excerpt source: Temasek Review
“They are a mix of nationalities. So although there is no ‘ethnic’ enclave as such, there is a high concentration of foreigners ‘to the point where Singaporeans feel threatened and become a minority. When that happens, then it becomes an issue,” he added.”
Why wasn’t it an ‘issue’ when the Malays and Indians became an ethnic minority due to the government’s position that the racial balance must be in favour of the Chinese?
You won’t find the ‘opposition’, TR, ‘democratic’ bloggers, amongst others, kicking up a fuss over this. Hence, I dare say that a ‘minority’ vote of no confidence in the ‘opposition’ is in order.
“It would also assuage the concern of those Singaporeans who feel besieged in their neighbourhood by new sights and smells. On her house visits, every block throws up at least two or three Singaporeans who voice their concerns about this,” she was quoted as saying in the Straits Times.
Sights and smells? I recall many remarks by the local chinese, chinese friends, and family, from my childhood to the present with regards to the ‘smell’ of minorities, their homes, and their food. And I’m also well aware that the Confucianism-induced penchant for uniformity, conformity, and monoculturalism would have quite a bit to do with the reason why Temasek Review, the so-called ‘new media’ of the ‘opposition’ would choose to give prominence to such statements without taking issue with it. In this, they mirror seem to mirror the perspectives of some of the 'majority what!' come-lately. All i'm asking, no, demanding, is a bit of empathy and appreciation of difference. I personally have been made greater through my appreciation of OIMC, or, 'others, Indians, Malays, and Chinese', and I've always hoped that everyone would be able to thrive similarly. Perhaps TR should adjust its slant to a more cosmopolitan one and cease promoting their learnt and inherited aversion to difference. Try to be more cosmopolitan/Indian/British will you.
Fascists like TR, and most singaporean activists and bloggers, including members of the SDP, are known for their neo-Nazi mentality not by the good that they say, but the slant which it takes, and their failure to take issue with the numerous instances of fascist perspectives that abound amongst the critiques of the government. There is always a fusion between ‘economic pragmatism’ and aversion to difference. Many in the UK realise that, but none in singapore. You have to be a non-fascist to realise that. Well, perhaps TR would like to sue a2ed for ‘defamation’ as they had hilariously threatened to do with ‘Eric How’. Ah these kids. Perhaps they ought to stick to playing ‘cowboys & Indians’.
Do these, to use the word utilised by the mythical Eric How, ‘donkeys’, realise that that is typically fascist behaviour, and mirrors the party in power’s approach toward critique - though more so in the past than in the present? But I dare say that they are not going to take issue with a2ed as a2ed is not a member of the YPAP. Just like the government, the ‘opposition’ tends to take issue only with the prominent, and not with ideas. In that, is further evidence of their true nature which will never be obvious to the self-absorbed, which includes most ‘netizens’ and the population of singapore present. Anyway, ‘Eric How’ was wrong in calling TR, amongst others, ‘donkeys’. They aren’t. Donkeys are, unfortunately, used as beasts of burden. In this case, we are the ones whom are being burdened by a fascist beast confused for a ‘democrat’. Man, these jackasses give democracy a bad name of misnomic proportions. I got my education in anti-fascism in the United Kingdom, whilst these blokes seem to have gotten educated into confusing fascism for democracy in the bosom of the party in power. Tsk, tsk.
a2,
ed
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Friday, 29 January 2010
Do Singaporeans’ support the Death Penalty? Yes or no, It’s like that one lorrr...
Do Singaporeans’ support the Death Penalty?
Goes the question by a street-interview conducted by TOC. On this basis, some are of the view that Singaporeans are against the death penalty. Not true.
There is a world of difference between not supporting something and being against something.
In an Indian or Western society, ‘being against something’ might generally refer to being actively opposed to it, and which translates to perhaps, being a vote-loser, eliciting strong opinions on the subject, or at times campaigning against it. However, in a Confucian, aka, ‘like that one lor’ society, not supporting something generally translates to ‘like that one lor’, if the people are told that that’s the way it’s going to be. So, the Chinese may generally not like something, but what most people on the side of the ‘opposition’ don’t realise is that it is not generally a vote-loser, does not elicit strong opinions, nor does it lead to placard-cum-picket campaigning.
Frankly, i’ve heard that phrase - ‘like that one lorrr’ - enough times and in a host of different circumstances to have me teetering on the verge of incontinence, which, I’ll have to admit, would be quite a discomforting experience given my partiality to tight jeans and thongs.
Leaky orifices aside,
One must understand that the strength of a Confucian society lies in its ability to produce a pen of people who tend to view the political milieu as one might the weather and get by with an umbrella instead. In a global capitalist milieu, it spells quick advance as unions, troublesome socio-political analysis, activists, humanitarians, human rights activists, empathy, compassion, and all other such traits that hallmark lesser civilisations such as the Indian or British ones, amongst others, are done away with. Theirs is not to reason why but to allow such an advance to define the meaning of ‘high’. The best of human traits are in other words defined by what’s left after humanity is cast aside for mammon. Doing one’s best whatever the overarching circumstances is where one’s focus is fixated. That, of course, leads to that degree of self-absorption that naturally produces commonly used phrases such as ‘like that one lor’ - as opposed to inferior societies such as south India where words such as nyayam (reason, logic) feature frequently in conversations.
So given the self-absorption and ensuing apathy and ignorance that inevitably results, a noose around another’s neck is not much of a strain on one’s own - hence, the irresolute responses given by most in the interview conducted by TOC.
At its core, the trick of Confucianising a society lies in having a chinese majority who are more amenable to being socialised into the Confucian mindset, given its practice by their ancestors, and which in turn makes cultural identification easier. Secondly, impose financial pressures on the people whilst providing them the means to circumvent said pressures through mutual exploitation and foreign investments - that in turn produces the needed apathy, self-absorption, and mutual alienation to keep them out of politics. Thirdly, get rid of egalitarian multiculturalism lest the population is forced to contend with other modes of thought and which might lead to critical political views and empathy. That is why numbers are so important and racial imbalances have to be maintained lest the tendency to couch oneself in the familiar is challenged by significant difference in larger numbers.
All these come together to produce the aforementioned phrase. One ought not to take it lightly. And it is within this context that one might begin to appreciate that the common understanding of words can take on highly different meanings in different societies. Hence, as I watched the interview by the TOC, I couldn’t help but smile at the true meaning behind the expressions of its participants.....whilst tightening my posterior.
a2,
ed
related article: 'Cut the Noose' & 'SSS' - ABOLISH, Death Penalty
Apple’s, 'Ipad'. Furthermore.....Steve Jobs can kiss my Socialist ass
No memory card slots?! You can trust these capitalist pricksters to withold features so that they can beef up the price for greater internal memory space. On Apple’s singapore site, the heading goes, ‘Yet another unbelievable feature: The Price”. Yes indeed. Unbelievable how one has to pay $200usd more for a harddrive space upgrade from 16GB to 64GB. And from some reports, there are no USB slots either. They’ve had you cornered into paying more for internal gigabytes which you can get from various external memory items at far less a price. If you want to use these, you'll have to fork out extra for adapters. How considerate. Marx had said (most insightful bloke indeed) that the search for profit drives the bourgeoisie all over the world in search for markets. In addition to that, it is also obvious that they hold back innovations and shelve ideas from the masses till version 1 ‘take 7’ - like Windows.
What’s the logic here? Are the capitalists saying that they have to produce a rubbish product first, get our money, and then use it to produce an acceptable product. Why couldn’t they have done it the first time round. I’m aware of technological constraints. But i’m also aware of the constraints for the constant need for profit to fund the global civil war conducted on an economic scale with the rest of us as pawns, aka, consumers/workers.
Steve Jobs can kiss my Socialist ass.
a2,
ed
related article: Apple’ Ipad - needs a ‘foreign talent from the PRC’ add-on
Thursday, 28 January 2010
on 'Being culturally sensitive'. Sorry, no thank you.
I always get a bit worried whenever people start imposing restrictions on expression for fear that it might be ‘offensive’. For instance, Seelan Palay's post, 'Lee Kuan Yew's remarks deeply offensive to Malays', or, Not My SDP's, 'John Tan's remarks deeply offensive to Muslims', are cases in point.
Let me put it this way. Familiarity tends to breed contempt of critique. In other words, my being familiar with a particular scheme of thought and thoughtlessness, and being taught to appreciate it as ‘culture’, and then being told that I ought to take ‘cultural pride’ in it, renders whatever paradigm from which I make limited sense of reality immune to critique lest it offends the familiarity-induced sensibilities of others like myself. This, i view as nothing short of cultural arrogance. Do people actually think that the culture we inherit, and which is borne of times we all agree were, in various respects, less than laudable, can actually be sacrosanct? If we were to be objective about it, we’d find that offending people’s sensitivities can oftentimes be paraphrased with offending people’s biases and prejudices.
The logic is simple enough, or at least to myself - the practice of a culture tends to replicate the conditions that produced them, or, the replication of conditions that produced cultures of the past can give birth to similar cultures. That, if anything, is a warning to be wary of 'cultural pride' and be more than amenable to critical cultural introspection.
All of us products, or more accurately, consequences, of various historical experiences handed down to our conscious minds, and thrust up the backsides of our subconscious minds through the medium of ‘culture’. It endows us with varying perspectives that work well and fine within isolated circumstances. However, when we come together, some of these perspectives are made more by fusion with others, whilst others are an impediment to said fusion. Of course, in the face of critique, we can irrationally seek refuge in ‘thou shalt be sensitive to my sensitivities because it is protected by the term, ‘culture’’.
However, I am well aware that there were times when ‘culture’ denied women the right to vote, or the Afro-americans from aspiring to be anything more than a carpenter or cotton-picker, and which even led to some Indians to engage in a spot of bride-burning here and there. And people were imprisoned for being ‘culturally-insensitive’ and taking issue with the order of the day, or the characters it produced or thrived on amongst the advantaged and disadvantaged. So let’s not couch our respective familiarities in ‘cultural sensitivity’ shall we, and let’s be reflexively inclined to ask if a particular statement is true. In our efforts to dissect and discover the truth, we cannot but learn more about ourselves and each other, and which is a most prudential approach if we have as an ambition to be more a product of the insights of the past, than its oversights.
If some people tend to get out their incendiary cocktails to carry the discussion further, then let’s pay their efforts the compliment of effective policing. But the last thing we should be doing is to police our thoughts on the perspectival consequences of various historical experiences, whether it is termed ‘culture’ or ‘a set of historically induced biases, prejudices, insights and oversights’. I’d rather be of the lineage of the best of cultures as opposed to making the best of a culture because my ancestor did so lest it makes victims of others.
And singaporean activists ought to be appreciate how 'cultural sensitivity' allowed the party in power to promote one culture over all others whilst rendering it immune to critique via the need to be 'culturally sensitive'. Activists must also be aware that 'cultural sensitivity' can also be a medium via which the belief systems of a people borne of the manipulations of the governments of the past are protected by the selfsame people who've been taught to take familiarity-induced cultural pride in it. At such a time, the people will then be able to serve as the Great Wall betwixt the government and critiques and activists will begin to wonder why it takes so damn long for change.
Let's be intelligent and objective about it all. But let's not confuse 'feeling insulted' or 'being offended' as an indicator that what is said is untrue.
a2,
ed
Let me put it this way. Familiarity tends to breed contempt of critique. In other words, my being familiar with a particular scheme of thought and thoughtlessness, and being taught to appreciate it as ‘culture’, and then being told that I ought to take ‘cultural pride’ in it, renders whatever paradigm from which I make limited sense of reality immune to critique lest it offends the familiarity-induced sensibilities of others like myself. This, i view as nothing short of cultural arrogance. Do people actually think that the culture we inherit, and which is borne of times we all agree were, in various respects, less than laudable, can actually be sacrosanct? If we were to be objective about it, we’d find that offending people’s sensitivities can oftentimes be paraphrased with offending people’s biases and prejudices.
The logic is simple enough, or at least to myself - the practice of a culture tends to replicate the conditions that produced them, or, the replication of conditions that produced cultures of the past can give birth to similar cultures. That, if anything, is a warning to be wary of 'cultural pride' and be more than amenable to critical cultural introspection.
All of us products, or more accurately, consequences, of various historical experiences handed down to our conscious minds, and thrust up the backsides of our subconscious minds through the medium of ‘culture’. It endows us with varying perspectives that work well and fine within isolated circumstances. However, when we come together, some of these perspectives are made more by fusion with others, whilst others are an impediment to said fusion. Of course, in the face of critique, we can irrationally seek refuge in ‘thou shalt be sensitive to my sensitivities because it is protected by the term, ‘culture’’.
However, I am well aware that there were times when ‘culture’ denied women the right to vote, or the Afro-americans from aspiring to be anything more than a carpenter or cotton-picker, and which even led to some Indians to engage in a spot of bride-burning here and there. And people were imprisoned for being ‘culturally-insensitive’ and taking issue with the order of the day, or the characters it produced or thrived on amongst the advantaged and disadvantaged. So let’s not couch our respective familiarities in ‘cultural sensitivity’ shall we, and let’s be reflexively inclined to ask if a particular statement is true. In our efforts to dissect and discover the truth, we cannot but learn more about ourselves and each other, and which is a most prudential approach if we have as an ambition to be more a product of the insights of the past, than its oversights.
