On this ‘native-born singaporean’ nonsense, in brief

At first, to the ‘opposition’ and most bloggers, it was ‘singaporean’ vs ‘foreigner’, and now the lingo has mutated into ‘native-born singaporean’ vs ‘foreigner.

Perhaps, due to the bashing the ‘opposition’ in singapore has been receiving from the few out there whom are not obtuse enough to appreciate the fact that most singaporeans have ‘foreigner’ forefathers, terminology has changed, albeit not the fascist stance.

I would put this pervasive fascism down to largely 3 causes. Firstly, the eradication of the socialist spirit; secondly, the infusion of the legalist-confucian ethos; and monocultural policies pursued, along with its consequential impact on the population who’ve basically been taught that the ‘majority’ way is the only way worthy of cognizance. All three compromise the egalitarian spirit. Hence, it is no surprise that even the ‘opposition’ can reflexively disregard the interests of the non-majority time and again.

Getting back to the issue of ‘native-born singaporeans’, it seems that oppositional elements are certainly painting themselves into a corner with such terminology. ‘Singaporean’ vs ‘foreigner’ was bad enough, and a2ed has quite often bashed these fascist twits on this point. So perhaps they think they can hide themselves behind ‘native-born’ instead.

There are quite a few arguments against the sense of such a term. For instance, would it be alright if the ‘foreigner’ was allowed to hang about long enough before they pop out a kid whilst here? The child would then be ‘native-born’ wouldn’t they. Would the oppositional/fascist elements have a problem with it then? So is their angst based on nothing other than the ‘foreigner’ having yet to cervically dilate locally?

And if you were to think about it, how much more value would the ‘foreigner’ have added to the economy upon their arrival than your kid who’s yet to be weaned of her/is pacifier. By the time your kid comes of age and contributes to the nation’s economy and be able to pay for an exorbitantly priced and cholesterol-rich fried kway tiao out of her/is own pocket - and to the PAP’s salary hikes - wouldn’t any ‘subsidy’ that s/he might have, and will enjoy, come from, in part, from the exploitation of the non native-born ‘foreigner’?

Or are you going to say that you, as a ‘native-born’ parent, have already contributed to the economy in lieu of your child’s contribution? Well, I don’t see why a ‘foreign-born’ parent can’t say the same thing.

And, of course, let’s not forget - and this goes out to the non-Malays - that at some point in the not too distant past, your progenitors were ‘foreigners’ as well. Well, you ought to be glad that the Malays didn’t take the stance you’re taking at present in the historical past, or you might possibly, and presently, be crying foul of tainted milk products in China, or, walking a mile for water in India.

So please, to all you oppositional elements, bloggers, ‘netizens’, and whatever out there, shut up about your being ‘native-born’ and try another.


ed

2 comments:

  1. Agree completely. I don't give a damn where somebody is born - the only thing that matters is that they believe in this concept called Singapore (however poorly defined), and are willing to contribute to its continued success.

    However, this is where the government has a problem - how do they determine this 'willingness'? You mentioned the economic angle, which is indicative of how the state has forced us to look at so many issues through that lens, but that approach has severe limitations - it's tough to place a value on the required amount of economic contribution for somebody to claim citizenship.

    The easiest way, of course, is through NS. You serve, you're in, no questions asked. Two years of sacrifice for citizenship, very Starship Troopers, very fair, I think.

    Not that NS is that tough anyway... the Israelis have it much worse than we do...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I got the best one that day, while criticizing someone's fascistic statement, I was told 'quitters have no right to comment as they do not know how we Singaporeans feel' or something to that extent.

    So now the line has been drawn between 'loyal Singaporeans' and supposed 'quitters' who decide to find themselves a better life.

    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