"Singapore for Singaporeans" says the Fascist Opposition. What utter neo-Nazi nonsense!One single slogan for the opposition front: “Singapore for Singaporeans” [temasek review]
"We want a Singapore for Singaporeans where every single person born here are entitled to basic rights as citizens of their country of birth – the right to education, the right to equal job opportunities, the right to free speech, the right to oppose the government, the right to afford a home of their own, the right to public healthcare and lastly, the right to retire comfortably and enjoy life after years of hard work.
This is the Singapore which most citizens aspire to, not the present Singapore where we find ourselves becoming increasingly marginalized by the relentless influx of foreigners who have diluted our collective national identity."
...went the article on Temasek Review. The antics of the fascist opposition never ceases to amaze. If that’s what the ‘opposition’ stands for, then I’ll certainly not be voting for them in future elections.
That said, I wouldn’t be voting for them anyway given their gross ethnocentrism. As I said to Vanessa, my Chinese friend from Singapore, in the past I would say that we’ve got to vote for the opposition no matter what, because when the opposition appreciate the ‘demand’ for them, we’ll probably see more perspectivally-adept people joining them. Put it this way, if nobody purchased the first generation of the Ipod, we wouldn’t have an Iphone today.
However, after a decade of observing the fascist and ethnocentric ‘progress’ of what thus became the so-called ‘opposition’, I realised that to vote for these people is a vote for the mutation of old evils in new and more acceptable forms. 'Our collective National Identity'? That's a nice way of referring to all identities subsumed into a race/culture-defined majority identity doesn't it? I wouldn't expect fascists to appreciate that point. Pray tell, how 'Malay' or 'Indian' is this 'collective national identity' you are referring to? Go on. I'm all ears. You know not better for not knowing more mate. That said, I wouldn't be voting for the party in power either. But I will be voting in the British elections come next May. At least, in the UK, we have a choice between fascist and non-fascist alternatives. Whew!
These people, I’ve been frequently heard to remark, are little more than PAP backbenchers in that their perspectival basis is similar in quite a few significant respects. For instance, they too have a racialised view of things as is most evident in their opposition to difference (in the form of ‘foreigners’ whom are frequently criticised not only for taking up local jobs – which is quite acceptable – but for not ‘integrating’ – which to the opposition means assimilating to the dominant Chinese mindset); their failure to appreciate that the conditions they complain about are the conditions that ethnic minorities have had to put up with for quite a long time without the interest of the ‘opposition’; that they too promote prominence-worship and relatively unquestioning obedience amongst the infantry of respective parties; their constantly failing to take up issues that affect the interests of ethnic minorities; and now, precious few, if any, not blushing at the hypocritical stance against ‘foreigners’ when the ancestors of the Chinese and Indians singaporeans of today are themselves of ‘foreign’ origin. So the only difference between the foreigners of today and yesteryear is length of sojourn and nothing more. So why don’t the ‘opposition’ just shut up about this for long enough so that the new foreigners can also claim to ‘be singaporean’ after a few decades?
Anyway, how is it that foreigners are 'foreigners'? If a ‘foreigner’ has been here, say, for the past couple of months, and a newborn ‘singaporean’ has been around since 6 this morning, could we not say that the former has a greater claim to being ‘singaporean’ since they know more about this country than the babbler-come-lately? And wouldn't this 'foreigner' have contributed more to the economy before the said child comes of age enough to do so? And how much value can a child socialised locally add to the development of a nation that knows not more than its own cultural produce? If cultural variation was required to move this country forward - with the influx of foreign Indian and Chinese people in the historical past - why is such logic not applicable in the present? Hmmm, I really think we need more 'true blue Indians' in this country so that we can teach these 'true blue singaporeans' that the value of reality lies beyond the obvious and sphere of self-absorption.
I suppose I'm in quite a unique position. On the one hand, I'm fighting for egalitarian inclusion of 'foreigners' in the UK as an outsider, whilst fighting for the egalitarian appreciation of 'foreigners' in singapore as an insider. Thus, I'm in the position of the 'foreigner' in the UK and a 'local' or 'true blue singaporean' in singapore. But being, in perspectival part, Indian/British, I am, I dare say, more acquainted with the objective idea of Empathy than most singaporeans 'true blue' or otherwise.