If some people tend to get out their incendiary cocktails to carry the discussion further, then let’s pay their efforts the compliment of effective policing. But the last thing we should be doing is to police our thoughts on the perspectival consequences of various historical experiences, whether it is termed ‘culture’ or ‘a set of historically induced biases, prejudices, insights and oversights’. I’d rather be of the lineage of the best of cultures as opposed to making the best of a culture because my ancestor did so lest it makes victims of others.
And singaporean activists ought to be appreciate how 'cultural sensitivity' allowed the party in power to promote one culture over all others whilst rendering it immune to critique via the need to be 'culturally sensitive'. Activists must also be aware that 'cultural sensitivity' can also be a medium via which the belief systems of a people borne of the manipulations of the governments of the past are protected by the selfsame people who've been taught to take familiarity-induced cultural pride in it. At such a time, the people will then be able to serve as the Great Wall betwixt the government and critiques and activists will begin to wonder why it takes so damn long for change.
Let's be intelligent and objective about it all. But let's not confuse 'feeling insulted' or 'being offended' as an indicator that what is said is untrue.
a2,
ed
Singapore’s ‘multiculturalism’ in a cockleshell
"PAP MPs admit that ethnic enclaves have emerged in the HDB heartland"
...went the title of an article by the fascist Temasek Review. And I must say that I could help similing at the irony of it all as singapore had moved from being a Malay country, to a multicultural one, and thereafter an 'enclave' for the Chinese. I cannot but baulk at the blatant hypocrisy of those who fear a replication of that which had advantaged them in the past to the present.
In brief,
To prevent the formation of ‘ethnic enclaves’, the government imposed the HDB quota system thus fragmenting all races in view of the potential for all to form bonds whatever the ethnicity. That’s good.
Along with this, the government imposed proscriptions on the formation of political parties along religious and ethnic lines. That’s good.
However, in pursuing these policies in tandem with the stated policy to maintain an ethnic balance in favour of the Chinese, the government in effect turned the country into an enclave for the Chinese, and themselves as a party formed, perspectivally, along racial and cultural lines. That’s bad.
In pursuing the policy of elevating ‘Chinese’ culture above all, the Indianness or Malayness of its inhabitants, regardless of ‘race’, was diluted to the point of non-existence. Any Indian or Malay, or Chinese who could be more Indian or Malay, was suffered an environment where the non-Confucian aspects of her/is persona could not find development or expression. In time, the fragmentation of ethnic groups across the nation enabled one dominant persona to emerge, and which is nothing short of a mockery of egalitarian multiculturalism, and gives a wholly different meaning to the term, ‘Singaporean’.
a2,
ed
...went the title of an article by the fascist Temasek Review. And I must say that I could help similing at the irony of it all as singapore had moved from being a Malay country, to a multicultural one, and thereafter an 'enclave' for the Chinese. I cannot but baulk at the blatant hypocrisy of those who fear a replication of that which had advantaged them in the past to the present.
In brief,
To prevent the formation of ‘ethnic enclaves’, the government imposed the HDB quota system thus fragmenting all races in view of the potential for all to form bonds whatever the ethnicity. That’s good.
Along with this, the government imposed proscriptions on the formation of political parties along religious and ethnic lines. That’s good.
However, in pursuing these policies in tandem with the stated policy to maintain an ethnic balance in favour of the Chinese, the government in effect turned the country into an enclave for the Chinese, and themselves as a party formed, perspectivally, along racial and cultural lines. That’s bad.
In pursuing the policy of elevating ‘Chinese’ culture above all, the Indianness or Malayness of its inhabitants, regardless of ‘race’, was diluted to the point of non-existence. Any Indian or Malay, or Chinese who could be more Indian or Malay, was suffered an environment where the non-Confucian aspects of her/is persona could not find development or expression. In time, the fragmentation of ethnic groups across the nation enabled one dominant persona to emerge, and which is nothing short of a mockery of egalitarian multiculturalism, and gives a wholly different meaning to the term, ‘Singaporean’.
a2,
ed
Apple’ Ipad - needs a ‘foreign talent from the PRC’ add-on
Apple’ Ipad - needs a ‘foreign talent from the PRC’ add-on
It is certainly not the preferred tool for writers unless one buys a stand for it along with an external keyboard, and in which case, an all-in-one ‘netbook’ might be more convenient.
I really wonder after the evolution of the masses, or perhaps the Corporation’s pretty successful efforts to determine its degenerative course toward mindless consumerism and little besides. The ‘netbook’ whilst structured for writers, or more aptly, ‘typers’, is called a ‘netbook’ and not as it might be termed in an alternate reality where citizens outnumber ‘fans’ and ‘consumers’, as, perhaps, ‘thoughtbooks’, ‘writebooks’, amongst others.
And the Ipad is certainly the less preferred alternative to ‘netbooks’ for serious thinkers-cum-typers as one needs to be holding it with at least one hand whilst doing, perhaps, a 2-fingered tap dance on the keyboard. There are pastimes that are optimally-suited for one-hand maneuvers, but serious typing isn’t one of them I’m afraid. It seems that efforts are being made, albeit unwitting, to structure the human physical experience of things to ensure that s/he is brief in her words, and this way, brief in thought. After all, how many would be inclined to type out a 2000 word analysis with two fingers eh. Serious thinkers-cum-typers tend to pick up typing at quite a speed given their desire to type out words at the same speed as their thoughts. But if we structure the experience, as with the Ipad, to slow down the typing, a slow-down of thought inevitably follows.
Remember, evolution is not yet over. The powers-that-be would like to justify the current socio-economic status quo by stating that humans are genetically predisposed to compete, etc, etc, whilst structuring your ongoing evolution to ensure you do little else other than that which helps them maintain their continued and ever-expanding hegemony over the mindless ‘modern’ masses.
That said, the Ipad is quite a nice tool for imbibing the web and entertainment, and of course, reading - that is the only tempting point for me. If it is interactive, it is mostly in terms of your tap-dancing here and there on the screen to imbibe some more, and not ‘interactive’ in a sense that you might one to send out volley after volley of analysis here and there. And anyway, as there are no obtrusions on the keyboard on the screen as one might find on a traditional keyboard on the letters, ‘F’ and ‘J’, I wouldn’t be able to focus on attempting to keep up with my thoughts at 35 or so words per minute. And I don’t fancy having my crotch in constant view whilst doing so with my knees propped up either. It wouldn’t be great for the neck. And we all know that neck posture is pretty important in the course of a computing experience. And frankly, i’m inclined to view my documentaries at coffeeshops with my legs stretched across a stool and my hands behind my head. Perhaps i could consider getting some ‘foreign talent’ from the PRC to prop it up for me as the pro-chinese government here don’t seem to have a problem with opening the doors to them to do jobs which locals could do. But then again, that wouldn’t be very nice would it.
Alright. Enough of Steve Job’s ‘Ipad’. Sounds like a virtual version of a sanitary pad if you ask me. Too bad PMS isn’t as virtual. And anyway, it isn’t him that created it. It is the product of many minds - including what we’ve been seeing on Star Trek for a few decades. He’s just taking most of the credit, and the money, for it. That’s capitalist-style ‘respect for intellectual property’ for you.
a2,
ed
Monday, 25 January 2010
CMIO? I'd rather, OIMC
Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others? I’ve come across the acronym for it quite a few times, CMIO. ‘What nonsense?’, i thought. Even in an acronym, the Chinese are given prominence. And they talk about ‘harmony’, which seems to be everyone getting along whilst knowing their racially ordered place. Unacceptable.
What does CMIO mean in essence?
C: Significance by Numbers,
M: significance by Originality,
I: insignificant because of lesser numbers-cum-non-originality,
and,
O: ‘God knows, all we know is that they aren’t majority what!'
The order, ‘CMIO’, basically maintains the significance of respective races along the lines defined above and sets the path for the assimilation of all below C to C. I always baulk whenever I come across this acronym in sight or sound as it comes across as a subconscious and arrogant assertion of the significance of the Chinese simply because of numbers. I often find it ironical that the chinese value significance by numbers on the one hand, whilst lauding the achievements of a singular man, Lee Kuan Yew. I wonder how many Chinese appreciate the significance of this contradiction and how it indicates some gross perspectival deficiency on their part.
What the Chinese never got is that the essence of democracy lies in the valuation of the significance of the singular individual. However, by ordering groups according to the aforecited criteria, the significance of the singular individual is cast aside and democracy is immediately undone. What comes thereafter is what may be termed, a 'fascist democracy' where democracy is appreciated insofar as it delivers the greatest benefits to a majority defined along 'racial' lines - hence, my assertion, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, that the singaporean oppositional sector is a pro-C enterprise.
I’m all for getting rid of this racial classification thing. But firstly, we need to pursue a course of Egalitarian Multiculturalism. This refers to equal respect, prominence, and appreciation given to all cultures. This is to promote cross-culturalism whereby fusion results through the dialectical interaction between various cultures.
It is only than that we can pursue with a final course of getting rid of archaic classifications. If these steps are not followed, what might happen, as it already has, is that MIO is assimilated to C. Thereafter, moving on to casting aside racial classification is akin to claiming the ascendancy of one over all and the dilution of all difference in favour of the one. (which has also come to pass, thanks to the self-absorption of the 'opposition'.)
The point here is simple enough. When we put the least first, the criteria by which we contradistinguish the 'least' and the 'most' is displaced by a valuation of even the single individual as significant as the whole. In that, we install a firm and true foundation for democracy. It is only then that other social evils, such as the death penalty, gender discrimination, the lack of eco-consciousness, et cetera, will gain even more support amongst a people who would have thus be trained to appreciate sentience in itself.
a2,
ed
Related articles:
Let's talk 'mother tongue', 'majority what', & 'whose SDP?'
Application to BritishBlogs and a conscientious redesign of the BritishBlogs button
What does CMIO mean in essence?
C: Significance by Numbers,
M: significance by Originality,
I: insignificant because of lesser numbers-cum-non-originality,
and,
O: ‘God knows, all we know is that they aren’t majority what!'
The order, ‘CMIO’, basically maintains the significance of respective races along the lines defined above and sets the path for the assimilation of all below C to C. I always baulk whenever I come across this acronym in sight or sound as it comes across as a subconscious and arrogant assertion of the significance of the Chinese simply because of numbers. I often find it ironical that the chinese value significance by numbers on the one hand, whilst lauding the achievements of a singular man, Lee Kuan Yew. I wonder how many Chinese appreciate the significance of this contradiction and how it indicates some gross perspectival deficiency on their part.
What the Chinese never got is that the essence of democracy lies in the valuation of the significance of the singular individual. However, by ordering groups according to the aforecited criteria, the significance of the singular individual is cast aside and democracy is immediately undone. What comes thereafter is what may be termed, a 'fascist democracy' where democracy is appreciated insofar as it delivers the greatest benefits to a majority defined along 'racial' lines - hence, my assertion, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, that the singaporean oppositional sector is a pro-C enterprise.
I’m all for getting rid of this racial classification thing. But firstly, we need to pursue a course of Egalitarian Multiculturalism. This refers to equal respect, prominence, and appreciation given to all cultures. This is to promote cross-culturalism whereby fusion results through the dialectical interaction between various cultures.
It is only than that we can pursue with a final course of getting rid of archaic classifications. If these steps are not followed, what might happen, as it already has, is that MIO is assimilated to C. Thereafter, moving on to casting aside racial classification is akin to claiming the ascendancy of one over all and the dilution of all difference in favour of the one. (which has also come to pass, thanks to the self-absorption of the 'opposition'.)
The point here is simple enough. When we put the least first, the criteria by which we contradistinguish the 'least' and the 'most' is displaced by a valuation of even the single individual as significant as the whole. In that, we install a firm and true foundation for democracy. It is only then that other social evils, such as the death penalty, gender discrimination, the lack of eco-consciousness, et cetera, will gain even more support amongst a people who would have thus be trained to appreciate sentience in itself.
a2,
ed
Related articles:
Let's talk 'mother tongue', 'majority what', & 'whose SDP?'
Application to BritishBlogs and a conscientious redesign of the BritishBlogs button
Musings on Fascism
There is something about fascist apathy that blinds us to our own interests. Maybe it is how we are trained out of the appreciation of detail; or perhaps, in not understanding or appreciating difference, we lose the ability to appreciate phenomena from different angles; and then there is also the loss that comes with failing to add the cultural perspectives of others to our own; and then again, we are also trained to appreciate only the obvious or salient as illustrated in our appreciation of the ‘the majority’ in terms of race or colour, or maybe shared history, or being ‘natives’; and there is also an increased tendency to worship some leader or party that has delivered them from the insecurities that come when faced with the novel; and last but not least, the tendency to value race itself leads to the devaluation of the individual as the latter is the price that has to be paid when we scorn another for difference and not appreciate their essential individuality in itself.
