These confucians are really pathetic.

As I’ve said before, fetishising tradition, conformism, uniformism, compromises one’s eye for detail and amplifies the tendency toward prominence-worship, bigotry, and being appealed to by the sensational and well-publicised.

Jack Neo’s sex scandal has ‘gripped the entire nation’? Entire nation of what ought to be the question. Jack Neo, after all, is just an actor, and a pretty rubbish one at that - it is not surprising that someone like Jack Neo can rise to fame as an actor in a Confucian state that is quite devoid of passion and vibrancy and hence produces the kind of minds that does not deem Jack Neo, Gurmit Singh, amongst others, as ‘great actors’...they’ll be lucky to get a job as waterboys on a movie set in south India or Japan - so I don’t see why his sexploits ought to be an issue. Now if it was the Pope, with his vow of celibacy, that might be an issue worth considering. All this fuss over Jack Neo engaging in the humpty-dumpty with a bevy of women is quite unwarranted, but most certainly indicative of the degree to which mere prominence seems to be enough to overvalue anything emerging from a celebrity, be it a fart or an extra-marital ejaculation.

As i’ve said quite a few times in the past regarding contemporary Singapore, ‘I live under the tyranny of mass stupidity’.


related articles

What does this say about singaporeans?

Gatorade and Gillette deny complicity in Tiger's extra-marital woody

In Praise of Hypocrisy


a2ed

California, US: Gopalan appeared before magistrates this afternoon after he was arrested at his home in a dawn raid by Police and RSPCA officers.

He pled guilty to eight hundred and ninety two specimen charges of unlawful sex with animals, after it was revealed he had been interfering with poultry in a series of famous turkey farms.

In court, despite being asked repeatedly to keep his remarks to "guilty or not guilty" Mr Gopalan alleged inter-species discrimination with, "If it's good enough for the gander, why shouldn't it be good enough for me!?"

A spokesman for the RSPCA said, "We are glad Mr Gopalan has finally been apprehended. We don't understand how anyone could... treat a turkey this way. Perhaps the occasional gobble, but not this."

The turkey, be it the victim or Gopalan, wasn't available for comment though it is suspected that this is Gopalan's way of contributing to the off-season decline in sales of Turkeys, and perhaps, deemed to be a remedy for a receding hairline and early signs of dementia.


*






And we all know that the above is a hoax, and that the number of hits this post has attracted is not due to the popularity of this site or its author, but the similitude between the named in the title and a certain someone who recently released a hoax on Lee's medical condition(see 'hits' below). So if the aforementioned namesake found that the whole furore over his recent hoax was gratifying, it shouldn't be. And, by the way, I didn't say 'Gopalan Nair', just 'Gopalan'. The sensational requires nothing but the merest allusion to the prominent for attention, and is not reliant on the prominence of the site or person who forwards it. Besides the above being an illustration of this point, it also serves to show that it isn't very nice to take jibes at others' infirmities or poke fun at that them just for 'a joke' - as Gopalan recently did with Lee's 'false teeth' falling into the River Thames. A2ed is not a fan of the Lees, but we ought to just stick to the issues instead of just engaging in malicious mud-slinging for its own sake.




ed




the above is a modified version of the original: The Spoof

[chinese character on a national monument (singapore flyer) further reinforcing the association between the 'nation' and 'chinese'- Further emphasised by 'Chingay' parade held in the Chinese New Year period, amongst others.]


That’s obvious enough to myself, except to the opposition, local bloggers, and the ‘house niggers’ populating either. Temasek Review, a verifiably fascist organisation, wrote about this event and how foreigners are going to turn the locals into a ‘minority in their own country’, and the government’s stance is seen as a ‘liberal immigration policy’.

