Why bilingualism might be a 'Chinese' problem - personal observations

We ought to note that whilst the whole world needs to pick up Mandarin to do business with China, and with singapore even considering promoting mandarin over all other languages for this and associating its Chinese with Chinese culture, that is not the case with India. The latter doesn’t seem to have a problem with multilingualism as opposed to the former which has yet to scale the heights of bilingualism. In this, what we might be witnessing is an attempt to break one’s legs so that we can keep up with a multiculturally disabled people, and which might serve as a significant basis for the failure to make more out of one’s intelligence through bilingualism.

Mastering two languages is not easy for those socialised into a ‘one-way’ Qin-style mode of thought – as opposed to a ‘Chou-style of thought. The problem here is not bilingualism but traditional bilingualism where one is taught to identify with phenomena because ‘it’ like that one lahhhh’.

Reason and rationalism goes out the window when rules and tradition become the reason as opposed to standing the test of reason. What can be expected of minds that do what is done because that’s the way it is done? They are always going to suffer that degree of stupor that pulls them back into that which they are familiar with.

In my personal interactions with singaporeans, and especially the Chinese, I have to admit that there is quite a significant difference between the races when it comes to information-processing. But, again, I have to say that these differences are the greatest between those of the present of all races, and those of the past (70s, 80s) of all races.

In a sense, any ethnic minority will generally have a greater intellectual advantage over a racially and culturally defined and distinguishable majority. The reason is simple enough in that the majority would generally have formed a system of coping with the way things have transpired with the predominant style of thought and thoughtlessness. Any new minority, or a minority in a new nation, would not have the ‘luxury’ of couching themselves in the way things generally are. They will hold alternative perspectives which will contrast with the prevailing one and this in itself can cause dialectical reactions in themselves that can lead to greater analytical and critical propensities. The same applies to multicultural nations such as India where people have not been afforded the luxury of a singular system of thought, language, cuisine, faith, etc, for more than 2000 years. Hence, in truly multicultural states such as India, as opposed to Malaysia and Singapore, people are forced to re-evaluate the beliefs of the day before in the morrow. These cause differences in information-processing abilities, and the ability to successfully embrace the different or new.

The Chinese in singapore have been the cultural majority for about 3 decades now. Whilst they might have been the racial majority for more than that, their status as the cultural majority was ushered in by the pogrom against difference undertaken in the late 70s by the government by way of the dilution of difference between Chinese dialect groups, and then amongst the non-Chinese through policies effectuated in many significant arenas. Thus, their need and ability to process new information overtime was significantly weakened compared to other ‘races’ whom had to deal with the goodness of fit between distinctive styles of thought.

Bilingualism is one form of difference that will not fit very well with a people accustomed to a ‘one-way’ approach toward reality. Just about everyone looks upward for directions, abide by policies, and do not question or challenge authority or what’s popular. For instance, phrases like ‘it’s like that one lahh’ and ‘it’s company policy’ as ‘reasons’ for things are pervasive amongst such a populace. Anyone who has more than a modicum of experience with this ‘uniquely singaporean’ experience will attest to that. In south Indian films, however, the word ‘logic’ or ‘reason’ or ‘rationale’ features very frequently along with metaphorical, poetic, critical, philosophical discussions and so on. That might explain why the critical mind that is not averse to difference is required for bilingualism, and multilingualism even, to succeed.

For instance, in dealing with customer service persons in singapore, I personally prefer dealing with Indians, Malays, or Filipinos as they process novel information on the fly and actually answer my questions. However, in dealing with Chinese customer service persons, I almost always get a blank look followed by ‘it’s company policy’ when I ask a question that I know most would not have asked, or am given simple answers, or a reiteration of an earlier answer which had prompted my question. This is not really noticed by people socialised into such a scheme of things as they too would conduct interactions in a relatively superficial way.

Generally, I found that the Chinese do not ask questions, tend to make sense of a statement given the first opportunity to do so i.e. ask for an orange juice and you get an orange (exaggerated example of course), averse to contradiction, and find those who question the status quo to be ‘complainers’ or ‘trouble-causers’. Upon contradiction in discussions, the Chinese I interacted with would not seek clarification and generally remain silent. This is not the case with the British, whom seem to enjoy a good argument, and neither is it amplified amongst the Malays or Indians I interacted with. After a decade of interaction, stark differences presented itself to the point I could not deny that there were great differences in said information-processing. In conclusion, I observed that the Chinese tended to teeter on the edge of traditionalism. That is, the most well-worn path is always preferred. They are most appealed to by the obvious, the popular, the simplest, the least intellectually demanding, similarity, and so on – unless it is trendy, top-down imposed, or at the work place. However, I also noted that there were differences between Chinese men and Chinese women – with the latter being more inclined to take on challenges, but being as averse to novelty. For instance, I can interact with Malays, Indians and Chinese, and it is the latter two whom would be picking up my vocabulary and styles of thought for cross-application in a few weeks to a few months, whereas, with the some of the Chinese I interacted with, they continued the way they had thought and spoken a decade or two earlier. In two decades, I have encountered only one Chinese, by the name of Melvin Neo, who processes information like the English-speaking Chinese of the 70s or an Indian.

When one triangulates this with how the norm is adhered to throughout the country, be it in the political sphere or social one, one can begin to understand why bilingualism can be quite an issue amongst the Chinese. We must also note that whilst the whole world needs to pick up Mandarin to do business with China, that is not the case with India. The latter doesn’t seem to have a problem with multilingualism as opposed to the former which has yet to scale the heights of bilingualism. What concerns me in the case of China is that whilst the world is attempting to keep up with China’s multicultural disability by learning Mandarin, China will be seeing it as evidence of the greatness of their culture where the inverse might be more true. In the case of singapore, addressing bilingualism from the vantage of a culturally segregated milieu and stating that language and intelligence might not be linked comes across as a ‘whitewash’ of consequences of cultural segregation and exclusivity. That will simply leave the basis upon which the whole problem might have emerged.


a2,

ed

From LKY to LHL, from Qin to Han. It's not a 'Chinese problem' but a perspectival one

Confucianism may be seen as the popular philosophical base supporting the Legalist view of the Government. Thus, with the institution of the Qin came the institution of Legalism. And to 'soften it', came Confucianism.

I'd say that the reason why the Qin was opposed to Confucianism was because it would inevitably throw up questions on what ought to be the right sort of relationship between the people and the government and between the people themselves. With the iron-fisted Qin-imposition of a one-way system, which has been the bane of Chinese humane, multicultural and democratic progress ever since, came, thereafter, the ‘PR period’ where Confucianism became the paradigm from whence one made sense of the relatively new universe and her/is place in the scheme of things. The point is, without the harsh enforcement of the Qin, the Chou period in terms of relatively greater perspectival vibrancy might have continued. With the institution of the Qin, Confucianism comes in to perpetuate the status quo with its exhortations on propriety and stability – which can be paraphrased with doing one’s best within a status quo as opposed to changing it. Whatever Confucius had to say on other matters, and which indeed is laudable in themselves, is more of an ‘urging’ as opposed to the well-systematised and unequivocal call to maintain the status quo, harmony, whatever the foundations, obedience, and peace. In this, Confucianism plays the role of a perpetuator and can be a great thing when it comes to perfect conditions. However, in imperfect conditions, it promotes the perfection of the methods to cope with it. And that, produces post-Chou, as opposed to pre-Qin, ‘Chinese’ culture – which is more aptly termed, ‘Qin culture’.


If one was to look at Singapore’s development, it mirrors the aforementioned evolution in China. The monocultural Qin vision was also replicated for the purpose of maintaining the continued hegemony of the Qin-cum-Confucian system of thought and thoughtlessness. The replication of this mindset amongst the Chinese by ‘cultural identification’ imposed top-down is that which enables the formation of a ‘greater China’ through its perspectival satellites in ‘modern’ times. I say, ‘top-down imposition’, not because this is really felt as imposition amongst the post-dialect Chinese generations in singapore, but because it is imposed by the dilution of difference to the point that ‘multiculturalism’ in singapore has nothing more than a tributary or ‘constituency’ status within a greater Qin milieu. By the formation of these ‘perspectival satellites, China and said ‘satellites’ will began to form a mutually supportive symbiosis against the perspectives of the west and others in the region. In this, China holds the muscle in the face of the world, whilst singapore serves as a ‘controlled’ experiment on how multiculturalism can be dealt with within a ‘modernity’ that is divisible between the western ethos and the Qin one.

Now, in a previous observation, I had stated that the Chinese diaspora serves as China’s offshore militia stomping on all difference and extending its perspectival and political sphere of influence. However, this is not really the fault of the Chinese as they are socialised into the Qin mode of thought and thoughtlessness not in terms of forcibly being taught to be as such, but by attempts by the Qins of modern times to do so via the dilution of difference-cum-racial/cultural association. In this, they have served as unwitting pawns for the age old Qin-cum-Han elite sector.