All of these come together to produce exceedingly docile minds and we hence have little choice but to look upward for directions whilst mistaking the potholes that we invariably break our ankles in as ‘fate’. But if everyone all over the world walks with a limp, then we are spared the discomfort that comes with critical introspection. And with the said devaluation of the individual, and the worship of a leader or political party, popular political vibrancy and individualism is compromised and people are well prepared to deal with the consequences of all of the above via gross opportunism.
And so we plod on ahead and become lesser humans as we seek out the only evidence of the validity of a status quo in our growing economic affluence whilst having being reduced enough not to recognise or want more. And if enough states follow this path, we move into the land of the blind where the one-eyed wo/man, who appreciates the iniquity of this whole scheme of things, is deemed to be handicapped for not being able to stop complaining and move on.
a2,
ed
TR, SG Bloggers, the Opposition & Immigration, for Dummies
Temasek Review:
The next election may be the last one for Singaporeans to vote out the PAP or to place enough opposition MPs in Parliament to deny it its traditional two-thirds majority without which they can expect the pace of immigration to increase and overwhelm them.
Foreigners now make up 36 per cent of the population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. Of the remaining 64 per cent who are citizens, an unknown proportion are new citizens born overseas.
If Singaporeans were to give the PAP another “mandate” again at the next election, they may find themselves in the minority in a few years’ time.
A2ed:
God forbid that the singaporean chinese find themselves a minority in the face of foreigners, or else they might have to face a similar situation as other ethnic minorities have for quite a while - with the aid of chinese apathy-cum-discrimination of course.
As one chinese mate said to me in justification of chinese apathy in the face of others' suffering discrimination, 'well, if you don't get hit you won't feel it what!' Well, be thankful for the opportunity to 'get hit', maybe then you might learn a little bit of empathy. But then again, given the stance of the fascist twits running TR, and quite a bit of Sg bloggers, I doubt you blokes are ever going to learn. I'm putting this comment in, 'just for the record', lest curious passers-by actually confuse you for the good gals/guys.
Best of luck in taking care of your own asses mates.
a2ed
***
I’ve always thought (and still do think) that it was a good idea not to form political parties along ethnic or religious lines as it tends to reinforce multiculturalism as opposed to cross-culturalism (fusion). However, in the face of a government that has a ‘preference’ for one ethnic group over others, i.e. bumiputra policy in Malaysia or the pro-chinese policy in Singapore, forbidding the formation of parties along ethnic lines enables the government of the day to promote one over others. In such a case, it is only the opposition that can take up the cross-cultural cause. However, in the case of the opposition in singapore, it seems that ethnic minorities can only hope to await the crumbs after the ‘majority whats!’ have had their fill. Quite the dilemma, being caught betwixt the devil and the croc in the deep blue sea. At the end of the day, in the words of Malcolm X, all we are left with are ‘house negroes’ on both sides of the thus illusory divide.
Now, for those who have not read my earlier observations, one cannot judge the ‘opposition’ by what they say, but what they fail to say, or take up with as vociferous consistency. It is the combination of both that determines the degree to which they are either democrats or fascists - and in the case of singapore, 'fascist democrats' would be quite apt.
a2,
ed
The next election may be the last one for Singaporeans to vote out the PAP or to place enough opposition MPs in Parliament to deny it its traditional two-thirds majority without which they can expect the pace of immigration to increase and overwhelm them.
Foreigners now make up 36 per cent of the population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. Of the remaining 64 per cent who are citizens, an unknown proportion are new citizens born overseas.
If Singaporeans were to give the PAP another “mandate” again at the next election, they may find themselves in the minority in a few years’ time.
A2ed:
God forbid that the singaporean chinese find themselves a minority in the face of foreigners, or else they might have to face a similar situation as other ethnic minorities have for quite a while - with the aid of chinese apathy-cum-discrimination of course.
As one chinese mate said to me in justification of chinese apathy in the face of others' suffering discrimination, 'well, if you don't get hit you won't feel it what!' Well, be thankful for the opportunity to 'get hit', maybe then you might learn a little bit of empathy. But then again, given the stance of the fascist twits running TR, and quite a bit of Sg bloggers, I doubt you blokes are ever going to learn. I'm putting this comment in, 'just for the record', lest curious passers-by actually confuse you for the good gals/guys.
Best of luck in taking care of your own asses mates.
a2ed
***
I’ve always thought (and still do think) that it was a good idea not to form political parties along ethnic or religious lines as it tends to reinforce multiculturalism as opposed to cross-culturalism (fusion). However, in the face of a government that has a ‘preference’ for one ethnic group over others, i.e. bumiputra policy in Malaysia or the pro-chinese policy in Singapore, forbidding the formation of parties along ethnic lines enables the government of the day to promote one over others. In such a case, it is only the opposition that can take up the cross-cultural cause. However, in the case of the opposition in singapore, it seems that ethnic minorities can only hope to await the crumbs after the ‘majority whats!’ have had their fill. Quite the dilemma, being caught betwixt the devil and the croc in the deep blue sea. At the end of the day, in the words of Malcolm X, all we are left with are ‘house negroes’ on both sides of the thus illusory divide.
Now, for those who have not read my earlier observations, one cannot judge the ‘opposition’ by what they say, but what they fail to say, or take up with as vociferous consistency. It is the combination of both that determines the degree to which they are either democrats or fascists - and in the case of singapore, 'fascist democrats' would be quite apt.
a2,
ed
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Donate to the Haiti Crisis? No thanks.
Whenever I’m approached for donations in the public by tin-totting twits, I always tell them, ‘I already gave, it’s called TAX, go get what you want from the government’.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Let's talk 'mother tongue', 'majority what', & 'whose SDP?'
In conversation....
ed: Just take a look at the SDP website. What do you see when you look in the sidebar on the right? You see 3 langugage options. What is the order. “Mandarin, Malay, Tamil”. Isn’t that biased?
other: But the Chinese are the majority what?
ed: Really? I thought Singaporeans are the majority?”
What’s the point here.
I’ve been saying for a while now that the opposition in singapore is representative of Chinese interests, not singaporeans of all ethnicities. (ref. previous observations) If my perspectives were just reared within the singaporean locale, I suppose that I too would think the opposition to be egalitarian. But not because they are, but for want of a better alternative. In the course of my maturation, I would also be trained to not notice slights against difference due to its pervasiveness, and due to my ‘friends’ of other or 'cool' ethnic groups being oblivious to it. I would, in a nutshell, only be appalled by obvious consequences of such oversights and view their address by the opposition or proposition as evidence of their egalitarian spirit.
There are a whole host of ways by which people can be accustomed to 2nd class citizenry. The combination of being able to do one’s best within whatever the conditions to make ends meet or become a ‘success’; the compensatory means by which pent-up frustrations are relieved; the cross-cutting friendships with people of other or preferred races; self-blame for failures or lack of motivation or aspirations; blaming ethnic communities for now doing enough for their own; the existence of a middle class comprising all ethnicities; and so on and so forth.
Being able to sit down and sip a cup of tea at the local coffeeshop with friends of all ethnic groups comes across as the existence of harmony. Yes it is. But egalitarian respect is another matter altogether. To what degree am i personally forced to accommodate those at the table by leaving my culturally-induced persona at home? To what degree have the young been socialised out of this culturally-induced persona so that they would fit in very well with everyone at the table? To what degree do we accommodate the dominant tendencies till we accommodate our distinctive personalities out of existence? These are questions left unpondered by the best minds in the ‘opposition’.
That is why I’ve put forth the above observation to my ‘friends’ of all ethnic groups. And they all returned the selfsame response - ‘But the Chinese are the majority what?’ And they always look dazed-but-not-confused with my retort abrupt - “Really? I thought Singaporeans are the majority?”
My reasoning follows thereafter with,
ed: “You know that the government has stated that the singapore must always have a racial balance in favour of the Chinese right?”
other: Right.
ed: And that because of this the Chinese are today the overwhelming majority right?
other: Right.
ed: Then don’t you think that the SDP presenting Mandarin first validates the consequence of the government’s stance?
Furthermore,
ed: Since language has been linked to ‘race’ in singapore via the ‘mother tongue policy’, isn’t this a validation of race via language even if that isn’t the intention?
other: Then what order would you put the languages in?
ed: Tamil first, Malay second, Mandarin third.
other: why?
ed: Simple. The potential reasons for supremacy is generally ‘originality’(malays) and ‘numerousness’ (chinese). So long as we validate either, we are going to elevate ethnicity above the ‘race of singaporeans’. In order to show that neither ‘originality’ or ‘numerousness’ are inconsequential, we put the least first. And through putting the least first, we are also saying that it is not superior numbers or originality that counts, but the littlest part that comprises the whole. Think about it. The firing pin is one of the smallest removable parts of an M16, but without it, the gun is useless. By placing the order in such a way, we are saying that even the least can contribute that 1% of the GNP that can fuel the production of the rest of sum.
other: what if the Malays say that you are playing favourites?
ed: Then i’d elect for a Malay to be the next PM.
other: how about the mother tongue policy?
ed: I’ll press the ‘delete’ button. The mother tongue of the singaporean race, or ‘ethnic group’ if you prefer, will be English, and that will be because it has the potential of mothering a fusion of perspectives of all ethnic groups without casting the language-cum-ethnic group of any sector as superior within the homeground. if you think about it, we wouldn’t have a ‘Malay’, ‘Tamil’ or ‘Mandarin’ mother tongue if the governments of those lands wherein these mother tongues came about had ‘mother tongue’ policies like the government in singapore. A mother tongue, in essence, is that which brings everyone together. The dialectical fusion that results is the child of such a language. Hence, in the Singaporean scenario, English is it. Malay is the ‘mother tongue’ of the Malays before Stamford landed. Tamil is the mother tongue of the south Indians in India, and Mandarin is the mother tongue of the Chinese in China. In Singapore, the mother tongue ought to be determined not by the language our ancestors were comfortable with when hurriedly asking for directions to a public toilet 2 hours after asking for directions to the best fried rice stall, but in respect of the variety of perspectives that it can bring together as a whole.
........
a2,
ed
ed: Just take a look at the SDP website. What do you see when you look in the sidebar on the right? You see 3 langugage options. What is the order. “Mandarin, Malay, Tamil”. Isn’t that biased?
other: But the Chinese are the majority what?
ed: Really? I thought Singaporeans are the majority?”
What’s the point here.
I’ve been saying for a while now that the opposition in singapore is representative of Chinese interests, not singaporeans of all ethnicities. (ref. previous observations) If my perspectives were just reared within the singaporean locale, I suppose that I too would think the opposition to be egalitarian. But not because they are, but for want of a better alternative. In the course of my maturation, I would also be trained to not notice slights against difference due to its pervasiveness, and due to my ‘friends’ of other or 'cool' ethnic groups being oblivious to it. I would, in a nutshell, only be appalled by obvious consequences of such oversights and view their address by the opposition or proposition as evidence of their egalitarian spirit.
There are a whole host of ways by which people can be accustomed to 2nd class citizenry. The combination of being able to do one’s best within whatever the conditions to make ends meet or become a ‘success’; the compensatory means by which pent-up frustrations are relieved; the cross-cutting friendships with people of other or preferred races; self-blame for failures or lack of motivation or aspirations; blaming ethnic communities for now doing enough for their own; the existence of a middle class comprising all ethnicities; and so on and so forth.
Being able to sit down and sip a cup of tea at the local coffeeshop with friends of all ethnic groups comes across as the existence of harmony. Yes it is. But egalitarian respect is another matter altogether. To what degree am i personally forced to accommodate those at the table by leaving my culturally-induced persona at home? To what degree have the young been socialised out of this culturally-induced persona so that they would fit in very well with everyone at the table? To what degree do we accommodate the dominant tendencies till we accommodate our distinctive personalities out of existence? These are questions left unpondered by the best minds in the ‘opposition’.
That is why I’ve put forth the above observation to my ‘friends’ of all ethnic groups. And they all returned the selfsame response - ‘But the Chinese are the majority what?’ And they always look dazed-but-not-confused with my retort abrupt - “Really? I thought Singaporeans are the majority?”
My reasoning follows thereafter with,
ed: “You know that the government has stated that the singapore must always have a racial balance in favour of the Chinese right?”
other: Right.
ed: And that because of this the Chinese are today the overwhelming majority right?
other: Right.
ed: Then don’t you think that the SDP presenting Mandarin first validates the consequence of the government’s stance?
