on the Racialising of the outcome of this 'Singapore Idol' thing

ed’s comment on ‘Musings from the Lion City’:

If anything, and especially since the 90s, 'singapore' has been generally partial to those socialised to be 'chinese' as opposed to 'singaporeans'. So, perhaps, the 'chinese' of today aren't used to taking a backseat in just about anything, and hence, the fuss.

Anyway, the Malays are quite advantaged when it comes to singing as they have an added training that the chinese are unfortunately deprived of - reading the Quran - which is quite a boon to training one's voice control and intonational fluidity, amongst others - this also advantages the Arabs, amongst others. The chinese language, however, is relatively constricted, and like their perspectives, quite 'angular' as opposed to 'circular' or 'fluid'.

*****

Furthermore...

What i deem unfortunate is that the Malays are still doing well in the ‘Malay thing’ as they were in the past and this has not passed on to prominence in other arenas. We’ve always known that the Malays are quite the animated group of people, individualistic, passionate, fun-loving, curious in the face of difference (more so in the past than present though), amongst others. However, it seems that the canvas upon which this is allowed full expression, given the overarching ‘chinese’ regimented status quo, has served as a Great Wall of sorts penning in differences that aren’t allowed expression across traditional aspirational enclaves given the predominance of a singular and relatively dispassionate and conformity-inclined mindset.

Are people keeping to their allotted place in a racially ordered scheme of things? Are there a disproportionately large number of Indians in the legal profession, or Malays in the song-and-dance arenas? To what degree has the collapse of egalitarian multiculturalism led to, on the one hand, people keeping to what they were doing well in the past, or doing less because of the ceiling imposed by cultural partiality on one’s sense of self-efficacy? What I want to see is a true fusion of cultural perspectives such as the critical and multiangular thinking styles of the Indians, the vibrancy of the Malays, and the within-sight pragmatism of the Chinese as opposed to any of the above being developmentally stunted by the predominance of any one perspective. Well, this does bring to mind how ‘Serves you right’ a racist local ‘comedy’ presents the chinese as professionally versatile whilst the Malays and Indians are obese rockers, parking attendants and cornershop proprietors. How has this served as a cap on the full development of Malay and Indian cultures whilst imposing the developmental ceiling of ‘the majority’ as the overarching cap? When we speak of such matters as this ‘singapore idol’ thing - which i personally don’t bother with and deem a preoccupation of idle minds globally - we have to take into consideration the overarching variables mentioned above. The racialisation of the outcome of this event, in a sense, indicates the degree to which cultural fusion has failed in singapore, and perhaps, why some Chinese might, having been accustomed to being given prominence in just about everything, aren't used to taking a backseat in anything - and which also explains the stance of many in the face of the cultural differences of 'foreigners'.

Of course, the solution is simple enough. Just become more of each other instead of trying to be more after making less of each other.


a2,

ed

The Problem with 'Entertainment'

My problem with ‘entertainment’ lies in the propensity of the viewer to not learn how to be entertained by what is on offer, but to pay attention to that which panders to what one might already find entertaining. In that, paradoxically, one tends to make the least out of an experience to get the most out of it.

I worry when I see a form of entertainment being enjoyed by all three generations of a family. In that, I see that less might be made of the learning curve of childhood to perpetuate its mirth in adulthood.


a2ed

From WinDOS to Imac 27inch - first impressions

Well, I just moved from Windows to the Mac a week ago. Got a 27incher from 'Macshop' at Funan Centre for $3417sgd. My first impressions?

Of course, for most, the screen size has a 'wow factor'. But for myself, that can serve to distract you from the features or variables that matter. First off, what impressed me was the 'stability' which i've been hearing about for more than a decade that is quite the constant in Macs when compared to Windows. I can certainly confirm that. I am not faced with the jitters, shudders, tremors, freezes, hangs, etc, that i've had to put up with Microsoft's piracy-inducing rubbish OSs that i've been purchasing since '95 through to Vista. Well, i would say that Windows Vista certainly opened up a new Vista alright, that is, that it provided me with a view that forced me to consider the Mac alternative.



I wouldn't say that the Imac is a perfect system. I've had two system 'hangs' so far in the past week that required me to manually restart the system with the on/off button, but that was largely due to external software installations that weren't Mac-produced - VLC media player, and accessing Yahoo email. With Windows, the 'hangs' can occur as and well it feels like it, and i get the impression that what Windows is good at is 'Innovating Problems' as opposed to giving you better features with subsequent 'upgrades'. Given that, i think it is nothing short of piracy for Windows to charge about $550 for what might aptly be named, the latest Windows 1.7 (as opposed to 'Windows 7') when Apple charges $48 for their latest 'Snow Leopard'.

All in all, I believe that the Mac is great, in no small part, to it being a world of mutually compatible software produced by the same company and with third-party software being given extra care in production perhaps. But overall, i would say that i experience speed, fluidity, and stability that i've never encountered with any Windows OS even after a clean, fresh, and first-time install. Everything pops-up almost instantly, everything seems to be extremely logically organised, few clicks are required to get things done, and generally, the aesthetics certainly makes it a pleasure to use.

As V stated after messing around with it for a while, "This computer really makes you want to do more with it!". Yes, certainly. The windows experience has always made me apprehensive about doing more with it as it groans and grunts whilst doing what it already does.

Specs: Quad Core 2.66 GHz, Intel Core i5, 8 gig ram, Ati Radeon 4850 512mb graphics card, magic wireless mouse, wireless keyboard.


ed

Are you a trekie? A foodie? A gamer? A techie? A sci-fanatic? A fan?

Why is it that when it comes to personal interests, we come up with a host of genres and sub-genres? (And to complement these, there are also ‘careers’ and familial roles.)

But where are the host of sub-genres when it comes to, say, ‘the citizen’? Yes, at best, most might profess their conservative/labour/fascist/green/republican/democrat/etc allegiances.



But to reiterate, where are the sub-genres and sub-sub-genres in these arenas? I dare say that this indicates the lack of depth or understanding of the intricacies of political life – which impacts on all others, yes, even ‘gaming’. And yet, when it comes to self-interests, we are a host of genres, sub-genres, and etc. This seems to illustrate gross self-absorption as opposed to the collective spiritedness. A very entertaining sort of alienation isn’t it. Makes one wonder how different things are from medieval times. At least then, a peasant was just a peasant, and could aspire to more. But what if we are inundated with a host of non-political identities and therefore seek not more in the political and intellectual arena since we are trained to be more than satiated by the former.

In fact, when we take the totality of genres and sub-genres by which we classify ourselves - and with 'gamers' it is far more with RPGs and ETC - and weigh them against our political genres and sub-genres, it is as if the former serves to depoliticise us by it being apolitical. So the political and collective, as opposed to the apolitical and self-absorbed, is basically diluted by a flood of the latter. And given that the inflow of the juvenile into the mainstream of consciousness as its leaders, and the immediate gratification delivered by ‘modern life’, it seems that civilisation is set to be a mile deep in everything but insight – and which relegates the idea of ‘the citizen’ the position of a sub-genre of the genre of 'an antiquated past'. That must be just about the 'final frontier' that few are going to consider given its less entertaining genre.


a2,

ed

'Cut the Noose' & 'SSS' - ABOLISH, Death Penalty

"Singapore for Singaporeans" says the Fascist Opposition. What utter neo-Nazi nonsense!

One single slogan for the opposition front: “Singapore for Singaporeans” [temasek review]

"We want a Singapore for Singaporeans where every single person born here are entitled to basic rights as citizens of their country of birth – the right to education, the right to equal job opportunities, the right to free speech, the right to oppose the government, the right to afford a home of their own, the right to public healthcare and lastly, the right to retire comfortably and enjoy life after years of hard work.

