mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2009-01-04 01:58:00 |
|
Forbidden Questions, Or:Tactics of Persuasive Denial
Forbidden questions are a subject of interest to the bimbotic and curious because the ultimate question, one not exactly forbidden, is how you could possibly forbid a question without violating your own rule, i.e. to present the question (even if obliquely) in an articulation so that you can indicate that it is forbidden. It is a case where the statement of the law carries with it its own violation, though not necessarily for subversive effects for it reinforces the position of Power on which the speaker of the law stands.
Furthermore, there is a necessity of repetition when the fact of forbiddance is not merely a statement of the law, but an interpretation of the law. In order too disseminate the interpretation, you would have to repeatedly state the interpretation, i.e. to repeatedly raise the forbidden question, if only to inscribe the fact of its forbiddance.
In short, by stating the unquestionability of the unquestionable, is there not the inevitability of raising the (un)questionable itself? And yet, to institute the unquestionable as unquestionable, it is necessary to state its unquestionability. Could the performativity of the law (and I am and have been using the term generically rather than to refer to the specific domain of the juridical) possibly consume itself?
Already, we often bear witness to a common tactic of inscribing the law of unquestionability, coercive reassurance. The claim that we are transparent but we cannot reveal certain facts of our existence (for instance the amount of reserves the country has) for valorized ideals like national security is a statement of coercive reassurance. The statement that state institutions have committed no wrongdoings because the investigation by the state has found no wrongdoings (though investigations are often dispensed with). These are ostensible reassurances that obviously assure none but those with an unusually high degree of naivety (a virtue enough to ensure one's political salvation in this country). They do not, in other words, reassure, but coercively mark the end of dialogue (if there was ever any to begin with).
Dr. Teo Ho Pin, the coordinating chairman of PAP Town Councils seems to have caught the fever of reassurance when he stated:
Yet, the coercive reassurance is not infallible. It has been stated, so often that I have forgotten, that there is the rule of the law in Singapore. But people continue to question.
When coercive reassurance fails, such as when Gopalan Nair insulted judges, and when people wearing kangaroo T-shirts questioned perhaps not only the existence of the rule of the law but what the law is in the first place, reassurance has given way to punitive measures followed by oblique threats to the general populace. The forbidden question raised in such incidents as the kangaroo saga or the IBA report must not be repeated, other than through the performative of the fact of forbiddance.
There is a kind of power in the form of a monster that will feed on itself after it has swallowed everything else. Except . . . it might also give birth to a greater beast through the act of self-consumption. A fearsome beast generated by destruction.
Update: Read also: Forbidden Questions Redux: Learning to Shut Up
.............................
Chief Justice Chan says justice can only be rendered according to law
SINGAPORE: Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has reminded Singaporeans that justice can only be rendered according to the Law and the Courts' authority must be respected by all.
Opening the New Legal Year at the Supreme Court on Saturday, he stressed that this was fundamental and critical to the rule of law and the just and proper governance of the country.
He warned that the law will not tolerate any attempt by anyone to undermine public confidence in the courts by making false and scandalous allegations.
Chief Justice Chan lauded the efforts by the Attorney General last year in upholding the authority of the Courts in the face of various attacks against the Judiciary.
The Chief Justice also reminded the legal fraternity that the global recession will cause economic and social hardship to millions of people all over the world and Singapore will not be spared.
He said the Courts can expect an increase in filings in the coming months and they are ready to deal with them.
The Chief Justice also said he expects lawyers and the legal service to play their part in managing the caseloads in a timely manner.
Forbidden questions are a subject of interest to the bimbotic and curious because the ultimate question, one not exactly forbidden, is how you could possibly forbid a question without violating your own rule, i.e. to present the question (even if obliquely) in an articulation so that you can indicate that it is forbidden. It is a case where the statement of the law carries with it its own violation, though not necessarily for subversive effects for it reinforces the position of Power on which the speaker of the law stands.
Furthermore, there is a necessity of repetition when the fact of forbiddance is not merely a statement of the law, but an interpretation of the law. In order too disseminate the interpretation, you would have to repeatedly state the interpretation, i.e. to repeatedly raise the forbidden question, if only to inscribe the fact of its forbiddance.
