Liberal Political Leanings...

I have often considered myself a liberal socialist rather than a conservative.

"...the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed..." ~ Marcus Aurelius in Meditations

Even when I was a young student during my formative years, I had always been partial to individual thinking and independent thoughts.

But I've always adhered to the principle that one must always be free to think and to speak out loud, and everyone's rights must be respected...

We are all entitled to differences of opinions and ideas, but we must be mature enough to share these openly as well as respect other viewpoints which may be diametrically opposed to ours.

Most importantly, we must be able to discourse and debate whatever ideas without fear of repercussions and undue censorship or ad hominem attacks.

I've also always cherished individuals who possess new and fresh ideas, and who are creative, even if somewhat outlandish. This is in spite of the relatively disciplined period of my life, when I was somewhat shape-shifted down a narrow path...

Coming from a modest working class background meant that I had to adopt a tenacious attitude towards working and getting the goals that I aim for. It also meant that I simply had to apply my focus squarely on each goal at hand, and direct towards this singular effort, at full attention.

Discipline and perseverance was my motivating force then, and I was very much in tune with my school's (St. Joseph's, Johor Bahru) motto of "Courage, Will and Perseverance".

But perhaps, more importantly, we also had some very dedicated and motivational teachers and a Canadian principal, Gabrielite Brother John Bordeleau, who would painstakingly push us to the limits of our sometimes latent talents, which he and others seemed somehow to unleash and unravel...

Yes, they could be quite disciplinarian, but I can remember very few instances when any one student had to be corporally punished during my tenure as prefect and later head prefect from 1969 to 1971.

Then as discipline teacher and headmaster, Brother John believed in stern warnings, but more importantly quiet intimate personal counselling and one-to-one heart talk behind closed doors. These served the bases for 'punishment' and occasional detention. That these worked for the ultimate betterment of a maturing adolescent cannot be denied.

Few students ever did drop out, and then only because of dismal academic failures. There was however, one precocious boy who was finally remanded to the then mental institution at Tampoi, Johor, because of schizophrenia.

This extreme behavioural dislocation manifested itself in a blistering torrent of pornographic scribblings on paper and classroom walls, which shocked the school due to its extreme and graphic explicitness, while at the same time educating many a closeted few! Many students learnt their first exposure to such lewd lexicon from this one chap alone!

But otherwise, I cannot honestly remember any other student becoming a thug or gangster, after completing high school... In reminiscent moments, I sometimes wonder if such enduring and benevolent legacies can ever result from today's breed of dispassionate, coldly impersonal schools.

Are there still selfless and irreplaceable teachers, principals left, who would rise above themselves, their narrowly defined roles and their meeting-cluttered, exam-focussed responsibilities? Would our younger minds ever be exposed and nurtured with such tender touches of talent-spotting or simply, attentive caring?

Whatever the influence, the pedagogy, I believe, many of us did benefit in more incalculable ways than can be imagined. I believe that my early positive experiences helped shape my character to what it is today.

I have been conditioned ('educated') to believe very much in personal achievement and that everything is possible with hard work and dedicated practice. I'm convinced that everyone can rise above themselves and their station, if and when he or she puts in sufficient effort and determination.

At the same time, as a group no matter how disparate, people can collectively achieve social and political progress amidst the most dire of circumstances and hardship. If only they can put the greater good before their own parochial individual interests, many things can be achieved.

As part of the then young Christian students' (YCS) society, we had begun some voluntary social services, which included offering weekend tuition classes to the underprivileged children who lived behind the railway lines. These were rewarding if sometimes frustrating times.

With so little family support, it was demanding to instill the spirit of inquiry and personal industry into some of these children--we ended up essentially getting them to learn to read and grasp some basic arithmetic...

Thus began my initiation into volunteerism. It also exposed me to the presence and reality of even poorer segments of society more in need than my own.

Despite having possessed of a slight cynical bent, I have always believed deep down that everything is nearly always possible, although sometimes grudgingly so--even long before I had read Vaclav Havel's The Art of the Impossible: Politics as Morality in Practice, many years later.

"...To awaken in people a new sense of responsibility for the world, or to convince them to conduct themselves as if they were to live on this earth forever and be answerable for its condition one day. Who knows how many cataclysms humanity may have to experience before such a sense of responsibility is generally accepted? But this does not mean that those who wish to work for it cannot begin at once."

Thus, it is somewhat surprising to hear that of late, perhaps liberalism is taking a backseat in this modern era. It is true that for the past 30 to 40 years, sociopolitical liberal education has flourished and permeated the highest echelons of academia, especially in the West. This has thrived in spite of the rise and rise of free market capitalism and intense globalisation.

On Campus, Liberal Professors Retire

'“Self-described liberals are most common within the ranks of those professors aged 50-64, who were teenagers or young adults in the 1960s,” they wrote, making up just under 50 percent.

When it comes to those who consider themselves “liberal activists,” 17.2 percent of the 50-64 age group take up the banner compared with only 1.3 percent of professors 35 and younger.' ~ Jennifer Cohen, New York Times, 3 July 2008

I suppose I belong to this generation of 'liberal activists' who would in certain circumstances feel passionately enough to take up a banner, to protest, and to articulate our concerns for social justice more readily. More frequently than not, liberal activists could be prodded into acting out, while suppressing fears of possible consequences from undermining our occasionally impetuous or even reckless courage.

But it appears that one generation on, those that followed, were somehow less inclined to feel as intensely, to be sufficiently moved to act, to speak out... More conservative mindsets and more placid contentment appear to moderate down one's fervour for activism.

Neo-conservative and modern economically-savvy thinkers are now extending their reach into academia and influencing large swathes of younger graduates as to the unbridled virtues of mass market consumerism and unrestrained 'Friedmanesque' economics, where laissez faire free market is allowed free reign, with as much governmental deregulation as possible.

Milton Friedman considered his own political philosophy as classically liberal and consequentialist libertarian, and stressed the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention. Over the past 30-odd years, his free market ideas have greatly influenced both conservatives and libertarians.

However, many economists have criticised his extreme ideas of completely deregulated free market, i.e. that free markets always work (Orlando Letelier).

Many are now pointing out that completely free markets are fraught with social failures, and have called for timely governmental interventions which can provide social safety nets and therefore serve stabilising and useful purposes (Paul Krugman).

Thus, with all these confusing trends and blends of contrasting yet overlapping ideas, it is difficult to identify with whichever brand of liberalism, that one believes in.

There has been too much graying of margins and criss-crossing of permissive yet indulgent libertarian ideas, which because of its extreme forms can be confusing. This is especially so with economic liberalism, that free market diehards will attach the most neo-conservative tags.

Therefore, from my own perspective, will my concept of socially aware liberalism see its demise soon?

Will our Social Contract be too archaic to matter in time to come?