This is the Singapore which most citizens aspire to, not the present Singapore where we find ourselves becoming increasingly marginalized by the relentless influx of foreigners who have diluted our collective national identity."


...went the article on Temasek Review. The antics of the fascist opposition never ceases to amaze. If that’s what the ‘opposition’ stands for, then I’ll certainly not be voting for them in future elections.


That said, I wouldn’t be voting for them anyway given their gross ethnocentrism. As I said to Vanessa, my Chinese friend from Singapore, in the past I would say that we’ve got to vote for the opposition no matter what, because when the opposition appreciate the ‘demand’ for them, we’ll probably see more perspectivally-adept people joining them. Put it this way, if nobody purchased the first generation of the Ipod, we wouldn’t have an Iphone today.

However, after a decade of observing the fascist and ethnocentric ‘progress’ of what thus became the so-called ‘opposition’, I realised that to vote for these people is a vote for the mutation of old evils in new and more acceptable forms. 'Our collective National Identity'? That's a nice way of referring to all identities subsumed into a race/culture-defined majority identity doesn't it? I wouldn't expect fascists to appreciate that point. Pray tell, how 'Malay' or 'Indian' is this 'collective national identity' you are referring to? Go on. I'm all ears. You know not better for not knowing more mate. That said, I wouldn't be voting for the party in power either. But I will be voting in the British elections come next May. At least, in the UK, we have a choice between fascist and non-fascist alternatives. Whew!

These people, I’ve been frequently heard to remark, are little more than PAP backbenchers in that their perspectival basis is similar in quite a few significant respects. For instance, they too have a racialised view of things as is most evident in their opposition to difference (in the form of ‘foreigners’ whom are frequently criticised not only for taking up local jobs – which is quite acceptable – but for not ‘integrating’ – which to the opposition means assimilating to the dominant Chinese mindset); their failure to appreciate that the conditions they complain about are the conditions that ethnic minorities have had to put up with for quite a long time without the interest of the ‘opposition’; that they too promote prominence-worship and relatively unquestioning obedience amongst the infantry of respective parties; their constantly failing to take up issues that affect the interests of ethnic minorities; and now, precious few, if any, not blushing at the hypocritical stance against ‘foreigners’ when the ancestors of the Chinese and Indians singaporeans of today are themselves of ‘foreign’ origin. So the only difference between the foreigners of today and yesteryear is length of sojourn and nothing more. So why don’t the ‘opposition’ just shut up about this for long enough so that the new foreigners can also claim to ‘be singaporean’ after a few decades?

Anyway, how is it that foreigners are 'foreigners'? If a ‘foreigner’ has been here, say, for the past couple of months, and a newborn ‘singaporean’ has been around since 6 this morning, could we not say that the former has a greater claim to being ‘singaporean’ since they know more about this country than the babbler-come-lately? And wouldn't this 'foreigner' have contributed more to the economy before the said child comes of age enough to do so? And how much value can a child socialised locally add to the development of a nation that knows not more than its own cultural produce? If cultural variation was required to move this country forward - with the influx of foreign Indian and Chinese people in the historical past - why is such logic not applicable in the present? Hmmm, I really think we need more 'true blue Indians' in this country so that we can teach these 'true blue singaporeans' that the value of reality lies beyond the obvious and sphere of self-absorption.

I suppose I'm in quite a unique position. On the one hand, I'm fighting for egalitarian inclusion of 'foreigners' in the UK as an outsider, whilst fighting for the egalitarian appreciation of 'foreigners' in singapore as an insider. Thus, I'm in the position of the 'foreigner' in the UK and a 'local' or 'true blue singaporean' in singapore. But being, in perspectival part, Indian/British, I am, I dare say, more acquainted with the objective idea of Empathy than most singaporeans 'true blue' or otherwise.

To be honest, the people who generally take the approach of the opposition in singapore in the United Kingdom are generally card-carrying members of the British National Party, whom, incidentally, are commonly reviled as neo-Nazi fools. Well, that is just about how I perceive the opposition in the singapore of today. Neo-nazi fools. Yes, that includes the TOC, Temasek Review, ‘Dr’ Chee, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Low Thia Kiang, and their regiments of goose-steppers. Not for what they do - which is laudable - but what they fail to appreciate, consistently. Given that they’ve constantly failed to appreciate problems unless it affects a race-defined majority, I’m certainly not surprised that they are taking the aforetitled stance against ‘immigrants’ and ‘foreigners’. I would expect nothing less from fascists. Remember this, it is very easy to fight fascism, but it is not as easy to detect the degree to which its ethos is embedded in ourselves given our habituation in a fascist milieu that has been around longer than us. Think about it.

Well, I’ll leave this brief observation with the following article extracted from The Socialist Worker UK for the perusal of those whom are inclined to being more a part of The Solution than The Problem. I usually reserve my articles for my own words as opposed to aping the pronouncements of others, but since the following article does a pretty good systematic job with regards to this issue, I’ll bow out in favour of the following perspective. To the democratic fascists of the opposition left, just shut up a while and consider the following.


**********


Will “tougher” action on immigration help to beat the BNP?


Johnson claimed last week that part of the attraction of the BNP was that “it is raising things that other political parties don’t raise”.

He meant immigration – yet this is nonsense.

Mainstream political parties barely stop talking about immigration.
This is particularly the case at times of economic crisis when politicians want to divert blame for poverty, lack of services and jobs onto anyone other than themselves and their system.

The BNP has managed to feed off a climate created by mainstream parties and their constant “tough talking” on immigration.

Being “tough” on immigration helps to give rise to racism and the idea that “outsiders” are a problem.

This is a dangerous position that helps the Nazis to appear respectable.


We’re in recession – can Britain afford to support more people?


The recession was not caused or made worse by how many people live in Britain.
It was triggered by the greed of those at the top of society, and by economic crisis built into the capitalist system.

Poverty, unemployment, lack of housing and services do not exist because too many people live in Britain.

They exist because the government stands for big business and the rich, rather than the needs of working class people.

Housing is a perfect example of how this works.

Many people are stuck in substandard housing, and some have no home at all.
This isn’t because immigrants have taken all the houses.

There are more than 800,000 empty homes in Britain, more than enough for everyone to have a decent place to live. The problem is that access to it is based on how much money you have.

So the rich have several homes, while the poorest are stuck on the streets.
The recession doesn’t mean that there is no money to support people.
The government has spent billions upon billions of pounds on bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bailing out the banks.

It has shown that, even during economic crisis, billions of pounds are available – but only for things that help those at the top.


Does immigration lead to fewer jobs and lower wages?


No – saying that employment and wage rates are the result of immigration is to look at the situation the wrong way around.

Migrant workers tend to leave countries if there are no jobs. Many reports into immigration patterns show that migrant workers make a significant contribution to economies and communities.

They also show that migration has no significant impact on employment rates. Several have shown that migrant workers have a positive effect on wage levels.
It is the bosses paying low wages who are responsible for poverty pay.
Divisions between migrant and “indigenous” workers will only make it easier for the bosses to get away with it.

And it is the government’s refusal to invest in things ordinary people so desperately need that boosts unemployment.


Do we need tighter immigration controls?


The government has recently changed its immigration policy to a points based system, one that prioritises highly trained professionals and wants to attract “entrepreneurs”.

This is part of the government’s strategy to put the needs of business first, before the needs of ordinary people who want to live in Britain.
The bosses and the government are hypocrites when it comes to immigration.
When the economy is expanding the government encourages people to come to Britain to fill the jobs.

But when those jobs disappear, they attack immigrants.

