Goh Keng Swee et al, Confucian 'Rothschilds'?


[left to right: Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Lee Kuan Yew]


I really don’t understand these accolades spewing from the orifices of singapore’s so-called ‘oppositional’ elements - from Yap (who calls himself ‘Uncle’ Yap) to The Online Citizen). Yap, for instance, actually gives the bloke credit for not earning as much as the ministers of today. Well, it’s not as if he would refuse if he was a minister today, and its not as if he took vociferous issue with it when it started climbing years ago.

Well, i’m not surprised. Given the way these people take issue with various ministers’ stance on policies, whilst forgetting that in a Legalist-Confucian state, no ministerial minion is going to be doing anything without the go-ahead of the ‘Song of Heaven’, it is no wonder that they might be profuse in their tributes and what-nots in the face of Keng Swee dropping of the twig.

Let’s get one thing straight shall we boys and girls. He was a member of the People’s Action Party. He was the Deputy Chairperson of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation - the body that ‘oppositional’ elements have been accusing of ripping of the people - from 1981 to 1994, and and which he was a key person in initiating. And if that isn’t enough, He was also the Chairperson of N.M. Rothschild & Sons (singapore) - which is another sort of ‘GIC’, except on a Global scale, and has been linked to various global elitist ‘conspiratorial’ bodies. Keng Swee also, with regards to the cessation of singapore from the Federation, stated that it, ‘was the best thing that ever happened to singapore.‘ He was also the Chairperson of the Board of Governors of the Institute of East Asian Philosophies - which was originally founded to study Confucianism - a system designed to garner subservience, depoliticisation, and promote traditionalism.

If these aren’t enough to cast doubt on his being ‘a man of the people’, than try to remember that Goh was one of the pillars of the PAP, and didn’t take issue with that which the so-called opposition decries today and in years past. Neither did he seem to be averse to ultra-right wing policies of the PAP that blatantly created, and than favoured one ‘race’ over others so that they may serve as the 'host' and buffer against critique and empathy. For instance, did the racist SAP school system not exist in the 70s? Was he against the various movements against oppositional elements in a variety of Internal Security Department operations? Was he against the death penalty? And did he not favour economic development over social services? - not that we couldn’t have the two. And hence, can we not conclude that Goh Keng Swee was one of the big wigs behind turning singapore, its depoliticised relationship with the party in power, and the bigoted/apathetic/self-absorbed interrelationship between the people?

The perspectives of the PAP has been years in its implementation, and decades-old in its formulation. To what degree can we say that Goh Keng Swee is a divergence from its orientation?

Well, i’ll leave it to the reader to do relevant research on these matters. Just remember, it is not only by our insights that we are to be known, but by our oversights as well. In appreciating that point, we’d be able to better judge Goh Keng Swee et al, the 'oppositional' elements, and, of course, ourselves.


related (external) articles:


Singapore: A historical background

Goh Keng Swee: Wiki

Rothschild Family, series of 4 videos. Videos will play automatically one after the other. The first is a 'quotation-style' clip, after which, a documentary follows.





ed

2 comments:

  1. Interesting angle... on Dr Goh Keng Swee. For a change, a different view. Canot cocur more with you on "it is not only by our insights that we are to be known, but by our oversights as well."

    Have not done sufficient research to provide the other angel to this. However, one must also recognize his contributions to Singapore, inspite of the shortcomings... if any. The are many unanswered questions as to why he has totally withdrawn from the political scene.. though being active in the public life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Soo Jenn,

    I wouldn't look up to anyone, whatever their contributions, if this was done for the hegemony of particular party and system of thoughtlessness. What these blokes did was to oil the machinery for self-aggrandizement whilst reducing the people to that which is required in order for them to do so.

    And I certainly wouldn't congratulate a person for his contributions if it was complemented by a pogrom against difference and the elevation of, and preference for, one 'race and culture' over the rest. Forgive my candour, but I suppose if you were part of the 'races' whom were left with the short end of the stick, you would think otherwise.

    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