nature but that we both share this planet. We then need to understand that although nature can be bent to our will -- in most aspects -- we are also vulnerable to nature's temperaments. Ultimately, we need to accord to nature the respect it deserves.
Perhaps then, the best solution does not stem from some mere physical campaign but rather, it must start firstly from an attitudinal improvement.
So it is just an arbitrary rank -- meaningless; impractical. 2 pieces of cloth, a fleeting record in the soon-to-be-forgotten archives, a slight increase in allowance for a couple of months -- that is perhaps all there is to be gained. Why then do you hanker so longingly after it?
Perhaps it is for the recognition. For all the times that I spent beyond what was required, was I never better than some of the others; or perhaps even close to being equal? That I still busy myself with work so close to being released from service, does that not count as certain commitment and loyalty that few could really be said to similarly have expressed?
Perhaps, it really matters to me that I will forever only be second-best: CPL.
