TOC, TR, SGdaily. The Unholy Trinity? Be afraid. Be very afraid.








I said to Sim, aka SimyTC (one of the editors of singazine), last night, that i’ve suspected for quite some time, and after particular recent email interactions with both TOC and TR, that they are both connected in some way. And given Ng’s badly argued defence of SGdaily, i began to then wonder if they form some sort of unholy trinity by way of intentional collaboration.

I can’t prove it of course, but let’s just assume for argument’s sake, said I to Sim, that they are. What would be the consequence?

Together, they would control the evolution of ‘alternative’ thought in singapore by what they focus on, what they fail to bring up, and what blogs are censored via what Ng calls, ‘editorial judgement’. For instance, there does seem to be a division of labour between TR and TOC. TR is xenophobic in racist proportions, TOC keeps silent about it; both are relatively silent on issues that affects ethnic minorities; SGdaily comes in to censor out those blogs that are critical of both and the opposition; and given the connections between some of the Trinity and SDP, i.e., Ng being the political editor for TOC whilst being said to have connections with the SDP, the stage is set for the fascist control and evolution of oppositional supporters.

But then again, perhaps this is all untrue, but we must be very wary, at least those few out there whom are still capable of independent thought, that fascism breeds fascism via the socialisation of the young who will take more as the ‘norm’ because they are born into it. And the older generation, via pressures to conform, get along, and make ends meet, would themselves generally accommodate a seemingly unassailable fascist milieu to the point that their own contradictory personalities might just implode and disappear into the Black Hole of social irrelevance. Hence, the stage is set for ‘the solution’, ‘the alternative’, ‘the opposition’, being as much a part of The Problem, via their being, albeit unwitting, a product and consequence of a state where fascism has ruled for more than half a century.

It is on that basis that the aforementioned Orwellian scenario moves from being a possibility to a probability. But even then, I can’t conclude for lack of sufficient evidence and transparency due to anonymity on the part of some of the dramatis personae. Most convenient isn’t it, i think at times. Those who prefer to remain anonymous in the ‘new media’ might do so on the mass assumption that they fear reprisals from the government. But this same anonymity can serve to mask conspiracies and hidden agenda amongst the so-called ‘opposition’ and ‘new media themselves.


So what’s to be done?

If i’m right, there is a heavy price to pay in terms of the perspectival development of everyone opposing the government. If i’m wrong, it would still be prudential to assume it plausible enough to effectuate checks and balances in the face of the ‘opposition’ would it not?

One of the greatest successes of the ruling party is their turning singapore into a nation of grossly self-absorbed and self-centred individuals. The opposition, many a times, appeals to this selfsame self-absorption in order to garner support through populist appeals whilst shrugging off the interests of, say, the ethnic minorities - and their having ‘house niggers’ such as Seelan Palay, Jacob69er, Carlos Abdullah, James Gomez, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, amongst others, on their side gives the false impression that they as a totality are egalitarian in nature, just as the party in power does similarly with an Indian president or Indian ministers aping the Confucian mindset.

Another significant achievement by the ruling party is in their promotion of mutual antagonism amongst the populace via a combination of top-down pressures circumvented through mutual exploitation, reduction of the people’s generic reservoir of empathy via the racialisation of singaporeans view of things, focus on economic gain and self interest, amongst others.

Self-absorption + mutual antagonism sets the stage for an upward-looking style of activism where people don’t bother about what their neighbour has to say unless s/he is someone of power, status, or prominence. In that, they can continue to feel good about themselves and not think that they are lesser than their neighbours toward whom they are either antagonistic toward or competitive with - as top-down pressures generally turn everyone into mutual antagonists, or what some political philosophers term, ‘alienation’. So this is when they will refuse to look sideways and look upward toward the prominent on both sides of the illusory political divide. And that’s when the prominent on both sides will have them by the nether regions.

What is required is mutual validation and support. And i don’t mean support and cognizance of just those whom agree with us, as that is yet another fascist trait. To only take on the prominent, either in support or challenge, is to simultaneously tether our own intellectual and perspectival development to that of the prominent. The most significant way to break the potentially conspiratorial collusion between the ‘new media’ and the ‘opposition’ is to consider and challenge horizontally(each other) as opposed to only vertically (prominent, new media, leaders). That will break the hold of any attempt to control the people’s perspectival evolution by both the party in power and the so-called ‘opposition’. In a small way, one could, as I have done, maintain a blog list on one’s own site that contains links to all socio-political blogs. That ought to be one’s first ‘Online Citizen’, ‘Temasek Review’, and ‘Singaporedaily’, instead of the aforementioned Trinity. Once we recognise each other’s significance, that is not unlike ‘demand’. The quality and volume of ‘supply’ will inevitably improve. The people, not the prominent, ought to be the first source of insightful ideas. If one begins to look upwards and discounts what’s beside, it gives the monopoly of insight, and its production, to the prominent. Thereon, the condition of the populace will degenerate to the point that they will be so intellectually docile that they can pass no judgement on anything that is not determined by those whom are thus up high.


a2,

ed

0 thoughts:

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.

Blogger Template by Clairvo