Skip to main content

CMIO? I'd rather, OIMC

Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others? I’ve come across the acronym for it quite a few times, CMIO. ‘What nonsense?’, i thought. Even in an acronym, the Chinese are given prominence. And they talk about ‘harmony’, which seems to be everyone getting along whilst knowing their racially ordered place. Unacceptable.

What does CMIO mean in essence?

C: Significance by Numbers,
M: significance by Originality,
I: insignificant because of lesser numbers-cum-non-originality,
O: ‘God knows, all we know is that they aren’t majority what!'

The order, ‘CMIO’, basically maintains the significance of respective races along the lines defined above and sets the path for the assimilation of all below C to C. I always baulk whenever I come across this acronym in sight or sound as it comes across as a subconscious and arrogant assertion of the significance of the Chinese simply because of numbers. I often find it ironical that the chinese value significance by numbers on the one hand, whilst lauding the achievements of a singular man, Lee Kuan Yew. I wonder how many Chinese appreciate the significance of this contradiction and how it indicates some gross perspectival deficiency on their part.

What the Chinese never got is that the essence of democracy lies in the valuation of the significance of the singular individual. However, by ordering groups according to the aforecited criteria, the significance of the singular individual is cast aside and democracy is immediately undone. What comes thereafter is what may be termed, a 'fascist democracy' where democracy is appreciated insofar as it delivers the greatest benefits to a majority defined along 'racial' lines - hence, my assertion, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, that the singaporean oppositional sector is a pro-C enterprise.

I’m all for getting rid of this racial classification thing. But firstly, we need to pursue a course of Egalitarian Multiculturalism. This refers to equal respect, prominence, and appreciation given to all cultures. This is to promote cross-culturalism whereby fusion results through the dialectical interaction between various cultures.

It is only than that we can pursue with a final course of getting rid of archaic classifications. If these steps are not followed, what might happen, as it already has, is that MIO is assimilated to C. Thereafter, moving on to casting aside racial classification is akin to claiming the ascendancy of one over all and the dilution of all difference in favour of the one. (which has also come to pass, thanks to the self-absorption of the 'opposition'.)

The point here is simple enough. When we put the least first, the criteria by which we contradistinguish the 'least' and the 'most' is displaced by a valuation of even the single individual as significant as the whole. In that, we install a firm and true foundation for democracy. It is only then that other social evils, such as the death penalty, gender discrimination, the lack of eco-consciousness, et cetera, will gain even more support amongst a people who would have thus be trained to appreciate sentience in itself.



Related articles:

Let's talk 'mother tongue', 'majority what', & 'whose SDP?'

Application to BritishBlogs and a conscientious redesign of the BritishBlogs button


Popular posts from this blog

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

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

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

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

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

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

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