Hence, in the ‘singaporean’ milieu, I have often observed, there is nothing ‘Indian’ or ‘Malay’ about it other than cuisine. Even ‘singlish’ is a Qin version of a ‘multicultural’ language as it facilitates, generally, a superficial view of reality – which is required so that people would leave philosophy and politics in the hands of the ‘professionals’. For instance, what I term, the ‘perspectival infrastructure’ – which determines the development of feelings and thoughts - is quite Qin given the absence of highly visible democratic movements; the absence of people of differing cultural genres intermingling in an integrative as opposed to as assimilative way; the absence of political discussions amongst people; the perspectives of oppositional writers and political parties that evidence the pursuance of politics along the path of, ‘to thy leader be true’; the popularity of gambling; the tendency of people to discount contradictory opinions via ignorance or dismissal; the regimented nature of popular cultural vibrancy; oppositional movements having little cognizance of the value and absence of multiculturalism; the diluted intellectual/perspectival quality of local media productions; amongst a host of others. If one was to compare, say India to China, or India to Singapore, one would find that Singapore falls on the side of the latter and not the former when it comes to said perspectival infrastructure. One could say that singapore is thus a wholly Chinese milieu when it comes to the menu of social experience as enumerated above. But it would be more accurate to say that it is a Qin milieu as it evidences the perspectives and consequences of the Qin-and-thereafter as opposed to Indian/Chou/Malay(ICM). The senses, other than that of cuisine, is wholly Qin. There are hardly any intellectual stimulants around that can be said to be ICM. In this, the mind is subconsciously bombarded with the perspectivally debilitating.

It is on this basis, amongst others, that in the discussion of multiculturalism or discrimination in singapore, or the host of problems the absence of the former brings - from Mandarin-teaching methods to why Indians charge more for prata on Chinese New year - we have to be cognizant of the fact that what we are dealing with here is not a ‘Chinese problem’ but the consequence of the institution of Singapore’s Qin dynasty, during the Lee Kuan Yew period, to the Confucian or ‘Han’ in the Lee Hsien Loong period. In essence, the 'Han' period of Singapore's evolution, signals the reduction of the human persona to the point it can mistake fool's gold for the real McCoy.


a2,

ed

Is it Mandarin-Teaching methods or Qin-ese Thinking methods that require address?

There has been quite a spate of articles on the progresses made with bilingualism, its problems, how teaching mandarin can be improved, or how it has not been taught well over the past 30 years.

Has anyone else detected how much of this discussion has centred around bilingualism=English/Mandarin. That quite evidences the self-absorption amongst those discussing it, or Qin-centredness. (I prefer the multi-perspectival Chou-centredness myself – ref. 100 schools of philosophy of the Chou/Zhou era.)

But most importantly, this itself indicates that people are, analogously, reaching into a bag of live vipers for an antidote. Think about that for a moment.



The point here is the ole ‘frog in the well’ problem where people are tabulating their losses, gains, insights, and oversights from the vantage of the aforementioned amphibian. S/he who knows not more, knows no better – no, that’s not a Confucian proverb but an ed-wardian one. People, given their being mired in monoculturalism, are actually attempting to resolve a problem emerging from the few decades-long absence of true multiculturalism. This applies to all arenas, be it why singapore requires ‘foreign talent’, why democracy is yet to be, why ‘singaporeans’ don’t have enough sex, why the opposition is fascist when held against the British criteria, why singapore doesn’t have 101 additional industries, et cetera.

Has anyone ever considered if bilingualism has had its problems because it is traditionally pursued? In other words, people learning the languages of their biological ancestors? In such a case, people bred into the same perspectives pick up the associated language. Given that language usage, the ways they are taught, and the associated culture are interlinked, and being generally a part of the selfsame socio-cultural-political milieu, historically speaking, they tend to impose ceilings on each other’s development. It is only with the infusion of new ideas taken from outside that see further development within. The point here is that if singapore didn’t fascistically goad people to sticking with their own – which is effectuated, intentionally/consequentially/unintentionally by a host of means such as associating Chinese lookalikes with the culture of the Qin, gross prejudices in media representations, promoting said culture over all others, and so on – bilingualism might have produced far greater positives. If we had various races learning each other’s languages, not only would this have engendered egalitarian respect for all cultures, but we might have reaped the advantages that come with an out-of-the-box experience. Thus, ‘crosslingualism’ would have produced far more intelligent minds than ‘traditional bilingualism’ and much of the woes expressed at present, whether by Lee or others, might not have been.

With regards to teaching methods, as I read one article after another on how Mandarin-teaching methods need improvement, I couldn’t but attribute a significant part of the cause in, again, the absence of egalitarian multiculturalism. Do we not learn teaching methods from various cultures, and which more forward-looking persons apply in their homes. No one culture can produce all methods of learning and much of the educational toys that parents buy their children these days is a testament to that fact. They may have been ‘made in China’, but the logic lies elsewhere. So let’s imagine Malay and Indian children in a Mandarin class. They would all exhibit varying difficulties and proficiencies given their varying cultural make-up. In this, the teacher would have to revise her/is teaching methods to eke the most out of the student. In other words, the teacher would have to evolve with variations in the classroom. Not only variations between Ah Tans and Ah Kows, but also Ravis and Gopals, Azmis and Nurhaidahs, and Dereks and Janes. Enrichment in this case, is two-ways between student and teacher, and student and student.

Personally, Mandarin was my 2nd language, and I recall how there was no adaptation whatsoever on the part of the teacher – just as I witnessed no adaptation on the part of the Confucianised Chinese in singapore in the face of difference after the 80s – in the face of my presence. So the entire language was taught in Mandarin, and I was basically ignored throughout primary school – a uniquely Qin-gaporean strategy in contending with difference, i.e. ignore it till it goes away, and experienced in the relationship between the government and the people, between people and ‘complainers’, between husbands and wives, between varying opinions, between Qin Shih Huang Ti and alternative schools of thought (ref. ‘burning of the books and burying of scholars incident’), etc – though I’m sure this was/is not the case all the time. Perhaps there ought to have been more Indians and Malays in Mandarin classes before the teacher felt compelled to revise her/is teaching methods, just as more Malays and Indians in singapore might have made more of ‘Singaporean’ culture. The only thing the teacher would do now and then was to give me an essay written in mandarin to copy out – this went on all the way through to secondary school. And, also, I was given 10 words to learn in the first few weeks for ‘ding xie’ (‘listen and write’, or a ‘spelling test’). Thereafter, in Primary 1, I wrote the same words every week for a whole year and was marked 10/10 for it. Nobody told me that the words changed every week. I know, it’s hilarious now that I think of it. But it did cause my not bothering about my studies in secondary school since one needed a ‘second language’ to prove that one could do sociology and psychology in university - leave it to the Confucian/legalists to come up with rules whose sense lies in its being rules and little besides. Needless to say, I’m quite monolingual at present, given that my grades in mandarin sounds similar to the name of some fighter jets, but found it a great medium to get to know people of all races as if they were ‘my own’, whilst being freed of stupefying ‘exclusive cultural pride’ which I’ll leave for dogs and cats (‘cultural pride’ oftentimes induces the taking on of perspectives as ‘reflex’ and brings about the same unthinkingness that comes with ‘instinct’. Loving cultures is fine, but exclusive cultural pride is not for the stated reasons.) Of course, I can still swear in Hokkien with the accent of any hardcore ‘pai kia’ (Chinese gangster); engage in friendly banter with the coffeeshop China girls who always deliver my ‘tei siew tai’ (tea with less sugar) to me without my ordering it, and usually by the time I sit down; I can understand taxi-driver rants, Chinese drama serials, and order masala thosai (Indian ‘pancake’ with potatoes and carrots) in Serangoon road, though I dare say that my Mandarin is far better than my Tamil.

So the moral of the story is, we can either choose to be amongst ‘our own’ and suffer the consequences without, inevitably, realising that it is such a choice that caused them, whilst focusing on what we have achieved with insensible cultural exclusivity as a vindication of said cultural exclusivity. That is how all of the people are trained to be fooled by themselves all of the time. Thus, it was to be expected that even some singapore ‘Indians’ now find the company of difference – such as Indians for India – as less preferable. Shows how ‘Qin’, as opposed to ‘Chou’, they’ve become themselves. Everyone seems to be making sense of the disadvantages of monoculturalism from a monoculturally-induced perspective. i.e. reaching into a bag of vipers for an antidote. It is not ‘Mandarin-teaching methods’ that needs to be revised, but ‘Qin-ese thinking methods’. And all, thinking methods are best revised and refined via multiculturalism and multi-perspectivalism. We do that in many subjects, and more so the need when it comes to culture since it impacts on just about everything else.

The way this whole issue is being handled, amongst just about all others, serves as a concerted and unwiting effort amongst all singaporeans to make the best out of a bad (monocultural) situation, and can itself be seen as an ongoing onslaught on egalitarian multiculturalilsm. The more solutions we are able to think up within a bad situation, the more it is perpetuated.

A major paradigmatic overhaul is required here.

This, by the way, is not a critique of the Chinese, but of monoculturalism.


a2,

ed

I'M A PC & WINDOWS 7 was also MAC's Idea

So some are alleging that Windows 7 ‘borrowed’ the look of Mac.[bbc] I’m sure the fanboys and gals of Mac will be whinnying about how the inferior ‘Windows’ can’t advance without peeking under the cassock of the Mac, or, in this case, over the habits of Mac-users. So maybe that would mean that Windows 7 isn’t just the idea of those idiotic ‘I’m a PCs’ out there.