Furthermore,
ed: Since language has been linked to ‘race’ in singapore via the ‘mother tongue policy’, isn’t this a validation of race via language even if that isn’t the intention?
other: Then what order would you put the languages in?
ed: Tamil first, Malay second, Mandarin third.
other: why?
ed: Simple. The potential reasons for supremacy is generally ‘originality’(malays) and ‘numerousness’ (chinese). So long as we validate either, we are going to elevate ethnicity above the ‘race of singaporeans’. In order to show that neither ‘originality’ or ‘numerousness’ are inconsequential, we put the least first. And through putting the least first, we are also saying that it is not superior numbers or originality that counts, but the littlest part that comprises the whole. Think about it. The firing pin is one of the smallest removable parts of an M16, but without it, the gun is useless. By placing the order in such a way, we are saying that even the least can contribute that 1% of the GNP that can fuel the production of the rest of sum.
other: what if the Malays say that you are playing favourites?
ed: Then i’d elect for a Malay to be the next PM.
other: how about the mother tongue policy?
ed: I’ll press the ‘delete’ button. The mother tongue of the singaporean race, or ‘ethnic group’ if you prefer, will be English, and that will be because it has the potential of mothering a fusion of perspectives of all ethnic groups without casting the language-cum-ethnic group of any sector as superior within the homeground. if you think about it, we wouldn’t have a ‘Malay’, ‘Tamil’ or ‘Mandarin’ mother tongue if the governments of those lands wherein these mother tongues came about had ‘mother tongue’ policies like the government in singapore. A mother tongue, in essence, is that which brings everyone together. The dialectical fusion that results is the child of such a language. Hence, in the Singaporean scenario, English is it. Malay is the ‘mother tongue’ of the Malays before Stamford landed. Tamil is the mother tongue of the south Indians in India, and Mandarin is the mother tongue of the Chinese in China. In Singapore, the mother tongue ought to be determined not by the language our ancestors were comfortable with when hurriedly asking for directions to a public toilet 2 hours after asking for directions to the best fried rice stall, but in respect of the variety of perspectives that it can bring together as a whole.
........
a2,
ed
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
on 'The Opposition'. A reply to an email
I received an email a couple of days ago from a bloke who asked me why I insist on berating the opposition given that i’m on the oppositional side of things myself.
“Dear .....
There is no doubt that i’m on the side of the opposition. However, the question that begs to be asked, and which few are asking, is, ‘is the opposition on the side of the opposition?’ Or is the opposition simply determining its locale from being in disagreement with the party in power? At the core of it all, what the opposition ought to be going against is the self-absorption in the government. This translates to economic, ethnic, cultural, types of self-absorption, amongst others. Being at loggerheads with the government in one arena, or in a few aspects of each or some arena is not good enough to determine the oppositional status of an individual or party. There must be an acute awareness amongst the opposition that, given the continued and successful rule of the party in power for close to half a century, it is impossible for ‘the problem‘ to remain located in the government and none other. In the worst instance, and which is most certainly the case, the opposition themselves would be afflicted with varying and appreciable degrees of self-absorption. At this point, what would be required is that opposition to the government be complemented with openness to critique and change within the former. However, this is not the case.
It seems that the opposition goes by the selfsame approach of the government in the past, ‘if you want to get involved in politics, join a party’. Being of the party of the citizenry wasn’t enough, and this simultaneously betrays the government’s devaluation of the citizenry. Whilst the government has gradually pulled back from this position, we are seeing the same approach amongst the opposition now. They seem to have an ‘you’re either with us or against us’ approach. You could say that the opposition has become even more authoritarian than the government. Whilst the government used the ISD to terrorise and literally beat oppositional elements into submission, the oppositional side now uses the more humane and subtle means of turning the discounting cheek in the face of critique.
On the propositional side of things, we saw the worship of prominence and power in the form of supporters rallying around the PAP or Lee Kuan Yew. On the oppositional side of things, we see them rallying around prominent ‘new media’ and Dr this and thats. Just a cursory glance ought to reveal to one that there is hardly any effort at all to improve their various parties through critique, or efforts to contend with difference in opinion by bloggers. It’s either our way or the highway, goes the Confucian ethos amongst the opposition themselves now.
What led me to move against the opposition myself was, finally, their approach to ‘foreigners’ which is nothing short of, and verifiably, fascist. As I have mentioned in a few of my observations, they are just about identical to the fascist British National Party in their approach. This applies to the various oppositional political parties, the ‘new media’ such as TOC, TR, Singaporedaily.net, and just about every single singaporean blogger. As I have said in my observations, and i reiterate here, fascism is not to be known only by what is said, but what is left unsaid in the face of fascist diatribes. I have noticed, too many times for me to ignore, that the oppositional side is not vociferous in its contention with bigoted approaches by the government that disadvantages ethnic minorities, and nor do they take issue with bloggers who are guilty of it themselves in what is said and unsaid. Even then, I kept on the side of the opposition. However, when i now observe them complementing their apathy of the past with the activism against ‘foreigners’ that seek to demonise their entirety, that was the final straw.
What was especially disgusting was the way some, with impunity, went on about how foreigners were compromising their economic stability or diluting ‘singaporean’ culture. At this time, they attempted to rally all singaporeans regardless of ‘race’ upon an us vs. the foreigner stage whilst completely ignoring the fact that they weren’t as vociferous or detailed when ethnic minorities in singapore were disadvantaged via a host of means in the past and present in relation the the ‘majority’, or how the ‘singaporean’ culture they seem to be so protective of is nothing more than the result of the dilution of all cultures other than Chinese culture. it was in the face of these facts that I was forced to concede that the local oppositional movement for what it indisputably is in essence, a pro-Chinese fascist movement that is attempting to protect the privileged status they had been accorded by the government whilst unwittingly presenting it as a pro-singaporean movement. It is then that I realised that if I was still on the oppositional side of the fence, my view of the opposition was marred by the fence betwixt. The 'opposition' keeps looking toward the west and whilst lauding its version of democracy. Why, pray tell, are they not doing so when it comes to comparing themselves with the western version of inter-ethnic empathy or fascism? That, again, is one of the indicators of the fascist nature of the 'opposition'. It seems that party leaders make relatively safe economic statements against 'foreigners' whilst leaving the rest of singaporean bloggers and 'new media' to serve as the 'oppositional jugend' and perspectival thugs against difference. If you look at it closely enough, you will realise that what the government did unto ethnic minorities, the opposition validates via their apathy, and is now doing likewise against foreigners. A pathetic state of affairs really. It's come to a point that if I want to see the 'majority' standing up vociferously for ethnic minorities, I'll have to go to the UK for that. Quite the 'tourist attraction' I must say.
The opposition has been, and is being, let down by its underqualified leaders. All of them, with no exception. They ought to have been watchful of the evolution of its ranks and appreciate, with humility, that nobody is insusceptible to socialisation, and especially within a monocultural milieu that produces subservience, apathy, self-absorption, ignorance, marginalisation, and a penchant for the obvious. They, in their approach toward ‘foreigners’, have betrayed themselves victims of this milieu. My heart goes out to the empathetic out there. In seeking an alternative to the government, they will choose the opposition, not because they are an alternative, but because they hold the monopoly of the word. And if they ever come into power, those socialised within these conditions, will certainly grow to know no better.
In the final analysis sir, the 'opposition' is certainly an alternative to the government, just as the bourgeoisie was an alternative to the absolutist monarchies of the past, but when it comes to being a non-fascist alternative to the government, the combination of their oversights and insights come together as an indictment of their status and a vindication of this statement.
Keep well,
ed
“Dear .....
There is no doubt that i’m on the side of the opposition. However, the question that begs to be asked, and which few are asking, is, ‘is the opposition on the side of the opposition?’ Or is the opposition simply determining its locale from being in disagreement with the party in power? At the core of it all, what the opposition ought to be going against is the self-absorption in the government. This translates to economic, ethnic, cultural, types of self-absorption, amongst others. Being at loggerheads with the government in one arena, or in a few aspects of each or some arena is not good enough to determine the oppositional status of an individual or party. There must be an acute awareness amongst the opposition that, given the continued and successful rule of the party in power for close to half a century, it is impossible for ‘the problem‘ to remain located in the government and none other. In the worst instance, and which is most certainly the case, the opposition themselves would be afflicted with varying and appreciable degrees of self-absorption. At this point, what would be required is that opposition to the government be complemented with openness to critique and change within the former. However, this is not the case.
It seems that the opposition goes by the selfsame approach of the government in the past, ‘if you want to get involved in politics, join a party’. Being of the party of the citizenry wasn’t enough, and this simultaneously betrays the government’s devaluation of the citizenry. Whilst the government has gradually pulled back from this position, we are seeing the same approach amongst the opposition now. They seem to have an ‘you’re either with us or against us’ approach. You could say that the opposition has become even more authoritarian than the government. Whilst the government used the ISD to terrorise and literally beat oppositional elements into submission, the oppositional side now uses the more humane and subtle means of turning the discounting cheek in the face of critique.
On the propositional side of things, we saw the worship of prominence and power in the form of supporters rallying around the PAP or Lee Kuan Yew. On the oppositional side of things, we see them rallying around prominent ‘new media’ and Dr this and thats. Just a cursory glance ought to reveal to one that there is hardly any effort at all to improve their various parties through critique, or efforts to contend with difference in opinion by bloggers. It’s either our way or the highway, goes the Confucian ethos amongst the opposition themselves now.
What led me to move against the opposition myself was, finally, their approach to ‘foreigners’ which is nothing short of, and verifiably, fascist. As I have mentioned in a few of my observations, they are just about identical to the fascist British National Party in their approach. This applies to the various oppositional political parties, the ‘new media’ such as TOC, TR, Singaporedaily.net, and just about every single singaporean blogger. As I have said in my observations, and i reiterate here, fascism is not to be known only by what is said, but what is left unsaid in the face of fascist diatribes. I have noticed, too many times for me to ignore, that the oppositional side is not vociferous in its contention with bigoted approaches by the government that disadvantages ethnic minorities, and nor do they take issue with bloggers who are guilty of it themselves in what is said and unsaid. Even then, I kept on the side of the opposition. However, when i now observe them complementing their apathy of the past with the activism against ‘foreigners’ that seek to demonise their entirety, that was the final straw.
What was especially disgusting was the way some, with impunity, went on about how foreigners were compromising their economic stability or diluting ‘singaporean’ culture. At this time, they attempted to rally all singaporeans regardless of ‘race’ upon an us vs. the foreigner stage whilst completely ignoring the fact that they weren’t as vociferous or detailed when ethnic minorities in singapore were disadvantaged via a host of means in the past and present in relation the the ‘majority’, or how the ‘singaporean’ culture they seem to be so protective of is nothing more than the result of the dilution of all cultures other than Chinese culture. it was in the face of these facts that I was forced to concede that the local oppositional movement for what it indisputably is in essence, a pro-Chinese fascist movement that is attempting to protect the privileged status they had been accorded by the government whilst unwittingly presenting it as a pro-singaporean movement. It is then that I realised that if I was still on the oppositional side of the fence, my view of the opposition was marred by the fence betwixt. The 'opposition' keeps looking toward the west and whilst lauding its version of democracy. Why, pray tell, are they not doing so when it comes to comparing themselves with the western version of inter-ethnic empathy or fascism? That, again, is one of the indicators of the fascist nature of the 'opposition'. It seems that party leaders make relatively safe economic statements against 'foreigners' whilst leaving the rest of singaporean bloggers and 'new media' to serve as the 'oppositional jugend' and perspectival thugs against difference. If you look at it closely enough, you will realise that what the government did unto ethnic minorities, the opposition validates via their apathy, and is now doing likewise against foreigners. A pathetic state of affairs really. It's come to a point that if I want to see the 'majority' standing up vociferously for ethnic minorities, I'll have to go to the UK for that. Quite the 'tourist attraction' I must say.
The opposition has been, and is being, let down by its underqualified leaders. All of them, with no exception. They ought to have been watchful of the evolution of its ranks and appreciate, with humility, that nobody is insusceptible to socialisation, and especially within a monocultural milieu that produces subservience, apathy, self-absorption, ignorance, marginalisation, and a penchant for the obvious. They, in their approach toward ‘foreigners’, have betrayed themselves victims of this milieu. My heart goes out to the empathetic out there. In seeking an alternative to the government, they will choose the opposition, not because they are an alternative, but because they hold the monopoly of the word. And if they ever come into power, those socialised within these conditions, will certainly grow to know no better.
In the final analysis sir, the 'opposition' is certainly an alternative to the government, just as the bourgeoisie was an alternative to the absolutist monarchies of the past, but when it comes to being a non-fascist alternative to the government, the combination of their oversights and insights come together as an indictment of their status and a vindication of this statement.
Keep well,
ed
Difference, not Discrimination, the cause for inter-communal strife?
Here’s a gem of a fascist piece from a prominent local blogger.
Now that’s a typical fascist/confucian view. I was quite taken aback when I read it actually. To all anti-fascists, the singaporean opposition and proposition are verifiably fascist and racist. But to constantly see this kind of fascist filth being spouted by oppositional elements, ‘new media’, and political parties, basically puts us smack betwixt the devil and the ravenous croc in the deep blue sea. Dissecting the fascism of the government was quite the task already. But now, we have to contend with the fascist democrats on the ‘oppositional’ side.
What the bloke who wrote the above article constantly glosses over is that it isn’t prominent difference that causes inter-ethnic strife, but the failure to address that which leads to strife - marginalisation. In this, such views mirror the views of the government in the past that speaking about discrimination incites violence. The logic is of course reversed as it is the existence of discrimination that founds the possibility for violence at most times. There is hardly any allusion to this in the above article and prominent difference is itself presented as reason enough for conflict.