The rich can move themselves and their businesses freely around the globe.
Immigration controls exist to target the poor. They benefit those at the top of society while spreading division and racism.

source

Tech : Bye bye WinDOS

For myself, I have genuine copies of Windows 95 through to Vista, save Millennium. And throughout that time to the present, I have to say that using Windows has made me more intelligent in terms of troubleshooting, problem resolution, multiangular thinking, and, of course, utilising the time for reinstallations, hangs, freezes, blue-screen melt-downs, amongst a host of other tremors ranging from mild coffee-stirring incidents to tsunami inducing ones, to reflect on the meaning of life or wondering if it was not I who was experiencing all of the above and not the PC.



If I had ‘gone mac’ and allowed Apple to take a big bite off my posterior – in earlier days when the price difference was as wide as a bath-tub designed for a ménage-a-trois – I suppose I would have been deprived of more than a modicum of the critical skills acquired from attempting to handle all that Windows could throw at me. I suppose that puts me and all other PC users out there in the outsourced and unpaid technical department of Microsoft.

But as I was explaining to ‘V’, a Chinese girl from singapore in whose abode I’m residing in the UK, there comes a time when boredom sets in with the same load of problems taken a new twist and form and where one’s analytical skills isn’t going to see increasing input as might have been in earlier days when ‘PC for dummies’ might have been appropriate for the Christmas stocking. That is when the analytical gain from solving Windows problems for Microsoft is outweighed by what can be achieved by using it without said problems. So, whilst for many, Windows 7 might be the answer, for myself, it just means ‘software which is just less shitty’ or ‘as shitty in new ways’. I’ve just about had it with the privilege of paying for the opportunity to troubleshoot for Microsoft without getting paid for it about a decade now. I do, however, owe Microsoft a debt of gratitude for the opportunities it provided for my penchant for troubleshooting though. So, before long, I’ll be moving to Mac – in a month or so – which according to quite a few reliable sources, gives you more features for your bucks from time to time, as opposed to Windows which gives your different shit for your bucks from time to time - or putting it another way, Microsoft is really adept at innovating problems.

Sometimes I’m compelled by reason to wonder if those people out there using pirated versions of Windows 95 through to Windows Vista would actually be more aptly termed, ‘beta-testers’ of the ever-buggy WinDOS as opposed to Windows.


a2,

ed

on 'Responsible' Discussions on Race and Religion

I would say that the 'irresponsible' value of discussions on race and religious issues is significantly dependent on the degree to which we have undertaken the responsibility of eradicating discrimination. Upon the creation of victims of discrimination, I dare say that it is highly arrogant of us to dictate the tone their ire ought to take. Of course, violence ought to be strongly discouraged, but this ought to be in tandem with everything being done to eradicate said discrimination. I'm for prevention, not 'cure' after and despite the fact as that’s just another way of getting people accustomed to their relative ethnically-ordered status.


a2,

ed

Section 152 and the problem with Alfian's perspective

Said one ‘Alfian Sa’at’

“The tendency of any majority, if left unchecked, is towards tyranny. The tendency of any minority, if left unattended, is towards alienation. The presence of Section 152, a constitutional guarantee of minority protection, goes a long way towards alleviating the damaging forces of such vectors in our society. Far from undermining equality, Section 152 is an attempt to rectify asymmetries of power, to achieve parity, among those who are not born equal. It takes a particular form of genius to observe the reverse.”

When triangulated with a host of other factors, Section 152 can serve as a 'figurehead' of a phenomenon that enables the continuation of other policies and perspectives that are biased to remain unchecked. One could hence say that this section serves as a 'subsidy' of sorts that helps alleviate the discomfort of being marginalised in other respects in view of their impending incorporation into their 'rightful' place in society.

This oversight by the writer serves to sedate the masses in preparation for the final conclusion and may hence be appreciated as part of the problem which it purports to address. Maintaining the status quo amongst one group, whilst doing one’s utmost to enhance the self-efficacy of another, renders the former a conduit for the latter. If it was intentional on Alfian's part, I would say it is a highly intelligent ploy. But if not, then perhaps he is just a victim of the status quo that blinds him to the bigger picture for preoccupation with the here-and-now. But then again, he might just be meaning the inverse. But such ambiguity is dispensable given the unambiguous nature of a reality that is fast evolving into a grossly fascist one.

However, I’m in agreement with quite a bit of what he said prior to the final paragraph (above). But if the final paragraph was not supposed to be an attempt at irony, then that renders his article akin to a sedative being applied prior to execution.


a2,

ed

SPH '17 Queen of Queens' Pageant - a nice ole bigoted event?

Said Melissa Koh Hui Ping, the winner of the pageant, 'I won because I have the whole package'.

…Which in singapore means, ‘I won because I conform to the dominant and advantageous criteria of ‘beauty, brains, and personality’.

Think about it for a moment. Before Vanessa Williams became the first woman of African-American descent to win the title of Miss America, could we honestly say that all the ‘whites’ who won the title prior to that won it because of ‘beauty, brains and personality’? Or did they win it because it was 'packaged' and bow-tied with the criteria of 'beauty, brains, and personality' of a singular origin? The same thing applies in quite a few instances here. Take a look at SPH’s ‘insightful blogger’ awards which was presented as a wholly Chinese event with the website being presented in English and Chinese characters. Take a look at PM Lee stating that singapore isn’t ready for a non-Chinese PM. Take a look at the local comedy, ‘serves you right’, where Malays and Indians are presented as obese rockers, parking attendants, and cornershop proprietors whilst the Chinese are presented as professionally versatile. Take a look at just about all local productions where the non-chinese are hardly represented, or if they are, play secondary roles. Take a look at singaporedaily.net, whose bigoted and sexist editors present only Chinese or oriental faces in their ‘daily chiobu’ section. Take a look at ads all around you, on the net, and without.



And tell me that the criteria of ‘beauty, brains, and personality’ is not generally, if not solely, generated by the biases of only one sector, and which simultaneously marginalises and demands conformity. If you are able to conform, all is almost well and good, provided you can get rid of all distinctions, visible or otherwise that is.

So then, tell me if Koh Hui Ping did not win because her statement, ‘I won because I have the whole package of beauty brains and personality’ did not simultaneously mean, ‘I won because I’m not Indian’.

Where egalitarian multiculturalism is not true, the criteria for ‘the whole package’ cannot but be enumerated by features of less representative value. But I suppose, Hui Ping doesn’t have enough ‘brains, beauty and personality’ to realise that. In the final analysis, we could say the Hui Ping won by a ‘walkover’ because enough perspective has been excluded from the criteria of ‘beauty, brains and personality’ to advantage one sector despite all. In this, it could very easily be alleged that ‘you couldn’t get ahead without holding others down baby.

Oh, by the way, the 2nd runner-up is supposed to be Indian. Yes. Very representative. Of what?, ought to be the question.

Go here for the images.



a2,

ed


postscript: I wonder how many in the 'oppositional' and 'pro-democracy' sector realise this. I do know for a fact that this sector, in the UK, would be kicking up quite a fuss over something like this.

Ed's with the expats on not 'Integrating' with locals as ed's Pro-Integration

“Embracing the local food, language and entertainment was not an issue for expats here, but low on their priority was befriending locals or joining a local community group - a finding that lends weight to policy-makers' concerns over integration issues.”


