Man and animals
I believe, taken to extremes, a purely pragmatic society closely approximates what we may observe in the animal kingdom, where the strong dominates the weak and the weakest are sacrificed.
I am sure most of you have seen documentaries where, for example, a pride of lions stalks a herd of zebras. The lions target the weakest amongst the herd. What do the rest of the zebras do? They run off, willingly sacrificing one of their own, to live another day, when they will once again be hunted. It’s the gruesome law of the wild as animals seek to survive and reproduce.
But people are supposed to behave differently. What kind of human society would allow its weak to be continuously culled? Humans are supposed to be rational and reasonable. We have a sense of right and wrong. We try to act with conscience and compassion. We protect the young and the weak.
See also: Steepening yield curve: The policy implications
Knowledge
We acquire knowledge and seek a better society. We harness resources and create new technologies in pursuit of this. Most philosophers believe that fundamentally, all humans desire freedom and equality because this would enhance the fair sharing of society’s material wealth.
But do we actually use the knowledge we possess to further our desires for liberty and equality?
When we speak of knowledge, in terms of acquisition, creation, extension, ownership or dissemination, it is usually seen as positive because knowledge will add to economic and medical advancements. Knowledge contributes to progress.
But is this positive image of knowledge and what we do with it a reality? When is knowledge negative? What about knowledge for the self versus knowledge for the public good?
Sadly, societies generally do not share knowledge. Those with knowledge will share amongst themselves for their own benefits. Indeed, it is by depriving others that such knowledge is of value.
Knowledge is considered a source of power — knowledge can be granted or withheld, shared or kept secret. The situation is worsened when knowledge is erroneously equated with intelligence. In general, therefore, knowledge creates further inequality.
Freedom and equality
I spoke earlier of the human desire for liberty and equality. Thomas Jefferson said, “Liberty and dignity [are] the two true measures of freedom.” But how much freedom can a society permit? Justice William J Brennan Jr of the US Supreme Court has said that (it) depends on a dialogue between the heart and the head. Only by remaining open to the entreaties of reason and passion, of logic and experience, can a judge come to understand the complex human meaning of a richer term like liberty, and only with such understanding can courts fulfil their constitutional responsibility to protect that value.
Some theoreticians see freedom and equality as mutually exclusive. Equality is defined in economic or social terms. Liberty or freedom is juridical-political in nature. Equality occurs through some form of state intervention because it is essentially a matter of redistribution, for example, taxation. The preservation of freedom, on the other hand, is tied to limiting this state intervention.
For more stories about where money flows, click here for Capital Section
The fact is that equality and freedom have to co-exist. One cannot sustain itself without the other. The situations in which both are either present or absent are necessarily the same. For example, when public freedom is suppressed, the society will become one of privileges, and this will then reinforce inequality.
Burden of the knowledgeable
If knowledge on its own leads to more self-interest and greater inequality, how can it serve the interests of society and humanity? I would now like to introduce the notion of the “burden of knowledge” or more precisely the “burden of the knowledgeable”.
By this, I am referring to the burden or responsibility of those individuals with knowledge. They should use their knowledge and talent for the benefit of society as a whole, and not just for personal gain.
There are four reasons why some people use their knowledge “positively” — religious virtue, altruism, sociopolitical inculcation and economic.
In the pursuit of God or Godliness, some will follow religious doctrines and teachings to do the right thing — in pursuit of grace.
In altruism, a person seeks “a life of reason”. It is similar to the first except that it is not driven by a religious commitment but a secular pursuit of a reason for life beyond materialism.
Thirdly, the burden of knowledge is assumed by many due to the social values inculcated by society. In many progressive civil societies, these values are imbedded in the sociopolitical and education systems. Their laws usually have some form of charter of rights and freedom, a guarantee for a free and independent media, democratically elected government and a reliable judiciary.
I believe humans are born good, with a natural desire to do right and to protect the young and weak. In major developed cities, the majority of the people are socially progressive. They are willing to speak out and defend the minorities, the under-privileged, the poor and the weak.
I believe people will contribute to society if the sociopolitical environment is supportive. At the very least, the instruments of power should not suppress their action. Nor should the instruments of power exist solely to protect the establishment’s vested interests.
Economics of the burden of knowledge
What is articulated less often is the economic rationale for knowledgeable persons to share their knowledge. I would assert that it is actually in their economic self-interest to further the interests of society and humanity.
A person can no longer produce all his needs. His prosperity is dependent on the prosperity of those he exchanges goods and services with. The individual’s economic well-being, whether in profits or wages, is dependent on the economic prosperity of the society in which he operates.
Take the financial markets. It is in the individual’s self-interest to manipulate or cheat to maximise self-profit. And it is to these individuals’ interest that their crimes are not punished.