This, of course, is to be expected from Confucians or the Confucianised, who spurn difference, worship regimentation, uniformity, conformity and subservience. Hence, it inevitably leads to one not attaining the ability to successfully contend with difference or novelty. In Piagetian terms - refer developmental psychology - confucians/fascists are well-adept at ‘Assimilation’ (considering only that which fits one’s existing formulae for comprehending things - I’ve experienced this mainly amongst the Chinese or those socialised within a Confucian milieu. They frequently discount all information that does not allow them the comfort of familiarity. Contradiction in almost all forms is abhorrent to them - be it in fashion, appearance, or perspective - except within the work arena, or when it directly impacts on self-interests. We can say that it produces a ‘face-value’ approach to life.) as opposed to ‘Accommodation’ (changing existing formulae in the face of new information - I’ve experienced this relatively more amongst the British, Filipinos, Malays, Africans, Indians who tend to process novel information ‘real-time’ or ‘on-the-fly’ as opposed to discounting all contradiction or new variables. However, the gap between the 2 seems to close the longer they remain interned within a Confucian milieu. i.e. Indian activists on the oppositional side). It is from this disability that one can begin to understand the stance taken by the opposition in the face of ‘foreigners’ and the kind of phenomena they pay attention to, or the type of solutions produced.(ref previous articles by A2ed) It is, of course, not a ‘racial’ thing, but a cultural one emerging from top-down oppression and successful suppression of popular activism. All else are corollaries of this.
The writer glosses over the contradictory case of America by simply stating, ‘America is different’ - another typically Confucian method for discounting difference and which relieves one of the tedium that comes with considering the reasons for it. Personally, i thought it was commonly known that the decline of inter-communal violence in the United States was either due to the marginalised accepting their status, or taking issue with it. (referred to as ‘house negroes’ and ‘field negroes’ respectively by Malcolm X).
Another point which was quite shocking was the implication that Islam produces violence. If this is not the implication, then the point that Malaysia was significantly Muslim, whilst Singapore was largely Taoist/Buddhist would not be a point worthy of mention within the context.
All in all, the writer implies that difference, and not marginalisation, is reason enough for inter-communal conflict. When one takes into consideration the meaning of ‘China’, which, when translated from Mandarin, means, ‘central land’; the gross nationalist pride amongst China nationals; the fact that the chinese in singapore remained largely apathetic when their culture and ‘race’ was preferred over all others; that the opposition rarely takes issue with or even notices instances of ethnicity-based bigotry; and how, even in common communication with the people of the country, one has to leave aside any incongruent perspectives and personalities to 'get along', we can begin to understand why my shocked reaction to the above article was uncalled for.
On the intellectual side of things, it was most interesting to study the fascism of the government in singapore, and now, i’m looking forward to studying how the opposition is more a product of the government’s decades-long fascist and racist policies and the society it produced as opposed to being a real alternative.
a2,
ed
“The Singapore government can pat itself on the back for keeping Singapore free from the racial and religious tensions that flare up in Malaysia. But, while the government encourages religious harmony, could there be another reason why Singapore is unlike Malaysia? Look at the ethnic makeup of the two countries.source
Singapore is overwhelmingly Chinese: 74.7% of the population is Chinese, 13.6% Malay, 8.9% Indian, while others make up 2.8%, according to Singapore in Figures 2009 by the Singapore Department of Statistics......
...Countries and regions where ethnic groups are more evenly split can be prone to racial tensions.....
...Of course, there are exceptions like America, where politics has not polarized on racial lines despite its ethnic diversity. American cities with black majorities have elected black mayors, states with large Hispanic populations have elected Hispanic politicians, but California's governor is the white Arnold Schwarzenegger, Americans of all colours have voted for President Barack Obama. America is different.
...There is another difference between Singapore and Muslim-majority Malaysia.
Singapore is largely Buddhist and Taoist.”
Now that’s a typical fascist/confucian view. I was quite taken aback when I read it actually. To all anti-fascists, the singaporean opposition and proposition are verifiably fascist and racist. But to constantly see this kind of fascist filth being spouted by oppositional elements, ‘new media’, and political parties, basically puts us smack betwixt the devil and the ravenous croc in the deep blue sea. Dissecting the fascism of the government was quite the task already. But now, we have to contend with the fascist democrats on the ‘oppositional’ side.
What the bloke who wrote the above article constantly glosses over is that it isn’t prominent difference that causes inter-ethnic strife, but the failure to address that which leads to strife - marginalisation. In this, such views mirror the views of the government in the past that speaking about discrimination incites violence. The logic is of course reversed as it is the existence of discrimination that founds the possibility for violence at most times. There is hardly any allusion to this in the above article and prominent difference is itself presented as reason enough for conflict.
This, of course, is to be expected from Confucians or the Confucianised, who spurn difference, worship regimentation, uniformity, conformity and subservience. Hence, it inevitably leads to one not attaining the ability to successfully contend with difference or novelty. In Piagetian terms - refer developmental psychology - confucians/fascists are well-adept at ‘Assimilation’ (considering only that which fits one’s existing formulae for comprehending things - I’ve experienced this mainly amongst the Chinese or those socialised within a Confucian milieu. They frequently discount all information that does not allow them the comfort of familiarity. Contradiction in almost all forms is abhorrent to them - be it in fashion, appearance, or perspective - except within the work arena, or when it directly impacts on self-interests. We can say that it produces a ‘face-value’ approach to life.) as opposed to ‘Accommodation’ (changing existing formulae in the face of new information - I’ve experienced this relatively more amongst the British, Filipinos, Malays, Africans, Indians who tend to process novel information ‘real-time’ or ‘on-the-fly’ as opposed to discounting all contradiction or new variables. However, the gap between the 2 seems to close the longer they remain interned within a Confucian milieu. i.e. Indian activists on the oppositional side). It is from this disability that one can begin to understand the stance taken by the opposition in the face of ‘foreigners’ and the kind of phenomena they pay attention to, or the type of solutions produced.(ref previous articles by A2ed) It is, of course, not a ‘racial’ thing, but a cultural one emerging from top-down oppression and successful suppression of popular activism. All else are corollaries of this.
The writer glosses over the contradictory case of America by simply stating, ‘America is different’ - another typically Confucian method for discounting difference and which relieves one of the tedium that comes with considering the reasons for it. Personally, i thought it was commonly known that the decline of inter-communal violence in the United States was either due to the marginalised accepting their status, or taking issue with it. (referred to as ‘house negroes’ and ‘field negroes’ respectively by Malcolm X).
Another point which was quite shocking was the implication that Islam produces violence. If this is not the implication, then the point that Malaysia was significantly Muslim, whilst Singapore was largely Taoist/Buddhist would not be a point worthy of mention within the context.
All in all, the writer implies that difference, and not marginalisation, is reason enough for inter-communal conflict. When one takes into consideration the meaning of ‘China’, which, when translated from Mandarin, means, ‘central land’; the gross nationalist pride amongst China nationals; the fact that the chinese in singapore remained largely apathetic when their culture and ‘race’ was preferred over all others; that the opposition rarely takes issue with or even notices instances of ethnicity-based bigotry; and how, even in common communication with the people of the country, one has to leave aside any incongruent perspectives and personalities to 'get along', we can begin to understand why my shocked reaction to the above article was uncalled for.
On the intellectual side of things, it was most interesting to study the fascism of the government in singapore, and now, i’m looking forward to studying how the opposition is more a product of the government’s decades-long fascist and racist policies and the society it produced as opposed to being a real alternative.
a2,
ed
Saturday, 16 January 2010
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Temasek Review goes, 'Sieg Heil!', again
Temasek Review’s done it again. ‘Singapore primary schools “swarmed” by PRs and foreigners’ goes the heading. Not too long ago, Seelan Palay, part of the SDP congregation, featured an article by TR that was similarly entitled - “Singapore Indian shocked that daughter is now a minority in Indian kindergarten” - in, I suppose, an effort to garner support from the relatively disadvantaged minorities of Singapore whilst failing to appreciate the point that nobody in the opposition was kicking up a fuss over how various policies had already disadvantaged ethnic minorities (SAP schools system, media discrimination/misrepresentation, mother tongue policy, the policy to maintain the racial balance in favour of ethnic chinese, etc, etc).
‘Swarmed’? Sounds like a derivative of the ‘swamped’ used by Enoch Powell in his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. Perhaps they meant ‘swamped’. I suggest these fascist cretins brush up on their terminology. I’d recommend, ‘Fascist Terms and Tantrums for Dummies’. Oh for goodness sakes, please do stop goose-stepping behind your hallowed leaders like good little girls and boys and learn to discern the difference between fascism and democracy through, amongst others, attention to the ever-evolving contemporary manifestation of the former. The lack of skepticism in the face of the prominent or the hallowed is that which is one of the hallmarks of fascism. (a wholly un-Indian thing to do by the way. Whether it is in the political or gangster scene (I speak from personal experience here), real Indians do not shy from casting the skeptical eye on their own leaders - Seelan, your heart’s in the right place, so take note please).
Now, let’s get back to the issue at hand. ‘Swarmed?!’. That gives the impression of invasion by alien and unwelcome entities. I am actually not surprised that the so-called ‘opposition’ are taking this stance given their being trained to discount difference and egalitarian multiculturalism for quite a few decades within singapore’s monocultural milieu. The fact that they do not notice, aren’t vociferously consistent in critique, or insightful when it comes to discriminatory phenomena that afflicts ethnic minorities or other disadvantaged sectors indicates their absorption in that which affects the ‘majority’. I didn’t see the ‘opposition’ kicking up as much a fuss in the past when the influx mainly comprised Chinese nationals, and I do not see them kicking up a fuss over how this serves to maintain a balance in favour of local ethnic chinese. They kept relatively quiet about it in the past, and are now being undone by their self-absorbed apathy. Having been relatively advantaged compared to ethnic minorities, it seems that they want to maintain this advantage through the discrimination of ‘foreign swarms’. Hence, the few instances of their efforts at recognising the need for egalitarianism become mere ‘figureheads’ of their appreciation of difference and can easily lead the generally ignorant and self-absorbed to believe that the local opposition are indeed forces of egalitarianism. (I have spoken about this at length in various and previous observations).
Thus, it is none too surprising that they would reflexively baulk at the influx of ‘foreigners’ and ‘immigrants’ from a, ‘they are swarming us!’, standpoint whilst diluting this with an appeal to local economic pragmatism. This, by the way, is a typical strategy of fascist organisations globally. Those whom are used to monoculturalism frequently react in such a manner. It is quite shocking that they are even using derivatives of words used by Enoch Powell in the UK in the 60s. I would strongly recommend that their writers, amongst others ‘democratic’ bloggers in Singapore’s fascistsphere, take a look at the strategies of contemporary fascists, for instance, in the UK, so that they can begin to tell their ‘democracy’ from their ‘fascism’ and cease to eat from their arses whilst flushing down their lunches. It seems that the local ‘oppositional’ elements are not dissimilar to the YPAP in that the, ‘that is the UK/west/etc, and we are we’ stance - an argument to discount counter-positional thought - seems to determine their perspectival evolution. The YPAP said it straight out in a recent article that caused much furore amongst the opposition, but the opposition seems to be practicing the ‘we are we and they are they’ view via self-absorption without saying as much.
With regards to primary school places, a non-fascist would immediately recognise the need for more schools as opposed to demanding that they be segregated in non-public schools. A non-fascist wouldn’t use the term ‘swarmed’, or ‘swamped’, in such a context as that would be more diagnostic of her/is problem with difference. A non-fascist would realise that these ‘swarming foreigners’ are working here and contributing to the economy and thus ought to be afforded equal rights, including school seats, housing, equal pricing, etc. Saying that most PRs are able to afford international schools and ought to be confined to such schools basically lumps all PRs together and subjects them to difficulties that locals do not have to contend with. Why, pray tell, should this not be applied to those locals who earn the same as the PRs then. As for giving PRs to PRC construction workers, cleaners, etc, well, you didn’t kick up a fuss over the ‘speak mandarin it’s an advantage’-cum-mother tongue policy-cum-maintaining a racial balance in favour of the ethnic chinese campaigns, and now you’re wondering why they are being granted PRs? Perhaps you ought to check your nutrition mates - perspectival nutrition as well.
Well, the ‘opposition’ will probably choose to ignore this observation as they, like the party in power, are well-adept at ignoring opposition unless it comes from the prominent. But reason has demolished their standpoint. They proselytise, hereon, from a vantage that has little credibility, democracy-wise. In this issue, I have to support the Party in power, with one reservation - locals should have first digs at jobs before they are offered to those inhabiting other climes.
Besides that reservation, A2ED welcomes all New Singaporeans with an open heart and mind.
Fascist on the left, Fascists on the right. Left! right! left! right! Raise those hooves higher damn it!
God save us all.
Related Article: The Fascist monkeys of Temasek Review. Listen up.
BNP Nick Griffin on BBC Question Time Part 1
a2,
ed
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
The Fascist monkeys of Temasek Review. Listen up.
I was disgusted to read Temasek Review’s ‘Nigerian on S-pass charged for murder of Singapore woman in Bukit Panjang’. The title itself is abhorrent and reveals the TR, amongst others, for the fascist monkeys that they are. Apologies, but i don’t see any reason to afford non ad-hominem respect to fascists. In the UK, the general population are not disinclined to hurl rotten eggs and tomatoes at TR’s, amongst others, counterparts such as the NF or BNP. Don’t tell me that is the UK. Reason knows know borders mate.