I read the above account of foreigners’ not ‘integrating’ with ‘singaporeans’ with some amusement. I suppose I could possibly understand their view and empathise with them – perhaps with regards to the thoughts of say, the Brits, Indians, amongst others – but excluding the Chinese(whom are used to a singular way). I personally felt ‘Singaporean’ up to the mid-90s, and thereafter, I felt like an ‘expat’ myself. Whilst I integrated with great ease and had close friendships with people of many ethnicities (Filipino, Pakistani, Indian, Eurasian, Burmese, Chinese, Sinhalese, Malay) back in the 70s and 80s, I found myself distancing from ‘singaporeans’ in the late 90s onwards. Why? In a nutshell, as singapore took the monocultural route in support and glorification of Chinese culture over all difference, I found that ‘integration’ became synonymous with ‘assimilation’. I had two choices then. One, I interested myself in that which interested the new ‘Chinese’ so that a ‘harmony’ could ensue whilst keeping my Indian/British traits under wraps, or preserve the intellectual and perspectival legacy of these people by keeping away. I chose the latter. In fact, I found my own company far more interesting as I had various cultural personas interacting and making more of anything I encountered than a horde of ‘new singaporean’ friends. Initially, I had kept company with my multicultural clique, but as some began to migrate to more egalitarian climes and others got worn down by an ever-monocultural ‘singaporean’ milieu to the point that they became increasingly self-absorbed and perspectivally docile, my social circle contracted. I realised that to continue associating with the new and relatively mono-perspectival breed of ‘singaporeans’, I would be provided with a space for the expression of a small and superficial part of my persona which I found to be the entirety of theirs. They would either speak about the trivial, simply trivialise everything, whilst ignoring anything they weren’t accustomed to.



Prior to my growing aversion to the ‘new singaporeans’, I had spent 5 years in the UK where my persona was able to express itself completely in interaction with my British, Indian and African friends. I was well aware that I didn’t suffer any ‘cultural shock’ whatsoever and actually felt ‘at home’ for the first time in my life. My individuality was appreciated as nobody seemed to think that a new style of fashion or thought was good simply because it was started by the ‘whites’ – in singapore, I’ve been ridiculed, laughed at, or ignored for being ‘Indian’, ‘British’, etc whilst being ‘Indian’ whilst in the UK, I was appreciated, respected, and even admired for being these. Additionally, my mates in the halls of residence could talk about anything, were willing to engage with any new topic I might bring up, and actually seemed to become more animated whenever I did. I found myself being invited for one-on-one all-night conversations and discussions. They were very witty, argued on the basis of logic and reason, and made as much statements as they asked questions. I realised overtime that we were integrating with each other. I was learning their ways, and they were learning mine. We were accommodating each other, and facilitating each other’s growth through fusion. A few. After 5 years, even came to me and thanked me stating that they had learnt much from me and that I had had a significant impact on their lives – and this is saying much given that British men can be quite egoistic as well;)

The inverse of all of the above was true in the singapore post-90s. In singapore, it was ‘the ‘chinese’ way or the highway’. Their brand of ‘integration’ meant gross assimilation. This was especially the case if one wasn’t ‘white’. So being ‘Indian’ and ‘non-white’ but having the persona of say the ‘Brits’ was not acceptable. You’re local, and a member of the less preferred race – as evidenced by governmental policies, media representation, cultural celebrations, the way the nation was represented, etc, etc, etc, - therefore, I had to keep in my place and play follow the leader. If I attempted to be myself, as I was in the UK, I was always met with blanks stares, or silence. I had to dwell only on the mundane, and do so trivially. Hence, I found myself both a local and a ‘white expat’ with none of the benefits that come with the latter given my being the former. Basically, if I wanted to be treated as ‘white’ might be in singapore, I had to go to the UK for that, or at least, to the singapore of the 70s and 80s where my largely monolingual (English) friends of all races were highly multicultural and open to anything new.

You see, just as the Chinese were socialised to ‘assimilate’ all difference in the country via the government’s monocultural and pro-China’s culture stance, they are highly unpracticed in the art of ‘integration’. They didn’t, post-80s, have to integrate with anyone. A new, and not necessarily, ‘Chinese way’ descended on the nation from on high and they couched themselves in whatever securities, superiorities, and self-efficacy enhancing advantages it brought them. To be ‘singaporean’ then, was to be ‘Chinese’ (the Qin version as opposed to the multi-perspectival Chou version). So the English-speaking Indian, Malays, Chinese, or non-English speaking multicultural Indians who did not see eating, shopping, gambling and reproduction as the be-all and end-all of life gradually became extinct. Singapore’s national pastime became shopping and eating – which is, by the way, not a national pastime of India or Malay states. So my choice to remain an ‘expat’ was a choice that illustrated my appreciation of the value of integration and its being distinctive from ‘assimilation’. I have never had any Chinese from the post-80s ‘integrate’ with me. They have always served as a pressure to conform and assimilate. So I’m not surprised now that most people who speak about ‘integrating’ foreigners are not speaking about how they can integrate with foreigners but assimilate them. Well, the fact that they can actually view the ‘singaporean’ national pastime of today as ‘singaporean’ itself, as opposed to Qin-ese, is itself clear evidence of their confusing assimilation with integration.

a2,

ed

Cats 'exploit' humans by purring - comment

"Cat owners may have suspected as much, but it seems our feline friends have found a way to manipulate us humans.

Researchers at the University of Sussex have discovered that cats use a "soliciting purr" to overpower their owners and garner attention and food." [source]


Quite silly to view cat’s ‘purrs’ as being used to 'manipulate' humans. That’s like saying that human have been manipulating cats long enough to allow cats to learn the association between their purring and bringing out the kindness in humanity. Or, putting it another way, humans sending out a clear signal to cats that they are going to be ignored till they purr.

Perhaps the masculine researchers in the team are simply projecting their own helplessness in the face of the ‘purrs’ of the feminine to get what they want, or it’s a subtle admission by the feminine in the team of the recognised value of the purr whilst being a jibe at the stupidity of the masculine.


ed

Does something being "normal" make it right?

'Normality' is a function of the perspectival condition of the masses amongst whom something is taken to be 'normal'.

The only thing that is right is in questioning if the perspectival condition is worthy of respect.

In answering that question, one will gradually come to the realisation of what is normal even if it isn't right.

a2,

ed

Alvin's 'diarrhoeal India' & making sense of Sense

I read with interest, the following account by ‘alvinology’, of his trip to India. I can’t say that I disagree with him with regards to the difficulties mentioned. However, I’m also very much aware that, oftentimes, it’s not only the experience that makes much of you, but how much of you there is to make more of an experience. I’ve often said to my Chinese friends that the reason why they keep ‘preferring’ singapore is that singapore has underdeveloped them to the point that they do not possess the perspectives to appreciate more. In other words, they discount information that does not fit in with the slots in their personality. That is like a child tossing out objects of all shapes except circular ones because the only slot s/he has in her fit-object-to-slot toy is a circular one. My personal strategy has been, since my late teens, to use various experiences to hew congruent shapes into my personality – unless there is a logical reason why I shouldn’t do it. In scientific terms, I allow myself to ‘go native’ by taking on the persona and perspective of various cultures to the point that I can feel like them. Thereafter, I end the experience and move on to the next. (to date, amongst others, I’ve done this in varying degrees with Arabian, African, Afro-American, Native American, Aboriginal, Chinese, Indian, British, American, rap, rock, blues, black metal, 50s-80s pop culture, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Satanic, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, male, female, cultures – but it is more of a mental thing than a physical one at times.) That is the only way to get rid of the ‘censor’ within oneself that leads one to make less of an experience.

Well, the following is an excerpt of Alvin’s observations, and my comment – placed at his site – follows.



