In theory, pragmatism helps us to make the best decision. In practice, it curtails debate. It excludes ordinary citizens from participation by shifting the issue to a technocratic realm where principles/ideals are irrelevant and uncomfortable ideas can be arbitrarily dismissed for not obeying the mysterious /opaque arithmetic of pragmatism—a formula to which most Singaporeans are not privy.

As Professor Kenneth Paul Tan writes in his thesis The Ideology Of Pragmatism, it has the “forceful effect of closing off any further inquiry or debate”.

Take for example the aforementioned problem of social mobility and meritocracy. In a CNA report, our PM dismissed the idea of a Universal Basic Income because it did not work in Finland. He also dismissed abolishing PSLE because it is “very hard to do”. To conclude, he said that “there are no easy solutions” to the problem of inequality, and that the government “must focus on practical, effective policies”.

In other words, Universal Basic Income and abolishing PSLE are impractical and therefore ineffective.

Sorry, but what is a ‘practical, effective policy’ then? Why is abolishing PSLE very hard to do? What is unrealistic about our desire for more social mobility?

No answers are given because none are required. By framing the debate as one of realistic/unrealistic or practical versus impractical, PM lee is creating an unfair battleground where the government can never lose. Who but a Permanent Secretary can possibly know if abolishing PSLE is easy or hard to implement? Only a Minister gets to define ‘practical’ and since we are a one-party state, pragmatism means that the government will always get the final say on any issue.

For an impassioned lay critic of PSLE, this is incredibly frustrating because no argument you make will ever be valid. When good and bad becomes practical and impractical, the minister’s final word is law.

Likewise for other issues like LGBT rights, the casinos, Budget 2018, and eyeball-scanning in airports.

In almost all cases, pragmatism serves as an excuse to plaster over disruptive opinions and dissenting voices that cannot be refuted. When pragmatism is evoked, it effectively kills the debate. It is pointless to argue because you have no access to the bureaucratic logic that deems casinos highly ‘practical’ while dismissing LGBTQ rights as an idealisitc impossibility.

In short, it is the rhetorical equivalent of moving your toy to a higher shelf so your brother can’t reach it.

Or as Professor Tan summarises in his research: “[it] privileges Singapore’s technocratic mode of governance over political and democratic modes, so that the practice of administration—portrayed as expert, technical, scientiﬁc, rational, value-free and pragmatic—can enjoy protection from political and ideological contestation.” (emphasis mine)