SG: Alex Tan and singapore's Chinese-centred opposition

I came across the following article by Alex Tan, entitled, 'Singapore, a Utopia no more'. Ed's comment and elaboration follows.


Singapore: a utopia no more?

Back when Singapore was still a developing nation, life on a general basis was affordable and national identity was strongly fostered among the people. In the population of 2.5 million before 1990, and everyone can afford a decent and pleasant standard of living, trust was deeply rooted into the PAP government because they indeed knew what was best back then.


Today in 2010, can we still say PAP still knows best?

Singaporeans are increasingly sidelined by the PAP and condemned as 2nd class citizens especially for NS men who have to go through National Slavery. For exmaple, the recent winning of Table Tennis Championship seems only to be celebrated by PAP and the foreigners. No true blue Singaporeans will ever do the traitorous move to call these players Singaporeans, because we all know they are no Singaporeans; they are mercenaries at best just like the Gurkhas. source


ed:
Yours (along with most bloggers and oppositional parties) is a highly chinese-centric analysis mate.

The pogrom against multiculturalism, grooming of a chinese elite, compromising of democracy, depoliticisation of the populace, etc, were well in place before the 90s. I know, I lived through the 70s and 80s. The fact that you don't appreciate the negative impact on the non-chinese of policies and perspectives of that time is itself indicative of your being chinese-centred.

No democrat would ignore that point unless he wasn't one - even without her/im realising it. And given your support for the 'gatecrash water festival' movement, the claim that you're a 'democrat' is nothing short of laughable. Here, in the UK, they'd call you 'fascist scum'. I suppose you might idealise the pre-90s simply because you subconsciously go by the dictum - if it doesn't happen to the chinese, it doesn't happen at all.

end...

furthermore,


Whilst the chinese, and the non-chinese accustomed to doing their best with what’s left after the ‘preferred race’ has had their fill, complain about being treated as ‘2nd class citizens’, the fact that the opposition and almost all bloggers rarely, if ever, took or take issue with the ‘2nd class’ status of the non-chinese prior to the increasing influx of foreigners, indicates the grossly ‘native-born’ sino-centredness of these people. It is no wonder that the fascist twit Alex can view the pre-90s singapore as ‘utopia’. ‘Singapore, a utopia no more’? It never was mate. It could have come close, except for the rude interjection of the aforementioned events, and, I suppose, Alex, amongst the chinese-centred blogging world and oppositional parties, are a consequence of said events, reduced in perspective enough to view the cessation of foreign competition as the reinstatement of ‘singaporeans’ to their former position as the ‘preferred race’ with little appreciation of how this would return the 3rd class citizenship of the non-chinese back to 2nd class. One can witness this tendency amongst almost all bloggers and oppositional parties (save ‘solo bear’) in their discussions on ‘foreigners’.

I would say to these unwitting minions of the PTBs that it is they whom are ‘foreigners’. Upon failing to integrate with the best of all cultures to be found in singapore in the past, they became nothing more than chinese-inhabiting-singapore as opposed to, what i’d prefer, ‘Singaporean Chinese’. To elucidate on that point, ‘Singaporean’ refers to a common Singaporean identity that reflects the best of all cultures, whilst ‘Chinese’ becomes little more than a dialect group within a unified Singaporean ‘race’. I knew such Singaporean Chinese back in the 70s, and do certainly give them credit for a part of my own egalitarian evolution.

The opposition needs to do much more to wean their supporters off their inculcated racist and fascist attitudes instead of just pandering to their learnt biases via support or silence so that their support may be garnered to ‘vote for change’ in the next elections. ‘Change’, in such an event, will as a consequence mean little other than a change of clothes, but not essential form. There is a world of difference between talking about what affects all singaporeans on the one hand, and on the other, taking issue with what affects singaporeans despite them not being part of the racially-defined majority. If focus is on the former and not the latter, then the allegation that the opposition and bloggers are ‘chinese-centred’ moves on to becoming an indubitable description of their nature.

And Alex Tan, amongst other bloggers, are coming across as nothing but ‘young punks’ who are more inclined to basing their stance on what they know as opposed to focusing on what they’ve been trained not to bother about. Let me give you a piece of advice mate, there are precious few who can live through a state of affairs and not embody some of its principles and perspectives, and especially so if they are part of the generations following the initial stage of a civilisation. For if the first and subsequent generations do not take vociferous issue with unegalitarian conditions, they will be producing a culture that enables them to cope with it and normalise it in their progeny. There is no ‘between’. Err on the side of caution and believe that, lest you believe in yourself despite that and do nothing other than refine the evils of the past into more acceptable forms.

