PAPDICY AND THE PANGLOSSIAN SUPPORTERS

To the panglossian voters, even the most flawed candidate of their party of choice, carries the seeds of a better tomorrow

If you don't know what "papdicy" means, don't worry. There is no such word. I neologise it with a portmandeau of "PAP" and "theodicy". It is a play on words to mean the vindication of PAP in the face of policy missteps and wrong-doing. It means the PAP can do no wrong.

I think most folks would also have a problem with "panglossian". In the most simple term, it means having the most extreme optimistic view in all situations to the extent the term is meant to be a sarcasm. A pangloss is the irritating impossible optimist. The word is derived from a Dr. Pangloss, a character in Voltaire's satire "Candide". One scene had it that Dr. Pangloss was with two companions on a boat in Lisbon harbour when a merciless storm hits. One of the companion, Jacques, was swept overboard. To console the despair of the other companion, Pangloss explained the Lisbon Habour was created for Jacques to drown. Voltaire was satirising fellow philosopher Gottfried Liebniz's central argument that our world is the best of all possible worlds, in his attempt to solve the problem of evil. "Panglossian" turns out to be more commonly used in place of "Liebniz optimism".

PAP supporters brand opposition parties and their members "whiners". From my point of view, I would be biased not to say there is a ring of truth sometimes, but certainly not all the time. Though it does get testy when the opposition miss the big pictures and harp on minor issues. In politics, incumbents are often at a disadvantage, compelled to defend their records. That is the nature of politics. The role of the opposition is ... to oppose.

Panglossian PAP supporters get lost in their rhetorics, unable to ask intelligent and tough questions in a sea of government foul-ups the past few years. Why are they not asking questions like hey, why not discuss the high death rates?, where is the result of KK Hospital's study on the Covid-19 vaccine on young children?, where is the result of the investigation into how the MRT train axle box got dislodged?, why a lawyer who was rumoured to have stolen documents can become an Attorney General?, why a candidate who breached Constitutional requirement can become a president?, why "inside" a polling station is not "within a restricted" area of 200 metres around such a polling station?, etc. The last of which must certainly have been the most gobsmack explanation a hundred times more of a head scratcher than MDDS Minister Josephine Teo's explainer on the masking and unmasking of NRIC numbers. I could go on, but then I'll be branded a whiner. PAP supporters can see silver linings on the darkest cumulonimbus clouds during the most severe tropical storms.

PAP supporters argument-killer of choice is the retort "what have you done, what are your suggestions?" I have to say from what I can see in social media discourse, these are questions from the better educated percentile. Indeed, as far as social media is concerned, that seems to be the profile of PAP supporters - better educated, better off in life.

They fail to understand the errors of their ways. Retorting "what have you done, what are your suggestions?" is a faux pas and betrays political inmaturity. This is a misrepresentation of the opposition's role in a democracy. Whilst it is fair to expect constructive suggestions from the opposition, they are not the Executive. Holding them to the same standard as the government is misunderstanding their primary role.

The opposition does not have control over policy initiatives and implementation, no control over state resources, no legislative powers, are only cognisant over facts and developments same as what the public sees not being privy to details or other bigger scheme of things which the government does not share. The opposition's primary role is to scrutinise, critique, if possible provide suggestions. Theirs is never to formulate nor execute policies.

The government of the day holds executive authority and this comes with responsibility and accountability. Theirs is to answer why. The questions "What have you done?" is to be levelled at them, not the opposition.

The reason why we cannot demand fully detailed policies or suggestions from the opposition is because of resource imbalance. The opposition has no access to complete data, resources or bureaucratic support compared to the government.

To ask the opposition argument-killer questions is a tactic of accountability deflection. Perhaps the best way to go about is to enquire of the opposition "I hear you. You are making so much criticism of this issue, what is your concern here?" A better discourse within bounds of respect might follow.

For the record, I do not hate the PAP and neither do I have blind faith in the opposition. I am issues-related. Unfortunately, there are a host of policy issues I have with the PAP. I like to focus more important big picture, likely existential, issues but understand many minor issues have raised uproars from the public. For example, the Simplygo fiasco to my mind, is an administrative fumble, doesn't score high in my scale of national importance.