But then again, since when is ‘Mac’ ‘Mac’s’ idea? Isn’t it the creation of the staff of Apple, AND, millions of ideas generated by computer users, be they Windows or Macs users? It all comes down to the common and collective production of ideas that are appropriated by what are in effect, 2 departments of the selfsame operating systems company that create false competition by not bothering with most of the ideas that are produced so that some of them can be included in the next OS x y & z and Windows 7 to 7.9.

So what we have here are 2 versions of one OS. An ‘economy’ or ‘value’ version, that is Windows, and another that doesn’t splutter, crackle and pop as and when it feels like it. With the former comes cheaper hardware, and with the latter, exorbitantly priced ones. When you put it together, you get a 100% of computer uses – save Linux et al users – being screwed all of the time. I’m not saying that there is some secret conspiracy between Jobs and Gates, just that when we look at the consequences and its impact on computer users and their pockets, it might as well be.

And who says corporations and governments respect intellectual property. Nonsense. They protect the acquisition of IP by corporations, etc, as they don’t have to pay you royalties when they fire you even though they are still making money from your ideas. All IP rights are given up upon employment for fear of starvation mate. And let’s not forget those idiots starring in the ridiculous, ‘Hi! I’m a PC, and Windows 7 was my idea’ ads. It may be ‘their’ idea, but guess who’s laughing his way to the bank after getting you to pay for what might very well be version 1.7 of windows as opposed to 7 because 98.3% of the ideas supplied by people have been shelved for the next version of Windows. And by the way, is it just I who thinks that the essential definition of ‘piracy’ refers to the earning of more than a justifiable amount for product x?



a2,

ed

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.


a2,

ed

Bilingualism : When Monolinguals are smarter than bilinguals

Singapore’s ‘bilingual policy’ cannot be understood simply as a ‘bilingual policy’. Rather, it must be understood within the larger context of historical or cultural replicationism and cultural exclusivity. It is only those whom have been penned into the notion of the naturalness of associating the language of one’s biological or geographical ancestors with their own ‘mother tongue’ whom constantly fail to appreciate this point. As stated in a previous observation, there is nothing natural about the ‘mother tongue’ perspective unless it is only practiced within a relatively unchanging and isolated milieu. For instance, in pre-globalisation China, one could consider Mandarin or other dialects as the ‘mother tongue’ of its inhabitants so that continuity in language can replicate the conditions of the past for the facilitation and expedition of all intercourse. However, ‘mother-tongue’ perspectives become quite unnatural in the face of a relatively globalised milieu where the continuation of such an approach might tend to facilitate cultural exclusivity or supremacy – as has transpired in Singapore. The very act of identifying with ‘one’s own mother tongue’ simultaneously becomes the purveyor of all related elements such as culture. It is within such a milieu that cultural supremacy can rear its singular featured head at the expense of others – as has transpired in Singapore.



If a ‘mother tongue’ policy is to be pursued, one has to be aware of the divisive, exclusionary, supremacist, and underdevelopmental consequences of it, and with time, the subsumption of all difference into the ‘majority’ – as has transpired in Singapore. Hence, precautionary measures have to be taken with the implementation of said policy to eke out maximal gain for all. That can only be through the equal promotion of all in the sight of all. It is only then that maximal respect can be garnered amongst all to the point that one cultural sector might deem another worthy of emulation. Thus, what we will see is all cultures being developed perspectivally within itself, whilst exchanges with cultural equals of other cultures will see people learning integrating with others as much as ‘their own’. In this dialectical dance, we will see the fusion of concentrated sectors – as has not transpired in Singapore. What we will see is growth in appreciation and development of respective cultures, whilst the perspectival gains are exchanged. And with the exchange of these perspectives, these can simultaneously be used to weed out those perspectives in respective cultures that might tend toward exclusivity. In this, all cultures are cleansed of negative aspects that come with relatively and respectively isolated histories. The point here is that all cultures will see maximal development in the face of difference, and in appreciation of difference. Whilst the Malay, Chinese, and Indian cultures might have developed to an appreciable degree in a relatively isolated past, their continued development in the face of and equal appreciation of difference subjects their various cultures to further development whilst placing their point of origin in multicultural milieu as opposed to a singular one. That enables all cultures to grow further than they could when they were apart.


It is the abject failure of singaporeans to appreciate this point in all its myriad intricacies and glories that has now led me to consider how English as a ‘mother tongue’, at least, might have been a preferred alternative to the path singapore actually took. Of course, the approach suggested above will still be preferable. However, even if English became the ‘mother tongue’, the gains will still be immense, as opposed to the present, as the culture of the Indians, Malays and Chinese had already seen much development in the past. At this point, English will facilitate the kind of exchange that only comes when equal respect is accorded all by all. In that, English itself will be transformed, not in terms of just containing words from various languages, but in terms of containing those nuances that say more than words itself can communicate. It will, by its integrative function, and all the positive feelings that it engenders, can itself be a binding force that whilst facilitating the acquisition of perspectives begins to mean, without words, the comfort of being amongst one of our own that means all as opposed to just those whom share similar features or a diminutive ‘mother tongue’ attached to organisms that fly a different flag.

When Monolinguals are Smarter

In my personal experience in the 70s and 80s, I found the monolinguals to be far more intelligent that the bilinguals. I’m speaking here of the English-speakers I had the great opportunity to encounter in Church where many Eurasians, Chinese and Indians did badly in Mandarin or Tamil. This tended to disable the cultural exclusivity and ‘penchant for the familiar’ that present day singapore reeks of. In other words, whatever Lee Kuan Yew was doing to bring about unity amongst the Chinese by way of eradicating dialects, the same was happening amongst the western sect. But most importantly, it enabled the exchange of perspectives between them. That generation, has been forwarded as the ‘westernised sect’ of singapore that the government later clamped down upon via a rabid Confucianisation of singapore, which, in my opinion, was undertaken to promote its own longevity as egalitarian multiculturalism, with the vibrant minds it creates, never bode well for any party intending to cement its genes into the constitution of the populace. But the truth about the western sect was that they were not only westernised, but began to be the first and, most unfortunately, last vestige of the beginnings of the creation of a new race that fused all present cultures, and not only that, but the effects of multiculturalism in itself were taking a positive toll on their intellectual and creative acuity. In my lighter moments, I tend to refer to this clan of true singaporeans as the ‘western Chou’, as opposed to the ‘eastern Qin’. Such gains far outweigh any gains that can be acquired via a ‘mother tongue policy’ that basically pours present minds into an old mould as opposed to learning the ability to shape-shift and become malleable in the face of any impending change. In fact, such minds are far more capable, not only in fitting into any changing milieu, but in creating it as they would have the advantage of a host of perspectives at the disposal of far more vibrant and versatile minds. Even children learn from the different shapes that they encounter, and as adults, the most potent methods of continuing one’s development is by way of contending with ‘difference of the most alien kind’, as opposed to what transpired in singapore, and which can be likened to a child hammering a triangular object into a circular slot – and upon succeeding, claims the universe to be triangular, or in singapore’s case, ‘the west is the west, we are we.’

But I have to clarify one thing. When I say that monolinguals were far smarter than the bilinguals, I am here referring to bilinguals who took their ‘mother tongue’ (traditional bilinguals) and not ‘bilinguals who learnt to speak in another tongue (crosslinguals). Learning two languages can teach you to look at things in two ways. But learning a language which is not one’s mother tongue severely compromises any early tendency to ‘stick with the comfort zone’, ‘go with the familiar’ and be trained into thinking along subjective lines as opposed to objective ones. That does not only aid one in thinking of things in two ways, in going beyond it. So, in addition to the ‘monolinguals are better’, I would say that bilinguals are better if one half of it is another tongue. For brevity, I shall call it ‘crosslinguals’. I doubt if anyone can dispute with this logic, not the ‘founding father’ of singapore, not the entire slew of parties, not any local writer or presidential scholar unless they abide by the notion, ‘that is western science, not ours’. (however, all is not equal amongst traditional bilinguals as those who stuck to ‘their own’ languages just seemed to exhibit or replicate traditional traits and perspectives. The Indians were still far more critical minded because of their historical multicultural base which wasn’t shared by the Chinese. But this led to some sort of fusion amongst the English-speakers which I cannot entirely associate with typically ‘Malay’, ‘Indian’, or ‘Chinese’ traits, but which came across as the best of all worlds.)

