‘Nazi Scum’ SG?



Unite Against Fascism Protest against English Defence League, Bolton from Jinan Coulter on Vimeo.




It is most heartening to see the ‘whites’ in the United Kingdom standing up for those whom aren’t a part of the ‘majority’.

But it is disheartening to see that whilst ‘Nazi scum’ are being contended with by the majority in the United Kingdom, such ‘Nazi scum’, according to British definition of the term (and as illustrated in the above video), might be a significant majority in Singapore. And what is even more ridiculous is how the the so-called ‘opposition’, the supposed ‘saviours’ of the people, via their consistent oversights, can evidentially be perceived as ‘Nazi scum’ themselves. What with the demonisation of foreigners by ‘Nazi scum’ Temasek Review, or TOC’s, most bloggers, and the opposition parties’ silence in the face of xenophobia, self-absorption and racism in Singapore, one can conclude that Singapore serves as an alternative to the UK. As i’ve said before, living in Singapore tends to lead one to lose faith in humanity, whilst being in the UK, reinstates it.

If I was to draw parallels between the UK and SG, i’d say that the British National Party rules in Singapore, and the English Defence League serves as the support base and comprises most singaporeans, bloggers, and other prominent elements in the ‘new media’. The PAP went ‘pro-Chinese some decades ago; the opposition went silent in the face of the interests of other ethnic groups; and they and bloggers went pro-Singapore Chinese, and overall, the existing local racism sort of ‘globalised’ and sees these well-practiced culturally introverted tendencies being leveled in the face of foreigners in Singapore. The opposition parties add the pragmatic perspective with regards to foreigners, whilst bloggers and the likes of TR vilify them, or remain silent in the face of their vilification. Hence, together, they present a complete picture that can only be described as, well, I'm sure the reader gets the gist.

I’ve never been concerned about the existence of racists and xenophobes. However, what raises the brow, is the absence of significant opposition in the face of its culturally introverted ‘Nazi scum’ grimace.


[I was planning to be at this demonstration held in Bolton, March 20th, but due to some personal reasons, had to put off my trip to the UK. Never mind, I will be there for the next one.]


a2ed

6 comments:

  1. Actually, I'll put the PAP in the role of the Labour Party, and the various blogs as indicative of the EDL, BNP, and their ilk. After all, the PAP has been lambasted very badly as being too pro-foreigner (much like the LP), and that has been demonstrably true in many, many cases.

    Just look at the scholarships NUS gives out. Locals are discriminated against. Heck, even local Dean's Listers are not in the running, because 'foreigners need it more than you do'. Oh well, I guess I could make a big fuss out of it, but I decided not to. After all, meritocracy is merely lip service, and I understand that. Also, no need to aggravate my classmates either, since they make up the majority of the grad class.

    I also think it's the tribal instinct in all of us, to want to maintain our tribe, our society, our culture. The fear of the other remains strong everywhere.

    As a libertarian, I still find it hard to square the idea of free border movement with the possible threat of such movements destroying liberty by dint of racial/religious/ethnic spoils politics (and the evidence is that it DOES happen). I find myself struggling hard to maintain a cosmopolitan 'can't we all get along' outlook when I know I'm the one getting his ass screwed again and again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. .
    Hi WG,

    Well, it is quite debatable if the PAP can be associated with the Labour, Conservative, or the BNP themselves - i'd say they embody perspectives of all.

    Internally, in the face of various 'races', the PAP is BNP. But in the face of foreigners, to circumvent, on the one hand, the stupor induced by monoculturalism and a nanny state, and to be true to the profit motive, the PAP is pretty open.

    One has to appreciate the point that the PAP diluted difference by favouring one 'race' over the others; stating that singapore must always be a state with a Chinese majority; bringing in Confucianism; the SAP school system; fragmenting and diluting non-Chinese difference through the HDB quota system, amongst others, etc, to perpetuate its own hold over power.

    Discrimination was first levelled against the local non-Chinese, and the chinese, being favoured by this state of affairs, kept silent. Thereafter, to get past the stupor it inevitably afflicted the nation with, 'foreign talent' was brought in - and this also, as stated, was required to maintain the economic hegemony of the elite due to the lower wage scale of exploited 'foreign' labour.

    The 'fear of the other' is most pronounced in monocultural states as opposed to multicultural ones - i.e. China vs. India/UK. It is not necessarily maintained in perpetuity via evolutionary traits, but culture.