Why are they afraid of being turned into a ‘minority in their own country’? Perhaps there is a subconscious fear that they would suffer the selfsame consequences as the ethnic minorities in singapore in the face of pro-Chinese policies and mass apathy? And just as the interests of ethnic minorities have taken 2nd place in the past couple of decades, are they fearing that they are now set to take their place as ethnic minorities move down to 3rd place? But this effort to speak up for the interests of all singaporeans is obviously an effort to garner the support of all locals regardless of ‘race’ and the inability of many Indians and Malays being unable to get a job because they can’t speak Mandarin or aren’t the same-same as the majority, so that they may be hoisted back onto their previously privileged status.

They take Lee senior to task for favouring Chinese nationals over locals as ‘hard-striving’ and ‘hard-driving’, but remain mum about how this was the very same reason utilised by the government to maintain the racial balance in favour of the local Chinese in the past. Where was the hullabaloo than? Where are the discussions associating the two events now? Has this incited any semblance of critical introspection amongst them in appreciation of the two? What does this say about the singaporeans of today and the true aims of those who kick up a fuss over ‘foreigners’ and how they are compromising ‘local’ singaporeans?

The most glaring oversight in the article by TR and its discussion amongst just about all ‘netizens’ and other singaporeans i’ve encountered is that there is no mention of how the holding of the said ‘National Integration Night’ on the last night of River Hongbao 2010 celebrating the Chinese New Year fundamentally associates ‘national’ with ‘Chinese’. Why not hold it in the more representative ‘National Day’ period. This completely and utterly indicts the oppositional movement, and just about all singaporeans whom haven’t noted this point as fascists, or more aptly, sino-fascists. It seems that whilst the oppositional elements are going on about their fear of becoming a ‘minority’ in Singapore, ethnic minorities, by their failure to appreciate the above points, have become non persona. It seems that the doctorate of James Gomez or Chee, or the double-honours of Kenneth Jeyaretnam, isn’t helping in bolstering their insights in these arenas.

Singapore needs new and true democratic leaders, but for that, we require a population of non-fascists. As the latter is obviously not true, given a multitude of evidence, the most we can hope for is ‘change’, but not democracy.


a2ed

For myself, i'm not interested in the 'sex scandals' of any celebrity. 'Sensational' always tends to sell, and sell big, but that generally requires the masses to be quite juvenile in character, and especially if more attention is not paid to other articles of insight.

In the Confucian singapore of today, what sells is, firstly, the sensational; secondly, that which is prominent or 'this one very popular one'; thirdly, that which validates one's views without requiring much thought on one's part; and fourthly, that which challenges one's views without requiring much thought on one's part. Break these three rules, and you're not going to stand much of chance to win singapore's SGblogawards.


a2ed

“US anti-gay rights senator Roy Ashburn admits he’s gay

A conservative US state senator who has voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in office has confessed he is gay.....Mr Ashburn said his votes reflected the way his constituents wanted him to vote, not his own "internal conflict". ” source: BBC

If that is true, then it is laudable enough. Putting aside his own proclivities to be representative is indeed praiseworthy - or perhaps he liked the benefits that comes with being a senator enough to confine his sexuality to the disrobing room.

But then again, I often wonder why it ought to matter if an anti-gay rights or anyone for that matter lives a life other than that which s/he vociferously promotes. People might say, you have to practice what you preach. To that, I would say, ‘you are in a better position to preach if you’ve had good practice in that which you stand up against, especially if one is able to learn from her/is personal practices enough to learn about the evils of such ways, even whilst indulging in it - something like older persons telling kids that they ought to never smoke as it is bad for their health, whilst puffing on a Havana. I suppose children need role models who practice what they preach as they are inclined to learn virtues by its association with people they like. But for adults, I would say, the inverse ought to be true. To pay attention to the point despite the practice of its purveyor is a practice in being objective.