Alvin:

“The trip left me mentally me mentally and physically drained, but also enriching in other ways.
I now appreciate the clean, portable tap water and faultless sanitation system in Singapore very much. I don’t have to to watch every step I tread on the street as there are pee and shit everywhere. I also need not drink bottled water everyday.
I appreciate not having to walk down the street, harassed incessantly by countless touts, beggars, con-men and tuk-tuk drivers who all want a share of my supposedly fat wallet just because I am foreign - “Hello? Where you from? Korea? Japan?”
There are honest and sincere Indians too, but the sad thing is, I cannot tell them apart from the rogue ones who will also appear honest and sincere till they go for your wallet.”


ed:

I suppose the reason why it might be safe to assume that everyone is a suspected 'cheat' is because you have yet to learn to distinguish between the honest and bad ones. For that, you will have to learn their culture, expressions, etc. Then you'll be able to read their intentions a mile away.

I have heard statements such as 'indians/malays/africans/chinese/etc all look alike'. The reason for this is not that they do, but our making sense of reality from the cultural/perspectival formulae we are accustomed to. That blinds us from appreciating the details that distinguish other types of phenomena. The same applies in your case. Don't forget, you come from a singapore which has been highly monocultural and does little to train people in the art of detail-appreciation or of difference. Hence, you will, relatively, be far more backward in identifying or even being cognizant of detail in just about anything compared to a multiculturally-trained person, i.e the Brits, Indians from the subcontinent. Chinese culture trains one into a superficial view of reality because empathy is a 'no no' due to its compromising the political aspirations of any despot. With the eviction of collective empathy, comes the decline in the appreciation of detail. And with that, comes a whole load of problems. Collective activistic empathy is the key.

But to be thoroughly honest, my Chinese wife continuously advises me not to trust the Chinese because they all intentionally or unintentionally always 'chia' you. I suppose it could be said that it is in the culture of the chinese to 'chia' because they undergo great pressure from the government. Therefore, the only way to survive within such a state of affairs is to 'chia one's neighbour'. My wife who was stationed in China for 2 years in a directorial position also stated that the only difference between the chinese in china and the chinese in singapore is that the former are more 'advanced' in this 'chia thy neighbour' thing.

It is not really that the chinese can't be trusted. But where top-down pressure is taken as 'it's like that one lahhhh'(as often heard amongst the chinese), one becomes the sort of person who will seek to maximise gain at minimum expense or effort. That leads to minimal information, effort, thought, etc, being exchanged for maximal gain. And this is further exacerbated by the fetishisation of tradition, being reared in a monocultural state, being subservient to authority, being conformist, etc, etc. It's quite the same in china as it is now in singapore. It's a psychological thing, not a racial one of course.

But it's too bad you didn't get the most out of India. It is, unlike China, the biggest democracy in the world, extremely multicultural, and there is a high degree of empathy there as well. People go by logic and reason, thinking and debate is a national pastime (as opposed to shopping and eating...and in future 'gambling'), and wit is greatly appreciated - hence, the baddies will inevitably be even more skilled in the art of 'chia-ing thy neighbour'. But these are exceptions and cannot be the rule where people power is more of a reality. This will be embedded in various forms in the country, but you will have to free yourself from Qin-gaporean learnt perceptions on what defines the epitome of civilisation to appreciate that. You ought to wonder why when westerners go there, they come back with a more in-depth appreciation of the Indian civilisation. But in order to do that, you will have to appreciate it from outside the paradigm by which you have been taught to appreciate and depreciate reality. Remember, to see more, you'll have to be more.

These are things i told myself when i was in my late teens in the late 80s. Critical introspection, a lot of it, is required. But you will have to cease being any particular race for that.

Good luck

ed

***************

I will end this observation with this,

To know oneself, one has to know variations of oneself that aren't entirely discernible through experiences in any one national, cultural, gender, class, etc, milieu as these just serve to open us to one persona and blind us to others. And in doing so, we’ll be able to make more of an experience that we would have previously been unable to imagine.


a2,

ed

The Problem with the Idea of 'Han Chinese'

I read with a sigh, the report entitled, ‘First 'Genetic Map' of Han Chinese May Aid Search for Disease Susceptibility Genes’. I doubt many noticed, and most probably not the more than a billion of the Chinese populating s.e.Asia, that this title serves to maintain a genetic-cultural link by implication. To some, and perhaps in the west, it may just be a group descriptor, but to others, and many Chinese, it serves as a cultural-race descriptor as well given that there is quite the congruence in perspective and ‘race’ amongst all that I have encountered.



Han? Doesn’t that validate their cultural point of origin and the ensuing perspectival trajectory that sees its reach permeating from the past to the present? And given the way things are going in s.e.Asia with the Chinese becoming increasingly culturally and racially introverted, be it in singapore or china, to the point that discrimination is passed unnoticed or shrugged of simply as a matter of 'preference' or the right of 'the majority'; or there is quite the absence of critique of China’s doings in Tibet or Xinjiang; or that there are rumblings of an ‘east Asian unity’ in the wings emerging from racial/cultural similitude; doesn’t this just serve to exacerbate the problem with the idea of ‘the children of the Han’?

And isn’t this going to cause either a siege mentality amongst non-children of the Han, or assimilation to the point that more are going to become ‘children of the Han’ perspectivally, if not ‘racially’? And given that this does not seem to be an issue garnering cognizance of any sort amongst bloggers, etc, doesn’t this just serve to validate the above as true?

It’s a dangerous thing to equate genetics with culture. Didn’t the Chinese learn anything from western history? Or have they sheltered themselves from its lessons with the oft-heard phrase, ‘they are they, we are we’?

The last thing I want to see is an 'east asian unity' in s.e.Asia as it will further undermine integration amongst its peoples. And the last thing I want to see is an Islamic or south Asian unity being formed as a response to the racial and cultural introversion of the Chinese. They are starting a trend that is going to see either the fragmentation of s.e.Asia, or the assimilation of much of it into a 'greater China' - as has already transpired in the once more true multicultural state of singapore.

The singapore government promotes chinese culture and language with a religious fervour; the Chinese (of China) in a recent poll indicated that they'd prefer state investments from singapore because of cultural similitude; the singapore government talks about maintaining a sense of asian identity whilst promoting only one culture and maintaining a racial balance in favour of the chinese; there is a common perception amongst the non-chinese that a number of industries or professions should be avoided because 'the chinese prefer to do business only with their own'; China is feeling increasingly validated by many across the world learning Mandarin whilst discounting the fact that this is taking place because they are accustomed to assimilation by others and therefore do not see the need to be multi-lingual; and a tourist information board in the heart of 'little India' (syed alwi) talks about what the chinese were doing there whilst no mention is made of the Indians who serve as mere props in a wholly sinical theatre. These are just some of the numerous instances of cultural and racial segregative and supremacist tendencies taking the reign of cultural development in s.e.Asia. What's going to happen is that only those aspects of cultures that can maintain some common ground amongst s.e.Asian states for business transactions is going to come to the fore whilst all else is going to be assigned to the garbage bin of history. We are, unfortunately, not going to see the result of the fusion of the east(China, etc) and west(India, etc) in s.e.Asia.

The cultural belligerence of a government is one thing, but the apathy of a racially/culturally defined 'majority' and so-called 'oppositional elements' confirms the monocultural trajectory as immutable. When monocultural perspectives and race is associated, speaking up for multiculturalism and against monoculturalism becomes 'racist'. A pathetic state of affairs really.

Methinks 'tis time to pack my bags for more egalitarian and multicultural climes.


a2,

ed

Global vs National Focus : the similarity between transnational terrorists and cosmopolitan bloggers

The Quintessential Difference between the Chinese and Indians

Life-changing Chinese education for a Malay businessman

"Due to the fact that I studied at a Chinese primary school before, speaking Mandarin and making Chinese friends are matters that come naturally to me.