    I'm all for cosmopolitanism, whilst checking on the culturally-induced propensities by some to undermine it once they've gotten their foot in the door.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Internally, in the face of various 'races', the PAP is BNP."

    From the perspective of the average S'porean (which I admittedly am not, but I ask around), the PAP is a mix of Labour and Tory, but definitely not BNP. I have never seen a 'keep the OTHERS out' attitude that the BNP espouses. And that, more than anything else, defines the BNP.

    Unless you refer to the racial pigeonholes that the BNP and PAP both seem to delight in using, and the concept of racial spoils, in which case you are entirely correct. I would note, however, that virtually every nation, even most developed ones, have such classifications. And racial spoils exist everywhere. Even in the form of reverse discrimination. The PAP is brilliant in offering different types of spoils to different groups. I touch on that later.

    The dilution of differences amongst the races is an interesting concept. Believe it or not, many foreigners actually admire Singapore for being able to implement this, and many think it a brilliant idea to avoid... complications. Perhaps compared to the alternatives, this is the least worst solution.

    I am of two minds on this issue. The first is that forcing diversity may lead to loss of social capital, as Robert Putnam discovered.

    The second is that the opposite, of allowing racial enclaves (people allowed to associate freely WILL form such enclaves naturally), may also lead to conflict between different enclaves, and even more so when it spills over to politics. There are signs that this is already happening in the UK, and we can also see evidence of the failure of this strategy in the burning cars of Paris. Not everybody ends up like the Swiss. In fact, I may be tempted to argue that the Swiss are the exception that proves the rule.

    Despite all the glowing assertions made by the PAP government, not every citizen, even the Chinese majority, was happy about the state of affairs even BEFORE the influx of foreigners.

    For example, many Chinese and Indians are perpetually dismayed at the preferential educational policies granted towards the Malays, for example, free education up to the university level. A minor concession to appease them in exchange for their silence in other matters, you might say? Perhaps.

    Looking at the experience of Malaysia, though, many non-malays wonder if we're just wasting time and money on an 'inferior' race. (Yikes! I've mentioned the big swinging elephant in the room!)

    I have yet to see ANY opposition party that favors the elimination of all and any discriminatory policy based on race. No favors or special programs, for any race. Total colour blindness. Nope, I just don't see it. Perhaps evidence that the PAP's policies of different racial spoils for different groups have been so effective they've been ingrained into very psyches.

    It's also interesting to discuss how necessary immigration and diversity is towards progress and prosperity. As the clearest example of this, Japan does not seem to be doing too badly. And I think the Japanese could be the most xenophobic of us all. And yet...

    And yet we have the counter-example of the Swiss, who do have their diverse ethnic enclaves.

    I can't quite find it in myself to blame the EDL when it is clear that the government favors the immigrant over the native British. And given that certain high ranking figures in British society have actually spoke in favor of sharia law, I can certainly see the underlying resentment and fear starting to burst out.

    And so we end up with crazy spectacles like the EDL siding with homosexuals against Islam. Does the Unite against Fascism group support gays or Islam when the two are pitted against one another? Gay rights or Islamic rights? Hmmm...
    http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/04/opposing-mega-mosque-in-dudley.html#readfurther

    As you say, fascism from the left, fascism from the right. I'm not religious (an atheist), but in this case, God save those of us trying to hold onto the middle ground of liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  4. .
    >> the PAP is a mix of Labour and Tory, but definitely not BNP. I have never seen a 'keep the OTHERS out' attitude that the BNP espouses. And that, more than anything else, defines the BNP."

    ed: The paths may be different, but the destination is just about identical - keep Britain 'white', keep Singapore 'Chinese'. It is that which renders both similar, and the PAP, BNP. You'll have to look at what went on in Singapore in the 80s to appreciate that point. It was necessary for the government to go 'pro-chinese' to ensure their own longevity, plus, clamp down on the intellectual consequences of multiculturalism by going Confucian and monocultural.

    >> The dilution of differences amongst the races is an interesting concept. Believe it or not, many foreigners actually admire Singapore for being able to implement this, and many think it a brilliant idea to avoid... complications. Perhaps compared to the alternatives, this is the least worst solution."

    ed: You have missed the point that 'the dilution of difference' is in favour of the elevation of 'Chinese'. Taking half of the point, it might sound pretty good, but not when you take the other half. That is nothing short of cultural fascism. Most on the outside are not aware of this.

    >> The second is that the opposite, of allowing racial enclaves (people allowed to associate freely WILL form such enclaves naturally), may also lead to conflict between different enclaves, and even more so when it spills over to politics.

    ed: I'm not against the formation of enclaves, but i'm against its perpetuation.