So what if Martin Luther King might have kept a bevy of women for amorous pursuits; so what if it is found that Jesus actually fathered enough kids to populate a kibbutz and a half - which might give ‘the passion of Christ’ meanings other than that promoted by the church; so what if a couple of his male disciples were engaged in some heavy duty and very energized workout atop each other in a tent within a stone’s throw of a proselytizing pharisee; so what if we find out that homespun-clad Gandhi was actually a multi-millionaire with a couple of thousand acres of prime land in the choicest locations in India; so what if we were to discover that Pope Ratzinger was actually a member of the Schutzstaffel back in the 2nd western-initiated world war; or that Emmeline Pankhurst secretly enjoyed giving her hubby the odd spank and tickle whilst clad in a stud-studded latex SS uniform and hurling expletives in German?

If we expect everyone to practice what they preach, it must generally be because we’d rather spare ourselves the tedium of thought that comes with the objective consideration of things despite its source, and simply follow the crowd rallying around some prominent figure like some good little fan or confucian. And perhaps, in these figures practicing what they preach, we, in a way, feel it alright if we don’t do as they preach so long as we can live vicariously through the lives of some saint and claim credit by association and party membership. In other words, we expect our hallowed leaders to practice what they preach so that we might be relieved of the need to think and just follow them for their prominence. And when they are discovered to lead not-holier-than-thou lives, to spare ourselves the feelings of idiocy that comes with following the prominent for their prominence, we shout them down as hypocritical sons of B&*$h#s.

Of course, some would say, we need to know about their private lives in order to discern their 'hidden agenda'. And by doing so, we will know if we ought to pay them much heed at all. But this just opens up the possibility of great ideas being discounted just because the individual is discovered to be leading less than a laudable life. Anyway, the 'hidden agenda' only works if we are inclined to simply follow this or that individual for her/is prominence, or leave the business of, say, politics to the 'professionals' and 'experienced. In that, we are relieved of the need to consider other views be they supportive or oppositional. It is, generally, only under these conditions that the 'hidden agenda' works. Hence, the fault lies not in those whom have a 'hidden agenda' but in us for being blinkered in our consideration of our ideas.

I, personally, would rather listen to the sermonising of the devil as he is more well-experienced in evil ways to speak about the evil of such ways. A saint may be able to point the way to the heavens, but a sinner is better equipped, by experience, to point out the snakes that leads to our slide down to square one whilst ascending the ladder.

As for hypocrites, I thank the Gods for them, for they, in their hypocrisy, force us to practice our status as adults whom are able to appreciate the point despite the source.


a2ed

Father Luke Fong:

The rise of the individual - the fall of the community, a thought-provoking article.

French philosopher Rene Descartes who lived in the early 17th century is hailed as the “Father of modern philosophy”. The ‘individualistic’ revolution is generally attributed to his thought of ‘cogito ergo sum’ or ‘I think therefore I am’. It made the world sit up and believe, erroneously, of course, that the “I” is what everything should revolve around....

Maybe then, we can hear ourselves say: “Even though I may not be getting anything from Mass, even though the hymns aren’t lively, even though I may view some of the Church laws as archaic and infringing on my individual freedom, I still go to Mass, still sing hymns, and still abide by Church laws. Because it’s really not about me.”

Anon:
what a timely reminder on this article. There's no such thing as "pick and choose" or either You are a catholic or not. period.

As a catholic.. we must accept the the teachings of the church of the magisterium "wholesale" and not at yr whims and fancies..

ed:
Hi Anon,

If we take the church at its word, then wouldn't some of the evils perpetrated by the church in the past continue ad infinitum? I know that the church isn't a democracy, and shouldn't be one as that only serves to tether the church to the whims and fancies of the populace whom are themselves subject to socialisation within the socio-economic system. Given the above 2 points, there is quite a problem here isn't it.

Hi Father Luke,

With regards to Descartes, if i'm not mistaken, the only thing he realised that he could be certain of was not the 'I' but his ability to 'doubt'. This, in part, founded the basis for the scientific method which attempted to discern the means by which we could 'doubt' correctly. I do stand by the scientific method without question though, as i'm aware that the only thing we can be certain of is the certainty of the fallibility of humanity.