But the action of these individuals leads to loss of confidence in the system and diminution of core values.
And when that happens, society pays a price — everyone else other than those who committed the crimes. Logic suggests that law-abiding individuals, who will suffer direct economic losses, should therefore seek to stop such crimes from happening or punish those who commit them.
But why is it that this often does not happen? Lawbreakers are often not pursued. Is there a lack of social consciousness? Is it because individuals think that their effort will not make a difference? Or do they fear the powerful individuals who commit those crimes and abuses?
Quite likely, such apathy occurs because the disproportionate benefit to the lawbreaker outweighs any net benefit to be gained by the individual who wants to pursue the case. An aggrieved group of individuals may benefit if they act together to pursue the lawbreaker. However, there is the classic problem of “free-riding”. Group action does not materialise because too many individuals hope that others would act. They hope to benefit despite their inaction. It is because of this that every society needs a strong institutional framework to act as checks and balances.
Key role of institutions
If we view society’s interests as a seesaw, then the positive and negative forces are on opposite ends. The pressure from both forces will tilt society either way. It may become more socially responsible or it may end up serving the interests of a few.
Sadly, we know these two forces will never be equal. Those who act for the positive forces generally lack direct and immediate gains. They also have little economic resources. As a result, these positive forces tend to stay dormant for a long period of time.
The reverse is true of negative forces. These are always asserting themselves, driven by the attraction of large, direct and immediate economic gains.
Let’s return to the analogy of the seesaw. Some societies have created institutions to underpin the negative end of the seesaw. These institutions help ensure that the negative forces do not hijack society to serve their narrow and self-serving ends.
What constitutes these institutions? The elected members of legislative assemblies. The judiciary, the media and NGOs. The executive branch of the government and the public service. The public prosecutor and the security forces. Any erosion in the workings of any of these institutions will weaken the foundations of society. This will lead to less equality, less freedom. It will lead to a society that favours the interests of a powerful few.
Responsibility
What then is the crux of the “burden of knowledge”? It is the knowledge that corruption and abuse of these key institutions will eventually lead to the destruction of the welfare of society.
The “burden of knowledge” calls on the knowledgeable to protect these institutions from those who seek to corrupt and abuse them. The responsible should also ensure that these institutions are represented by people who are just, fair and independent.
One cannot claim to a leader of society or seek knowledge and be among the intelligentsia unless one is willing to protect the larger interests of society. A leader is a servant of the people — serving the interests of society and humanity.
And the protection of society’s interests begins with protecting the institutions of Parliament and elections, the judiciary, the media, the public prosecutors and the security forces. Each of these institutions must be free and fair, independent and responsible. And they must be subject to checks and balances.
It will also benefit society if those who claim their leadership understand that to gain dignity, one has to bestow it upon others.
To be free, one has to free others. And to be equal, one has to treat others equally.
Conclusion
Let me conclude by sharing with you a discussion I had about two months ago in Canada, while riding a taxi to the airport. The driver and I spoke about the Canadian federal elections and what it meant to him, a middle-aged Caucasian male, driving a taxi for a living.
We spoke about Canada being a rich country with a strong economy and currency. To my great surprise, he turned around and said that Canada had not derived its wealth from its huge natural resources, its oil sands, minerals or its vast geography.
He believed that his country became wealthy economically because of its robust political system, its independent and reliable judiciary, its world-class education system, its excellent security and its openness to immigrants, culture, race and religion.
The true “wealth” of a country can therefore be deduced from the insight of that middle-aged, middle-class Canadian taxi driver.
The “average citizen” bears the burden of knowledge as a direct consequence of the state of a country’s institutions. He recognises that his values and lifestyle, his liberty and his well-being are derived from the health of these institutions. This is the ultimate protection of society’s interests!
We must then ask ourselves whether we are truly wealthy if we can afford expensive cars but have to hide behind larger and higher walls. Are we wealthy because we can put our children in private schools but bemoan the problem of hiring good staff?
What we need, therefore, is a more public-spirited and active citizenry so that we can create wealth and enjoy it in a world without fences and fear.
This article was first published in The Edge (Feb 27, 2006) based on a speech I delivered to the Perak Academy on Feb 17, 2006. As it turned out, The Edge and I were parties to exposing 1MDB — the world’s largest kleptocracy involving the then prime minister and finance minister, many public institutions, local banks and some of the largest global banks, from 2013 to 2016. If I were to update this article, I would incorporate and quote extensively from Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A Robinson, first published in 2012. Rationally, for each individual, it is obviously advantageous to be a “ free rider”, benefiting from the actions of others, without cost. What, then, makes the difference between societies where people assume social consciousness and those that are overly self-centred?
