A FEW years back, I read a rather depressing story of an elderly woman who was tricked out of several thousand dollars of her precious savings.


While visiting a hawker stand, a man there struck up a conversation with her about some valuable blue crystals that another man was desperate to sell at unbelievable low price, the only problem was that he didn't have enough cash to cover the whole payment. If only someone would go in with him, they could split the stones and collect a handsome profit. The chance at a quick easy profit wet the woman's appetite and it wasn't long before she drew out her savings and got her half of the stones, but when she took them to a jeweller she found out that they were worthless and that she had been swindled.


Such scams always follow a basic plan: get the victim to believe he is in for a hefty profit at minimal cost and it isn't long before common sense flies out the window and the wallet comes out of the back pocket.


All this comes to mind in light of one editorial and now three articles that have appeared in The Straits Times not so subtly suggesting that if Singapore is going to thrive in the information age it needs to become more tolerant of what traditionally has been regarded as vice; whether that be lowering restrictions on nightclubs, ending the censorship of pornography and the toleration and even promotion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender lifestyles.


In support of this thesis, the writers point to a book by Richard Florida, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, who argues that in the information age only those cities that can attract scientists, engineers, architects, educators, writers, artists and entertainers (the creative class) will thrive. Moreover, he argues that the creative class is attracted to cities that promote the trendy toleration of "alternative lifestyles". Thus, he cites "brain magnets" such as Seattle (Microsoft), Austin (Dell Computers) and Boston (Wang and a host of software companies along with the presence of MIT). These cities have produced higher than average living standards by encouraging creative synergies that thrive in a tolerant social milieu which in turn nurtures the open structures of the new economy.


Now before you get your wallet out, first remember not to believe everything your read in the paper. As the saying goes there are "lies, damned lies and statistics". Given the scope of Florida's thesis, the legion of counter-examples and variables, and the shortness of the historical curve, Florida's thesis is no more than a trendy politically-correct if ethically incorrect hunch


Why do I say that? One of the first lessons of social ethics that goes all the way back to Ancient Greece is that societies and cultures prosper relative to the extent that they promote virtue and discourage vice. Vice refers specifically to attitudes and behaviours that corrupt society and destroy individuals, which over the long run bankrupt societies. Indeed, if encouraging pornography, homosexual lifestyles, gambling, adultery, or drugs resulted in benefit to society and individuals then those behaviours by definition would not be vice but virtue. Nonetheless, because there is strong evidence that such behaviours degrade, destroy and impoverish both individuals and society, wise societies discourage or forbid such activity.

Now I don't want to be too harsh on Dr Florida, or his thesis. In one sense he is right. Tolerance and appreciation of difference in society and the nurturing of the arts, music and creativity certainly result in economic benefit. Indeed, this sort of tolerance has been one of the great strengths of Christianity where it has been practised. It was Paul himself who argued with Peter to maintain the unity in diversity of the early church. Nonetheless, to the degree that tolerance embraces vice it becomes destructive rather than constructive of a healthy society.


Indeed, it would seem that this realisation has begun to impress itself upon Dr Florida. As a recent review of his book notes: " (Florida) concludes that it is time for the creative class to grow up -- boomers and Xers, liberals and conservatives, urbanites and suburbanites -- and evolve from an amorphous group of self-directed while high-achieving individuals into a responsible, more cohesive group interested in the common good."


It would appear that Florida is beginning to see the darker side of naïve tolerance. Politically correct tolerance may be good at producing "amorphous group(s) of self-directed while high-achieving individuals …" nonetheless, to establish the common good requires that self-interested individuals begin to encourage virtue and discourage vice for the good of all. This, however, requires not tolerance but wise discrimination between behaviours that promote the common good from those that destroy it.


Thus, when you hear that only if Singapore were a bit more tolerant of vice that the nation will prosper, don't believe it for a minute. Indeed, the opposite is true. What will make Singapore thrive is indeed diversity, but that diversity will come from attracting talented and creative persons who share the precious social virtues of Singapore: safety, morality, honesty, cleanliness and hard work.

The Rev Dr Tom Harvey is a lecturer at Trinity Theological College and works with the Singapore Presbyterian Church as a Partner in Mission from the Presbyterian Church (USA).