However, whether by intention or accident, the monolinguals and crosslinguals who did well in English but not in the other half, were kept out of the helm of the country by way of the criteria used to discern who was good enough for university. Many amongst them comprised the new race of Singaporeans whom were far more the real McCoy than the Chingaporeans/Indoporeans/Maloporeans or Europoreans of today whom, as a totality, are nothing more than ‘Children of the Han’ whom are most adept at playing follow the leader, donning the regulation Bermudas and polo-Ts on weekends, leaving politics in the hands of the politicians, doing the jig in tune with the pied pipers of various ‘opposition’ sects, or/whilst just preoccupying themselves with what then became the national pastime of ‘shopping and eating’. Finance Minister Tharman said, ‘Singapore’s ability to integrate people is the key to its growth’. I’ve no doubt about that, but what might be more apt would be, ‘Singapore’s culling of concentrated difference is the key to make sense of its current growth.’ If this did not take place, Singapore would have achieved far more than it currently has in all respects. And those who argue against that probably believe that vibrant, inquisitive, curious, ever-learning in the face of difference, minds never bode well for the maximal progress of any individual.

Whenever people ask me where I’m from – and even singaporeans have asked me that from time to time – I say, ‘I’m a Singaporean in locality, but not personality’. But in truth, I suppose, I one of the last of the soon-to-be extinct breed of the race of true Singaporeans.


a2,

ed

Why I’m not ‘proud to be Indian’ & dislike the word ‘diaspora’.

It reduces our potential to be despite a singular historical experience, or more than one historical experience.


It imposes upon us a lineage that oftentimes serves as a Great Wall wherein we seek exclusionary refuge that at the same time becomes a phalanx in our march against difference-cum-self glorification. It is intellectually improprietous to claim a historical heritage when we did not mortar a single brick in the construction of our respective Taj Mahals. We become hangers-on in the cultural achievements of others whose only real link to us in their not being able to avail themselves of contraceptives. It detracts our attention from us being potentially more than the present which is oftentimes a replication of the past that is never of our making. It diminishes our appreciation of respect by confining it within the traditional for tradition’s sake.

When I was 18, a friend said to me, ‘you must be proud to be Indian’. I said, ‘why should I be proud to be Indian when I played no part in the achievements of the Indians? If I am, in part, ‘Indian’, by my unwitting socialisation into their worldview, then there is no pride to be taken in it as it could very well mean my being a subconscious victim of it – unless I can prove to be right and true all that I’ve been taught whilst in the stupor of an impressionable childhood. And even if it can be proven to be right and true, how can I take pride in that which required no effort at all on my part to learn? And if I achieve anything due to inherited perspectives passed on to me via conduits below my threshold of awareness or via habituation, then it is to the source and purveyors of these that goes the credit, not to myself.

So keep your diaspora to yourselves. I can be the conduit of any strain of thought of my conscious and conscientious choosing. And only then can I claim any credit. Even then, I cannot take pride in that which I am or that which I know if I cannot prove that I’ve yet to access all known and knowable perspectives from all cultures that can increase the worth of my perspectival arsenal. Till then, I’m only a shadow of all that I can be, and if I take pride in this, then I’m condemned to live in the fragment of a shadow of the self I’ve yet to be.

So if you say that I’m of the ‘Indian diaspora’, the only thing I can say to that is that it isn’t my fault, and that I’ll still try to be more despite its being of a singular perspectival origin.


according2,

ed

Corruption Ranking : From ‘Nation-State’ to ‘Corporation’, from ‘Corruption’ to ‘Incentive’

Once a nation-state transitions to being a corporation, that which might be deemed to be ‘corruption’ in the former moves to being an ‘incentive’ in the latter.

Hence, prior to determining the ‘corrupt’ status of a country, one has to first determine if the country falls under the definition of the former or the latter.

amen


a2,

ed

Obama and Singapore, 50 years ago and now

I was pondering, just before dozing off last night, as I normally do about a host of things from philosophy to tech, how America has advanced so much in 50 years.

50 years ago, the great John F. Kennedy, in 1963, had to call out the army to enforce the right of 2 Afro-Americans to enroll in the University of Alabama. About 50 years ago, Singapore was a multicultural state with no overt discrimination or institutionalised racism as was the case in America. Well, 50 years after, America has its first black president and black saviour rescuing the world in 'Independence Day', whilst the Singapore government claims that singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese prime minister.

I’m led to wonder, ‘what are the greater evils delivered via relatively subtle and unspoken of discrimination that seems to turn the proscriptions on overt racism into a facilitator of subtle ones, and which delivers much more bigotry than the former?' What do these two events say about the governments and peoples of both these states…..


……zzzzzzzzzz

Scholar lauds bilingual policy - not much of a 'scholar' methinks

“What Lee Kuan Yew did was to attempt to take a polyglot Chinese community made up of Cantonese, Fujian and Hakka among others and, in a bid to weld them into a single community to give them a common mother tongue that basically belonged to all of them - Mandarin. He reinforced the bilingual policy that started some 40 years ago by encouraging the use of Mandarin and the avoidance of dialects within the Chinese community. And he ordered a ban of dialect programs on television and radio in the early 1980s – a move so effective it explains why those under 30 now barely know much of these dialects.

On my part, I wish I had learned Mandarin well and to be as proficient with it as I am in English since it is considered my mother tongue after all.” Asia Sentinal

If a common language was required to bring about unity amongst the Chinese ‘race’ without unity-compromising dialects, then Mandarin becoming a 'dialect' of all Chinese in multicultural singapore would compromise unity amongst the race of Singaporeans wouldn't it? Of course, one could say, that English would then come in to unite all. But if that is to be accepted, then there ought to be no reason why dialects amongst the Chinese should not be allowed to continue, televised or otherwise, without any interference by the government since Mandarin could come in to unite all Chinese just as English was expected to unite all singaporeans.


The ‘scholar’ seems to recognise the value of a common ‘mother tongue’ over a simple ‘common language’. The closer identification and personalisation that comes with the former in the face of all the other events that went along with it in historical times is stronger than the latter which is just a simple facilitator of communication. Hence, ‘mother tongue’ is more potent in bringing about a speedier unity as opposed to a ‘common tongue’. So, given the multiracial/cultural milieu of singapore, I have to ask why a stronger identifier was used amongst the Chinese whilst a simple ‘common language’ was used for all singaporeans of all cultural genres. I dare say the government underestimates the ability of the Chinese to learn in the face of difference and become, through the imposition of an English ‘mother tongue’ by its taking the place of Mandarin, a race of singaporeans. After all, the Chinese weren’t always ‘Chinese’, and nor was ‘Mandarin’ the ‘mother tongue’ of the people till the passage of time and tide? So why could this strategy not have been replicated in Singapore with English then? If the unity-enhancing value of a ‘mother tongue’ is based on common experiences attached to it overtime, then why could not English have been the ‘mother tongue’ of singapore and singaporeans with the passage of time? - and especially if this enables the integration of different perspectives borne of varying cultural experiences which has been scientifically verified to bode well for the intellectual, creative, and perspectival progress of any mind.

I think that singapore could learn quite a lesson from India where one major state, a couple of years ago, actually considered replacing its ‘mother-tongue’ with the Java-programming language. It even came to the point that it was debated in parliament as well. Whilst I thought that was quite ridiculous as it would only facilitate their integration with chips and motherboards, I do appreciate its forward-mindedness and cognizance of integrating with a changing milieu as opposed to simply doing one’s best with the past.

Again, some could say that ‘English’ is a ‘western tongue’ and not ours. To this, I would say, that in the face of difference, a common facilitating language, such as English, would enable the integration of all perspectives for the purpose of creating one singular race. After this, the English ‘mother tongue’ of Singaporeans would be able to could be used to communicate the result of said integration in ways and perspectives that no western English-user would be able to. An affinity to a ‘mother tongue’ is not simply engendered by past experiences but in experiences with difference as well. In using a ‘mother tongue’ that has facilitated our appreciation of difference, and the ensuring perspectival growth, we will not feel ‘western’ in using it, but very much ‘asian’ since it had facilitated our growing appreciation of reality from a host of perspectives that may not be found in the west of today.

However, what seems to have transpired is that with the dilution of difference amongst the Chinese, and given that Confucian culture has historically not embraced difference, as might have been embraced by Indian culture, just as dialect programmes were banned on television and radio to create said unity, this was similarly levelled in the face of other cultures. For instance, the overt celebrations of one culture over others, the promotion of one language and culture over all others, media under representations, favouring one ‘race’ over others in populational composition, and so on. Given this, what was done to the various Chinese dialect communities was thereafter done to all difference in favour of a singular Confucian culture. After evicting the difference within, difference without became the next victim. If people can still appreciate this as progress, it can only come with the diminution of the human mind to the point that it is not able to appreciate more for want of a personality, reduced by a relatively singular experience of things, to appreciate more.

I've often wondered if Mandarin could have been enforced amongst the 'Chinese' without the exclusive self-absorption that transpired thereafter - these are facts as evidenced in the media, common perceptions, being oblivious to obvious instances of bigotry, etc. What ought to have been done is that English should have been forwarded as the 'mother tongue' of all singaporeans, whilst their respective attributed languages be a 'dialect' of choice by the members of any race. It is 'cross-lingualism' - where races learn each other's languages when difference between them is the greatest - that can serve to unite all singaporeans whilst this is further reinforced at the 'mother tongue' (English) level. In this, we will be able to see cultural fusion as opposed to dilution or exclusivity. I say that it has to take place when difference is the greatest because it is only then that difference are not diluted enough - such as the Indians becoming more Confucian for instance - that various races are able to impart their concentrated perspectives to each other for the purpose of fusion.