    The reason is simple enough. If difference is fragmented at the initial stage, the dominant group subsumes it - unless they are egalitarian enough to appreciate another even if they aren't numerous or concentrated. In the face of Confucians or/and Chinese in s.e.Asia, the marginalisation of difference is the norm unless it is significant enough to demand cognizance and appreciation.

    What leads to conflict, in this context, is not necessarily the formation of enclaves, but the failure to bring about an egalitarian and integrative solution and for one side, at least, to be culturally introverted.

    Even at the social level, I've experienced this without exception for over a decade now. However, this was not as much the case in the 70s or 80s when the Chinese were far more open to difference, new ideas, and challenge. That would be due to English being the 'mother tongue' of the Catholic sector - which saw the increasing fusion of the Indians, Peranakans, Eurasians, and Chinese - amongst others, and their beginning to emerge as the dominant cultural and intellectually vibrant force.

    That, of course, was undermined in the late 80s onwards on the one hand, whilst the effects of the pro-Chinese SAP school system was beginning to seep in and undo it.(there are more factors of course)
    .

    ReplyDelete
  5. .
    >> Despite all the glowing assertions made by the PAP government, not every citizen, even the Chinese majority, was happy about the state of affairs even BEFORE the influx of foreigners.

    ed: Yes. But that doesn't mean that they weren't granted the relatively advantaged end of the stick. It was a case of the 'have-mores' wanting more, and the 'have-less' attempting to circumvent majority-apathy by getting more from the government. The more the Chinese can get from the government, the more the non-Chinese can get. But that doesn't mean that the non-Chinese are going to have as much as the Chinese.

    >>For example, many Chinese and Indians are perpetually dismayed at the preferential educational policies granted towards the Malays, for example, free education up to the university level.

    ed: Personally, i don't really take issue with that as i'm aware that proportionately, less Malays are going to aspire to as much as the Chinese given the elevation of the Chinese, via various means, and Chinese culture above all. It is a case of giving one a leg up whilst breaking the other. Oh yes, you might have free education as a Malay, but its the Chinese whom are going to have first digs at the premiership and the position as the boss (ref, SAP school system, mother-tongue policy, amongst others).

    >>I have yet to see ANY opposition party that favors the elimination of all and any discriminatory policy based on race. No favors or special programs, for any race. Total colour blindness. Nope, I just don't see it. Perhaps evidence that the PAP's policies of different racial spoils for different groups have been so effective they've been ingrained into very psyches.

    ed: Yes. Agreed. But it is not a case of 'different racial spoils for different groups' but a case of spoils hierarchically apportioned on the basis of race. Whilst we might see various races occupying various classes, we'll have to look at the impediments placed in the way of different races on the way up. The chinese have to contend with the class system. But the 'others' have to contend with that and race as well.

    >> It's also interesting to discuss how necessary immigration and diversity is towards progress and prosperity. As the clearest example of this, Japan does not seem to be doing too badly. And I think the Japanese could be the most xenophobic of us all. And yet...

    ed: Yes. Japan is an interesting case indeed. But one exception does not invalidate the rule. Anyway, when one was to look at the earlier phase of Japanese modern history, one will find that they imported talent to redo their government, education system, military, etc - i.e. ref. 2nd half of 1800s and post-war. They also have a 'ask why 5 times' philosophy which is quite the contrast to the chinese, 'don't ask why' approach. That, in addition to democracy, can do much in stimulating japanese vibrancy.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  6. .
    >> I can't quite find it in myself to blame the EDL when it is clear that the government favors the immigrant over the native British.

    ed: I don't see how the government favours the immigrant over the native British. Perhaps you could elucidate on that point. And, btw, let's not forget that the economy of the UK, amongst others, received a significant boost from the blood, sweat, tears, deaths, and resources of colonial lands. For instance, millions of Indians, more than the current population of British, died as a result of British colonialism, and resource exploitation. In that, the Indians, amongst others, can be considered silent investors in the UK.

    >> As you say, fascism from the left, fascism from the right. I'm not religious (an atheist), but in this case, God save those of us trying to hold onto the middle ground of liberty.

    ed: Oh certainly. But what i'd like to inquire after is the proper location of the centre. If not, the 'ultra right' of the past might become the 'centre' of tomorrow - as it seems to be in some quarters, and as it already has in singapore.
    .

    ReplyDelete

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