Empathy, like justice, cannot be claimed to be done, it must be seen to be done. Prove it. Don’t claim it. If not, the issue which the ‘native born’ opposition and ‘singaporean bloggers’ take with ‘foreigners’ and ‘PRCs’ is no different from the table tennis match i witnessed during the SEA games or whatever it’s called, where both sides hailed from China but represented Singapore and China respectively. In other words, existing PRCs vs. singaporean PRCs. Think about it.


ed

9 comments:

  1. hahah your reasonings might be ridiculous but i like your writing style

    alex tan

    ReplyDelete
  2. A very enlightening write - up dear ED!

    hawkeye

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alex Tan is definitely one of the more notorious of racists in the opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  4. .
    Your 'response', or should i say, 'premature ejaculation', is typically SGchinese Alex - does not refer as much to HK or Taiwanese Chinese though.

    Taking on arguments by stating its 'ridiculous' or 'talking cock' as opposed to systematic logic. Quite typical of a people who determine right on the basis of power and numerousness of support or similitude. Quite like chinese triads don't you think.

    I think the 'opposition' would do well with the infusion of a fair bit of 'Foreign Talent' to get around the stupor and arrogance induced by a decades-old monocultural and bigoted state of affairs that has worked in favour of 'the majority' as opposed to 'others'.

    In that, Lee KY isn't wrong when he stated that the locals are not as hard-driving, etc, than the PRCs. But, of course, that is a phenomenon of the PAP's making. But tis unfortunate that the 'opposition' has yet to appreciate that point for want of what would certainly be a discomforting course of critical introspection.

    Well, I cannot expect much from nazi scum such as yourself and many bloggers/oppositional elements. Perhaps some dietary supplements, of the cultural kind, might help. I always thought that Chinese culture will have its evils eradicated and its good amplified upon fusion with the best elements of other cultures - and vice versa. But that is another matter.

    Thanks for the compliment btw. I received a similar compliment from the president of the SDP youth close to a decade ago, and he too, like yourself, discounted all ideas simply because he didn't think of it himself. Another little confucian emperor.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  5. .
    To anon2,

    Well, I wouldn't say that Alex is a 'notorious racist', just that he's a 'YP' who doesn't know any better. He draws his insights and oversights from what's commonly held and has forgotten the golden democratic rule that one should always wonder after how, and not if, one is a product of what one opposes. Note that none of the Sg bloggers have taken issue with the exclusive 'SG blog awards', amongst a host of other instances of bigotry. They are not dissimilar to him, and which is why the likes of Alex, amongst others, can consider the political life in the oppositional (chinese-centred) mainstream.

    I would say the 'notorious racists' in the opposition are actually those who hold prominent positions, but whom rarely breathe a word about race issues. In this, they are impressing upon all that the non-chinese don't matter and that if a problem doesn't impact on the chinese, it doesn't happen at all. That is why it is only now that they are banging on about their being '2nd class citizens' in the face of foreigners, whereas in the past, they had just about nothing to say about how the local non-chinese were occupying 2nd class status relative to the local chinese. Nor do they appreciate the fact that the prior state of affairs relegates the local non-chinese to the position of 3rd class citizen status in the face of the local chinese and foreigners.

    The idiot 'Robox', an SDP stooge, actually had the cheek to state in a previous comment that the SDP is under-resourced and they had to prioritise - which basically meant that priority is given to 'the majority', and in singapore, where the majority-minority dichotomy has been racially defined, that amounts to nothing short of racism.

    In a nutshell, or perhaps cockleshell, the most 'notorious racists' are not those hurl insults at races, but those who occupy prominent positions and keep silent about all the subtle instances of racism that insidiously work together to underdevelop one sector in favour of another.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Don't put words in my mouth, bitch!

    By "underresourced" I meant "people resources" and specifically people who are adept at managing the discourse on race relations which happens to be a highly specialized area of knowledge. No opposition party in Singapore has the people resources - specialists - to manage even half of what is usually considered the most basic functions of government, much less a highly specialized topic such as racism for which there are probably only the tiniest handful of people in Singapore whose numbers can be counted on one hand. (And, yes, given how consumed you are by self-pity, I expect that you will be twisting that last statement of mine to mean something about prioritizing the issues of the majority ethnic group first. Don't dissappoint me.)

    In the meantime, it is very flattering to know that my exchange with you has left enough of an impression on you that you would find it fit to bring it up even when it is irrelevant to the topic at hand, after a considerable time lapse, and just a way to blow steam.

