Understanding the Temasek Review-style fascist phenomenon in Singapore



In a just published rant by Temasek Review, a well-known singaporean neo-nazi (confucian version) site - and with a disconcertingly high readership and support base - fascism comes most naturally to confucians - I was surprised to see TR's statement, with regards to the election of 20 far-right fascists to the swedish parliament,




"In the meantime, a wave of anti-immigrant wave has swept across the world with the Sweden Democrats, a small right-wing nationalist party winning 20 seats in the recent Swedish elections which the PAP must be watching with trepidation.

The next general election may be the last window of opportunity for native Singaporeans to reclaim ownership of their beloved country after which they will surely be relegated to being second class minorities in their own land of birth, completely dominated and overwhelmed by the PAP regime and the hordes of foreigners which it is mass-importing in a desperate bid to cling on to power." source


You really have to wonder after the nobs running TR, and not forgetting their equally nob-ulous supporters.

'An anti-immigrant wave has swept across the world'??

Silly me, and there was I thinking it was just Sweden. Well, to be honest (for the sake of encouraging critical introspection and change), I've heard many singaporean Chinese, over decades, discounting local evils by saying, 'everywhere also like that one lah!' ('that's the way it is everywhere'). And if you can prove to them that 'everywhere also not like that one lah', they either just ignore you, or tell you, 'if you like there so much, then migrate lah!'(to those Chinese who might be inclined to get defensive and say, 'not all of us like that', ask yourself if you are not an exception in what is generally the case.) So i'm not surprised that TR, emerging from the bosom of Singapore's confucianised (since the late 80s) milieu, would assume that the election of 20 far-right parliamentarians in Sweden is an indication of anti-immigrant feeling sweeping 'the world'. Just one state, and they're ready to assume that it is the 'whole world'? Then why is it that they don't use the far more numerous examples of anti-fascism in the world to toss out their fascist stance?

But what i found to be quite disconcerting is TRs associating their cause with the Swedish 'Democrats', and stating that the PAP (singapore ruling Confucian government) 'must be watching in trepidation'. And this is followed by a call for singaporeans to 'reclaim ownership of their beloved country'. This counterposes TR and the Swedish far-right on the one side, and the PAP looking on 'in trepidation' as the whole 'world' gets on the side of TR. They present fascism, preference for 'one's own' as a global and human norm. This is, as far as i'm aware, the most blatant statement by TR that they are nothing but neo-Nazi scum. It's sort of them 'coming out' of a 'closet' where they had previously mixed pragmatism with fascism and thus blurring the lines between both.

They go on to talk about the danger of their becoming 'second class minorities' in 'their own land of birth'. Perhaps they are very much aware that they might have to enjoy the same disadvantages as the non-chinese have had to put up with for decades. So, being thus aware of what 'being a minority' entails, they are fervently attempting to avoid being done unto as they had done unto others?

what the government introduced into the singaporean psyche is that of racial and cultural supremacy despite nationality as a prelude to associating the national identity with the 'preferred race'. Xenophobia is a natural corollary.
But the most ironic thing about this whole nonsense is that TR, the opposition, and their respective supportive hordes, are behaving exactly as products of the government's decades-old biased policies. You see, what the government introduced into the singaporean psyche is that of racial and cultural supremacy despite nationality as a prelude to associating the national identity with the 'preferred race'. Xenophobia is a natural corollary. They trained the people, and especially the 'native-born' Chinese, to not bother about anyone but themselves. They stated that singapore must always have a Chinese majority; being race-based self-help; started up the 'mother tongue' policy that forbade races from learning each languages in schools; zealously promoted mandarin and chinese culture; celebrated chinese culture throughout the nation whilst 'others' were kept to their traditional enclaves; begin SAP schools providing exceptional education for the chinese; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.(i've said quite a bit about this in previous articles, but have repeated a bit of it here for those whom might not have read said previous articles).