Additionally, to ensure that there is enough respect of other cultures by all, all cultures have to be equally lauded and celebrated so as to prevent cultures and races, other than the 'preferred' ones, from oscillating between non-persona(non-existent) and persona non-grata(not welcome). When there is enough mutual respect, people will naturally consider different perspectives, not only in the face of different cultures, but in the face of any contradiction. That, in the singapore of today, is highly conspicuous by its absence. I suppose in the promotion of 1, both traditionalism and an aversion to contradiction is simultaneously strengthened, and which goes a long way in explaining the present singaporean distaste for contradiction of any sort, or being extremely unresponsive to new ideas and perspectives unless it is imposed via prominence or imposition.


a2,

ed

Towards a Chinese Renaissance - Bring back the Chou

Well, to round off my observations of Chinese culture and life in singapore, I must say that to understand Chinese culture or the Chinese people, we must understand the duality of either.

I always flinch when I use the terms ‘Chinese’ or ‘Chinese culture’ as these are not really apt terms – but I still resorted to such terms to explain the consequences of its contemporary manifestation. There are, actually, 2 versions of either, with one having its roots in the Chou era (prior to 221 b.c.) and the other, in the Qin-and-thereafter (post 221 b.c.).



For instance, when we speak of the history of ‘western culture’, there is also a duality in this. There is the ‘western culture’ after the Grecian period, and the ‘western culture’ that emerged with the Reformation, Renaissance, and Scientific Revolution that saw significant input from the Grecian period. So, whilst all that took place prior to the aforementioned events did certainly serve as an impetus for the said events, it was simultaneously a ‘backtrack’ to the perspectives of the Grecian period prior to moving on from that time. You could say that ‘space was folded’ to some degree after the west had sort of ‘lost its way’. However, it must be said that their moving on from the Grecian period did see them taking along much of the perspectives that had been gathered in the post-Grecian to pre-Renaissance period such as an ever-entrenched elitist system, and the economic evolution that saw the movement from feudalism to capitalism. So the current ‘western culture’ is more of an effort to fit Grecian democracy, etc, into the result of economic evolution. Quite confusing, and I’m still thinking about that.

Well, we can similarly think about the meaning of ‘Chinese’ and ‘Chinese culture’. There are two strains of ‘Chinese’. One, having its roots in its own ‘Grecian’ period that saw much intellectual versatility, and another that has its roots in the post-Qin period that saw its perspectival evolution being constricted by the Legalist authoritarian and monocultural view of things and being enforced later via a popular support base through the practice of Confucianism. You could say that the view of the ‘Chinese’ of today is not unlike the view we might have of ‘westerners’ or ‘western culture’ before the Renaissance. If the ‘Chinese’ of today, moved from being ‘the children of the Han’ to the ‘children of the Chou’, then the entirety of ‘Chinese culture’ might take another turn as did western culture after the Renaissance.

In efforts to ‘bring back the Chou’, there must be a critique of all things ‘post-Qin’ such as the singularity of perspective, the efforts to counter its consequences via coping mechanisms and perspectives turned into culture, etc, has to take place. It is only then that the consequences of the 'burning of the books' of alternative thought can be undone even if not one page of the said books are recovered. We have to keep in mind that the post-Qin mentality of 'doing one's best within bad conditions' can only makes sense if all other alternatives are eradicated. In other words, through post-Qin traditionalism, the 'books' are being 'burnt' with every passing day. Hence, the effort to critique post-Qin culture can itself be appreciated as a ‘Chou’ activity and can itself resurrect it via the mindset that created it.


"S/he who learns from better others, betters herself.
But s/he who learns to better oneself through self-critique,
enables others to better themselves through the lessons learnt from it."
~ ed


After all, one of the hallmarks of the Chou was critical introspection which was later displaced by the unthinking traditionalism of the Qin and thereafter. So to critically introspect is the rebirth of the Chou. I find it quite ironic that I as an ‘Indian’ might be one of the first children of the Chou in this activity. After all, it was such an activity that gave birth to the period known as the ‘100 schools of philosophy’, and which saw the emergence of Legalism, Confucianism, amongst a host of other schools of thought. Thus, I'm certainly against the increasing resilience of post-Qin perspectives in 'modern times' - via, amongst others, the phenomenon of an 'asian democracy' that spurns an alternative approach to things - as this would give the people less reason to 'bring back the Chou' since the former is proving to be able to bring about economic affluence in tandem with the promotion of perspectives that is an affront to the conditions that gave birth to the '100 schools of philosophy'. If we were to take the Chou perspective, we could easily that this an anti-Chinese thing to do.

However, simply conforming to the west will not give birth to the Chou even if they were to take on all of the vibrancy that it can afford. Through critical cultural introspection, one will be able to clear ‘Chinese culture’ of all the debris accumulated after a one-way of thought was forcibly imposed on the Chinese people more than 2000 years ago, enable the rebirth of the Chinese people, or Children of the Chou, so that they may contribute the result of the said cultural self-critique to the existing perspectival arsenal of the planet. The last thing I want to see is just a simple mindless conformity to ‘all things western’. What I want to see is the addition of the Chinese perspective, borne of critical cultural introspection, and through which the Chou will be reborn, to the said arsenal of global perspectives. In that, we will be made richer perspectivally, and perhaps, even see what Chou perspectives can contribute to the resolution of problems others can’t.

I'll leave the reader with a statement by Confucius in his less Confucian moments, who, even though he made a mistake in promoting traditionalism where society had yet to reach an ideal or close to ideal stage, still valued the accumulation of perspectives as opposed to abiding by the tyranny of one.


"Zhou [Chou] could observe the two preceding dynasties. How exuberant its culture is! I prefer following Zhou."


So do I.

a2,

ed

Why I bemoan the Fall of the Berlin Wall

The Goondu Phenomenon, Intermarriages, & the sad state of Romance in Singapore

Are Singaporeans 21st Century Individuals?

Those who protest and claim Singapore as a melting pot due to an increase in mixed marriages, need to witness that such interracial marital unions only occur in specific directions; for example, more Chinese women marry Caucasian men than Chinese men who marry Caucasian women. Even the expatriate communities here exist almost separately from the local communities despite the government’s best efforts to address this issue.

Hence, the question that really needs to be asked and addressed today is this – As Singaporeans, do we really possess the heart and mind of a twenty first century individual? - Reena Devi

[definition : 'Goondu' - In colloquial usage, may refer to 'awkward', 'silly', 'out of place', 'without style', 'badly dressed', 'mismatched', amongst others. A close equivalent is the American 'nerd'. It was a term commonly and frequently used in the 70s and early 80s.]


Seems like there is greater unity in Singapore now, but it is not a melting pot of difference as some erroneously claim, but a *'hor fun' with different ingredients that do not conflict with its traditional taste. ~ ed

[definition :*hor fun - chinese dish comprising 'fat' or 'thick' noodles served in a thick broth with prawns and squids.]

I would quite agree with Reena’s view on the specific directions of interracial marriages. However, it must also be said that intermarriages can also serve as evidence of assimilation before marriage. For instance, an 'Indian' becoming ‘more Confucian' prior to being able to pursue a relationship with a Chinese - who has been associated, through socialisation, to associate 'Chinese' with 'Confucian' without appreciating it in such terms but observing its ethos in thought, word and deed. That is more a union between soy sauce and spring onions as opposed to the former with chilli. In other words, in the study of intermarriages as evidence of the melting pot having reached frothy levels, we have to study the point at which intermarriages are on the rise and triangulate it with other factors such as the degree to which multiculturalism is indeed true in sound as opposed to mere sight, the reasons stated for this union, what ‘ideal’ characteristics are desired by both partners, etc.


This is very obvious to the 'westernised set' of the 80s - of which I am a part - as Chinese girls then tended to go for 'difference' and were quite attracted to strong, witty, intelligent and unique personalities, and tended to be attracted to the avant garde styles and perspectives of the westernised Chinese, Indians and Eurasians back then and in the 70s as well. That is not so much the case in the present where 'Indians' with Chinese girls seem indistinguishable in sight and sound, albeit not in tone, from the masses. I’ve personally had romantic relationships with Malay, Indian and Chinese girls as have my other friends of the 80s. And the reasons cited by them for having relationships with myself and the others were always a mix of, ‘intelligent’, ‘witty’, ‘different’, ‘great dancer’, ‘strong’, ‘fun’, ‘popular’, and ‘style’. This contrast with current times would escape the attention of following generations as they do not have the experience of different times for comparison. As I’ve said for quite some time now, the tabulation of loss requires comparison to varying times as opposed to the biases of our times.