With regards to 'the rise of the individual' and 'the fall of the community'. I am, on persuasion by reason, a Socialist - no, i am not an atheist...that's an illogical concept - and believe in the value of the community that abides by the 13th Commandment of the Christ. However, without the rise of the individual, would not the individual be subject to the dictates of the elite within a community? I suppose it is not the 'rise of the individual' that is the problem, but the 'rise of the individual' within particular socio-economic conditions, such as those which hold the class-system as sacrosanct, that compromises the community.

If we were to all live within a community where we hold true and fast the 13th Commandment of Christ, and bring about the institutions that do not put obstacles in the way of its practice, then the rise of the individual would further elevate the community would it not?

I am, officially, a Catholic by the way (parish, Risen Christ, where i was an alter boy between 1978-81 before i was sacked for bringing potato chips to a retreat amongst a couple of other ridiculous reasons). But have ceased to attend mass since 1999 as i find the church in singapore to be more of an opiate than a solution - unlike the Church in the UK where the priest proffers perspectives on how we can live good Christian lives in consideration of the socio-economic system and whilst acknowledging the evils of the capitalist system. It was quite the eye-opener for myself. This particular priest reminded me of a Father Adrian Anthony back in the 80s whose sermons drew thousands on the first sunday of the month. Gone are those days with the emergence of singapore as a Confucian state.

Thank you for the above perspective, it is an issue that i've been concerned about for the last couple of decades, and in essence, I do agree with your perspective. Keep them coming.


a2ed

Those whom are upset over Gopalan’s hoax posting on Lee Kuan Yew’s ‘heart attack’ ought to first restrain their angst and ask if he has raised a valid point in forwarding the hoax and if this point deserves the medium of transmission.

“My last post in this blog, Saturday, March 6, 2010 "Singapore strongman 87 year old Lee Kuan Yew suffers massive heart attack", was a hoax. But the hoax was deliberately written by me. It was a deliberate attempt to highlight how tenuous Singapore really is, with all power in the island vested in one man, and the dire consequences to the island of his parting.”

This is quite illogical. He has complemented a hoax with an assumed scenario and goes on to claim that the hoax proves the latter when nothing happened at all.

“I have received no less than 40 comments to it, with so many readers really bowled over as to what will happen.”

Many readers wondering ‘what will happen’ is no basis for claiming that anything will happen. One must remember that many, some of whom i’ve personally encountered, like to think that hell will freeze over and the pope will start reproducing like a hermaphrodite amphibian upon Lee dropping off the twig. This, if anything, only serves to add to the myth behind the man, Lee, and that his passing will see the hammer of Thor wrecking the earth with bolts of thunder whilst the land is plagued by locusts in biblical proportions. I’m sure Lee will be gratified to witness a portion of reactions in the nether regions of the political milieu before his passing.

“Is it not stupid that a mere blog like mine, which is not a major newspaper and not a news source of any major importance can be taken so seriously and cause such worry and uncertainly. I must say the overwhelming reaction to my humble blog about the Dear Leader is gratifying.”

No it’s not. It’s not his blog or its credibility that is the point here, but the bated breath with which Lee’s death is awaited in some quarters that even Pokemon’s blog might be taken seriously if the news is sensational enough. I bet if I was to release the news, ‘Gopalan Nair brought up on charges of copulating with a goat’, that would see quite a lot of hits and comments at a2ed, not because local bloggers, the opposition, or just about anyone else have the sense to appreciate the contents of the site, but because Gopalan has been cast in the hallowed glow of the media long enough for Confucians to flock to him - upon the same logic do prominent members of the fascist opposition earn their credentials, not by insight but being in constant sight.

“In fact I don't know anything. And neither do you. And that my friends is the story of living in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore. “

I’ll have to agree with him there. Especially when people come across as more of a product of the PAP than an alternative, and where democratic movements are nothing but an attempt to refine fascism as opposed to doing away with it altogether.