"From there, I have also learned the spirit of going all out to achieve my goals as well as the entrepreneurial and business model of the Chinese people, which is to always try our best to look for all possible avenues if the road ahead of us is hindered.” source

Besides the above being a spot of cultural propaganda – given that we don’t have similar accounts with regards to Malay or Indian cultures – I will also have to say that that is one of the essential differences between the Chinese and the Indians. I’ve often thought that the quintessential difference between the Chinese, or more accurately, those Chinese who have been taught to abide by the traditions of thought that ensued from the Qin dynasty onward, and the Indian, or more accurately, the Indians from the subcontinent, is that the Qin-ese paradigm is quite adequately illustrated by the phrase many often use in singapore, ‘It’s like that one’ (that’s the way it is), as opposed to the Indian, ‘why must like that one!’.



I said to my mom once, when we were talking politics, Lee (Kuan Yew) doesn’t ‘look down’ on Indians and he isn’t a racist (as some people might be inclined to think) – though his methods might be described as such. Rather, he is wary of them because no political party can ever hope for political longevity when Indians are around because they are culturally-induced to think about things from a variety of angles and go a lot by logic and reason.

The Chinese are also a very logical and reasonable people. But the difference is, with the Indians, they use it not only to make the best of a bad situation, but to also get rid of the said bad situation. As for the Chinese, their focus is on the former, and not the latter. That is the difference between what I term, long-term or collective pragmatism vs. short-term or familial pragmatism. The Chinese version of ‘pragmatism’, in contrast to the Indian version, is a severely contracted one that generally includes only one’s family or group, whilst the latter can include all sentient life-forms (though quite, but not completely, compromised by the caste system) (i.e. Whilst the Chinese have all sorts of life-forms in their cuisine, Indians had hospitals for animals, and even before Jesus was born) Or putting it another way, familial pragmatism refers to getting one’s family through whatever the status quo, and the former refers to changing the status quo so that we can get our family through. The latter usually leads to the growth of greater empathy. The Indians seek to question after the foundations of the ‘here-and-now’, whilst the Qin-ese seek to renovate the structure despite the foundations.

That, I suppose, is why whilst I have never heard the Chinese criticising 'Chinese' culture for contributing to social problems, I have often heard Indians criticising their own culture in attempts to identify its root causes. The latter is to be expected when people attempt to be the masters of their destiny as opposed to being servants of the directives of some elite. If one was to peruse, say, Chinese philosophy, history, amongst others, one will find that the post-Qin Chinese have mainly been concerned not with ‘what ought to be’ in the face of ‘what is’, but ‘what ought to be’ after taking ‘what is’ for granted. That is, in essence, the Legalist/Confucian way.

I have often said to my Chinese friends, if you want democracy, get some chilli powder into your system – minus the ‘ghee’ as that just gives you too much blood pressure. ‘Be Indian’. And by ‘Indian’, I do not mean, ethnically, but perspectivally, for the true Indian realises that ‘to be Indian’ is to ‘not be Indian’ as far as ‘the way things are’ goes. ‘Indian’ basically means ‘multiculturalism’ – just as ‘British’ is gradually coming to mean in the past few decades (and they are certainly better at it in some respects). They do not see chaos in multicultural and multi-perspectival ‘disorder’, but the potential to exact various ingredients from its seemingly incongruent elements to dialectically advance the imaginative and logical mechanism so that more can be made out of that which one previously couldn’t discern. Thus, it was no surprise to me that they had invented the number ‘0’ or produced the concept of the ‘OM’ amongst a myriad of philosophical perspectives embedded in the meaning behind the identity and exploits of their numerous God/desses, or that it was India, and not China, that is a significant force in the logic-based IT industry.

That’s why, if Lee didn’t dilute the pot of curry with a gallon and a half of soya sauce, the PAP would either be in opposition, or would have evolved to cater to the interests of the masses as ‘servants’ as opposed to ‘trustees’ (which is what Goh Chok Tong stated on ‘Hardtalk’ some years ago).

I suppose it was quite simple to associate the Chinese of singapore with the post-Qin perspective since all that had to be done was to appeal to the Chinese people’s sense of cultural pride as this would not be possible with those whose recent biological ancestors did not originate in China. Along with this, the demonisation of difference, the quelling of counterpositional thought, the institution of both a siege mentality and monoculturalism worked well with that to deliver the ‘miracle’ that is the singapore, or more accurately, the Qin-gapore of today. In that, the PAP took the easy way. It is not much of achievement to take a big stick and tell everyone to do as they’re told ‘or else the ISD’s gonna whisk you away in the wee hours of the morn’. But it is far more difficult to manage contrasting perspectives and facilitate its dialectical fusion for the production of that which will always be far more than what the former strategy can ever produce. I thought people might learn something about the Indian way as opposed to the Qin way when India left to take over half the Silicon Valley whilst the Chinese took to the factories in China. But, I suppose, too much cultural pride doesn’t really help when it comes to an objective appreciation of things.

But the irony of it all is, if the Chinese ever become ‘more Indian’, they will eventually find their way back to Chou, (pre-Qin period) as Chou and Indian, amongst others, are, in quite some respects, interchangeable terms. But if not, all that will transpire, as it already has, is that the frog will marvel at the expanse of the sky from within the bowels of a well and take it for all of the sky for want of a personality to appreciate more. You see, no ‘road ahead of us’ can be ‘hindered’ unless we can prove that we cannot logically do something about it. But when we utilise our logic to get around it, it comes at the price of our transitioning from the movers of civilisation to its victims. For myself, given the choice of 'being Qin-ese' or 'being Indian', I'd certainly opt for the latter, because in that, I am able to be Chinese, whereas in the former, I am able to be nothing but.

At the end of the day, remember, mountains are not scaled by ‘trying our best to look for all possible avenues’ to get around it.


a2,

ed


postscript: If various parties think it alright to blatantly promote Qin-ese culture over others, it falls upon us to dissect it for its value.

Does Rachel Zeng not exist without TOC?

Why I switch channels when Harry and Will come on

Whenever William or Harry, known as ‘Princes’ to those who are still inclined to spell ‘modernity’ with ‘m-e-d-i-e-v-a-l’, achieve anything, I switch channels. After all, given the nutrition, exceptional education, choice holiday locations, carefully selected friends, and much of the public queuing up to do the ole curtsy-cum-swoon, I wouldn’t expect them to achieve anything less - though I think they would have achieved far more without the adulation, as brown-nosing royals, celebs, etc, always tends to simultaneously impose a ceiling on their own development as they will tend to do what invites more brown-nosing as opposed to the inverse. It’s all about ‘hits’ isn’t it. Just as it is in the ‘blogging’ world.




Perhaps that is what is meant by the biblical, ‘thou shalt have no other Gods before me’. In that phrase, I find an exhortation to respect the idea of omniscience, omnipotence, amongst others, so that we would be able to value all equally as opposed to blinkering all via fixation with just one. God is a paradoxical phenomenon in that the fixation with God relives us of fixation with the singular celebrated deity or the value s/he accords a phenomenon because of her association with it. It tells us that not only are there many points on a developmental curve, but that there are a multitude of developmental curves as well. Just like 'being Indian' is quite like being 'not Indian' as it is a mindset that is constantly in flux in the face of difference. 'Indian' is sort of a conduit for cultural and intellectual fusion - hence, amongst others, the concept of the Hindu 'OM', their 1001 gods, languages, cultures, etc.

There are a whole lot of consequences that comes with idolatory, aka, celeb-worshipping – and people actually call this a secular state. It is fascism of the worst kind as people rally around an idea that isn’t one. A container of value that imbues with value anything that is put into it. In this, fascism is refined to fit in well with 'modern' civilisation and enjoy longevity. The organism has certainly mutated well to adapt to its host hasn't it. So if Michelle Obama decides white poodles are ‘hip’ this summer, it becomes the in-thing.

