The late Isaac Asimov once wrote that to conquer the world, you must first build an army. To build an army, you would need a lot of money to pay mercenaries. The biggest setback in hiring mercenaries is that these folks must make sure they survive the war to enjoy the money. Or if someone pays them more, they may decide to defect.
But Asimov suggested a far more powerful recruitment tool. You don’t promise them money. You promise them heaven. Then, these soldiers will readily sacrifice their lives in battle. That’s how unstoppable armies of the past were built. Not on money but the promise of heaven. Nobody has an endless supply of money, but every religion has the potential to be in eternal conflict with another. Developed along the sames lines and philosophies, is the equally emotive concept of nationalism. When the abstract concept of nation can be interpreted like the equally abstract concept of God, the same powerful criteria for building crusading armies can be attained.
But make no mistake about it, money still moves mountains. The lack of it can cause governments to fall. Plenty of it can make people vote for you even when they don’t like your face. Money gives you power and control. It can buy you flattering reports. It can even buy you attendance at boring talks, presentations and parties. But there’s one thing that money can’t buy. And that’s genuine loyalty in the face of adversity. You can’t make people die for you or risk their lives for you no matter how rich you are.
But with loyalty, faith or whatever you choose to call it, you can make beggars part with their last possession to buy you gold. Not everyone wields such amazing powers. We’ve all seen rich men with a harem of concubines. That’s hardly surprising. For most ordinary people living ordinary lives, we are quite happy to have a nice bunch of genuine friends who would wine and dine with us, buy gifts for our children or recommend contacts that will improve our business without any ulterior motive of making us downlines in some MLM scheme.
Let’s not talk about losing our jobs or contracting some scary illness. In times of peace, that is the level of friendship and loyalty that would satisfy most people. And most people can achieve that simply by smiling a lot and not having body odour. As common folks who already have enough on our minds, we don’t create hypothetical situations to find out if our existing friends would die for us and dump them if they don’t. So all this talk about whether Singaporeans would sacrifice their lives to defend the country is quite futile or maybe even frivolous. Who doesn’t mind being a martyr, raise your hand. A good test to spot potential terrorists and people suffering from depression.
Who thinks that Singapore will last another 100 years? Raise your hands. Is that a meaningful question in the age of globalisation? I would rather ask if people would really feel sad if they have to leave this place for a new home with more greenery and less stress. Would they weep buckets if Sentosa and Marina Bay Sands were destroyed (not asking the gambling addicts)? Would they love Katong laksa less if it decided to move to JB in the face of high rentals, operating costs and restrictive regulations? Do people really care who wins the elections as long as their livelihood remains secure and their estate’s upgrading is not interrupted? Do they have anything to say about policies? Are they just “happily helpless”, living day by day, reciting the pledge wearily with a fist on the chest?
And I won’t ask people to raise their hands.