Generally, people don't become xenophobes till they are well trained in racism. Local racism is like the prep school for xenophobia.
Basically, governmental policies re-associated the Chinese with their traditional 'race' and 'identity', turned 'preference for one's own' and the ensuing, 'tyranny of a racially-defined majority' into the overarching culture of singapore. Generally, people don't become xenophobes till they are well trained in racism. Local racism is like the prep school for xenophobia. And confucianism, with its fetish for traditionalism, subservience, uniformity and thus, harmony, is itself a source of bigotry-production. Pair this with getting people to identify with 'their own culture and race' and people are ready to graduate to xenophobia. The other races weren't of much help either. Given that they were faced with the choice of assimilating to the emerging 'Chinese' standard of thought and thoughtlessness, or face marginalisation, unemployment, or give up promotion, they, and especially subsequent generations, became 'chinese' themselves. Thus, the chinese, and just about everyone, tend to today confuse the confucian identity with the 'singaporean' one.

Till the influx of the new foreigners, the Chinese, like the Malays in Malaysia, could sit back and enjoy being the 'preferred race' in singapore. Its not suprising that I hear of more Chinese returning to singapore from the west than those of other races. Locally, they could keep out all difference and challenge and install their standard as the sine qua non of all standards. If the non-Chinese could 'make it', it was at their say so, and if they fit their criteria of what makes a good worker, friend, mate, etc. Of course, they were not always this way. The Chinese i knew, and got along very well with in the 70s and 80s were another breed altogether. They were more into fusion and were becoming the results of it in terms of their critical abilities, wit, and openness to contradiction and new ideas. Not so, the 'Chinese' of today. But when any race is 'preferred' over all others; credited for being the only 'practical and hardworking' race in singapore, and their culture promoted over all others, arrogance, amongst other perspectival and intellectual deficiencies, will certainly ensue as they discount all ideas not emerging from the 'majority'.

And then, when the new foreigners come in, phenomena like TR, and the other 'oppositional' parties will certainly emerge. You can always identify their fascist nature, not only by what they say, but what they fail to say when they should say it. Also, their call for a 'singapore for singaporeans' rings as hollow as a cut-price Ikea table, if we were to keep in mind that they were as silent as roadkill when the non-chinese had to put up with that which they now fear.



ed

11 comments:

  1. You got kicked in the ***** by Darkness. Does that make him a racist. Seems to me everyone who either disagrees with you. Or don't share your values is a xenophobe. Get a life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What nonsense you talk boy. 'My values', as you call it, are based on the sociological and dictionary definition of xenophobia and racism. Till you can show that they are not one and the same, to disagree with me is to be one. That is the way you argue your point. Learn boy, learn.

    And, by the way, you don't 'win' an argument by ignoring contradiction but by taking it on point by point - something you and 'darkness' would do well attempting sometime in this lifetime. The problem with you confucians is that you make sense of reality after ignoring all data and perspectives that contradicts yours. Typical. Well, its a good thing you guys live in SG and associate with the similarly inept. Hope you'll forgive my candour, but over here, they'd probably wonder if you've ever been to school. They aren't very tolerant of gross stupidity.

    That said, if you have systematic arguments/questions, as opposed to that expected of an ill-educated juvenile, your comments will be most welcome. If you're just going to rant and jibe, whilst cowering behind some psedonym, it will be assigned to its rightful place in the digital dustbin. Have a good day mate;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, good day sir.

    You are a fucking prick.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't bother about this idiot ed. That's how most of the idiot supporters at TR also argue. All this kind of comments show how stupid chinese culture has made people. They become 'hehe haha' kind of people like this guy's name..haha. They either got no comments or just talk nonsense. Keep up the good work bro! You are the only one who talk sense in sg.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Optimus, Ed. The fact that you are not getting comments that address the points of your article shows the kind of mindset these people have. We should make good use of the technology to do much more - exchange ideas, stimulate thoughts, broaden our perspectives and increase our knowledge etc, etc.

    Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  6. You're both quite spot on, John and Optimus.