To be honest, the people who generally take the approach of the opposition in singapore in the United Kingdom are generally card-carrying members of the British National Party, whom, incidentally, are commonly reviled as neo-Nazi fools. Well, that is just about how I perceive the opposition in the singapore of today. Neo-nazi fools. Yes, that includes the TOC, Temasek Review, ‘Dr’ Chee, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Low Thia Kiang, and their regiments of goose-steppers. Not for what they do - which is laudable - but what they fail to appreciate, consistently. Given that they’ve constantly failed to appreciate problems unless it affects a race-defined majority, I’m certainly not surprised that they are taking the aforetitled stance against ‘immigrants’ and ‘foreigners’. I would expect nothing less from fascists. Remember this, it is very easy to fight fascism, but it is not as easy to detect the degree to which its ethos is embedded in ourselves given our habituation in a fascist milieu that has been around longer than us. Think about it.
Well, I’ll leave this brief observation with the following article extracted from The Socialist Worker UK for the perusal of those whom are inclined to being more a part of The Solution than The Problem. I usually reserve my articles for my own words as opposed to aping the pronouncements of others, but since the following article does a pretty good systematic job with regards to this issue, I’ll bow out in favour of the following perspective. To the democratic fascists of the opposition left, just shut up a while and consider the following.
Will “tougher” action on immigration help to beat the BNP?
Johnson claimed last week that part of the attraction of the BNP was that “it is raising things that other political parties don’t raise”.
He meant immigration – yet this is nonsense.
Mainstream political parties barely stop talking about immigration.
This is particularly the case at times of economic crisis when politicians want to divert blame for poverty, lack of services and jobs onto anyone other than themselves and their system.
The BNP has managed to feed off a climate created by mainstream parties and their constant “tough talking” on immigration.
Being “tough” on immigration helps to give rise to racism and the idea that “outsiders” are a problem.
This is a dangerous position that helps the Nazis to appear respectable.
We’re in recession – can Britain afford to support more people?
The recession was not caused or made worse by how many people live in Britain.
It was triggered by the greed of those at the top of society, and by economic crisis built into the capitalist system.
Poverty, unemployment, lack of housing and services do not exist because too many people live in Britain.
They exist because the government stands for big business and the rich, rather than the needs of working class people.
Housing is a perfect example of how this works.
Many people are stuck in substandard housing, and some have no home at all.
This isn’t because immigrants have taken all the houses.
There are more than 800,000 empty homes in Britain, more than enough for everyone to have a decent place to live. The problem is that access to it is based on how much money you have.
So the rich have several homes, while the poorest are stuck on the streets.
The recession doesn’t mean that there is no money to support people.
The government has spent billions upon billions of pounds on bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bailing out the banks.
It has shown that, even during economic crisis, billions of pounds are available – but only for things that help those at the top.
Does immigration lead to fewer jobs and lower wages?
No – saying that employment and wage rates are the result of immigration is to look at the situation the wrong way around.
Migrant workers tend to leave countries if there are no jobs. Many reports into immigration patterns show that migrant workers make a significant contribution to economies and communities.
They also show that migration has no significant impact on employment rates. Several have shown that migrant workers have a positive effect on wage levels.
It is the bosses paying low wages who are responsible for poverty pay.
Divisions between migrant and “indigenous” workers will only make it easier for the bosses to get away with it.
And it is the government’s refusal to invest in things ordinary people so desperately need that boosts unemployment.
Do we need tighter immigration controls?
The government has recently changed its immigration policy to a points based system, one that prioritises highly trained professionals and wants to attract “entrepreneurs”.
This is part of the government’s strategy to put the needs of business first, before the needs of ordinary people who want to live in Britain.
The bosses and the government are hypocrites when it comes to immigration.
When the economy is expanding the government encourages people to come to Britain to fill the jobs.
But when those jobs disappear, they attack immigrants.
The rich can move themselves and their businesses freely around the globe.
Immigration controls exist to target the poor. They benefit those at the top of society while spreading division and racism.