My most important concern is the accelerated rate of inflation in housing cost. It is now on a runnaway train, pushing immense pressure on affordability. My concern is the HDB secondary market. It is headed for unsustainable levels. PAP supporters never understand the only ones to benefit are the PRs who can cash out at the right time and return to their home country. And the issue is not specifically the runaway cost of housing. In land scarce Singapore, rent is a major cost of business and thus a key driver of the general price level. It is turning Singapore into a renter economy, to the delight of the rich investors in the many REITS. This needs to be addressed urgently. But the panglossian retort is to point to some housing affordability index that shows we are still OK without clear understanding that this is a meaningless comparison on its own. Panglossian views are really fascinating. Just the other day someone made a comment on Facebook he was so thankful to the government when he paid hardly a cent on his recent medical bill - Medisave took care of it. I wondered if his children explain to him Medisave is his own money.

Another great concern of mine is the Singaporeans-last policy that shares some similarity with Biden's Americans-last policy. The government allocates massive resources to support foreign residents in housing, education, health services, employment and business. Citizenship and PR applications are fast tracked while some Singaporeans are unable to obtain even a long term visit pass for their foreign spouse and citizenship for foreign born children.

I don't blame foreign workers flocking here to work nor do I despise them. With mobility, labour  goes to where the opportunities are, can't blame them. But we need to cut the bullshit about foreign talents creating jobs. Risk takers, indistrialists, people with ideas and visions, entrepreneurs, they create jobs. Not the admin managers, facility managers, analysts, operations managers, and a host of other professionals, etc, with all due respects to their talents. I wrote about the hollowing out of Singaporean knowledge base a few years back as local born PMETs dislocate into gig and platform jobs, unable to compete with cheaper foreign imports. The government allows the lowering of standards as employers take on volume in their foreign worker recruitment drives bringing in folks with questionable papers. There are people in America talking about the phenomenon of the "Indianisation" of corporations and the consequences. A foreign born Indian comes into a top position starts a process of displacing heads, first in his department, and soon the whole company. It doesn't stop there. The Indianisation sweeps across the business operation into the supply chain. 'Buy India' benefits. As they say, you employ an Indian, you employ his whole village, and more. This has manifested in many large corporations accross America. It takes years, but corporations see a creep into mediocrity as a direct outcome. Something has to give way. Some suggests Boeing Corporation is suffering from the sins of corporate greed, squeezing extra bucks by lowering quality. Is it a coincidence for the onslaught of quality issues Boeing is now facing? Is that also happening in SMRT? I could be wrong, but we certainly need to have a good conversation about this.

The above two issues are just shots across the bow. There are many other issues that we certainly need to discuss seriously as a nation.

In America, the Liberal Left buried their heads in the sand and allowed the Democrats to bring the country to breaking point. With Trump's victory, slowly and surely, many are coming to their senses. There is something called the Victory Syndrome or Critical Mass Effect. In the beginning of a movement or a fight, very few will join the underdog. Sure, the SWOT analysis applies. Overwhelming majority do not want the sacrifice or the pain of being early leaders. With victory assured, they all climb on the bandwagon. Nobody gave Brexit King Nigel Farage a chance years ago. Today the ranks of his Reform Party is swelling as the smell of victory is in the air.

We remain grateful we have differences over support for political parties, which is natural, but we as a society, are not fissured across political ideologies like in Western countries where the divide has grown into hate. The mutual animosity is real and has gone to a level that it's going to be difficult for them to bridge. The hate is deeply visible on the Liberal side where Democrats are prepared to go scorched Earth to frustrate the incoming Trump administration. Instead of allowing the winning party the space to do what it can for the country, they are actively underming the new team. The same cannot be said of opposition in Singapore. They function in accordance with our constitution in the interest of the people.

All I'm saying is our opposition shouldn't whine on minor issues, and PAP supporters should discard their panglossian airs. The future of Singapore is better served if we have serious adult conversations. We should all get aboard the bandwagon and battle issues rather than battle each other.



This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

BIBLICAL NOAH HAS MUCH SIMILARITY WITH SUMERIAN FLOOD MYTHS

"Flood myths are as old as the human imagination, rising with the waters of fear and falling with the hope of survival."
James Frazer, Writer

The Biblical story of Noah and the Great Flood is well known to all, not just Christians and Jews. What's not common fare is the fact flood stories are recurrent across diverse ancient cultures. The details may vary, but they share similar emphasis on obedience and respect for the divine, and harmony with nature. They share common themes of a divine judgement, a chosen survivor, and renewal after the flood. Of particular interest is the flood stories of ancient Mesopotamia, for the close similarity with Noah's story and because Abraham came from the city of Ur in the South-Eastern part of the region, which has great implications for the Biblical account.

Flood story : Ziusudra Tablet (1,700 BC)

Creation narrative: An (Sky god) and Enlil (Earth/storm god) and other gods, created humans. The gods create cities such as Eridu and organise society. Kingship is granted as a bridge between gods and humans.