    The singaporeans of today, are not very different from the government many bemoan. After all, that was the intention of Confucius who spoke about the internalisation of a government's morals and perspectives - though the good things he suggested have been ignored by 'confucian' governments. They have many things in common, and one of them being, aversion to contradiction. They either ignore it or argue after ignoring most of the significant points brought up. This can be easily verified by listing out the points made and if they are addressed at all in the response. The curious can go through the few comments made by singaporeans on this site and you will see that it is true just about 100% of the time, i.e. look at 'Robox', 'Solo Bear', 'Darkness', for instance.

    I wish i could say that this experience is limited to the net, but, unfortunately, it is again true 100% of the time in my social interactions over 20 years, and if i recall earlier experiences, i would have to say that is quite similar to the preceding decades as well. I'd say i experience this 5 out of 10 times with the Malays and Indians, but 10 out of 10 times with the Chinese in the past decade. There have been no exceptions to date. One can further triangulate and see if this aversion to contradiction/difference is present in the media and local productions. You will see that it is, again, true.

    Another test one can apply is in presenting novel perspectives or talking about things the Chinese aren't accustomed to talking or bothering about. You will, again, see that they would ignore it at least 9 out of 10 times - the same on and off the net, and which explains why this site has few comments even though it gets quite a bit of 'hits'. But, of course, if you have fallen victim to confucian culture, you would not be able to apply such tests for want of the perspectival intelligence/knowledge to do so. You have to be pretty knowledgeable, and be able to generate novel perspectives whilst in conversation which you can be quite sure isn't thought of 99 out of 100 times in singapore. Then you will be able to see. Whether it is Chee Soon Juan, Seelan Palay, Gopalan Nair, 'Solo Bear', Carlos Abdullah, Ng E Jay, and people from all walks of life i personally knew in coffeeshops, my extended chinese family, 'friends', etc, everyone has failed these tests 10 out of 10 times.

    Now you could say that there is something wrong with me, but the inverse is true in the UK where the Brits i've encountered pass it 8 out of 10 times. Let's just say that i enjoyed a significant degree of popularity amongst my 'white' university mates for being what i am whereas in singapore it is ignored, and especially by the Chinese. In fact, it was my interaction with them that enabled me to construct such a test. If it wasn't for my stint in England in the 90s, i suppose i would have never thought there was anything seriously wrong with the Chinese way of 'thinking', and neither would i have thought there was much racism in SG either. I shudder at that thought.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually, I find it pretty telling that in Europe, there is a growing wave of anti-immigrant sentiment. Even in supposedly highly liberal Scandinavia. Given that liberalism in those states is often poorly masked economic authoritarianism, I suppose that people prefer fascists who are at least of the same tribe and who would (supposedly!) treat their own people better rather than fascists who would ostracise their own people and value the foreigner more than their own.

    Tribalism - the oldest human impulse?

    Can't say I blame them. Given a choice, people will always choose their own 'partly inbred extended family' - a very nice term I found over at Steve Sailer's website. Shared values, culture, skin colour, blah blah blah. DNA at work! It doesn't help when immigrants end up taking advantage of the welfare systems in place and drive up crime rates. The Gates of Vienna website has documented quite a bit of this.

    Does tribalism leads to favorable outcomes - it all depends, doesn't it? The Japanese, for all their xenophobia, seem to be doing okay. Individuals and societies have the freedom to be racist, to be xenophobic. They'll just have to bear the consequences of that too, good and bad. As long as that racism doesn't spill over to actual physical harm, or gas chambers...

