Skip to main content

Was the support of some Indians for the Japanese during WWII 'anti-Singaporean'?

I recall, when I was in early primary school(St. Gabriel's), the Chinese teacher begin to speak about Singapore history, and then stated, that it was only the Chinese who fought for Singapore whilst the Indians either did nothing or supported the Japanese. I recall how I felt when all the Chinese in class turned to look at me in an accusatory fashion. I just kept quiet.

More than 30 years after, I’m surprised to still come across such views on the internet. Well, I’m not remaining silent any longer even if this offends the sensitivities of the racists and ignorant out there. Here is a byte of a2ed’s response to some insensible remarks on ‘3-in-1 Kopitiam’. It has been expanded slightly for clarity.


Jah Rastafar:

LOL kelings also betray sg but it's never mentioned.


Actually, since rastafar is too vitamin deficient to think straight, for the benefit of other readers, the Jap conflict with the local chinese was not a conflict between the Japs and 'Singapore'. It was a conflict with the Chinese carried over from the conflict between them and China. If anything, you could say that the actions of some Indians were 'anti-China' in consequence, if not in intent. The Chinese, then, were not standing up for Singapore, they were standing up for themselves.

You'll have to appreciate this period from the colonial context. Secondly, there were quite a few Indians whom supported the Japanese given that they were attempting to evict the British from India with the aid of the Japanese.

Singapore was one of the fronts where these colonialism-induced clashes took place. Chinese and Japanese mutual antagonism was due to their foreign relations, just as was the support of some Indians for the Japanese - though many Indians did die fighting the Japanese as well. There was nothing 'anti-singaporean' about Indian action when one considers these points. However, it must also be stated that the notion that Indian support for the Japs was 'anti-singaporean' indicates how those who think it view singapore as a Chinese country - including my Chinese teacher in primary school. Such people should be forcibly put on a severely leaky junk on a one-way trip to China.

Most importantly, what makes Indian support for the Japanese an alright thing to do was the fact that Singapore was then under the British. Thus, the conflict between the Indians and the British in India would quite justify their support for the Japs in Singapore. Just because Singapore was called ‘Singapore’ then and now doesn’t make it one and the same. It is the context that has to be considered.

Of course, those with the IQ of a dead gnat, such as 'rastafar' et al who post here wouldn't be able to think about these things. And i dare say that they wouldn't have the brass to repeat such statements to my face. These are the true 'keyboard warriors'.

By the way, i wouldn't lodge a police report when it comes to their comments, but i would recommend that they be reported to the SPCA for their rabidity.




  1. Those were good thoughful writings a2ed. However one just wonders why kopitiam with those racist commenters and no one has arrested them or banned it. Could these people be from the ISD, testing the feelings of the population of differing ethnic backgrounds?

  2. Ha ha ha! 'for their rabidity' good shot ed. The SPCA should give them several shots of anti rabbies treatment.


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…