Skip to main content

When 'Catholic' quite meant 'Singaporean'

Looking at singapore, when i look at older couples in their late 50s and 60s where one is Indian (usually the man) and the other is Chinese, i often find that one or both were usually Catholic. That's not really to say that Christianity has much to do with it – though perhaps, the 13th commandment of Christ, ‘love thy neighbour as thy self’ might have helped somewhat – but that the catholic milieu - where Indian, Eurasians and Chinese interacted - tended to dilute the irrelevant and concentrate integration. But I must stress that it was not really a ‘religious thing’ as Catholics then were highly liberal to the point that quite a few Christians I encountered expressed their disdain for them. One catholic brother who later moved on to becoming the head of the ‘missionaries of charity’ of a few s.e.Asian countries said to me in a personal discussion that the ‘Holy Spirit’ went to Muhammad just as it went to the prophets of other faiths, and that we were all one. That just about sums up the Catholic ethos which was more ‘universal’ than ‘christian’.

You could say that the ‘mother tongue’ of the Catholics then, and non-Catholic English-speakers of all races was English, and therefore ‘foreign’, but it served the paradoxically purpose of integrating quite a few s.e.Asian hinterlands into a singular whole that mothered a genre of ‘Singaporean’ that was more representative of what the nation was. And given that the Catholic milieu was more into multiculturalism than 'Jesus' (though i view both as synonymous) they wouldn't have a problem with integrating equally with Muslims and Malays if they had taken singapore's developmental helm.

With such integration, the aforementioned Chinese were exorcised of the ‘Han’ (or more aptly, the Qin) and had the perspectivally vibrant ‘Zhou’ (Chou) reinstated within them. The Indians and Eurasians were already ‘Chou’ given their multicultural background. If this developmental trajectory was left alone, the definition of ‘progress’ and how it is judged would have been very different today.

Today, people tend to make sense of ‘progress’ from a highly monocultural point of view. This view serves as both the starting point of a particular and severely compromised brand of progress, whilst those socialised into such a milieu have become reduced enough to not deem anything more than being able to shop, eat and reproduce as relevant. Thus, everyone is basically ‘looking forward’ from an extremely backward vantage. When I speak to contemporary ‘singaporeans’, they all tend to spout the selfsame Confucian mantra, ‘why talk about the past, just look forward’. What they tend to not have the personality to realise is that if you ignore the solutions of the past, you will make a culture out of handling the consequences of this oversight. That is a hallmark of post-Chou China, and has now becomes the national ethos of ‘singaporeans’. That is why when people, of all races, talk about how ‘singaporeans’ are apathetic; don’t have an opinion on anything beyond the ‘pragmatic’, shopping and eating; don’t have an intelligent opinion on significant issues; cut queues; don’t have enough sex; I always say, ‘excuse me, you are speaking of a Confucian/Legalist problem, not a ‘Singaporean’ one.’ I never found it right or responsible to celebrate a Confucian/Legalist view of things, ignoring egalitarian multiculturalism, whilst blaming all singaporeans for its consequences. The true multiculturals,(or the 'Chou') such as those I’ve referred to above, are exempt from this. They were a true and representative brand of Singaporean, whilst the ‘singaporean’ of today is nothing more than a perspectival reflection of post-Chou China.




  1. I have always asked my Chinese Catholic friends.
    What's of most importance to him, his race and culture or his faith and trust in Christ The King? Surprisingly most of them don't seem to have an answer or mutter to themselves.
    As for me, being an ethnic Asian through and through. Will and have always put Jesus Christ above all else, although I am not a Pius Christian. I have my faults as any human and God has always been kind, forgiving and loving.No doubts about it.
    However it's flabbergasting to learn from my Chinese Catholic friends that the Christian faith is a western originated religion. When Christ was from the Middle East and considered an Eastern Religion, that influenced the Anglo Saxon Western World. These ignorant answers from Christians don't discourage me in building a stronger faith in Christ. What matters most to me is, my personal relationship with Jesus Christ and not their values in Christ that influences my strong believe and faith.Although I try to educate them about their priorities and knowledge in CHRIST.

  2. Middle East is west of SG.
    The need to prove the supremacy of one's faith is a sure sign of a lack of faith.
    Qin were western barbarians who were actually very open to foreign talents.
    Han under Emperor WuDi was where all the confucian nonsense began.
    Blind obedience is good for central command/rule, no?
    Of course, Confucianism inevitably contributed to the decline of every chinese empire. But it is such a seductive school of thought.
    if u were a lazy and incompetent emperor.


Post a Comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…