What the fascist monkeys of the TR ought to do is to look into the percentage of foreigners whom commit crimes in comparison to locals. If one was to look into that, perhaps, one might find that the locals are more a cause for concern than ‘foreigners’. However, whilst stats on the foreigner vs. locals crime commission rates might not be available, the ‘oppositional’ side ought to steer clear of such associations as illustrated in the title lest they open themselves to allegations of hiding behind the absence of such stats in order to associate foreigners with crime. If you want to go on about how the government is giving jobs that locals can do to foreigners, that's reasonable enough. But leave the 'they are not integrating with us', 'they are running brothels', 'they are diluting our 'singaporean' culture' fascist rubbish out of it. I really don’t look kindly on the constant attempts by fascist cretins, TR or others,(like chua chin leng, amongst other bloggers whom vary in degree, but not stance) to demonise foreigners via association with crime, bad behaviour, etc. If the majority of foreigners, or the majority of one’s experiences with foreigners reveal tendencies, then yes, let's discuss it. However, to pick a mere handful and demonise all foreigners via implication-via-association is unacceptable. TR, amongst others, deserve a smack for that, metaphorically speaking that is. Notice how ‘Nigerian’, ‘S-pass’ and ‘murder’ is linked in the title? One would expect such associations in press releases or comments by the BNP, but it is ridiculous that the allegedly democrats in the local arena consistently mirror the former via such ‘insights’ and oversights.
What’s most significant is that there are hardly any amongst the opposition whom take issue with this stance amongst some of the fascist cretins comprising the TR or TOC or other bloggers. And given the anti-immigrant stance of the opposition, and most importantly, their silence in the face of efforts to demonise foreigners, we can move on to say that they are part of the problem and undoubtedly led by fascist perspectives and leaders themselves - listen up Chee, Chiam, Gomez, Low, Ken J, amongst others. As i’ve always been inclined to say, the opposition’s fundamental perspectives ought to be evaluated, not only by their insights, which are few and far between, but by their oversights. Given the apathetic silence amongst them, this article cannot be alleged to be demonising most of the opposition. They are complicit in their silence.
The idiot who wrote the article for TR even ends of with,
“At the rate the ruling party is mass importing foreigners from elsewhere, Singaporeans may have to put up with newcomers from more “exotic” places like Nigeria and other African countries.”
In this statement, ‘Nigeria’, ‘African’, is termed as ‘exotic’ whilst this is presented with meaning taken from the rest of the article that associates them with crime. That is nothing short of racist and fascist. I suggest the fascist democrats in singapore take a look at singapore’s history and look into how the ‘exotic’ chinese were quite a problem with their syndicates, triad societies, gambling dens, extortion, violence, etc, before casting the proverbial. What we are facing with the foreigners of today is nothing compared the antics of quite a fair bit of their forefathers. Let's dispense with the double-standards shall we.
Related Article: Temasek Review goes, 'Sieg Heil!', again
a2,
ed
postscript: The above image only relates to TR's stance on immigration as illustrated in the aforementioned article. It does not refer to its approaches in other issues, some of which, are laudable in themselves. Pro-PAP persons whom might be inclined to use the image to vilify the totality of TR, you can do so, but you'll find it difficult to justify it on the basis of reason. So don't start.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Saturday, 9 January 2010
on AWARE's 'It's Your Space!' ad. Let's talk about space.
“Its your space. Public contact cannot be avoided but sometimes you may feel someone has come too close and made you angry or upset you by saying something about your body or touching you without permission. It’s a criminal act only you can stop.”
This brings to mind a recent incident where a bloke had to fork out $8000 to settle a case where a woman alleged that he touched her posterior on a dance floor. I said to a friend afterward, ‘Hmm..wish i was a woman. I can make a killing on dance floors. All i have to do is wait for some guy to walk past and the cash registers starts ringing.” I continued, ‘what if I was the one who cried, ‘oi, why you touch my ass?!’, would I get a couple of grand in my pocket? The police would probably laugh it off!” I’m not saying that such incidents don’t actually happen, and ought not to suffer the full raised-brow weight of the law. But doesn’t this enable just any woman to make a pile out of a hapless passer-by? Well, I too have been ‘sexually harassed’ before - whilst tending a blues bar (Roadhouse, tanjong pagar) in the early 90s (before the area was turned into sleeze city....with the death of egalitarian multiculturalism, restaurants and sleeze bars came in to replace character). As Shenton way was not too far off, and the pub being just about the most avant garde joint in singapore at the time, many ‘execs’ used to come in. Well, it was some women amongst their number whom had adventurous hands. I suppose i did look a bit fetching in my skin-tight jeans tucked into rocker boots;) But I was quite taken aback when I received a pat on the behind after taking an order from a woman. However, I just let it pass. Perhaps if men had an ‘AWARE’ for itself, then I could have made a couple of grand.
But let’s talk about space. What is ‘too close’? If I was to stand as close to a woman as I would to a man whom I didn’t know, would that be ‘too close’? Hey, I thought we’re talking about equal rights here right? I pity the bloke who was relived of $8000 dollars for allegedly touching the woman on the dance floor. Maybe he did, and maybe he didn’t. But it wasn’t as if the woman was standing still was she. It was a dance floor after all. I don’t see any reason to take her word for it over his just because he had an longer clitoris than her. Let’s get back to space. I’ve been with women friends having a cuppa-cum-banter before, and I have noticed that when a guy looks at one amongst their number, she might sometimes remark, ‘what’s that guy looking at me like that for?! Pervert?!’. But that is usually when she does not find that guy desirable herself. But if the guy is, say, some ‘ang moh’ (chinese term for ‘whites’, literally, ‘red face’, I think), then she might respond with a flattered, ‘Hey, hey, i think that guy is checking me out!’. And when it comes to taking pictures or saying goodbye. A local can expect maybe a handshake but an ‘ang moh’ can generally get a way with a hug and a kiss. They might say, ‘It’s their culture to do that’, which is another way of saying, ‘our culture can be put aside for those we deem desirable’. It’s not like these people are falling over their finely sculptured toenails to conform to the culture of others in monocultural Confucian singapore right?
Additionally, whilst AWARE might be going on about women’s rights, and I do personally applaud them for their efforts and support many of its causes, I am also very much aware that the status of women in a modern Confucian society in many arenas is above that of men. As I said to my Chinese friends, ‘women, in Chinese society, serve as the party whip’. In other words, they keep the men in line and out of politics. The reason for this is simple enough - though it skips the attention of most - as women had traditionally been the stoker of the hearth, they are more familial-focused. Men, however, having lost the battle with the political, are thus disempowered, and other than being able to bring home the leg of pork, pave the way for the emergence of the woman as the superior force once they join the workforce and gain equal rights. At this point, the women will gain the upper hand as they, being familial-focused, will emphasise the need to keep the family afloat given male political impotence. Hence, they head the chinese pragmatic move toward doing one’s best to allay the consequences of the political defeat suffered by men. And given that many too bring in the funds to maintain the family unit, and given their historical expertise in family-related pragmatic matters, and given their equal rights and the right to keep their legs crossed in an un-enticing fashion unless the hubby has been a good boy, their own self-perceived value would go beyond that of men. That is one of the reasons, I believe, that founds what I had previously termed, ‘the Goondu phenomenon’, where one can oftentimes see a well-physiqued and fashioned chinese women with a guy who is not as well-physiqued or fashioned. It seems to be a power move where the woman keeps company with a man who is a ‘lesser’ in these respects so as to validate their sense of superiority. This throws out the ‘matching hypothesis’ put out by psychologists in the 80s or thereabouts that had found that similarity attracts when it comes to looks, style, etc. Over here, it is complementarity that seems to attract. In other words, the more desirable women keeping company with less desirable men for the purpose of control. And isn’t ‘control’, as opposed to ‘reason’, what Confucian civilisation is about? It seems that where control is the predominant virtue at the topmost level, it is mirrored in all other arenas in society.
So, when we put all of these together, we have to wonder after the acceptable ‘space’ to a woman. What is acceptable space to a peasant as opposed to royalty? Our value of another’s space is, in a society that values power, prominence and wealth, determined by our perceptions of our value and the relative value of another determined in turn by our criteria of self and other worth. Where women deem themselves superior to men, the acceptable space is expanded. Hence, to what degree can we consider it sexual harassment when a guy comes close? It’s too bad that the above AWARE ad does not give prominence to the lower half of the ad, which states, ‘... and made you angry or upset you by saying something about your body or touching you without permission. It’s a criminal act only you can stop.” That is the point that has to be put out, as opposed to prominence being given to, ‘...but sometimes you may feel someone has come too close and made you angry or upset...’. That tends to turn it into a subjective experience which might be interpreted, not according to facts, but biases.
As for the case of the guy who had crossed the dance floor and paid $8000 for his efforts, if i was in his position, I would have simply stated, ‘I’m sorry, i’m gay’.
a2,
ed
Friday, 8 January 2010
Making sense of Malaysian Malay Ire
Assailants attacked three Malaysian churches with firebombs Friday, extensively damaging one amid a growing conflict over the use of the word "Allah" by non-Muslims, officials said.
The attacks sharply escalated tensions in the Muslim-majority country ahead of planned protests by Muslims later Friday against a Kuala Lumpur High Court verdict which struck down a 3-year-old ban on non-Muslims using "Allah" in their literature.
"I condemn these actions because they will destroy our country's harmony," Prime Minister Najib Razak told reporters. "The government will take whatever steps it can to prevent such acts." source: AP
I could, I suppose, join some quarters in saying that the Malays are an unreasonable lot whose system of rationality requires some upgrading; or others whom are of the opinion that Islam is divisive; or that religion ought to be tossed into the rubbish bin of history for its utilising the sword to negotiate through difference (as if the religion of the nation-state isn’t guilty of the same).
However, I’ve often found the Malays to be generally and comparatively a peaceful, simple, fun-loving, communal, animated and curious lot. That opinion still stands despite my being a Roman Catholic, an ex-altar boy, and despite some of them fire-bombing a Church in Malaysia (the report calls it a ‘Malaysian Church’, which i found to be quite a strange term given that it is not a state church like, say, the Church of England) - to all Christians and Catholics, cool it! Remember Jesus’ reaction in the Garden of Gethsemane when pissed-off-Pete attempted to take up the sword against the Romans and their collaborators whom had come to arrest him? Right. Now that’s settled...
The Malays aren’t really the belligerent sort culturally, socially, or economically. And as for Islam, I think it a great faith that comprises components of the idea of universalism and has a metaphorical character that can serve to enrich other faiths through fusion. However, given the capitalist and nationalist status quo throughout the world, its character can serve to react to it in a way that might be interpreted as indicative of the problematic nature of the faith. That, of course, is erroneous.
So, perhaps we could take the time to look at other causes for the actions and attitudes of some of these Muslims so as to perhaps address these conditions for the purpose of undermining its foundations.
Off the top of my skin head, I would say that the siege mentality amongst the Malays of Malaysia has remained constant for quite some time. Like my mom said not too long ago, quite a few Malays in Malaysia never forgave Tunku Abdul Rahman for giving up Singapore. And I have read a few accounts of how some Malays feel that the Chinese had taken over singapore and turned it from a Malay/Multicultural state to a Confucian one (of course, it wasn’t directly the ‘Chinese’). That does little to get rid of the siege mentality in the face of difference in Malaysia don’t you think. We could even go on to say that the situation in singapore has exacerbated it, just as singapore’s pro-Chinese stance is serving to validate China’s monocultural ethos. The sinews of the here-and-now stretch further than you think mate.
Secondly, i’ve often detected a strain between the communal ethos of the Malays and the nationalist-cum-capitalist ethos. I commented in a local blog that the perception that ‘Malays are lazy’ is borne of the obtrusive predominance of the capitalist and Confucianism-cum-Legalism induced standard that promotes life as means to work as opposed to a means to live. Hence, it could as easily be said, if we were objective about things, that the Malays have a work-life balance that isn’t congruent with the work-is-life imbalance promoted by the aforementioned ethos. Hence, given Malay communality and relative absence of economic belligerence and self-absorption-cum-alienation, it is no wonder that the siege mentality is further exacerbated. Where profit is paramount, and a dog-eat-dog world is taken as the norm, communality and its various manifestations would become a disadvantage. As I’ve been inclined to say for quite a while, ‘an angel in hell is soon relieved of her wings’. In other words, being communal in the face of capitalist or confucianism-cum-legalism induced economic belligerence, the Malays will tend to lag behind given that mammon is yet to be perceived as the reason to live. But if a more communal and empathetic standard was to become predominant, it is those whom are economically belligerent whom would be afforded looks of askance. Get it?
Thirdly, the demands of the religion of the nation-state that a brother ceases to be a brother the moment he switches the emblem on his passport to that of another wouldn’t really sit well with the universalistic Muslims. After all, i’ve often viewed the 5-times-a-day prayer by the Muslims as not only a worship of God, but a global communion amongst Muslims with Mecca serving as the rallying point that cuts across borders. I personally think that a really beautiful phenomenon. However, as the capitalist elite cannot join hands across the oceans with as much ease if their nationally fragmented factories, aka ‘nation-states’, do not remain fragmented, it is no wonder that a cross-border sense of familialarity is frowned upon. This, again, feeds the sense of alienation in the face of difference amongst the Malays or Muslims.