When the few 80s mates I have at present, and who have managed to maintain the integrity of the individualistic self-respect of the 80s in their person, look at guys these days, they really wonder what happened to the ‘stylo mylos’ or individualistic-minded blokes of the 80s. Putting it another way, they certainly wouldn’t have elected to keep company with them back then for want of a critical and independent appreciation of reality, individualistic style, and wit. In fact, they, and I, find it quite hilarious that the less ‘visible’ the guy was these days, whatever the race, the more he is likely to be paired with girls of any race. It seems, to me at times, that guys these days come with ready-made potholes in their heads structured for the beaks of their feminine and thus better halves. And, generally, the girl now is far more outstanding than the guy in style, temperament, strength and fashion - what I’ve often termed, laughingly, as 'The Goondu Phenomenon' which throws out the ‘matching hypothesis’ that states that ‘similarities attract’. I’ve often quipped that we ought to approach these guys to find out where they purchase their fashion sense so that we might be equally appealing to contemporary women. Thus, my directive to some of my single friends, ‘if you want to be hitched quickly, be a Goondu’, come across as easily controlled, have a wardrobe full of Bermudas and polo t-shirts to emphasise your lack of individuality, and confine your sense to making dollars out of your cents. Quite different form past times where, ‘outstanding attracted’. But that is just the Singaporean scenario. Here in the UK – where multiculturalism and democracy is more of a reality – the said 80s descriptors still hold sway, and thus my relative attractiveness to women here.

Right now, it is ‘complementarity’ that attracts. The men are expected to be outstanding or acceptable in that which is conventional – i.e. making money, not causing trouble, conforming, sports maybe, being subservient to authority, etc – whilst the women, being traditionally a stoker of the hearth, and now a force to be reckoned with in the economic milieu, are more empowered to keep men in line in all arenas so that familial interests is not compromised. So, it is generally the girl who holds the reins and which is fast becoming the status quo amongst all. This was generally the case with the Chinese as the men have suffered greater popular political failure in the face of a seemingly unassailable authority. This paved the way for women to take the lead in the only 'pragmatism' that was left, and which is the family-oriented one as opposed to political pragmatism. I’ve also noticed that there are more relationships between Chinese girls and Indian guys as opposed to Indian girls and Chinese guys. This could indicate that Chinese guys have remained more perspectivally narrow – which is supported by their political failure in the face of authority - Indian guys incorporated into the Confucian ethos, and Chinese girls occupying the helm.

Additionally, it would also be interesting to note that the problems my(80s) Indian friends had from time to time with their Chinese wives was founded on the latter's declining appreciation of the traits they had been valued for in the 80s. I would expect that, as popular political failure led to the diminution of the traits typical of the 70s and 80s amongst the westernised/multicultural sector. Hence, even though their Chinese wives were also a part of the 80s multicultural clan, the overarching socio-political devaluation of the said traits led to an increase in the conflict between them as the guys maintained a spirit and perspective that was being devalued in their wives' eyes by its being devalued in the overarching and increasingly Confucianising milieu.

Over a decade, however, their husbands too began to conform and were gradually exorcised of the 80s spirit. That is when increasing 'harmony' prevailed in their homes - and which is how one might make sense of 'harmony' in singapore on all fronts. I also noted that this was the same amongst my Chinese friends in their relationships with their wives. But in contrast to my Indian friends, they didn't see it as a cause for complaint from the start as they already complemented them from the start - but sought to get around the consequences by extraneous means. This also began to be the case with my Indian friends some years later. With the cessation of the conflict between the 80s and Confucian persona via the death of the former, efforts to compensate ensued - which basically amounted to seeking out distractions - and some even began to don the 'bermudas and polo t-shirts' which they had years earlier said they never would.

It is quite interesting actually. With popular political failure, and where politics was the traditional arena of men, it is the women who generally emerge as the next viable social force. However, as they had been traditionally kept within familial interests, their entry into the economic arena will see their family-focus being brought into the overarching milieu. This will in turn see them serving as the government’s ‘leash’ on the men by their being even more empowered, because of their increasing economic equality, to keep men focused on the family as opposed to the political. This is perhaps why I've often observed Chinese men being quite subservient toward Chinese women. You could say that the passing of the relatively multicultural and democratic 70s and 80s served to reinforce the role of women as the government’s watchdog, and the change in the reasons that might be cited for attraction.

(I have to emphasise that this is not a 'Chinese thing' but a perspectival one. If I use the terms 'Chinese' and 'Confucian' as interchangeable terms, it is only because of the enforced association between the one and the other by official policies and perspectives.(ref. Cultural Cleansing in Singapore and the Plight of Chinese-lookalikes) Given that the Chinese have had the general worldview thrust upon them by the political from 221 b.c. (prior to which, in the Chou period, the Chinese abided by a culture that produced great intellectual brilliance that could have potentially rivaled the Grecian or Indian ones - which is why I have previously called for a renaissance of the Chou to displace 'Children of the Han'.)they have not truly taken the helm in cultural production but were forced to turn the efforts to put up with top-down oppression into a culture. Thus, i view the truly multicultural Singapore of the past as the opportunity to 'bring back the Chou' and make the most of all ethnic groups through cultural exchange and true integration. The purpose of integration is to enable all to learn from each other's unique insights borne of relatively disparate histories, and enable these insights to relieve them of the deficiencies borne of the selfsame 'relatively disparate histories'. None of the 'bright minds', as far as I know, in the Singaporean milieu, have appreciated this point to date.)

With regards to expatriate communities existing separately from the local communities, I can quite understand the reasons for this by some sectors as I myself dislike associating with contemporary Singaporeans and thus go by the dictum, ‘no company is better than boring company’. Their Confucian outlook puts me off my breakfast. Being accustomed to witty, intelligent and out-of-the-box repartee, I’d personally rather associate with the British, or the multicultural/westernised Chinese, Eurasians and Indians of the 70s and 80s – it’s not a ‘race’ thing, it’s a perspectival one. The current Confucian-style interactions basically require the different to conform and be incorporated. In that, we have to tolerate more and switch off the individualistic two and two-thirds of our cranial mass to ‘get along’. I didn’t have to do that in the 80s, nor do I have to do that in the UK – which is one of the reasons why I have enough animated brain cells to keep myself entertained even when I’m on my own.

Seems like there is greater unity in Singapore now, but it is not a melting pot of difference, but a hor fun with different ingredients that do not conflict with its traditional taste.


Finally, in answer to Reena's question, 'Are Singaporeans 21st century individuals'? Yes, they certainly are. They have shown how the ultra-conformist/authoritarian Confucian and Legalist perspective institutedfrom 221 b.c. and thereafter (Legalism was implemented first by the Qin, and fused with Confucianism in following dynasties to provide the popular support base for the political/Legalists) is still applicable and potent in the 21st century given how it has managed, in the face of difference of hitherto inexperienced great contrast, to eradicate it and subsume it all into a singular and monocultural whole that would make even the Singaporean 'Indians' who hail from a diametrically opposite cultural perspective, into 'Children of the Han' themselves. Hence, as a whole, they are a testament to the duality of the '21st century individual' that is divided between the 'western them' and the 'asian democratic us' but which is still able to deliver economic affluence along with a monocultural personality to appreciate little besides.

a2,

ed

TV experience in the UK : Grundig USB Digital TV Recorder

There are a few reasons why I opted for the Grundig USB Recorder over DVD recorders with built in hard-drives.

Firstly, I like its ability to ‘outsource’ storage with plug & play/transfer ease. By ‘outsourced’ storage, I’m referring to my ability to record a movie into a pen drive or external hard drive (up to 500 gb drives supported), and transfer it to my pc or larger hard drives with ease.

Too often, in the past, using my rubbish Sony dvd-recorder, I’ve found myself having to delete programmes recorded earlier, which I’ve yet to watch, to make way for latest shows. And if I wanted to store these movies, I would have to expend both time and cost to burn them on DVDs, and for my particular recorder, this would for some reason fail 4 out of 5 times whilst rendering the DVD unusable. And of course there is the question of the environmentally-friendliness of DVDs as well.

But not with the Grundig USB recorder which spares me all of the above frustrations, enables me to ‘playback’ the recorded programme on the telly – even whilst it is being recorded – at equivalent quality, or just watch it on my PC whilst the size of the (.mpg) file is about half of that of the Sony dvd-recorder.

Well, this is just great. My penchant for 70s and 80s music videos, movies and serials is now going to see external storage for viewing as and when. And given the loads of great 80s stuff they show on the telly here – besides contemporary ones – and given that non-cable television here is just about as good as ‘cable’ broadcasts in singapore, this recorder is going to come in most handy indeed. Kind of gets rid of the need to purchase DVDs given that one has to wait about a year before cable movies are broadcast on non-cable TV.

Alright, Mad Max : Beyond Thunderdome, is on now. Let me just grab my pen drive...


ed

In conversation : Should we fear the minoritisation of the 'whites'?

Dave, Portsmouth:
I'd say that becoming an ethnic minority in your own country is a massive problem.

If you're happy to be a minority in your homeland in 30 years time, then keep voting Labour, Tory or Liberal.

If you want immigration stopped, then you know who to vote for.

ed:
If you think about it, if it takes 30 years before the ‘whites’ become an ‘ethnic minority’, and if that means that they will suffer discrimination, than the ‘ethnic majority’ has 30 years to devalue a discriminatory view of minorities by treating everyone equally despite their numerical status. So if or when the time comes when the ‘whites’ are a minority, it will come in tandem with ‘British as the Majority’. At which time, the majority vs. minority distinction would have disappeared. To simply assume that the ‘majority’ always discriminates can easily be deemed to be a projection of one’s own attitude toward difference. And in the expression of this attitude lies one of the significant reasons why an excluded minority will have to be protected against as they might learn their lessons well from being excluded and become marginalisers if or when they become the majority.


a2,

ed


(the above view does not apply to those cultures that deem difference an evil. But, given a multicultural environment, and time to be taught the value of difference, such a culture can be displaced or have discriminatory elements replaced with inclusive ones.)