“Those with money will begin transferring it abroad, there will be a run on the banks, his corrupt friends at the top will be leaving with their money and their lives, there will be demonstrations at the junctions of Geylang Road and Mountbatten Road and Orchard Road and Patterson Road. There will be mayhem. And it will happen soon.”

I wonder if Gopalan is relying on the power of suggestion in the course of a dry-run or rehearsal as was almost the case with his hoax. If anything was to happen, it would probably be indicative of the people placing too much importance in Lee senior as to want to wait for his departure before being fired enough to picket and placard. That, actually, would indicate the possibility that a people who over-value a singular individual might simultaneously devalue each other enough to not do anything, or if they do, do so purely out of self-interest. Let’s not forget that many say that Lee is a great man because he ‘did all this’, whilst pointing to their surroundings. A people who can say such a thing are simultaneously a people who have no sense of the worth of the collective or themselves as significant elements in the movement for democracy.

“If not pack up your belongings and your families and fly Qantas to Australia or some other safer country. Singapore is not longer safe.”

Oh yes, I will certainly be doing that. Not because it is ‘no longer safe’, but because the spirit of the ruling party has found the people and the opposition as its host. They are all couched in the ‘safety’ and familiarity of the underlying fascist and racist status quo that they are incapable of critical introspection and empathy and are motivated to bring about democracy purely for self-interest without any appreciation of the fact that the latter negates the former.


source: My last post about Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew was a hoax. However it was deliberate.


a2ed

ed:
IP is theft. Every production is a product of the consciousness of the masses. I understand that we live in a capitalist milieu, but that cannot whitewash the truth. Given the status quo, the most i can support is that every song should be in the public domain after the recovery of the material cost of production and a sum earned by both enough to maintain the cost of sustenance and production.

thoserandomaussies:

Freedom of information? Fuck you!! Currently researching the emergence of the counterculture for a university assignment and this is what I get?

I can't believe this shit, sure there is a copyright infringement, but I think information like this should transcend such limitations. Not everything has a dollar amount you repressive fucks.

I call this kleptocractic corporatism and I am not impressed

ed:

If you think about it, IP and ‘copyright’ is the bourgeoisie’s ‘counterculture’ in the face of the ‘Hippie’ communalist ethos. So this example ought to encourage you to broaden the scope and definition of your research on 'counterculture'.


a2ed

"And even if he did not have the heart attack yesterday and is not housed in the Intensive Care Cardiac Unit of Singapore General Hospital at present, if in fact that had happened, which I am sure is likely to happen this week or next, given his being a tottering old man of 87 years of age, all that I said is going to happen very soon.

Noone can live forever.

Those with money will begin transferring it abroad, there will be a run on the banks, his corrupt friends at the top will be leaving with their money and their lives, there will be demonstrations at the junctions of Geylang Road and Mountbatten Road and Orchard Road and Patterson Road. There will be mayhem. And it will happen soon.

My advice to those in Singapore with their cerebrums intact is this, if you can stand and protest the system, do it for your own good. Bring about a new Singapore. One that does not rely completely on an 87 year old tin pot." source

You overestimate Confucian societies Gopalan.

You forget that under Stalin's rule, when he dropped off the twig, millions cried despite his being responsible for millions of deaths. People tend to make sense of reality within the perspectival auspices of their leaders, and especially when they've had as long a run as Lee, and have their personalities reduced to the point that they can confuse economic affluence as reason enough to laud themselves as a great civilisation.

There are no true democrats in singapore, only fascists whom seek greater advantages for the previously advantaged. This bespeaks gross self-absorption and not much can be expected of such a people.

One ought to complement their attention to the blogging world with an on-the-street interaction with singapore's 'heartlanders', such as I have. You'll see another picture if you do.

One of the final goals of Confucianism is harmony after a people have internalised the morality of the rulers. Ask yourself if that has not already happened in singapore by what is said and felt by people and what is not.