Flood narrative: Led by Enlil the gods decide to send a catastrophic flood to destroy humanity. Enki advises King Ziusudra to build a large boat to save himself and his family, and other living creatures. A massive deluge engulfs the land, destroying nearly all life. After the flood, Ziusudra offers sacrifice to the gods. Seeing his piety the goods grant him immortality and transport him to a paradise-like location, a land of divine blessing.

Comment: The text is in Sumerian. The tablet is fragmented and massively damaged. Very little details are learnt from it. There are no details on how humans were created or the reasons for wanting to destroy humanity. The contents appear similar to Eridu Genesis. As to "land of divine blessing", various records show Sumerians refer this to Dilman. Location unknown today.

Flood story : Epic of Atrahasis Tablet XI (1,700 BC)

Creation narrative: In the beginning there were lesser gods called Igigi. These dieties were tasked with hard labour on Earth such as construction of canals, maintenane of Earth. In time they rebel against the overseer gods, the Anunnaki. To resolve the rebellion, the gods decide to create humans to take over the labour. Enki (god of wisdom) and Nintu/Mani (goddess of birth) undertake the task. The process is by mixing clay with the blood of a slain god. Humans work for the gods cultivating the land and providing offerings

Flood narrative: Over time, human population grows. Their noises and activities disturb the gods, especially the chief god Enlil. The humans frustrate Enlil who sees them as disruptive and disrespectful. Enlil devises several attempts to reduce human population, such as plagues, famine and drought. Each time, Enki intervenes to save humans by providing them survival guides. Enlil obtains collective decision of the gods for a final solution in the form of a great flood. Enki warns Atrahasis , a wise and devout human, of the impending flood. He teaches Atrahasis to build a large boat to save himself, his family, and a selection of animals. He provides the specifications. Design: circular (a traditional boat at the time in Mesopotamia called coracle.) Diameter: 120 cubits. Materials: reed and wood. Bitumen is used for waterproofing. Divide into sections to house animals. The flood engulfs the Earth for seven days and seven nights. All other humanity perishes except for those in the boat. After the flood Atrahasis offers sacrifice to the gods. On smelling the aroma of the sacrifice, the gods regret the flood and realise the need for humans. They introduce measures to control overpopulation such as infertility in some women, allow infant mortality as natural, and shorten human lifespans.

Comments: The text is Akkadian. Atrahasis did not gain immortality. He was not a king.

Flood story : Eridu Genesis Tablet (1,600 BC)

Creation narrative: An (sky god), Enlil (Earth, storn god), Enki (wisdom, freshwater god) and Ninhursag (goddess of birth, fertility) together create humans. They create humanity to serve gods and perform labour on Earth as well as to give offerings to gods. The gods grant kingship to humans as a divine institution. Gods create cities such as Eridu and Shuruppak.

Flood narrative: The gods, led by Enlil, decide to destroy humanity. He warns King Zuisudra of the impending flood. Enki instructs Zuisudra to build a large boat to save himself, his family, and other living creatures. The flood engulfs the land, destroying nearly all life. After the flood, Ziusudra offers a sacrifice to the gods in gratitude for his survival. The gods see Ziusudra's piety and grant him immortality. The gods transport Ziusudra to Dilman, a paradise-like land associated with divine blessings and eternal life.

Comments: This tablet is in Summerian. It is also fragmented but more details can be pieced together. There is no mention of the process of creation. There is also no reason for the decision to destroy humanity, no description of flood duration. It is obvious the tablet follows the Ziusudra tablet. Despite the fragmentation, it shows the Sumerian world view. It has a cohesive structure which influenced later Mesopotamian and Biblical traditions.

Flood story : Epic of Gilgamesh tablets (1,200-1,100 BC)

Old Babylonian version (known as "Surpassing All Other Kings") dates around 1,800 BC
Standard version compiled by Sin-leqi-unninni dates 1,200-1,100 BC. This is the most complete version.

Tablet I (Gilgamesh's reign in Uruk) - Gilgamesh is introduced as a powerful but oppressive king. People of Uruk pray to the gods for relief from his oppression. The gods create a wild man Enriku to rival and balance Gilgamesh's power.

Tablet II-III (Gilgamesh and Enriku) - Enriku begins as a wild man living amongst animals, disrupting hunters. Shamhat, a temple priestess, civilises him and brings him to Uruk. Enriku meets Gilgamesh. They fight but become friends when they realise their strengths were equal.

Tablet IV-V (The Cedar Forest) - The duo set out to seek glory by defeating Humbada, the monstrous guardian of the Cedar Forest. With the blessing of Shamash the Sun god, they kill Humbada. They cut down sacred cedar trees to build a huge gate for Uruk.