Prole Fascism : How the Proles undo themselves via Prominence-Worship

Not only do people tend to flock to the prominent for information and insight, but it is only there that they afford the content thought enough for comment. I suppose in affording thought for the pronouncements of the prominent, in their subconscious minds, puts them, vicariously, on an equal footing with the prominent since they are thinking along the same lines, be it in support or opposition.

The entirety of this situation amounts to two processes of perspectival underdevelopment taking place simultaneously. Firstly, information and insight is sought generally from the prominent and all others are relatively discounted, and secondly, one cogitates only at the foot of the prominent. When this persists long enough, not only is humanity’s vision narrowed down the path set by the prominent few, but their own potentials to be the suppliers of significant and novel thought is itself garroted.

But what is unrealised by these people is that whilst the global elite take into consideration the data that is the entire mass of the world in the formulation of the means and methods for global domination, the masses give significant consideration only to the prominent. In this, the fascism, or mindless rallying around the prominent, practiced by the masses renders them vulnerable to the manipulation by the said elite as they have less information to work with given that information and insight is valued only when it spews forth from the prominent elite amongst them. It's ironic that this sort of self-inflicted fascism serves to ready them for consumption by the selfsame elite they purport to counter.


a2,

ed

Are you a twitter-brain?

excerpted from, 'Warning! This article contains more insight than all of Stephen Fry's Tweets put together.

Anyway, we are talking about ‘tweets’ for goodness sakes. How ‘interesting’ can a monosyllabic sound be? When I first came across 'Twitter' and 'Tweets', I found it all a bit condescending. I can understand it being used by news-sites when it comes to keeping us abreast with the latest, but when it comes to personal updates, I'd think it most useful for family and friends. And even then, if it is not good enough to communicate via Messenger real-time, i have to wonder after its value as a relatively permanent 'tweet' on 'twitter'.


As I was saying, in a previous observation, about the limitations imposed by the lyrical form of songs on the communication of anything more than a ‘signpost’, as opposed to providing a clearly articulated navigational chart, this would apply more so to ‘tweets’. So, I would say that the potentially exciting value of Fry’s ‘tweets’ is compromised not by a boring character, but by the limitations imposed by a form of communication that aptly takes its description from a monosyllabic ‘tweet’.

It seems that people are becoming increasingly thought-challenged enough to appreciate ideas and thoughts only when they are abbreviated to the point they require little or no thought, or which simply validates that which they value.

If modes of communication begin to increasingly take on a form that promotes increasing brevity, what happens after a while is that the need for and even propensity to think in greater depth and detail about anything is compromised. That is how, for instance, an Orwellian ‘newspeak’ is facilitated via the ‘newthought’ that is promoted by these modes of communication – though ‘modes of thoughtlessness’ would be more apt. Put together the self-absorption of ‘blogs’ together with thought-reduction ‘tweets’, and we’re set for a civilisation inundated by self-centred bird-brains.

The Guardian chose to end off a related article in support of twitter with,

"The idea that the open exchange of information can have a positive global impact. If people are more informed then they become more engaged and if they are more engaged then they can become more empathetic."

But not if it is transacted on a grossly thought-abbreviated plane mate.


a2,

ed

Cultural Cleansing in Singapore & the Plight of Chinese-lookalikes

Upon being included in a multicultural nation, one's culture becomes what one can be given new input, and not just what one was for lack of new input.

The following was meant to be a comment at a Singaporean site which equated ‘cultural cleansing’ with the shutting down of Chinese schools and ‘Nantah’. But, I thought it would do better as a standalone article.




Here goes,

'Cultural cleansing'? I dare say that the 'cultural cleansing' that took place occurred in the form of taking away the potential from 'Chinese-lookalikes' to be Malay, Indian and Chinese in culture, and therefore ‘Singaporean’ in race. In anything, the shutting down of Chinese schools and etc, is more of ‘cultural emancipation’ as opposed to ‘cultural cleansing’ as it bode quite well for becoming more as opposed to becoming the same. But, this was not to be.



Upon being included in a multicultural nation, one's culture becomes what one can be given new input, and not just what one was for lack of new input. Cultural replicationism is acceptable given relatively isolated circumstances. Hence, I wouldn’t look askance at the continuity of Chinese culture in China, or Indian culture in India, or Malay culture in Malay regions (though it must be stated that Malay culture is part Indian as they saw significant input from south Indians during the period known as the ‘Indianisation of s.e.Asia’).

However, in Singapore, the shutting down of Chinese schools and Nantah cannot be viewed as ‘cultural cleansing’, not by a long-shot delivered via the most technologically advanced trebuchet. In fact, what actually transpired with the shutting down of these was that it transitioned into less visible forms and which seemed less exclusive given the rationale, however nonsensical, supplied. i.e. SAP school system, ‘Mandarin is cool’ and ‘Chinese culture is worth promoting over others’ campaigns, proscription on non-chinese/malay/indian-lookalikes from learning each other’s language, etc. This enabled the shift from Chinese ‘communist’ influence (which theoretically threatened the idea of elitism) to Confucian influence (which maintained it at all levels from the familial, race, political, etc). In other words, this signalled a perspectival shift from ‘China 1949’ to ‘China 221 b.c.’. How nice.

Getting back to the scope of this observation, as stated, the ‘cultural cleansing’ that took place deprived the Chinese-lookalikes from doing what ought to be done in the face of new information. Adaptation and Integration. Or in Piagetian terms, ‘Assimilation and Accomodation’. That is where old formulae for understanding things is reformulated in view of new information, and in the Singaporean context, this would translate to fusion and dialectical interaction with Malay and Indian cultures and perspectives. Unfortunately, as Confucian/Legalist culture helped to reinforce the longevity of the Chinese Imperium for more than 2000 years, it was thought to serve well as the elixir of political immortality in singapore, and thus brought back with much rabid vigour. The proscription on race/religion-based parties enabled the government to become, in view of their policies, a ‘Chinese party’ promoting China’s values, first in the guise of ‘asian values’, and then, as ‘confucian values’, before Lee could finally announce that in a couple of generations, Mandarin would be the ‘mother tongue’. And the Chinese-lookalikes kept quite about much of this as they weren’t at the disadvantaged end, and because they were fast becoming associated with China’s culture by the government simply because they looked like them. Thus, the Chinese-lookalikes were deprived of the perspectival progress that comes with fusion with other perspectives. In singapore, that took the form of being deprived of inputs such as the communality and animated vibrancy of the Malays, and the analytical and perspectival vibrancy of the Indians (borne of 3000 years of cultural and philosophical flux, and oppositional movements and varying types of humanitarianism…its in the history, take a look.) (This doesn't apply to the English-speaking Chinese lookalikes I hung out with in church as an alter-boy in the 70s whom were really wonderful people in terms of being highly empathetic, considerate, intelligent, creative, thoughtful and quite witty - the Indians and Eurasians were heading the developmental trajectory as they were relatively more multicultural in origin. I still remember their names... Colin Foo, Joseph Goh, Uncle Sunny, Paul Goh, Gilbert Lim, Michael Tan...they were quite typical examples of cultural fusion. It's really unfortunate that what could have been a relatively 'uniquely Singaporean' cultural production process was thereafter 'outsourced' to Confucian China.)

So the logic is simple enough. We do not maintain a childish perspective in perpetuity simply because being a child is our point of origin. Instead, we value ourselves in terms of making the most of other potentials that comprises the human persona despite the proclivities of the child in us. In other words, we grow up. And ‘growing up’ is not just reaching an age where we are able create clones of ourselves in the womb of another and feed it thereafter, but in taking on board all information necessary to bring about a goodness-of-fit between our formulae for comprehending reality and reality. That is when we can enjoy maximal development and give ourselves a pat on the posterior saying that we’ve done our best – multiculturalism was and is singapore’s greatest and untapped resource.

Cultural replicationism, like replicating China’s culture in singapore, or keeping Britain ‘white’, or keeping a patriarchal society, well, patriarchal, turns a starting point from a springboard into a headstone. In such a situation, what actually takes place is not that we take on all available information, but we, or rather, those controlling the means of socialisation, ensure that information that contradicts the promoted culture is eradicated. In that, the same mindset that it took to produce a culture is replicated - hence, my proposition that the replication of a culture replicates the perspectival conditions that led to its emergence.