Lesser minds would have glossed over all of the above and just returned with a premature ejaculation of, ‘yah yah, if Muslims (or Malays) are so universalistic, then why did they firebomb a church?!’ That’s the problem in a fascist milieu. People generally tend to go with the flow of opinion on both sides of the illusory divide between the proposition and opposition and leave the thinking to the ‘doctors’ and the prominent. Fools. The point here is that given the siege mentality, one’s reaction cannot be assumed to be indicative of the nature of one’s faith or culture. The siege mentality-induced act of defense can take on belligerent and unacceptable forms (such as the fire-bombing of the church in Malaysia) when incited. When universalism and communalism is assailed, retaliatory acts cannot be taken as naturally arising from the culture or faith, but from an effort to defend it. Of course, in every act of defense, there will be the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The firebombers fall in the category of the latter.
When I look at the Bumiputra policy, which is as fascist, racist, and unconscionable as the ‘Mandarin is cool and appreciate Chinese culture’ campaign in singapore, I do however recognise that they are, whether they realise it or not, defending, in essence, a work-life balance that is out of sync with the capitalist ethos, and which is actually communal in nature. The Malays do not generally have a problem with difference and can be highly individualistic themselves (i.e. look at the ‘mat rock’ of the past, their being quite adept in the arts, etc.) Of course, overtime, this can take on a race vs. race character as future generations remember the more salient form of conflict but not its essential features. That is when people can begin to make sense of things in ways that can lead to, say, the fire-bombing of churches or ‘religious’ and racial riots. But this is when everyone loses sight of the real problem.
Thus, this article.
Assalamualaikum to All.
a2,
ed
Thursday, 7 January 2010
An interesting discriminatory event near Desker Road, Little India
I was walking along a road which intersects the Desker Road(red light) alley in Serangoon Road with my friend Sim last night - on my way to buy some veg and curry powders - when we witnessed a near-collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian. The pedestrian was obviously not checking for traffic as he sauntered across the road. The cyclist screeched to a halt. They both looked at each other and the cyclist asked, ‘Why? You can’t see ah?”. In response, the pedestrian, with a look of condescending disbelief, shook his head as if the cyclist was at fault, just ignored him and walked off. At the same time, some blokes sitting at the entrance of the alley to Desker Road (probably ‘kua chui’ (lookouts) for whatever illegal goings on that might take place in Desker Road, or bouncers..they are always there whenever I go by) begin hurling vulgarities in Tamil (Indian dialect) at the cyclist to the tune of, (minors look away now) ‘pussy!’, ‘I f**k your sister!’, amongst others, whilst some amongst the group were just laughing along with these insults as the cyclist ignored them rode away. At this point, they noticed me looking at them, and for an instance, I saw a sort of confusion on their faces as if they couldn’t make up their minds about something.
Now it was obvious that the one at fault was the pedestrian. But to both the pedestrian and the vulgarity-hurling onlookers, the cyclist was the problematic one. Perhaps, I thought, that this was a show of local solidarity between the onlookers and the pedestrian in the face of a freewheeling foreigner. Then again, the reaction by both might simply be a more blatant corollary of existing perceptions of the race of said foreigner. You see, when right and wrong is determined along a local vs. foreigner, or preferred race vs. less preferred race scale, then one tends to make sense of reality through these latter filters. I was quite surprised that neither the pedestrian or onlookers showed any sign whatsoever of appreciating the fact that it was the cyclist who had the right of way. And as I witnessed this event whilst walking along the said road, the onlookers looked at me and seemed to wonder if I ought to be classified with the cyclist given ethnic similitude though I was obviously, to them, (i think) a local. I simply smiled at them, not in support of their insults, but in what might be their attempt to improve their Tamil since the government would not deem it to be their ‘mother tongue’. Anyway, I don’t think they really bothered about my witnessing the event as they were sitting right beside an Indian restaurant and obviously couldn’t care less what the Indian workers, shop proprietors, and patrons thought.
I said to Sim, ‘they’re lucky that Indians are an accommodating lot, or else that cyclist wouldn’t find it very difficult to round up a posse of Indians and tar the road with these idiots given the insults directed at him and his family.’ In the UK, we have those white skinheads who despise difference, but the general population is exonerated from complicity given that they do their utmost to get rid of racism in all its manifestations no matter how small. The question I have been forced, by reason, to ask is, to what degree is this little interesting event in Serangoon Road a more blatant example of a general malaise given the fact that Singaporeans, and the opposition, are nothing like the Brits when it comes to empathy (I've often said to my mates that the opposition ought to be judged not by what they do, but what they consistently fail to do - and which i why i find that there is, at significant times, little difference between them and the fascist organisations in the UK). What I found most interesting about this little event was the ethnic composition of the dramatis personae.
The onlookers were Chinese, the pedestrian was Malay, and the cyclist was an Indian national. On the one hand, I was pleased to see the solidarity between the Chinese and the Malay, whilst on the other hand I was disgusted to see that both obviously viewed the Indian national as wrong even though he wasn’t. In this, I also saw a hierarchical scale of preference along racial, local vs. foreigner, and (relatively) upper class vs. lower class lines. Which one applies? The only thing I can say is that the degree to which we contend with the manifestations of any one of them would serve as an indicator as to which applies. After all, if we haven’t done our best in something, we cannot really assume the absence of our complicity, witting or otherwise. Not too far from this event is a tourist board detailing the history of Little India. The information details what the Chinese were doing there in the past whilst the Indians are portrayed as mere props in a wholly Chinese theatre. Somehow, both the sign and event seem to complement each other.
a2,
ed
Now it was obvious that the one at fault was the pedestrian. But to both the pedestrian and the vulgarity-hurling onlookers, the cyclist was the problematic one. Perhaps, I thought, that this was a show of local solidarity between the onlookers and the pedestrian in the face of a freewheeling foreigner. Then again, the reaction by both might simply be a more blatant corollary of existing perceptions of the race of said foreigner. You see, when right and wrong is determined along a local vs. foreigner, or preferred race vs. less preferred race scale, then one tends to make sense of reality through these latter filters. I was quite surprised that neither the pedestrian or onlookers showed any sign whatsoever of appreciating the fact that it was the cyclist who had the right of way. And as I witnessed this event whilst walking along the said road, the onlookers looked at me and seemed to wonder if I ought to be classified with the cyclist given ethnic similitude though I was obviously, to them, (i think) a local. I simply smiled at them, not in support of their insults, but in what might be their attempt to improve their Tamil since the government would not deem it to be their ‘mother tongue’. Anyway, I don’t think they really bothered about my witnessing the event as they were sitting right beside an Indian restaurant and obviously couldn’t care less what the Indian workers, shop proprietors, and patrons thought.
I said to Sim, ‘they’re lucky that Indians are an accommodating lot, or else that cyclist wouldn’t find it very difficult to round up a posse of Indians and tar the road with these idiots given the insults directed at him and his family.’ In the UK, we have those white skinheads who despise difference, but the general population is exonerated from complicity given that they do their utmost to get rid of racism in all its manifestations no matter how small. The question I have been forced, by reason, to ask is, to what degree is this little interesting event in Serangoon Road a more blatant example of a general malaise given the fact that Singaporeans, and the opposition, are nothing like the Brits when it comes to empathy (I've often said to my mates that the opposition ought to be judged not by what they do, but what they consistently fail to do - and which i why i find that there is, at significant times, little difference between them and the fascist organisations in the UK). What I found most interesting about this little event was the ethnic composition of the dramatis personae.
The onlookers were Chinese, the pedestrian was Malay, and the cyclist was an Indian national. On the one hand, I was pleased to see the solidarity between the Chinese and the Malay, whilst on the other hand I was disgusted to see that both obviously viewed the Indian national as wrong even though he wasn’t. In this, I also saw a hierarchical scale of preference along racial, local vs. foreigner, and (relatively) upper class vs. lower class lines. Which one applies? The only thing I can say is that the degree to which we contend with the manifestations of any one of them would serve as an indicator as to which applies. After all, if we haven’t done our best in something, we cannot really assume the absence of our complicity, witting or otherwise. Not too far from this event is a tourist board detailing the history of Little India. The information details what the Chinese were doing there in the past whilst the Indians are portrayed as mere props in a wholly Chinese theatre. Somehow, both the sign and event seem to complement each other.
a2,
ed
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Singapore Requires Parents To Declare Race Of Child At Birth - comment
When the topic of choosing the race of the child came up in my circle, I immediately discounted it as rubbish. If anything, this is going to be indicative of the degree to which people might choose a particular race because it might have been promoted as advantageous or ‘cool’ prior to said choice. I said that this ‘race’ thing ought to be consigned to the garbage bin of history.
What people don’t get is that ‘race’ is a function of shared locality - save genetic similitude. For instance, the Indians or Chinese or Africans are as so because of their shared locality. So, with the diasporas of the past, the race of the person ought to move on from replicating the past in foreign climes to taking the present as a ‘racial’ starting point. Hence, in Singapore, the only race there ought to be is that of ‘singaporean’.
And what is ‘singaporean’? It is an amalgam concocted via the formula of egalitarian multiculturalism where Malays, Indians, Eurasians, Chinese, amongst others, fuse in persona and perspective to create a singular race via the facilitating mother tongue of English. I’m not surprised that the government did not pursue this line of thought as it was politically prudential to associate the ‘chinese’ of singapore with ‘their culture’ for political longevity whilst beefing up their numbers. But why isn’t the so-called ‘opposition’ taking this line of thought? Ah well, i said, to my associates, these blokes and blokettes think themselves ‘opposition’ simply because they oppose the perspectives of the government of the day and not because they truly attempt to understand the meaning of democracy. Putting these fascist democrats aside, I view English as the mother tongue of the yet-to-be Singaporean race not because it was the mother tongue of their ancestors, but because it serves as the incubatory conduit via which egalitarian cultural fusion is facilitated. Thus, the Singaporean of the morrow would, being an amalgam of the various ethnic groups of yesteryear, would indeed be able to appreciate that such a mother tongue was essential for her/im to become the said amalgam that s/he is.
That said, if anyone asks me what my nationality is, I often respond with a, ‘singaporean in locality, not personality’, as people would make sense of the term ‘singaporean’ from the ‘singaporean’ of today as opposed to the amalgamative singaporean i’m talking about. However, if cultural fusion was left to take its course from the past through to the present, then I would be most happy to respond with a ‘Singaporean’ whilst being able to rely on others making sense of the term through an appreciation of the fused sensibilities of the cultures of all.
But, unfortunately, that is not to be.
a2,
ed
What people don’t get is that ‘race’ is a function of shared locality - save genetic similitude. For instance, the Indians or Chinese or Africans are as so because of their shared locality. So, with the diasporas of the past, the race of the person ought to move on from replicating the past in foreign climes to taking the present as a ‘racial’ starting point. Hence, in Singapore, the only race there ought to be is that of ‘singaporean’.
And what is ‘singaporean’? It is an amalgam concocted via the formula of egalitarian multiculturalism where Malays, Indians, Eurasians, Chinese, amongst others, fuse in persona and perspective to create a singular race via the facilitating mother tongue of English. I’m not surprised that the government did not pursue this line of thought as it was politically prudential to associate the ‘chinese’ of singapore with ‘their culture’ for political longevity whilst beefing up their numbers. But why isn’t the so-called ‘opposition’ taking this line of thought? Ah well, i said, to my associates, these blokes and blokettes think themselves ‘opposition’ simply because they oppose the perspectives of the government of the day and not because they truly attempt to understand the meaning of democracy. Putting these fascist democrats aside, I view English as the mother tongue of the yet-to-be Singaporean race not because it was the mother tongue of their ancestors, but because it serves as the incubatory conduit via which egalitarian cultural fusion is facilitated. Thus, the Singaporean of the morrow would, being an amalgam of the various ethnic groups of yesteryear, would indeed be able to appreciate that such a mother tongue was essential for her/im to become the said amalgam that s/he is.
That said, if anyone asks me what my nationality is, I often respond with a, ‘singaporean in locality, not personality’, as people would make sense of the term ‘singaporean’ from the ‘singaporean’ of today as opposed to the amalgamative singaporean i’m talking about. However, if cultural fusion was left to take its course from the past through to the present, then I would be most happy to respond with a ‘Singaporean’ whilst being able to rely on others making sense of the term through an appreciation of the fused sensibilities of the cultures of all.
But, unfortunately, that is not to be.
a2,
ed
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Lee senior thinks Chinese culture is superior. So does a2ed.
Is Chinese Culture superior to Indian Culture? Well, according to Lee Senior, it is.
And I have to agree to some extent. Yes. Chinese culture is superior. To some extent, or in some respects.