Tablet VI-VII (Enriku's death) - The goddess Ishtar proposes marriage to Gilgamesh but he scorns her citing her history of mistreating lovers. An enraged Ishtar sends the Bull of Heaven to punish him. Gilgamesh and Enriku kill the Bull. This enrages the gods further. As punishment the gods decree Enriku must die. Enriku dies, which devastates Gilgamesh.

Tablet XIII-X (Quest for immortality) - Grief-stricken and fearful of his own death, Gilgamesh sets out to seek immortality. He learns Utnapishtim is the only mortal granted eternal life by the gods and that he lives "at the mouth of the river" in a faraway land beyond the Mashu Mountains (dwelling of gods). Gilgamesh sets out for Mashu Mountains. He meets the terrifying Scorpion beings who guard the entrance to the dark tunnel that leads to the other side of the mountain. The Scorpion beings are impressed with his determination they let him access to the pitch-black tunnel. On the other side, Gilgamesh sees a paradiasical garden and meets a wise alewife Siduri. She advices him to abandon his quest and enjoy life's simple pleasures, but eventually directs him to Urshanabi, boatman to Utnapistim. Gilgamesh convinces Urshanabi to help him cross the danderous Water of Death which surrounds Utnapishtim's dwelling. Direct contact with the water is fatal.

Tablet XI (Utnapishtim's counsel) - Gilgamesh arrives at Utnapishtim's remote dwelling. Utnapishtim is surprised to see Gilgamesh and listens to his plea for the secret of immortality. He tells Gilgamesh his story of how he survived the flood and gained immortality.

Tablet XII Utnapishtim's Flood Narrative :

* The gods decide to destroy humanity - Enlil, the chief god, grows angry with humans for their noises and disruptiveness. The gods make a collective decision in secrecy to destroy humans with a flood as punishment.
* Ea (name changed from Enki) favours humanity and secretly warns Utnapishtim. Ea speaks to Utnapistim via a dream or vision through the walls of his reed hut. He tells Utnapistim to build a big boat and abandon his possessions to save his life.
* Construction of the boat - Ea gives instructions for the boat construction. Design: cube-like structure. Dimensions: length x height x width 120x120x120 cubits. Materials: Wooden planks, bitumen to waterproof inside and outside, pitch and tar to seal the vessel. Labour involves many craftsmen and labourer. Divided into seven stories, each divided into nine compartments.
* Boarding the boat - Utnapishtim boards the boat with his family, craftsmen and animals and provisions.
* The flood - Abad, the storm god, unleashes the torrents of rain. The water submerges even the highest mountains. The gods watch the catastrophic destruction and regret their action, cowering in fear and grief. The storm lasts for seven days and nights.
* The boat rests - After the storm subsides, Utnapishtim opens a window and releases 3 birds to find dry land. On the first day a dove flies out and later returns. Next day, a swallow flies out and soon also returns. On the 3rd day a raven flies out and never return, indicating it has found land. The boat eventually comes to rest on Mount Nimush (location unknown today).
* Utnapishtim offers sacrifice - Upon disembarking, Utnapishtim builds an altar and offers sacrifice to the gods. The gods gather around the sacrifice and are appeased by the offering.
* Immortality for Utnapistim - Enlil remains angry that Utnapishtim survives. Ea intervenes and points out the Utnapishtim acted on divine instructions and did not defy the gods. Enlil grants Utnapishtim and his wife immortality. He allows them to live forever in a paradiasical land "at the mouth of the rivers".

Utnapishtim and Gilgamesh has a long conversation. Utnapishtim finally tells Gilgamesh immortality is not a gift for humanity. He says : "Life, which you look for, you will never find. For when the gods created men, they let death be his share, and life withheld in their own hands." However, he gives Gilgamesh some hope in the form of the Plant of Eternal Youth. It restores youth rather than granting immortality (???) Unfortunately Gilgamesh looses it to a serpent (this reinforces the idea humans cannot escape immortality.)

Tablet XII (Return to Uruk) - Gilgamesh returns to Uruk, still a mortal but wiser man. He reflects on the greatness on the city he built, emphasising on the enduring legacy of human achievement.

Comment: This epic exists in several versions. The Akkadian version above is the most well-preserved as a complete collection. Sumerian fragments exist but they are not part of a complete collection. Epic of Gilgamesh is a myth that embelishes the life of a historical king of Uruk, an important and flourishing city at the time. Gilgamesh appears in the Sumerian King List as a post-diluvial king, with a reign of 126 years. He was estimated to live around 2,800 to 2,500 BC. The flood story is a separate story thrown in to complete the plot of Gilgamesh's quest for immortality.