As for this hoax you put out, I don't see anything significant has been achieved. You have just proved what people already know. At the end of the day, most of the prominent on the oppositional side of things have as much insight as that of a gnat. They serve the same function as Kings and Queens in that the masses invest in them that which they hope to be as opposed to said Kings and Queens serving the function of directing their attention to that which they are unawares. You people simply validate the masses for what they are, and in the hallowed glow of your prominence, spouting what the masses think, they are gratified. Speak on that which does not pander to their self-absorbed interests, and then you'll know their true nature.

You're a confucian mate, for not realising these things.


a2ed

...And whom generally go on, in detail, only about that which affects the interests of the racially-defined majority whilst saying next to nothing about that which affects the interests of the racially-defined minorities?

We’re just going to be exchanging one dictator for another, except that the latter won't be encapsulated within a single individual or party but comprise the masses to whom problems don’t exist unless it affects the majority. How different is this from the view of the ruling party whom appear to think problems only exist when it affects their interests.

What we are seeing is not the advancement of democracy, but the refinement of fascism.


a2ed

Well, the government has started yet another push to elevate Chinese culture again over all ‘others’. The ‘Speak Mandarin’ and a ‘new nationwide initiative to deepen the appreciation of Chinese culture and increase the competency level of communication in Mandarin. The Chinese Challenge will begin on 30 March 2009.’ source

My question is, as it has always been, where does it leave the Malays and Indians? Why is it that one culture and language is promoted over others in such a blatant fashion? And it is most ironic that whilst their promotional video shows an African child, amongst others, speaking mandarin, Malays and Indians are forbidden to study the language in this country.

Basically, what this does is to elevate the value of one culture over others. The advertisements illustrate the global appreciation of Chinese language and culture. Those whom are Chinese in appearance, if exposed to this from youth, will tend to identify with the culture and learn to be Chinese and be proud of it given the exposure it receives over all ‘others’. It is sociologically and psychologically verifiable that the promotion of one culture over another will tend to render its practitioners or those whom identify with it to take what I term ‘counterpositional relative pride’ in it. That is, feeling proud of one’s culture and looking down on others since the others are not given such exposure. And this is further exacerbated by promotional videos such as the above that tends to present Chinese culture and language as being lauded the world over. In the past it was promoted as preferable and an 'advantage' over other local cultures. Now, it is promoted as laudable on a global scale. Not only will this induce cultural arrogance and enhance the feelings of self-efficacy amongst those identified as 'chinese', but it will induce the inverse amongst local 'others'. Anyway, what is singapore doing promoting Mandarin on a global stage and not others? Yet another attempt to render 'Singapore' synonymous with 'Chinese' perhaps? But, as always, it is not those who promote such campaigns that I take issue with, but the masses who fail to see anything amiss in such culturally vainglorious promotion. Shame on them.




If I was Prime Minister,


I would give equal prominence to ALL cultures despite the numbers of any population. Why?

Firstly, when we give all cultures prominence, their practitioners and those who identify with the culture will have their sense of personal and cultural self-efficacy enhanced. When this happens equitably, they will develop their cultural propensities even further and contribute the fruits of such development to the collective pool.


Secondly, we will enhance what I term, ‘collaborative non-counterpositional cultural pride’. That is, all races will view their own and the cultures of others as equals and hence value each other’s cultural perspectives and contribution. (right now, the Chinese, culturalised to be Chinese, tend to view Indians as people who talk too much, ask too many questions, and not unquestioningly do as they’re told. The critical faculty of the entire population is thus severely compromised.)

I would encourage the Chinese to study Tamil and Malay; the Malays to study Mandarin and Tamil; and the Indians to study Malay and Mandarin. Why?

Very simple actually.

Firstly, people are generally more careful with culturally dissimilar others in business, amongst others, than similar others. For instance, the Chinese in China may be less culturally imposing toward non-Chinese from other countries than diasporic (derived from the word Diaspora) Chinese. Indians from India and Chinese from China may tend to view as inferior diasporic peoples since both nations are the ‘motherlands’.