    I ran across an EDL forum a few days back, and the breadth and civility of the discourse there amazed me. I expected to find a seething hotbed of anti-foreign invective, but it was remarkably tame. Certainly tamer than whatever goes on in anti-establishment S'pore websites. I find it terribly ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The PAP was initially formed from two groups - the pro-Communist China partisans and the pro-British/Western values Oxbridge educated elite. Given that they included in their number non-Chinese luminaries like Rajaratnam (stuck in England for the entirety of WW2!), it is interesting how they eventually decided upon the path of confucianism and pragmatism, which is doubly interesting because the educated elites essentially stabbed the Commies in the back once they got their hands on the reins of power. I guess the whiff of racial control ideology from the Chinese Commies (I have it on pretty good authority that Mao hadn't, at that time, got rid of Confucianism yet) told the PAP there were some pretty good ideas for them in the mix. For a long time, the PAP actually subscribed themselves as members of the international socialists!

    *howls with laughter*

    With regards to the immigration issue, I suspect it's not just xenophobia at work. Certainly, from my own experience it is possible for a foreigner to be accepted by Singaporeans as 'us', even if not born and bred here. If you're male, just give up two years of your life for National Service, and be liable for reservist callup. Then suddenly you're one of 'us', few questions asked, even if you've only spent two years here. OTOH, there are those who've spent more than ten years here, but still regarded as 'other' because they are seen as not having made the required sacrifice. And the most pariah of all, those who escaped NS - witness the sheer rage and anger towards pianist Melvyn Tan who made the very logical choice of choosing his career over country. Why this difference?
    http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2005/11/very_strong_sup.html

    I suspect just like the confucianism inculcated by the government, the pragmatism espoused by the PAP as its ideology has also been well and fully imbibed by the population. Essentially, it's cold hard calculation - what's in it for me? Did you start where I started? The sacrifices I made - did you make them too? If I made those sacrifices and you didn't, you don't have the right to enjoy the same laws and security I made possible with my sacrifice... unless you pay me a suitably large amount of money that compensates me adequately for my pain.

    If every foreigner comes in claiming they'll pay an extravagantly large sum of money to Singaporeans (not just to the highly paid politicians), the complaints would be a lot more muted.

    I imagine that for these people, their ideal world would be a sheer pervasion of the ancient regimes of Sparta and Republic Rome, with privileged 'citizens' having to work less and able to lord it over foreigner 'helots' who choose to work in Singapore because it still offers marginally better earnings than elsewhere. Unfortunately for these people, globalization and the race to the bottom has meant that there's always a better deal out there... and I would not prefer it any other way.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The thing about chinese 'communism' was that, well, it wasn't. It was more like state capitalism, and in that, it remained true to the legalist-confucian ethos of 'previous' times - and which in itself served to undo whatever communist intentions Mao might have had. Legalism-confucianism is quite inherently a bigotry-producing ideology as a whole. Xenophobia, racism, etc, are logical corollaries of a system of thought that prizes conformity to the powerful and popular. Hence, if you're not the right colour, race, do not practice the same culture, speak a foreign language - the chinese are notorious when it comes to making fun of other s.e.asian languages - you're out, or liable to be 'spot-checked' by the police, etc, etc. Haven't you seen chinese who attempt to imitate the languages of, say, the vietnamese, indians, filipinos, and basically make fun of it as if it were insensible? I have, all my life. But we 'get along' by not telling them off, along with many other strategies of 'getting along', so that we can enjoy some fake semblance that there is an 'us singaporeans' and a 'common' identity. An illusion and nothing more till all difference is assimilated - which has already come to fruition at present.

    The pragmatism espoused by the PAP was a racially biased one, and depended on it to a significant extent. So, when we say, 'the people', we must be aware that the chinese took to it as it left them with the advantaged end of the stick, and the non-chinese put up with it by finding a way through it - whilst becoming less themselves. In this, of course, both lost out as the chinese continued to be what their foreparents had been for 2000 years, and not become more through interaction with difference, and others became less than what they could be in an effort to 'make it' in a climate where independent thought and difference was anathema.

    ReplyDelete
  10. i salute you Ed.

    reading this one post and its comments can tell a person more about the real Singapore than a hundred 'articles' from the Straits Times.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You're welcome, and thanks for the encouragement man. As the saying, or rather, my saying goes, 'The Truth can only be Out There if one bothers to put it out there' ;)

    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