AN ESSAY ON THE SINGAPORE STORY described with many famous literary and historical names.

From the outside, Singapore appears to be such an Alice-in-Wonderland place. Its Bohemian formula for politics and social harmony has led many commentators to unjustly accuse it of having a Chauvinist population.  In reality, its very survival in the early days and its subsequent prosperity is nothing short of a Darwinian miracle. With a natural Asian dislike for Epicurean pursuits, its hard-working people has no Freudian anxieties when meeting the Gothic political and social challenges from both sides of its borders.  The Herculean efforts of its first-generation leaders assisted by Iago-like stealth and sometimes Jekyll-and-Hyde contrivances had brought them from the Third World to the First in one generation!


Yet, in the 21st Century, its younger generation has become impatient with the Kafkaesque character of this tightly-regulated country.  Adherence to the old philosophy is deemed to be Luddite and the Machiavellian application of strict laws seems too severe for the new Narcissistic zeitgeist.  An aversion to Orwellian control by the state and a distaste for Pavlovian compliance by the people have become the political fashion of the day.


An erstwhile Philistine people, Singaporeans have now matured and now desire a more Platonic relationship with the State.  Should we worry that its new social compact and fresh freedoms prove to only be a Pyrrhic victory at the cost of lowered efficiency and a decline in economic competitiveness?  Will their new Quixotic attitudes sustain the Rubenesque proportions of their economic growth? Will it turn out to be a war between the economic Sadists and the political masochists. The greatest fear is the possible Sisyphean waste of effort and opportunity as its neighbors forge ahead relentlessly.


Perhaps, we should let them continue with their own Socratic inquiry into the pre-requisites of good governance.  Perhaps, the time of Spartan survivalism and the Stoic acceptance of high-handed political expediency are over.  Singaporeans must find their own Teutonic path to their Utopian dream of continued prosperity and harmony, free from the social paralysis brought about by the Warholian movements of protest and social anarchy seen in many Western nations.  We can only wish them well in their efforts!

MONEY

How important is money?

To answer this question, let's look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (below):

 
Abraham Maslow proposed a psychological theory of "hierarchy of needs" in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation".  He divided human needs into 5 layers.  The lower 4 layers of physiological, safety, belonging-love and self-esteem needs are called "deficiency needs" or "d-needs".  Physiological needs are essential for survival; but deprivation of safety, belonging-love and self-esteem needs may cause anxiety and tension.  The 5th or top layer of the need for self-actualization is termed "being needs" or "b-needs".  He suggested that the d-needs must be met first before the individual becomes motivated to pursue fulfillment of b-needs. "Meta-motivated" people are those who pursue constant improvement to achieve satisfaction of the highest layer of self-actualization needs.

Money is important only in-so-far as it can satisfy physiological needs and perhaps safety needs.  It cannot buy love, social attachments nor self-esteem.

How much money does one need?
 
To decide, let's look at Jeremy Bentham's theory of the "Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth" in his "Pannamonial Fragments", Works, III, p.228:

So far as depends on wealth, -- of two persons having unequal fortunes, he who has most wealth must by a legislator be regarded as having most happiness.

But the quantity of happiness will not go on increasing in anything near the same proportion as the quantity of wealth... The effect of wealth in the production of happiness goes on diminishing, as the quantity by which the wealth of one man exceeds that of another goes on increasing: in other words, the quantity of happiness produced by a particle of wealth (each particle being of the same magnitude) will be less and less at every particle; the second will produce less than the first, the third than the second, and so on. 

That is, money is also subjected to the dictates of the irrefutable Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility.  Therefore beyond the point of satisfying the basic physiological and safety needs, acquiring more wealth may bestow lesser and lesser satisfaction with each quantum of wealth acquired.  That's also because the satisfaction of the higher level needs of belonging-love, self-esteem and self-actualization cannot be bought.

"Contentment is natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty" - Socrates

"Freedom is not procured by a full enjoyment of what is desired, but by controlling the desire." - Epictetus

So, now we can understand the sentiments expressed by Socrates and Epictetus above.

Conclusion

Money is important for us to meet our basic requirements of survival like food, water, shelter and warmth; the provision of economic security and stability, and the freedom from fear.  But, the point whereby those needs are met also mark the moment when the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility starts to kick in; making us realize that further efforts in acquiring wealth will become less and less productive or worthwhile.

It may be countered that the richer one gets, the greedier one becomes to getting more money.  But, this is because such a man is not conscious of the fact that money is not useful for its own sake.  Money is only good as a means to procure goods and services to satisfy only the more basic levels of his needs.  Beyond the point of diminishing marginal utility, he will achieve more happiness by expending his time and energy in satisfying his higher needs!

OUR CONSCIENCE FAST ASLEEP

Our conscience fast asleep,

In this material world so deep.

With no sacred promises to keep,

We are herded together like sheep.

Our reason creaking like an old jeep,

Having moral signals that no longer beep.

If into our minds we take a peep,

Only to find the ethical gradient too steep.

That into our hearts no goodness can seep,

For a thousand years they will weep.

Our guilt no broom can ever sweep,

From a collective conscience still asleep.