Secondly, when a person of one ‘race’ encounters one from another race who speaks their language, they tend to feel gratified and become more amiable toward the other as a person. This is not the case when one encounters one of the same ‘race’ as cultural norms are imposed. Put this together in a situation between a ‘mainland’ Chinese in China and a diasporic Chinese, expectations and impositions are increased manifold. I’ve personally enjoyed positive reactions all my life with Singaporean and Malaysian Chinese and, especially, Chinese from China, when I speak Mandarin. I tend to get more favours and got things done quickly at work in the past.


Let me give you an example. In my late teens (2 decades ago), I worked for a short time as a labourer. One time, I had to deliver a heavy wheel-like item which had cables running around it. I approached the Chinese contractor at a construction site and told him in English that I was there to deliver it and where I ought to put it. He just nodded to a particular location up a slope. Then I broke out in Mandarin and asked him if he wanted it to be placed there at that moment. He immediately looked at me in surprise and said, ‘Wah, ni huay chiang hua yi ah?!’(wow! You know how to speak mandarin?!”). He immediately told me to stand aside and called his workers to do the job for me. In another situation, a Chinese boss had me promoted as a supervisor after 3 days of work due to my ability to speak Mandarin. I’m also popular with most of the China girls who serve drinks at the neighbourhood coffeeshop and get exceptional service. This was also the case when I was working for ‘Yellow Pages’ a decade ago. I was the pet of the Chinese female staff and this helped in getting things done quickly. Dealing with debtors on the phone, when they discovered that I was Indian, or when they came down to the office in a confrontational attitude, they would always tone down and be more amiable toward me when I broke out in Mandarin. Speaking Mandarin is not an advantage, but speaking it when you’re not Chinese is.


The lesson here is simple. Speaking any language is an advantage when you’re not supposed to be able to speak it.

Thirdly, locally, when people learn to speak each other’s languages, not only does mutual validation and consideration take place; not only are people brought together despite ‘race’; but it will certainly help to forge a bond that will, over time, lead to a singular Singaporean identity that is not synonymous with just one race.

Finally, being of one culture and being most open to other cultures – especially when one is not taught to discount other cultures by undue prominence being given to one over another – will develop in the individual what I term, multiangular thought. That is, we’ll bring to bear an arsenal of different perspectives in the appreciation and analysis of any phenomena. We will become acutely cognizant of detail; the tendency to discount information will decrease as we will have the trained propensity to ignore or discount that which is new weeded out of us; and we will tend to become more innovative, critical and inventive.


As I've said in other articles, to marginalise one race is to compromise the potentials of ALL. For the myriad perspectives that may be garnered from the development of ALL can never be compensated for by the development of just one. Sisters and brothers, let me tell you what the struggle for equality is all about. It is not the struggle for the elevation of the marginalised, but the struggle for the perspectival progress of all. For it is not the numbers of a people that matter, but the potential of even a single individual of another culture to add exponential value to the perspectives of all. The = symbol in a lengthy equation may just be 1 symbol amongst many. But without it, we will never have a conclusion that in turn serves as a stepping stone to further formulae.


a2,

ed


[this article was first published on 18th April, 2009. '1SG' image redesigned from the old Singapore $10 note by a2ed]

Always listen to what's said, and what's consistently not said. Whilst in the UK people appreciate issues regarding 'the standard of living' along with how male chauvinism, class, racism, disability, age, amongst others, have to be considered so that people are not trained to feel and think that everything's ok when the 'majority' are well-fed, that is not the case here.

I have to wonder what's absent from Chee's 'beliefs'. Perhaps we ought to import some 'FTs' from the United Kingdom to replace Chee and other's of his ilk in Singapore.

The populist style politics of the 'opposition' in singapore leaves much to be desired. What populism amounts to is simply an effort to pander to the privileged of the past in pursuit of the perpetuation of said privilege.

[above comment placed at Carlos Abdullah's]


a2ed