Notes

Both authors’ arguments have their own merits, and I believe that they have an intertwined relevance in Singapore’s society. Harford believes that differences in opinions stem from people’s inability to view the same issue objectively, while Lim maintains that there is nothing wrong with ideological differences, and citizens must learn to agree to disagree to strengthen social harmony. (adapted from Kieren)

Harford feels that humans will never learn to accept differing ideas and always view their own as superior. Lim, on the other hand, argues that the objective understanding of differing views is possible. I find Lim’s views more applicable to the Singaporean context, although I agree with the innate flaws of human nature as pointed out by Harford. (adapted from Miju)

Harford and Lim both point to societal divisions arising from differences in viewpoints. Harford states that “whenever we meet someone whose views conflict with our own, we instinctively believe we’ve met someone who is deluded”; Lim illustrates the same idea by citing the “controversy that erupted online” after Archbishop William Goh’s statement to Catholics. Singaporean society has become more divided over contentious issues in recent years. Examples include the Wear White campaign championing “traditional family values” in opposition to Pink Dot, which supports the LGBT community. Another example would be the rise of xenophobia, as shown by the protests with slogans such as “Singapore for Singaporeans” against the 2013 White Paper on Population, and uptick in anti-foreigner online vitriol. However, it must be noted that these issues are flashpoints of tension; groups involved in these disputes are relatively small and not representative of society as a whole. Thus both arguments are valid only to some extent. On the whole, Singapore remains relatively high in social tolerance, with 90% of respondents to an IPS survey being comfortable with living or working with someone of a different faith. (adapted from Sze Ann)