    You only prove my point about being pathologiocally obsessed about the SDP, especially when you refer to me - or anyone who doesn't see perfectly eye to eye with you, making you exactly the fascist, anti-democratic person that you slam eveyone else as - as an SDP 'stooge'.

    There is far worse racism going on right now in opposition's ranks that I am fully convinced that it is you who doesn't know the first thing about setting priorities other than your pathetic self.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And BTW, ed, with your endorsement of Solo Bear's anti-racism efforts - as if he were the only one or even the one who broke the ground like bellepepper and I did - exactly what do you have to say about his homophobia that he makes sure is well known online.

    A conveniently overlooked facet of fascism that you perhaps empathize with him on as a bloody heterosexual male?

    ReplyDelete
  8. .
    My, my. I've never been called that before. But i'm glad that you're gender-neutral in the usage of that term. Strangely, i was just thinking about the meaning behind said term yesterday and wondered if i'd use it on a man or if other men would do likewise. I then thought that if one was inclined to call another a 'bitch', then it would usually be because one got 'screwed' by the other. In which case, the 'bitch' would be oneself wouldn't it.

    Your statement in a prior comment was:

    "First, if you know so much about the SDP, how is it you are unable to concede that they have been deliberately underresourced, particularly in human terms, and not least of all because of their status as the most embattled political party in Singapore? They do need to prioritize their battles too, you know, the major one being preparing for the string of court battles that have been lined up against them. Then, which other party has done that "speaking out" against racism so much so that you are singling only the SDP out for your smears?

    Most of all, are you asking for a repeat of PAP rule when you ask that political parties play the paternalistic role of moralists as well each and every time racist trangressions occur involving Singaporeans?"

    That speaks for itself.

    Right, so now we need 'specialists' for racism to be contended with? It doesn't take years of study to notice when another group's interests is being compromised, only empathy mate.

    I don't need to 'twist' your words to prove that the SDP, amongst others, aren't overly concerned about the interests of the non-chinese. Their frequent silence in the face of xenophobia and apathy with regards to race issues is evidence enough. A good example of empathy can be found amongst the socialists, the UAF, etc, here in the UK. They certainly do not talk about being 'underresourced' but look into all the manifestations of racism and xenophobia. And most aren't 'specialists' in the subject, but seem to be quite the 'specialist' in empathy.

    As for your final comment, I have taken issue with 'solo bear' with regards to his ridiculous homophobia on his site in the past. I don't expect you to know that as I don't expect you to look at all the comments he receives. Personally, I can't understand how one who is egalitarian with regards to race can be the inverse in the face of homosexual rights.

    And anyway, i would take more issue with yourselves and not him as he is not attempting to cast himself as an alternative to the party in power. And additionally, it is not as if the 'gays' don't have thousands of supporters already. I'm focusing on what's left unsaid by the government, most bloggers, and the so-called opposition.

    To say it straight, it's a pretty appalling situation where people are more concerned about the right to go down on each other, amongst others, than the right to access the resources required to make the most of themselves in all arenas. Don't forget, chinese homosexuals do not have to face the 'chinese/mandarin speakers preferred' obstacle, amongst a HOST of others, as do malay or indian homosexuals'. In that, malay or indian homosexuals are more disadvantaged overall than the chinese. Interests may be cross-cutting, but that doesn't mean that if they were satisfied, the racially-defined hierarchy collapses.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  9. .
    postscript:

    Robox,

    you probably don't realise it, but you have not addressed the main points raised in this article - and which is similar to your approach in your responses to other articles on this site (example : http://www.according2ed.com/2010/03/human-trafficking-in-singaporewith-work.html). That bespeaks self-absorption mate.

    The problem with you people is that you are more adept at being defensive as opposed to considering the main points raised or the main thrust of critique. (or perhaps you are playing 'double-agent' here as your location and that of the commentator stating that Alex Tan is a 'notorious racist' is one and the same;))

    Is that how you approach voters? With an 'you're either with us or against us' stance? Typically legalist-confucian don't you think. Don't you think that is a populist approach? That's one of the issus I, as a voter, have with the so-called 'opposition'.

    Quite laughable, being in the opposition and calling critique pathological. The PAP did that with Robert Ho, amongst others. Just look at how you fellas are more a product of the party in power than an alternative in this, amongst other, respects. When we critique the government, we are 'democrats', when we critique the opposition, it is a sign of pathology. How convenient.
    .

    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