In short, by stating the unquestionability of the unquestionable, is there not the inevitability of raising the (un)questionable itself? And yet, to institute the unquestionable as unquestionable, it is necessary to state its unquestionability. Could the performativity of the law (and I am and have been using the term generically rather than to refer to the specific domain of the juridical) possibly consume itself?
Already, we often bear witness to a common tactic of inscribing the law of unquestionability, coercive reassurance. The claim that we are transparent but we cannot reveal certain facts of our existence (for instance the amount of reserves the country has) for valorized ideals like national security is a statement of coercive reassurance. The statement that state institutions have committed no wrongdoings because the investigation by the state has found no wrongdoings (though investigations are often dispensed with). These are ostensible reassurances that obviously assure none but those with an unusually high degree of naivety (a virtue enough to ensure one's political salvation in this country). They do not, in other words, reassure, but coercively mark the end of dialogue (if there was ever any to begin with).
Dr. Teo Ho Pin, the coordinating chairman of PAP Town Councils seems to have caught the fever of reassurance when he stated:
We wish to reassure our residents that we are financially secure.
. . . We wish to reassure our residents that their estate will be well looked after, and that there are sufficient funds for the proper maintenance of their town, both now and in the longer term.
The management of funds by PAP Town Councils is not questionable. The reassurance raises the question to end the question. Not everyone, of course, is in a position to concretize unquestionability. No god would bestow upon Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong could pray for such powers of coercion-reassurance.. . . We wish to reassure our residents that their estate will be well looked after, and that there are sufficient funds for the proper maintenance of their town, both now and in the longer term.
Yet, the coercive reassurance is not infallible. It has been stated, so often that I have forgotten, that there is the rule of the law in Singapore. But people continue to question.
When coercive reassurance fails, such as when Gopalan Nair insulted judges, and when people wearing kangaroo T-shirts questioned perhaps not only the existence of the rule of the law but what the law is in the first place, reassurance has given way to punitive measures followed by oblique threats to the general populace. The forbidden question raised in such incidents as the kangaroo saga or the IBA report must not be repeated, other than through the performative of the fact of forbiddance.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has reminded Singaporeans that justice can only be rendered according to the Law and the Courts' authority must be respected by all.
. . . He warned that the law will not tolerate any attempt by anyone to undermine public confidence in the courts by making false and scandalous allegations. (CNA report)
False and scandalous? Who determines what the truth is? If Molly had the power, she would make it scandalous to suggest that she is any older than 18 or that she would ever be. . . . But dare I ask? Or perhaps I do not have to ask. For the forbidden question is asked each time the fact of its forbiddance, the unquestionability of the unquestionable, is repeated. And that has been happening quite often. What, after all, made the kangaroo T-shirt an icon oblierated in physical space but carved into mental spaces instead of being conveniently forgotten.. . . He warned that the law will not tolerate any attempt by anyone to undermine public confidence in the courts by making false and scandalous allegations. (CNA report)
There is a kind of power in the form of a monster that will feed on itself after it has swallowed everything else. Except . . . it might also give birth to a greater beast through the act of self-consumption. A fearsome beast generated by destruction.
Update: Read also: Forbidden Questions Redux: Learning to Shut Up
.............................
Chief Justice Chan says justice can only be rendered according to law
SINGAPORE: Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has reminded Singaporeans that justice can only be rendered according to the Law and the Courts' authority must be respected by all.
Opening the New Legal Year at the Supreme Court on Saturday, he stressed that this was fundamental and critical to the rule of law and the just and proper governance of the country.
He warned that the law will not tolerate any attempt by anyone to undermine public confidence in the courts by making false and scandalous allegations.
Chief Justice Chan lauded the efforts by the Attorney General last year in upholding the authority of the Courts in the face of various attacks against the Judiciary.
The Chief Justice also reminded the legal fraternity that the global recession will cause economic and social hardship to millions of people all over the world and Singapore will not be spared.
He said the Courts can expect an increase in filings in the coming months and they are ready to deal with them.
The Chief Justice also said he expects lawyers and the legal service to play their part in managing the caseloads in a timely manner.
