Skip to main content

Singapore’s ‘multiculturalism’ in a cockleshell

"PAP MPs admit that ethnic enclaves have emerged in the HDB heartland"

...went the title of an article by the fascist Temasek Review. And I must say that I could help similing at the irony of it all as singapore had moved from being a Malay country, to a multicultural one, and thereafter an 'enclave' for the Chinese. I cannot but baulk at the blatant hypocrisy of those who fear a replication of that which had advantaged them in the past to the present.

In brief,

To prevent the formation of ‘ethnic enclaves’, the government imposed the HDB quota system thus fragmenting all races in view of the potential for all to form bonds whatever the ethnicity. That’s good.

Along with this, the government imposed proscriptions on the formation of political parties along religious and ethnic lines. That’s good.

However, in pursuing these policies in tandem with the stated policy to maintain an ethnic balance in favour of the Chinese, the government in effect turned the country into an enclave for the Chinese, and themselves as a party formed, perspectivally, along racial and cultural lines. That’s bad.

In pursuing the policy of elevating ‘Chinese’ culture above all, the Indianness or Malayness of its inhabitants, regardless of ‘race’, was diluted to the point of non-existence. Any Indian or Malay, or Chinese who could be more Indian or Malay, was suffered an environment where the non-Confucian aspects of her/is persona could not find development or expression. In time, the fragmentation of ethnic groups across the nation enabled one dominant persona to emerge, and which is nothing short of a mockery of egalitarian multiculturalism, and gives a wholly different meaning to the term, ‘Singaporean’.


a2,

ed

Comments

  1. Linked under 'Discrimination & Identity'. Thanks ed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. YOU MAKE A GREAT DEAL OF SENSE ED. ALL THESE DECIEVING POLICIES ARE NOW OUT IN THE OPEN.THE SAD PART IS THEY DON'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT HOW THE MINORITIES FEEL AND ARE NOW GOING AT GREATER LENGHTS TO IMPLEMENT THEM EVEN FURTHUR.
    EVEN IN SWITZERLAND THEY HAVE THE GERMAN ENCLAVE, THE FRENCH ENCLAVE AND THE ITALIAN ENCLAVE. THEY ARE DOING REAL FINE WITH NO FEAR AND THREATS AND IN PEACE. WHY ARE OTHERS SO AFRAID OF MINORITIES HAVING THEIR OWN MINORITY ENCLAVES HERE. IT'S ACTUALLY HEALTHIER AND JUSTIFIES HAVING ETHENIC HELP GROUPS LIKE MENDAKI AND SINDA.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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

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

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

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

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

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

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