Prominence is accorded value in itself, and just about everything, other than that which is blatantly morally repugnant, that is associated with it, becomes transfigured by association. Celebs horde resources such as attention, wealth, volition, amongst others, and determine the currents of society’s gastric juices. Billions cease to think and become little more than a sub-species of the genus brought into being via the celeb. And I cannot but bemoan the cultural loss that came with women being assimilated into a patriarchal state of affairs. Weren't women the stewards of the great virtues of empathy. Weren't the relatively 'least' in a position to emancipate the 'most' from the competitive and alienating milieu they engendered? But patriarchy served as the 'celeb' and the relatively less lauded became nothing.

How many billion bits and bytes of ideas and potentials are lost by the second as people are ignored for these selfsame ideas and potentials not having spewed out of the arse of some ‘star’, and how many aspirations are culled as people cast aside their uniqueness for the absence of ‘hits’. And how many people are going to be born in such a milieu and take their aspirational cue from what’s left over.

Ahh. Not good I’m afraid. As I said some years ago, royalty has, amongst others, served as an indicator of that which emerges when the experiences and attention we afford them result in the production of that which is laudable. I really don’t see why people ought to worship the result as opposed to giving attention to and applying the methods that brought it about.


a2,

ed

Is it right to apologise for the past? Watch out for Xbox's 'Confessional Hero 1'

Just for argument’s sake, what if Britain was to apologise for America’s slaughter of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Come on, we now have silly games designed to perpetuate the pre-adolescent in humanity such as ‘DJ Hero’, ‘Band Hero’, ‘Guitar Hero’, ‘Rap Hero’, ‘Etc Hero’, through which the juvenile, whatever the age, gets vicarious pleasure from pretending to be a spluttering rapper to an epileptic guitar ‘hero’ in the face of a celeb-worshipping mass of insensible fans. So how about, say, a ‘Confessional Hero’, where we pretend to take on the sins of others so that we might gain vicariously from whatever remorse and insights that the actual transgressors are supposed to feel – perhaps accessories could include knee pads, and for those with more money to spend, a confessional-like kneeling-bench with optional ‘luxury’ padding recycled from materials used in the Vatican.



After coming across BBC’s question – ‘Is it right to apologise for the past’, and ‘Should Governments apologise for past policies and events’ – I began to wonder if it was not for the ‘fragmentation of remorse’ by all of us having committed various misdeeds in varying locales distinguished by time and space, could we not have learnt from it and avoided perpetuating them in new forms? I often bemoan s.e.Asia not being afforded a similar experience such as the Jews in WWII. What a terrible thought to have right. But, its not that I wish that a similar genocide had taken place there, but that the s.e.Asians could at least learn from it through empathy with the Jews, Poles, Czechs, Romany, and others whom were slaughtered by cultural and racial supremacists, so that they might not act similarly via non-murderous means as they do now with the array of fascist governments ruling quite a bit of the region. If we could all take on the mindset of the remorseful Nazi and the victimised Jew; the penitent slaver and the enslaved African; or a remorseful Madeleine Albright and the dying Iraqi child; then perhaps we might do our utmost to stem the flow of the sins of the past into more ‘acceptable’ or less visible forms in the present.

It seems that when remorse is fragmented between individuals, nations, time, and a myriad of other forms of divisions, so are the lessons that could have been learnt. In fact, it seems that the only lessons that are learnt from the fragmentation of remorse is how to perpetuate the selfsame sin in acceptable forms.

Even if we might not be responsible ourselves for that which happened in the past, we are, at present, the stewards of the future, and by obligation, take on the sins of all that is located in the past despite it’s racial/cultural/national/etc point of origin or locale of commission. For the purpose of disengaging the hold of a questionable past on the times to come, we have to seek gain from the sins of those who came before us by acknowledge them as such and personalising it via an apology. That, perhaps, is how the future might be absolved from a re-enactment of the past.


a2,

ed

Immigration & The Fascist Democrats of Singapore

The problem with Qin-gaporeans (as opposed to ‘Singaporeans’, which is an amalgamation of all cultures instead of the predominant elite-imposed Qin mentality (as opposed to the ‘Chou’ which I prefer)) is that they tend to chart their position simply from that which they oppose and not through critical introspection which might very well reveal that they are just another point within a symbiotic and circular whole.



Personally, I’ve been quite disgusted with oppositional writers, ‘thinkers’, parties, leaders, etc, with the way they’ve been carrying on about immigrants. Well, I’ve said to my acquaintances in coffeeshops whenever the topic comes up, these people support and laud a culture which produces the need for ‘foreign talent’. And thereafter, they complain about its consequences. What on earth do you think is going to be produced by the lauding of just one culture over all, going with the popular and majority, being silent as the government speaks about maintaining a racial balance in favour of one group, being equally silent about the racialist ‘mother tongue’ policy that leads to the further underdevelopment of minorities in a country where ‘racism’ is simply seen as, ‘preference. No country and no family ever produced great minds by following such a course of underdevelopment. So of course, India, as opposed to Qin-a is going to be producing the IT professionals, doctors, lawyers, etc, whilst the latter is going to have to open up sweat shops and import ‘foreign talent’ to keep up aren’t they? Why is it that no Qin-gaporean (which includes all races socialised under this debilitating state of affairs) is talking about this? As I’ve always said, cultural pride has to come after proving its multicultural value and not before, lest the best that one can do without it becomes proof that one is great despite not having tried it.

Firstly, singapore always gives me quite a culture shock since I’ve always been more multicultural/Singaporean/Chou/British/Indian/etc than Qin-gaporean. What boggles the mind is that that which is taken as indicators of gross bigotry or neo-nazism here in England is espoused unabashedly by the so-called ‘democrats’ of singapore. Just look at the variety of nonsense spouted by notables from the blogging world, ‘asian correspondents’, ‘reputable’ sites, party leaders and so on and you’ll see what I mean.

Secondly, the way they go on about how the influx of foreigners is putting them in the same position which the minorities have been languishing in for a couple of decades with the aid of their self-absorbed apathy is quite embarrassing. Secondly, they forget that the ‘us vs. foreigner’ dichotomy is true only if you conveniently forget the fact that the Indians and Chinese were once ‘foreigners’ as well.

Thirdly, and well, let me put it this way, I doubt the Indian ‘talent’ from the subcontinent are going to come in and turn the ‘mother tongue’ of the nation into Tamil or Hindi. How many of these allegedly ‘democratic’ minded persons are kicking up a fuss over the discriminatory conditions emerging from the current ‘mother tongue’-cum-‘speak Mandarin it’s an advantage’ campaigns along with Lee senior stating that ‘in two generations, Mandarin is going to be our mother tongue’. How many fussed over the exclusivity of this whole thing, amongst a host of others which escapes their attention but which causes a public furore here in Great Britain. As I’ve said before, the United Kingdom finds great use for the Indian, the Afro-carribean, the African, etc, whereas in singapore, it might as well be a term identifying the abused. (by the way, there is no argument here. The moment the government stated that singapore must always remain a country with a Chinese majority, along with other policies, it became a racialist government, and the people, despite their race, and because of their apathy in the face of it, became racialists – and that includes all these leaders of the opposition, ‘doctor’ or otherwise for not even noticing much that does not even skip the attention of placard-wielding teen in the UK)

Fourthly, instead of viewing the foreigners as ‘undesirable’, why is it that they are not questioning the wide class divide for example? Why is it that many are talking about their not ‘integrating’ with ‘singaporeans’? Why is it that no 'enlightened' 'democrat' is taking issue with articles by notables that demonises 'foreigners'? Perhaps, being socialised under Qin, they expect conformity with the race-defined majority – just as the dilution of other cultures in singapore passed unnoticed amongst these hypocrites of the ‘opposition’ who probably subscribe, albeit subconsciously, to the ‘we majority what!’ syndrome. This ‘majority what!’ fascist nonsense is that which kept them quiet when minorities suffered as they do now in the face of ‘foreigners’.

