Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Why we need to understand the difference between shared and personal truths

There has been wide-ranging discussion of what constitutes the notion of truth, the appropriate role for regulation, and the need to manage the tension between control and freedom of speech. However, there has been comparatively little discussion on why the truth matters, and even less on how to ensure that it is recognised and valued.

Institutions such as Parliament must be prepared to face up to the challenge of maintaining the dominance of shared truths, says the author.

Institutions such as Parliament must be prepared to face up to the challenge of maintaining the dominance of shared truths, says the author.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

In recent months, there has been active debate in Singapore and globally on deliberate online falsehoods.

There has been wide-ranging discussion of what constitutes the notion of truth, the appropriate role for regulation, and the need to manage the tension between control and freedom of speech.

However, there has been comparatively little discussion on why the truth matters, and even less on how to ensure that it is recognised and valued.

The truth matters in society as it provides an agreed basis for social negotiation. Social negotiation is manifest in the ability and a willingness to understand, tolerate and compromise.

Compromise is that glue that sustains social cohesion.

It is important to recognise that there are two categories of truths.

One is shared truths. These are facts which are observable and confirmable by testing. For example, scientific facts and historically demonstrable events.

The second category concerns personal truths. These are faith-based truths that are personal to holders.

These are still “truths” in that people sincerely believe them, but they are not shared ones because they do not apply universally and cannot be tested.

These could be religious articles of faith. Personal truths can also be beliefs that defy evidence, such as the idea of a ‘flat-earth’ and conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks or the Apollo moon landings.

When people differ in their point of view, but agree on the facts, there is scope for reasoned debate and, importantly, for compromise.

However, when there is no shared truth, then debate tends to be at cross-purposes as there is no agreed basis. Compromise is also out of reach as any argument quickly becomes a zero-sum game.

Without compromise, societies, in particular, heterogeneous ones such as Singapore, can quickly become conflicted.

Supporting an environment where personal truths can be respected but where shared truths prevail requires deliberate and mutually supporting policies.

The first of these is an investment in good quality basic education on a broad basis, which includes science and humanities.

Education is vital to equip each generation with powers of reasoning, an association with different modes of thinking and good general knowledge.

Without a population with reasoning abilities, a society is vulnerable to being captured by non-fact based falsehoods and incoherent assertions.

A second requirement is a commitment to secularism in public affairs. Secularism matters as it is a condition for mainstreaming acceptance of shared truths, rather than pure faith-based personal truths.

It is therefore critical that institutional norms, such as the rule of law, reinforce and ensure that secularism is vigorously maintained. Without secularism, public discourse will quickly disintegrate in the face of incompatible personal truths as the different religious perspectives vie for acceptance as the singular truth.

Third, it is essential to have strong institutions, particularly the rule of law. Institutions matter as they are the pillars which uphold the social and political norms over time. They are also sources of collective strength to prevail against volatility and threats.

Fourth is the need to ensure that reality is convergent. Convergence requires that the frames of reference are similar and shared across the population. This means that access to public services, level of safety and security, and standard of general welfare are in the same range for most, if not all, peoples in a society.

A shared frame of reference means that essential realities, such as national defence and economic growth, are shouldered by all constituencies that form a society.

With high interdependency and co-ownership for the future, a natural condition of tolerance and propensity to compromise is created. Conversely, when different constituencies have dissimilar realities and each has a mutually exclusive future, there is a low threshold for tolerance and no natural space for compromise as there would be little in common, low consequences for disagreement and small benefits from compromise.

An educated population, a secular public space, strong institutions and a convergent reality are not naturally arising conditions. They take inspired leadership, deliberate policies and strong institutions.

THE NEED FOR VIGILANCE

Eternal vigilance is required to push back against ideologically or religiously motivated personal truths which attempt to capture the public space.

The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods has come under criticism in some quarters for the conduct of some of its interviews, in particular that of Dr Thum Ping Tjin.

However, these interviews reflected the necessary vigilance against the threat of personal truths dominating shared truths.

Institutions, in this case that of Parliament, must be prepared to face up to the challenge of maintaining the dominance of shared truths.

It may not be pretty viewing, but it is necessary rigour.

It is notable that the proceedings of the Select Committee were conducted on video and the transcripts made available to the witnesses and to the public. Such transparency is essential to sustaining shared truths.

By ignoring evidence and testimony of key historical figures while making assertions which undermined the credibility of Singapore’s pioneering leaders, Dr Thum is, by extension, challenging the legitimacy of today’s leaders and the institutions which have taken root in Singapore.

He is entitled to his personal truths, but he is not entitled to his personal facts.

There is a difference between holding on to a personal truth and propagating it to persuade others of its veracity. If such personal truths are propagated as shared facts without challenge, a dangerous precedent would be established.

It was thus necessary for Dr Thum’s assertions to be shown to be ideologically-motivated personal truths, not fact-based shared ones.

Singapore is not so fragile that it cannot contain differences of view. Indeed, our natural condition is to be heterogeneous.

This is both a source of compelling strength, but also a vulnerability which can be exploited.

Shared truths can be subject to varying interpretations. That is perfectly acceptable.

Political options can and should be tested, but this should be done on the basis of fact and logic, not faith and emotions.

But the border between shared and personal truths must be patrolled vigilantly by both the extrinsic rule of law and by intrinsic commitment to a mutual destiny.

There is good reason for our young to recite the national pledge daily. But it should also be the responsibility of Singaporeans of every age to safeguard the criticality of shared truths.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Devadas Krishnadas is chief executive of Future-Moves Group, an international strategic consultancy and executive education provider based in Singapore.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.