The general tenor of the letter by Mr Paul Chan Poh Hoi (Tiananmen crackdown was necessary, June 13) smacks of hindsight bias.

It reminds one of the old Taoist story about a farmer whose unfortunate son broke his leg during horse-riding but in hindsight was "lucky" because he later avoided being drafted into the army on account of his disability.

Mr Chan's postulation of necessity begs the question: For whom is it "necessary"?

It really depends on how one trains one's focal lens.

If you focus on the macroscopic, perhaps we concur with the writer that the crackdown was for the "greater good" of the country.

Refocus on the microscopic instead and we should empathise with those still viscerally grieving for their perished loved ones.

Perhaps Mr Chan subscribes to consequentialism, where consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong.

However, even while the means can arguably justify the ends, there remains a fissure caused by the loss of lives and explaining it away does little to bridge that chasm.

I am the idealist to Mr Chan's pragmatist. I subscribe to Sun Tze's thinking that "the greatest victory is that which requires no battle".

Possessing no interest in politics, I just hope though that we should not regard those who died in the crackdown as mere digits at the mercy of machinations and the so-called bigger scheme of things.

Amos Wu Pom Hin