So, overtime, the Chinese-lookalikes in singapore were ‘reunited’ with the Chinese of ancient times whilst difference was clamped down on to the point that, as I had stated in a previous observation, one might see Indians, but not hear them as just about all the ‘Indians’ that I’ve encountered over the past decade are just about as Confucian as the next. In fact, you could say that most Indians are now ‘Indian-lookalikes’ compared to the Indians of the subcontinent. The Malays, however, have maintained their perspectival integrity quite well, but given the lack of space for this to be expressed through integration, equal respectful observance as afforded China’s culture, its promoted social irrelevance has hindered it from flowering in the fertile soil of multiculturalism that makes more of all via the egalitarian respect and attention of all. The Indians, given their paradoxical ‘intellectual individualism-cum-accommodation of new information’, could not depend on communality as could the Malays, and thus, after the Chinese-lookalikes had their neural pathways culturally connected to the post-Qin Chinese through Confucianism and Legalism and become the first victims of cultural cleansing in singapore, the Indians became the next to become Confucians.

So if the Chinese were culturally cleansed in singapore, it is not because of the shutting down of Chinese schools or ‘Nantah’ or etc. Rather, the renaissance of China’s culture caused the Chinese-lookalikes to be cleansed of the further development of their potentials past the childhood of cultures developed in a less globalised ancient world. In a relatively insulated past, being Chinese or Malay is the most we can be given said insulation. Thus, learning and replicating such cultures is an ‘adult’ act. But in a globalised world, these cultural legacies makes us children in the face of more cultural information. When the Chinese-lookalikes were detracted from appreciating these through a host of campaigns and pogroms by the Confucian/Legalist government of singapore in the face of difference, they were banished to childhood in perpetuity along with the Malays and Indians in that the culture of their biological ancestors in China was brought in to serve as a perspectival ceiling instead of springboard.

Oddly enough, I decided to plonk myself in the United Kingdom because the people here, as are the people of India, amongst others, remind me of what singaporeans could have become if the Chinese-lookalikes were not associated with China’s culture simply because they looked like them, and had become part of a multicultural race of Singaporeans - which will now probably never be of course.



a2,


ed

Lamenting the Rise of the Dumb Prole - Josh Ward’s 'T-Mobile Superband'

When I watched T-Mobile’s ‘sim-only plan for free texts' or something like that ad, and observed quite a number of people being brought together via ‘free texts’ to bang pots and pans and try their hand at being the next ‘band hero’, I wondered why when it comes to inane initiatives, the proles are left to take the lead whilst the significant ones are left to big wig organisations. (I view it as 'inane' not because it is inane in itself, but because significant initiatives are not similarly forthcoming from them, or pursued with as much vigour.)



How is this doing any favours for the prole who is going to increasingly pay attention to information in particular ways so that it might translate to more such ‘initiatives’ such as Josh Ward’s pot-banging circus. How we make sense of things and our relation to it is significantly determined by what we think we can do with what we pay attention to. If, personally, we are going to leave the great and earth-shaking ideas, whether we are cognizant of its resonance or not, to the .orgs then we are certainly going to utilise a very different set of formulae for determining what we pay attention to and what we do with it. That simply deprives humanity of far more ideas and evolutionary development than it takes to produce the next edition of a rubbish OS.

These proles are really giving it to themselves with these let’s-get-together-and-kick-up-a-ruckus gigs or let’s-get-together-at-lunchtime-and-cluck-like-chickens flash-mob style. I shudder at what the children of the future are going to be born into as society will certainly be bereft of the host of perspectives and creations that can only come forth from a people who have been taught to respect themselves enough so as to be the source of significant initiatives as opposed to a source of attention and compliance.

Well, I bet Josh is thrilled. He ought to be. It is not often that one can garner so much attention and enthusiasm for doing so little, and in effect, allowing the mass of proles to confuse little for so much. Or is it?







a2,

ed

HDB housing and the true meaning of 'affordability'

The thing about the ‘affordability’ of HDB housing in singapore is that it is subjective and the personality that makes sense of it, in a Confucianised state, is well aligned, feng shui-style, to bode well for the undeterred growth of the government’s coffers. Whenever people say, 'I can afford it what!', I always ask them to consider what losses and gains are being incurred and by whom by their idea of 'affordability'.


I recall, about a decade ago, being told by a few ‘professional’ housing agents in quite a condescending manner – the only kind of professionals that exist in singapore, in my experience, are ‘professional money-makers’ who use professions to maximise gain at minimal expense of thought, effort and honesty – that with our combined income, we would be able to easily ‘afford’ a particular and exorbitantly-priced flat. I asked the agents if they could guarantee my employment for the next 50 years – as an instalment plan of 25 years for two is 50. They were taken aback, as are 99 out of 98 Confucianised ‘singaporeans’ – who are adept at going by the book for everything and none too adept at out-of-the-box thought – in the face of logic and wit. In the non-cogitating pause they afforded my question, I said, ‘well, given that you can’t, and that the only real union we experience here is one that unites between 6.30pm to 8 pm every evening at coffeeshops throughout the country, your idea of ‘affordability’ is an extremely short-sighted one.’

The thing about Chinese pragmatism, or more accurately, ‘Confucian pragmatism’ - as not all Chinese are Confucians and not all Confucians are Chinese…associating ‘Chinese’ with ‘Confucianism’ is just a ploy used by racialist governments to engender support via cultural identification amongst those who resemble those from China in looks – is that they make sense of reality after contracting reality to coincide with the persona that remains after the subtraction of the empathetic and politically vibrant from it. Hence, Confucian pragmatism is simply the efforts made to make the best out of a bad situation as opposed to getting rid of its causes.

That is why, for instance, one does not make sense of the security of one’s job along with a consideration of the viability of workers’ unions. Given this, they would be more inclined to invest more brown-nosing, head-nodding and all-round subservient efforts at work. And where authority is kow-towed to for these reasons, you can be sure that enough intellectual and individualistic propensities would have been compromised to create a symbiotic harmony between the worker and the boss, and a thus, wholly Confucianly pragmatic milieu.

From here, ‘affordability’ would mean quite a few things. It would refer to,

- the degree to which one would be willing to invest subservience at work and in the political milieu to maximise longevity and promotion;

- taking up a whole armoury of insurance schemes – I recall coming across one insurance scheme that enables people to ensure an insurance legacy for up to 3 generations…which basically translates to 3 generations of subservience confirmed;

- being reflexively apathetic, opportunistic and self-serving;

- passing on the virtues of ‘filial piety’ so that one’s progeny would be willing to take on the debts of their ‘pragmatic’ parents – I call that ‘familial debt-diffusion planning’ that makes ‘having kids’ simultaneously mean, ‘circumventing the costs of my political impotency’;

- looking for a host of investments to make the most of that portion of their income that is held by the government through a ‘central provident fund’ scheme, but which simultaneously sees an increase in the amount the government thus has for immediate investment and gain….but which is only enjoyed by the individual after the cost of a couple or more decades of inflation;

- leaving unaddressed a whole host of bigotries so as to contract competition (be it in racial, gender, height, fashion, age, size, colour, etc, terms)

- engaging in a host of pastimes such as holidays to migrating from one part of the country to another for Sunday breakfasts in polo t-shirts and Bermudas so as to compensate for the stresses accumulated via all of the above;

- discounting those who bring this problem to their attention by terms and phrases such as, ‘that mama always complain (derogatory term for Indians, akin to ‘nigger’ in view though not in actual meaning as it means ‘uncle’) ‘trouble-causer’, ‘complain queen’, ‘long-winded’, or at best, ‘aiyah, never mind lah, it’s like that one lah, just eat just eat lah’.

et cetera.

I can picture a scene - like those in CSI dramas where an injury to a person is illustrated by the viewer being taken into the body of said individual to visually appreciate its incremental effects - where a Confucianised ‘singaporean’ utters, in the face of a housing agent, ‘Yah, sure! Me and my wife can afford it’, and we’re taken into scenes illustrating all of the above meanings of ‘affordability’ within a few seconds before being brought back to the present where the couple is hosting a house-warming party. Quite hilarious these people. Forgive my condescending approach, but given that the people I’ve encountered either always respond to such a perspective from myself with either a typically Confucian, ‘Aiyah, it’s like that one lahhh’ (I always flinch when I hear that as it indicates I’m in the presence of a child mistaken for an adult simply because s/he is able to f**k & feed’ her/is gene pool into the next generation.), or discount my observations as discountable as I’m not a prominent member of this or that organisation, or because they hold a higher socio-economic position than myself. As I’ve always been inclined to say, one has to swallow a tolerance pill the size of the bollocks of a whole herd of oxen to put up with this - I never cease to miss the relatively more multicultural, and therefore, democratically-inclined/far-sightedly pragmatic/more intelligent singaporeans of the 70s…thus my gross aversion to monocultural Confucianism.

In the final analysis, an idea of 'affordability' that emerges in a state that has seen a severely contracted idea of social and empathetic responsibility basically enables any government to continue to do as it does. It is in this that the symbiotic union between the people and the political is founded.

My personal view of 'affordability' is, 'if you can't pay it off in 5 years, then you can't afford it. Passing on the burden to kids and family, or becoming a brown-noser at work, or taking on an opportunistic and self-serving persona, is not an option as it simply gives the government carte blanche when it comes to passing on the cost of their opportunism to the masses and being the real progenitors of what people think is the fruit of their loins. If anything, such a progeny is more like an ejaculation from a person who’s received a swift and booted kick in the balls.

a2,

ed