Is it correct to be politically correct?

There’s an epidemic sweeping the world right now. It’s a debilitating disease that weakens its victims over time, until it one day renders them hopeless and helpless. The affliction I’m referring to is the sense of political correctness.

There is nothing wrong with being politically correct per se – a certain tact is appropriate when dealing with sensitive issues such as race, disability and the like – but the spirit of political correctness is all too often manipulated and misconstrued in order to give us, and those around us, excuses to engage in behaviour that is self-destructive and deleterious.

Political correctness, in my opinion, should be reserved for those issues over which we have no say, for example, one’s race, height, sexual orientation or congenital defects. On the other hand, problems such as obesity, sloth or profligacy are, for the most part, a matter of choice, and those who have chosen a life of such squalor should not, in my opinion, be spared from scathing judgement.

The issue of obesity, in particular, is close to my heart because both my parents are extremely overweight. Neither can climb a flight of stairs without stopping halfway and gasping for air, and to make things worse, dad used to be a fairly heavy smoker as well.

I find it strange that his friends, family and society in general deem it acceptable to criticise his ‘filthy’ smoking habit (which eventually led him to quit), but are far more tolerant of his tendency to pile his plate two storeys high at the buffet counter and eat to the point of needing to unbutton his trousers.

In my mind, both acts are equally damaging, not just to the self but to society as a whole. With smoking, the case against it is fairly obvious: It is an unnecessary activity which is detrimental to personal health, and second-hand smoke is both unpleasant and physically harmful to innocent bystanders.

The case against obesity isn’t as clear, since a multitude of factors contribute to the problem, and a key one – eating (or rather over-eating) – is a basic need which, in the Singaporean context, is virtually sacrosanct.

My stand, however, is this: With the exception of a small minority of those who suffer from disease or disability, obesity is simply the gradual but significant accumulation of fat, caused by the consumption of calories in excess of that expended on a daily basis. So, like smoking, obesity is an “unnecessary” choice, is detrimental to health, and exacts similar external costs on society (for example, the strain it places on our subsidised public healthcare system).

Government policy should therefore be geared toward actively discouraging it in the same way we campaign against tobacco and other drugs. I would suggest a system of “fat taxes”, subsidies on fresh food, a public education push and even cash incentives for people who take and pass a fitness examination every year (this is already the case for NSmen, but should be extended to all segments of the population).

NAME AND SHAME THOSE WHO COST SOCIETY

However, policy measures can only go so far, and there are limits to which we should expect, or indeed would want, the government to intervene in our lives. This is where society needs to step in.

Peer pressure is a very powerful thing, and the expressed approval/disapproval of those around us can have a marked impact on our behaviour. It is for this reason that I believe we need to be less British (for their political correctness) and more Russian (for their directness) in naming and shaming those that, through their lives of gluttony, laziness or wasteful extravagance, perpetrate such “crimes”, and costs, against society.

The taboo of not being able to criticise someone’s weight, ignorance or spending habits (on the premise that all are lifestyle choices) must be broken, because the argument that it would be incorrect to impinge on free choice is a spurious one.

From a moral and economic point of view, individuals should indeed be free to choose how they live their lives, but with the caveat that their actions should not infringe upon those same rights of others. The problem with that reasoning, however, is that this does not apply to most modern societies where many essential services (e.g. healthcare, pensions) are socialised and the costs shared, because under such a system, the actions of the individual have a direct impact on the well-being of the collective.

In other words, our lives are hopelessly intertwined and, thus, we can never truly have freedom of choice.

When somebody chooses a jelly donut over a stick of celery, or to fritter his money away on vices such as gambling and alcohol instead of saving judiciously for retirement, and said person ends up requiring expensive heart surgery and state support in his later years, he is, in effect, being subsidised by those who have worked hard, taken tough decisions and made sacrifices to remain healthy and solvent.

I ask, is it fair, just or even sustainable to have a system that effectively rewards us for being “naughty” and penalises us for being “good”? The answer, I suspect, and as the creaking public welfare systems of the US and UK attest, is a resounding ‘No’.

We need to stop being so kind to others for their failings and tell it like it is; there is value in the “tough love” approach that we seem to have forgotten. From rapidly growing mountains of debt to rapidly expanding waistlines, these issues are made worse by the mass delusion and/or denial that they exist at all.

We need to stop living on borrowed money and borrowed time, because the clock is ticking and we are only minutes to midnight. Stop being so polite and start being more critical – it’s the way forward.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Charles Tan Meah Yang is a Singaporean Investment Analyst working in London.