Foucault is, then, right: psychiatric practice makes essential use of moral (and other evaluative) judgments. Why is this dangerous? Because, first of all, psychiatrists as such have no special knowledge about how people should live. They can, from their clinical experience, give us crucial information about the likely psychological consequences of living in various ways (for sexual pleasure, for one’s children, for a political cause). But they have no special insight into what sorts of consequences make for a good human life. It is, therefore, dangerous to make them privileged judges of what syndromes should be labeled “mental illnesses.”
"…Responding to questions on whether the by-election outcome is a report card of the PAP’s performance, Dr Ng said this is a by-election in just one constituency. He said it should not make a difference - whether or not it’s a report card, as MPs must continue to work hard to serve residents. Asked about the point made by WP chief Low Thia Khiang that a stronger opposition presence in Parliament would make the government work harder, Dr Ng said: "I’ve been an MP here for nearly 11 years and I must honestly say that that never crossed my mind. We serve here week in, week out, because you know the residents in Bishan-Toa Payoh, entrusted us and really it’s they who are our prime motivators to make sure that their lives are better…"
And in the meantime, there are colons to scope and lower digestive tract issues to ermm..rectify.
The equivalent of saying “The mathematics exam was really difficult” after scoring 45/100.