Well, let me say this. If the ‘majority what!’ approach is to be honoured, then why don’t this cage-load of fascists simply shut up and let the ‘foreigners’ come in till the point they are ‘the majority what!’. Or perhaps they are simply afraid that they will be done unto in a similar fashion as they’ve done unto others perhaps?

This article, by the way, is purposed for the incitement of critical introspection for the realisation, not of ‘multiculturalism’ – which can sometimes be appreciating difference so long as our culture is the predominant – but of egalitarian multiculturalism. I personally view egalitarian multiculturalism as the path for the renaissance of the Chou. Whatever you race, make up your mind. Are you Qin or Chou? If the latter, learn to see beyond what’s most obvious to the eye or that which appeals solely to perceived group self-interests. That is an insult to our Chou ancestors. Remember, you are not only what you state, but what you fail to notice.


a2,

ed

Why Singaporekini? Thou art Singaporekini!

Why Singaporean girls might prefer foreign men, & how to last past the hour in bed

So ‘singaporean’ girls are beginning to prefer non-‘singaporean’ men. Let’s say it as it is. ‘Qin-gaporean’ girls are beginning to prefer non-‘Qin-gaporean’ men. Let’s not forget how much character is lost with monoculturalism. Let’s not forget the self-absorbtion and superficiality that is induced by the Qin, as opposed to a multi-perspectival Chou/Indian/Multicultural, state of affairs. These are consequences emerging from previous apathies – just like the need for foreign talent, problems emerging from traditional bilingualism, the lack of free speech and democracy, the PAP ruling for 50 years, and so on and so forth, whose significant contributory factors lie in the decline of egalitarian multiculturalism.


What most don’t realise is that the result of apathy is exacerbated when it persists in the face of difference. Hence, with monoculturalism from the 80s onwards, people became more practiced in discounting difference. That would inevitably impact negatively on one’s generic empathetic and in-depth appreciation of reality, and, that would certainly have knock-on effects on relationships at all levels. Hence, that is when Singaporean relationships, from more empathetic forms that might be experienced amongst the multicultural sector in the 70s and 80s, became merely economic and reproductive units. If we become adept at discounting difference when we are faced with it, that is when we are training ourselves to stick to our comfort zone for the purpose of relieving oneself of the tedium that might come with having to cope with something new or not immediately beneficial.

Such a person going into a relationship with another person, would thus be well trained to stick to one’s comfort zone. This translates to lack of empathy, care, passion, and even a sex life that is long enough to be fitted into an ad-break. I have often wondered why, when I was younger, I had heard Indians sometimes stating that Chinese didn’t last long in bed. I didn’t take this seriously as I doubt that they had been in bed with them themselves and thus wouldn’t know anything about it. However, over the years, and after conversing about sexual affairs with Malays, Indians and Chinese, I realised that there was indeed a tendency amongst the latter of the three to have stamina problems. Overtime, I, again, put it down to the self-absorption that comes with monoculturalism and the inability to appreciate the detail in things. That is why a monocultural individual might be more fixated on the orgasm and miss all the detail betwixt that might lead one to make the ‘event’ last longer.

I came to this preliminary conclusion after questioning many of my friends of different races and from the 80s to the present. This is further evidenced by studies which state that ‘singaporeans’ don’t have enough sex (sample size and the races taking part in the study is an important factor here); and the fact that there were none that I came across whom said that the ‘NYP sex scandal’ video was extremely short, if you know what I mean. And quite a few Filipina women whom I’ve spoken to – and I’m being very honest here – have said that once having experienced Indian men, as opposed to Chinese men, they tend to prefer them because they are very ‘malibok’ (horny), ‘good in sex’, ‘fun’, ‘can joke’. (No, I’m certainly not a philanderer as I do not find fulfilment in sex without a meaningful relationship – character means more to me than all the beauty in the world - but the feminine side of my nature tends to put them at ease enough to talk candidly about such things.) I also have to add that in the 80s, there were quite a few Malay women having relationships with Indian men (myself included) and they seemed to appreciate the vibrancy, fun, wit, and sex as well. And from what I’ve heard, Malay men are also quite vibrant in these aspects as well. In all of these, putting together accounts gathered over 3 decades, Chinese men exhibit the least in all of these traits. However, this is not true of the multicultural ‘Chinese’ men of the 70s and 80s. Of course, it may come to a point when all singaporeans, whatever the race, begin to exhibit similar traits given the overarching monocultural milieu. And indeed, I have seen my Indian friends, and especially those whom generally speak English, themselves changing to become quite the ‘singaporean of today’. (I’ve often traced the reason for my ability to easily last past the hour in sex – excluding foreplay – to my being birthed and reared by multiculturalism. The orgasm became less important compared to the experience of it all. The more you are, the more you will make of things, and the more you will have reason to make it last, if you get my drift)

I have often advised my Chinese friends on how one might be able to last longer than their averaged, 5-20 minutes mark, or how they might be able to have 3 or 4 orgasms interspersed by a minute or two. I said that the preparation for a great experience in the boudoir lies in the appreciation of detail and empathy. Be a great friend, care about those whom you do not have much to gain from, or whose interests do not impact on your group interests, and your feminine half would be amplified enough to make more of a ‘man’ of you in bed. In these, your third eye begins to make more of any experience, be it in terms of caring for your partner, or being able to appreciate so many things in the sexual act that the orgasm becomes secondary enough to lengthen the act itself. Self-awareness comes with other-awareness.

But failing this, you might find more women becoming lesbians, or looking abroad for more meaningful relationships.

a2,

ed

In Praise of Furries

“No standard definition exists but generally furries are people who have a fascination with anthropomorphic animals. These are animals that are given human traits, like walking and talking. They can be anything from cartoons characters like Bugs Bunny to computer game personalities like Pokemon.”[bbc]


There’s much to be said for ‘furries’ or ‘furrysexuals’. Perhaps it is the disenchantment with a world of male and female humanoids whom distinguishable only by genitalia and little besides. After all, much of the feminist movement did fight for the right to be treated as men and were thus incorporated into a patriarchal scheme of things that thereafter turned ‘transvestriarchal’ given that women begin to take on a personality that would require quite a sizeable jockstrap to contain it. So we reach a state of affairs where a heterosexual’s only claim to being ‘straight’ is that he aspires to getting hitched to one resembling a woman but is more of a man than he is. So maybe ‘cosplay’, ‘furries’, amongst a whole slew of others are an attempt to break away from a reality where a penis can be simply described as an elongated clitoris and a heterosexual, a lesbian. Perhaps this whole transvestriarchal [author's term] scheme of things give men and women a bad name given that women might increasingly be taking on as distanced and self-absorbed a perspective as men. By anthropomorphising themselves through ‘furryism’, or dehumanising themselves through head-to-toe latex coveralls or gas masks, or even playing Mickey and Minnie in the boudoir helps them disassociate an increasingly uninspiring, uni-sexualised and uni-characterised humanity from their own humanity so that they can seek pleasure on another plane as something other than human. Perhaps that is the same perspective that founds the belief in aliens by some who wish that there was something more out there than what’s down here.

Personally, I prefer Klingon women.


a2,

ed