Skip to main content

Centralised Multiculturalism - the UK vs SG

Eid on the (Trafalgar) Square, 2009

Now that's one of the things I love about the UK. Whether it is Hari Raya Puasa (eid), Deepavali, Chinese New Year, or Christmas, amongst others, whatever the racial proportions, they are all afforded a central space for celebrations as opposed to Singapore's brand of 'multiculturalism' where only one is afforded a central space such as Marina whilst all others are left to their own devices in traditional enclaves. That's a touch of egalitarian multiculturalism for you. Having great differences isn't a problem, it is only when we marginalise and peripheralise difference that everyone loses, including the winners who won't be as much as they might be if they did otherwise. In centralising the least (in numbers), we champion the notion that significance lies in difference and the value of the individual despite numbers. That's one of the steps to be taken for the advance of mutual respect, as opposed to mere 'tolerance and sensitivity', and the enhancement of the self-efficacy of various groups.

You won't see the 'opposition' in Singapore talking about these things, and what is said about the UK in this observation can't be applied in the case of Singapore. Ever wonder why?

God bless the United Kingdom.

[aspiring 2ward egalitarian democracy]

p.s., Oh, by the way, that's 'V' fiddling around with her lenses at 0.22secs.


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…