It does seem superior, compared to Indian culture, when it comes to producing minds that aren’t well-adept in what i would term multi-angular thinking - looking at things from different angles. I suppose that is to be expected since Confucianism-cum-Legalism tends to emphasise tradition, conformity and subservience - which together i would term ‘kow-towism’. Whether one applies such a system within a nation or a single family, one cannot argue with the fact that a combination of the above cannot but produce relatively docile minds unless it is applied for the purpose of undoing itself. For instance, emphasising a tradition of independent inquiry; conformity to a popular spirit of continuous doubt and revision; and subservience to the notion that the precondition of humanity is infallibility and which thus requires constant second guessing, favours popularly-led perspectival and intellectual progress. However, tradition, conformity, and subservience - or TCS for short - fetishised for its own sake does little to advance popular intellectual individualism.
Secondly, Chinese culture is also superior in producing a greater degree of apathy. Given that the depoliticisation of the citizenry is one of the means via which ‘harmony’ and ‘stability’ is delivered, and given that top-down opportunism is perceived to be an evil only if the masses are not given the opportunity to do unto each other that which is done unto them from above - for the purpose of softening the negative consequences of said top-down opportunism - apathy inevitably results. Together, the empathetic instinct is either severely curtailed, or confined within boundaries that bodes well for the continued enrichment and empowerment of the elite. i.e. self-help initiatives, charities, etc. (that’s one of the reasons why when i’m approached for donations in public in singapore, i reply with an, ‘I already gave, it’s called GST/ERP/COE/etc’).
Thirdly, Chinese culture seems to be quite superior in enhancing tendencies toward bigotry. The combination of both TCS and apathy produces minds that aren’t capable of appreciating the detail in phenomena and prone to being generally susceptible to the salient. Both TCS and apathy relies on one’s thus-socialised ability to discount detail and difference for it to survive. Hence, whilst facing one direction in tradition, conformity and subservience, and whilst minding one’s own business in order to survive, and not concerning oneself with the political milieu - which compromises one’s training in attention to detail and ‘joining the dots’ in a broader context - one is required not only to discount all variables that compromises the above, but one can indeed become quite reflexive in not appreciating that which does not cater to one’s interests or conforms to one’s tradition induced beliefs/biases.
Given these, amongst other superiorities of Chinese culture, one will have to ask if this bodes well for the perspectival, empathetic and intellectual advance of humanity should it be universally applied. I have to agree that Chinese culture can indeed deliver economic affluence far quicker than Indian/Western culture. There are many conflicting interests to contend with if we embrace the Indian or Western way. All these troublesome unions, human rights nonsense, workers’ rights, etc, etc. But I suppose that the Indian or Western way attempts to preserve as much of our humanity in our quest for mammon whilst the Chinese way allows mammon to define our humanity till we want not more than shopping, eating and gambling.
The Chinese way can come across as superior to the Indian or Western way because it most certainly delivers economic affluence quicker. After all, when everyone shuts up in the face of a state-wielded bludgeon and allows the elite to gather wealth from the population and other elites without question, they can enjoy the pennies that fall from the table far quicker. But that is only because the people cannot gather them directly from other elites themselves - capitalism doesn’t facilitate that. And another thing we have to be cognizant of is that those who abide by Chinese culture (one doesn’t have to be Chinese to abide by it, and not all Chinese abide by Chinese culture - it’s a cultural thing, not a racial one) will have to produce after-the-fact. In other words, technological, amongst other advances, requires copy-cattery. After all, as popular intellectual individualism is already compromised by TCS and apathy, we cannot expect the kind of logical minds required to think up a space shuttle or serve as a viable pioneering force in empathetic or logic-based industries - one of the reasons why it is the Indian, and not the Chinese, whom are colonising the IT industry or are disproportionately represented in the legal profession. As I said to a couple of Chinese friends in the aftermath of Lee senior’s statement with regards to Indian culture, if Chinese culture had been the staple of the world from the start, we’d still be worshipping the moon, not planting a flag on it. If you allow the popular imagination to run riot, than the elite is not going to enjoy its stability. A vibrant mind is always teetering on the edge of empathy, creativity and becoming political.
But that said, to say that this is 'Chinese culture' is not entirely accurate. This detracts one from 'what was' and 'what could be'. In other words, the Chinese culture of today is a product of post-Qin culture, and a product of ignoring difference post-Qin style with the directions of the elite after the Chinese diaspora. This serves to protect the elite's agenda via the cultural pride that is induced amongst the Chinese people. Then there is the Chinese culture that could have been if the Chou era (which facilitated the period known as '100 schools of philosophy') continued without the interjection of the Qin. There is also another Chinese culture. That is, a Chinese culture that evolves in appreciation of difference in the course of and after the diaspora. The Chinese and all others ought to be mindful of this in critique and appreciation of 'Chinese culture'.
a2,
ed
And I have to agree to some extent. Yes. Chinese culture is superior. To some extent, or in some respects.
It does seem superior, compared to Indian culture, when it comes to producing minds that aren’t well-adept in what i would term multi-angular thinking - looking at things from different angles. I suppose that is to be expected since Confucianism-cum-Legalism tends to emphasise tradition, conformity and subservience - which together i would term ‘kow-towism’. Whether one applies such a system within a nation or a single family, one cannot argue with the fact that a combination of the above cannot but produce relatively docile minds unless it is applied for the purpose of undoing itself. For instance, emphasising a tradition of independent inquiry; conformity to a popular spirit of continuous doubt and revision; and subservience to the notion that the precondition of humanity is infallibility and which thus requires constant second guessing, favours popularly-led perspectival and intellectual progress. However, tradition, conformity, and subservience - or TCS for short - fetishised for its own sake does little to advance popular intellectual individualism.
Secondly, Chinese culture is also superior in producing a greater degree of apathy. Given that the depoliticisation of the citizenry is one of the means via which ‘harmony’ and ‘stability’ is delivered, and given that top-down opportunism is perceived to be an evil only if the masses are not given the opportunity to do unto each other that which is done unto them from above - for the purpose of softening the negative consequences of said top-down opportunism - apathy inevitably results. Together, the empathetic instinct is either severely curtailed, or confined within boundaries that bodes well for the continued enrichment and empowerment of the elite. i.e. self-help initiatives, charities, etc. (that’s one of the reasons why when i’m approached for donations in public in singapore, i reply with an, ‘I already gave, it’s called GST/ERP/COE/etc’).
Thirdly, Chinese culture seems to be quite superior in enhancing tendencies toward bigotry. The combination of both TCS and apathy produces minds that aren’t capable of appreciating the detail in phenomena and prone to being generally susceptible to the salient. Both TCS and apathy relies on one’s thus-socialised ability to discount detail and difference for it to survive. Hence, whilst facing one direction in tradition, conformity and subservience, and whilst minding one’s own business in order to survive, and not concerning oneself with the political milieu - which compromises one’s training in attention to detail and ‘joining the dots’ in a broader context - one is required not only to discount all variables that compromises the above, but one can indeed become quite reflexive in not appreciating that which does not cater to one’s interests or conforms to one’s tradition induced beliefs/biases.
Given these, amongst other superiorities of Chinese culture, one will have to ask if this bodes well for the perspectival, empathetic and intellectual advance of humanity should it be universally applied. I have to agree that Chinese culture can indeed deliver economic affluence far quicker than Indian/Western culture. There are many conflicting interests to contend with if we embrace the Indian or Western way. All these troublesome unions, human rights nonsense, workers’ rights, etc, etc. But I suppose that the Indian or Western way attempts to preserve as much of our humanity in our quest for mammon whilst the Chinese way allows mammon to define our humanity till we want not more than shopping, eating and gambling.
The Chinese way can come across as superior to the Indian or Western way because it most certainly delivers economic affluence quicker. After all, when everyone shuts up in the face of a state-wielded bludgeon and allows the elite to gather wealth from the population and other elites without question, they can enjoy the pennies that fall from the table far quicker. But that is only because the people cannot gather them directly from other elites themselves - capitalism doesn’t facilitate that. And another thing we have to be cognizant of is that those who abide by Chinese culture (one doesn’t have to be Chinese to abide by it, and not all Chinese abide by Chinese culture - it’s a cultural thing, not a racial one) will have to produce after-the-fact. In other words, technological, amongst other advances, requires copy-cattery. After all, as popular intellectual individualism is already compromised by TCS and apathy, we cannot expect the kind of logical minds required to think up a space shuttle or serve as a viable pioneering force in empathetic or logic-based industries - one of the reasons why it is the Indian, and not the Chinese, whom are colonising the IT industry or are disproportionately represented in the legal profession. As I said to a couple of Chinese friends in the aftermath of Lee senior’s statement with regards to Indian culture, if Chinese culture had been the staple of the world from the start, we’d still be worshipping the moon, not planting a flag on it. If you allow the popular imagination to run riot, than the elite is not going to enjoy its stability. A vibrant mind is always teetering on the edge of empathy, creativity and becoming political.
But that said, to say that this is 'Chinese culture' is not entirely accurate. This detracts one from 'what was' and 'what could be'. In other words, the Chinese culture of today is a product of post-Qin culture, and a product of ignoring difference post-Qin style with the directions of the elite after the Chinese diaspora. This serves to protect the elite's agenda via the cultural pride that is induced amongst the Chinese people. Then there is the Chinese culture that could have been if the Chou era (which facilitated the period known as '100 schools of philosophy') continued without the interjection of the Qin. There is also another Chinese culture. That is, a Chinese culture that evolves in appreciation of difference in the course of and after the diaspora. The Chinese and all others ought to be mindful of this in critique and appreciation of 'Chinese culture'.
a2,
ed
Friday, 1 January 2010
"Hard to overcome cultural instinct", says Lee senior - comment
Hard to overcome cultural instinctsource: todayonline
Singaporeans say the National Pledge and sing the National Anthem, but suppose there was a famine - would your neighbour share the last few grains of rice with you if you are of different ethnicity or religion?
It will take "many, many years" to overcome that cultural instinct, according to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Despite the shared spaces that have been built up, he believes Singaporeans live in "concentric circles" - starting with family, relatives and friends.
"In the outer circles, you have common ground but you can even invite them into your home and visit each other on festive occasions and so on, but when it comes to marriage and becoming part of the family, that's a very different happiness," he said.
"Cross marriages, yes a few, usually the parents are most unhappy."
Asked by interviewer Mark Jacobson if his goal was to break down those barriers, Mr Lee said: "I think we just leave it alone."
"You try to break it down, you're going to cause a lot of unhappiness and the older generation vote solidly against."
On the religious front, though, Mr Lee is confident the different groups are aware not to get politically active unless they want to incite others to push back.
But he noted that evangelism is on the rise, for example, in Christianity.
"They catch them in their teens, in their late teens when they're malleable and open to suggestions and then they become fervent evangelists themselves. My granddaughter is one of them. She's now 28," he said.
Despite such trends, Mr Lee sees a more integrated Singapore ahead. Though he called Singapore "a few hundred years" shy of being a nation, he also said: "It's a nation in the making. The optimistic view. We must have optimism."
Now if this isn’t a justification for racism, i don’t know what is. If anything, Lee is coming across as some sort of apologist for racism. My point has always been that given 50 years, what has the government done to get rid of racism as opposed to putting in place policies that promote it. Facts point to the latter.
What has been done when it comes to media representation? How has the SAP school system facilitated the chinese takeover of the economy and which in the longer run serves to enable all to attribute success to ‘Chinese’ culture and even racism? To what extent does the ‘mother tongue’ policy facilitate cultural integration? Why is it that whilst Muslims were not allowed to wear the Islamic (women’s) headdress to schools for the sake of ‘integration’, Chinese culture was celebrated with increasing pomp in central locations? Why is it that Mandarin was promoted as ‘cool’ whilst other languages were just ignored? Why is it that there were ‘appreciate Mandarin culture’ campaigns whilst others were similarly ignored?
It seems that to enable ‘Chinese’ culture to take the credit for everything, all difference was put down long enough for the former to deliver results. And thereafter, this serves as the reason for the continued ignorance of difference - which in turn delivered a docile enough population that required the importation of foreigners to get around said docility for economic prudence.
But i suppose that, in a particular twist, Lee is right. It is ‘hard to overcome cultural instinct’. Given China’s monocultural and ‘one way or the highway’ history, the first reaction of those socialised within it is to go by tradition as opposed to reason, and to be averse to difference in favour of familiarity.
In the longer run, Singapore, and Lee, has sent a clear signal to China to keep on with its monocultural ways. In controlled conditions, in Singapore, he had showed the west that the east need not follow the multicultural route for economic affluence. And China, seeing this, is validated as is and as was. We are on the verge of a greater Chinese union throughout the region. India, being multicultural since before the time of Christ, is too busy being accommodating to appreciate this. And the west, led by the elite, recognises the capitalist ethos of the Confucian/Legalist amalgam in delivering consumers and labourers with greater ease. Hence, i wasn’t surprised that Obama just about handed south east Asia to China.
Ah well, i’ve said this for the record, as nobody else in Singapore have a multiculturally-induced intelligence enough to realise this. Optimism? A few hundred years before it becomes a nation? Yes, i'm sure, but by which time, the only distinction between the 'Chinese' and those who aren't will be only skin deep - which it already seems to be the case - excluding ed of course. I suppose Lee is just playing for time. It's always nice to put off integration for the future so that it might be deemed to be achieved by both the majority and assimilated minorities in a time when people are underdeveloped enough not to know better. But then again, that has just about been achieved.
a2,
ed