Two other tablets of interest:

Sumerian King List (2,000-1,800 BC)

The list has been found on multiple tablets and fragments. The most significant is the Weld Blendell Prism housed in the Ashmolean Musuem, Oxford, UK. This is estimated to be dated 2,000-1,800 BC. It cannot be carbon dated because it is written on baked clay which is not suitable for radiocarbon dating. This is in Sumerian. Some earlier fragments are dated to 3,000 BC.

This List is a record of Sumerian kings. It is updated as new reigns take over. Earlier names are likely based on oral traditions, hence grossly influenced by myths. It mentions a flood. The text reads "Flood swept over. After the flood had swept over, kingship was re-established in Kish." The date of the flood is estimated about 2,900 BC. This text splits the List into two, kings that were antediluvial, and those that were post-diluvial. The antediluvial or pre-flood period, portrays archetypal rulers with divine kingship and longetivity, some ruling for tens of thousands of years. The last antediluvial king is listed as "Ubaru-Taru, King of Shuruppak". The post-diluvial kings have more realistic reigns.

There are three interesting points to note. (1) Ubaru-Taru is listed as the last king before the flood. Ziusudra is not in the List but the Eridu Genesis associates him with the last ruler of Shutuppak. Ziusudra is also described as the last king of Shuruppak who survived the flood. That makes Ziusudra either a successor or descendant, possibly the son, of Ubaru-Taru. Instruction of Shuruppak tablet makes this clear. (2) Historically, the civilisation was re-established in the city of Kish. (3) The flood appears to be a historical event.

Instruction on Shuruppak tablet (2,600-2,500 BC)

This is in Sumerian. There are better-preserved copies from Old Babylonian period (1,800-1,700 BC). King Shuruppak is a Solomonic type king. The text contains words of advice of King Shuruppak to his son Ziusudra. However, there is no King Shuruppak in the Sumerian Kings List. The List mentions the last king before the flood as "Ubaru-Taru, King of Shuruppak". It appears this tablet takes Ubaru-Taru as " King Shuruppak". In which case, it confirms Ziusudra was indeed the son of Ubaru-Taru.

Opinion:

Ancient mythology commonly mixes historical facts with fantasy. Kings and warriors are embellished with super capabilities. In today's language we call it cult building. The epics "Romance of Alexander The Great" and "Legions of Alexander The Great" are myths of the man of his conquests and journey in search of the Water of Immortality. I remember a scene in the movie "Braveheart" where Mel Gibson played the Scottish revolutionary William Wallace. A young citizen soldier looked at him in awe and said he thought "William Wallace is seven feet tall." Gibson by the way is five feet ten inches, short by their standard. Wallace replied: "Yea, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if he were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse."

Stories of floods could most probably be due to a civilisation's collective memory of some real events. Scientists have discovered evidence of large scale flood events in the history of the regions referenced in these tablets. In Ur, massive 11-foot thick layer of flood sediments was discovered in 1920. This was carbon-dated to 2,900 BC. In Shuruppak, 60 cm thick sediments have been discovered and carbon-dated to 2,900-3,000 BC. In Kish, sediments were found and carbon-dated to 3,900 BC, although this layer is not so pronounced.

The Sumerian (4.500-2,004 BC) and Akkadian (2,334-2,112 BC) myths use two historical kings, Ziusudra and Gilgamesh, as protagonists. Sumeria was the first known civilisation of cities, each having its own kingship. Zuisudra was the son of the last king of Shuruppak before the flood. Gilgamesh was king of Uruk in the period after the flood. Zuisudra moved his people to resettle in Kish to escape a flood. He must have done a great job saving his people from the flood, that being the reason he was immortalised in the tablets. Atrahasis was not mentioned as king, but a devout and wise man. Utnapishtim is Akkadian version of Sumerian Atrahasis.

Abraham was born in Ur, a thriving Sumerian city state, a cultural centre famous for its ziggurats. He was estimated to have lived 2,000-1,800 BC. The Babylonian exile of the Judaens was from 586 BC till 539 BC when Persian King Cyrus allowed them to return to Judah. This poses inconvenient implications to both Jews and Christians. The Biblical Noah and the Flood bears a striking similarity to the flood stories in these Sumerian cuneiform clay tablets. Is it possible the Jews were influenced by these Sumerian myths? In a coming blog, I shall address this touchy issue, which at the same time will clarify the confusion of Judaens, Jews and Hebrews. 

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.