'ABOLISH! ISA' blogger button & Facebook lobby

3in1Kopitiam: Race & Elections

The following conversation was sent to me by a Mr Bell, a prominent, Kopi Tiam(coffeeshop) activist. A2ed is publishing this for it's thought-worthy value given the interesting and thought-provocative exchanges between KopiTiam-ers. Readers may send their own articles or conversation pieces via the 'contact' link above. Please provide your name, or pseudonym.

Thanks to Mr Bell for this one.

source : Vote Multi-Racial PAP. Vote the Multi-Racial PAP in for the Next (reader will have to login to view this and other conversations)

[unedited]

hairydirty:
only the sinky chinese can and will decide who governs sinkyland.
after all LKY banked on the chinese to win power, and most eurasians reckoned that LKY would use the chinese card to full effect and left for oz and elsewhere. the indians stayed becos malaysia was twice as bad for them (still is).

the speak mandarin campaign was another indication of how LKY used race politics to his advantage and that was a slap in the face for the peranakans, most of whom went into hiding becos they didnt want anyone to know they had malay blood in them - (, who cares - like it really matters)

the PAP keeps sweet with the malays becos they know that being anti-malay would be a foolish move in the region we are in.
the eurasians, indians and malays dont count polictically becos they simply dont have the numbers.

20 years ago , it was more pronounced - the PAP portrayed themselves as a pro-chinese party but JB\\\'s win surprisingly showed that sinky chinese are mature and brave enuff to vote for an indian intellectual.
frankly, the minorities cannot influence the vote.
the question i pose to u is - are the sinky chinese capable of fairmindedness and do they realise what effect FTs are gonna determine sinkyland in the near future.
its all about the FTS and their effect on - jobs, homes, education etc . this is what will play a big factor come election time.
just look at the football team for starters - a fucking disgrace that hardly means anything to sinkies - unlike the time when we had a truly multiracial team that we were so proud of . local sinkies, and a local coach in choo seng quee (remember him) - a guy that spoke more malay/english than chinese.

lastly - sinky for sinkies. cheers.


mrbell1009:
I understand your concerns and the issues you have raised are genuine BUT poiltics is a different thing. There was no evidence that Tang Liang Hong was a chinese chauvinist yet he was labelled as one.

Alex is already associated with this forum and it won\\\'t take PAP label other opposition with this forum. That is the reality. It is best that Alex and other opposition disassociate with this forum. We can lose this but not any opposition into the parliament.

primatekills:
Am not a fan of the Paps... But what you pointed out is quite true... Just look at the last elections and why Aljunied was still pro-PAP even though they won by the slightest of margins... WP didn't work the ground well and did not convince the Malay voters there. They could have lost out because the Malays are still pro-PAP...

mrbell1009:
You are right. Every vote counts. Some forummers here are saying that Chinese votes decides the gov. This can only happen if the Chinese votes are united. So the minority can become the power broker. Let's look at the Malaysia elections 2008 and 2004.

http://thestar.com.my/election/

In msia, the Chinese and Malay votes were divided, but the Indian votes were united. After the Hindraf saga, the 10% Indian votes went to the opposition, and it translated several seats for the opposition in parliament.

In sg the malay votes are united, they are the power brokers.

The Hindraf issue begins here: Hindraf: Al Jazeera Live Interview: Samy Vellu Challenged to Reveal List of Temples

The Hindraff issue escalates: Special Report: The Hindraf protest

Gatorade and Gillette denies complicity in Tiger's extra-marital woody

Product endorsements by ‘stars’.

What can we make of them. We can see TCS ‘stars’ endorsing hair loss treatments; or that idiot Gurmit telling us to ‘be a man’ and do something about hair loss - as if that serves as a great compensation for not being able to do it past the time it takes to boil an egg; Tiger Woods endorsing Gatorade or Gillette; Clooney endorsing watches; Hello Kitty endorsing MacDonald’s meat sandwiches, pop stars being appointed to the UN or heading song and dance festivals in aid of this and thats.......

I really don’t know what prominence has got to do with expertise, unless the argument goes, ‘now that i’ve got the attention and adulation of the masses for one thing, i’m an expert in everything.’ As far as i’m concerned, they’re nothing but whores who put their faces to anything so as to get the malformed masses to bend over and take it from Corporations, and from which they get a ‘cut’. I dare say that i’ve more respect for sex workers as they give you exactly what you paid for as opposed to the confidence that you’re getting something good because some ‘star’ says so. That would be like a sex worker telling you you’re getting great sex at the very moment s/he’s sipping a cup of tea and telling you just that through an MSN chat.

Well, getting back to Tiger Woods, who apparently swung into the wrong bunker, now Gatorade withdraws its sponsorship. Why? For fear that the mass consumption of Gatorade ‘Tiger’ might see a sudden peak in extra-marital affairs due to some China-made ‘keep it up for 1001 days and nights’ ingredient? And Gillette is ‘limiting’ his role in their marketing campaign so that it is not implied that a good shave would be considerate before ‘going down’ on thy neighbour?

The way I see it, these corporations have, in the face of Tiger’s crouching over another, as valid a reason for dropping Tiger as they had for having him front their products in the first place. Irrelevant in either case. It just goes to expose these industries for what they are in their attempts to boost their profit margin by associating their products with everything but its intrinsic quality. Tiger keeps his woody for his wife and none other, so Gatorade and Gillette is good stuff when endorsed by them.

One has to thank the inane masses for this. As i've said for quite some time, the 'fan' who is simultaneously a 'citizen' undoes the sensibilities required of the latter by the insensibilities of the former.


a2ed

Vote opposition? Certainly not.

A short while back, some oppositional elements wrote articles providing quite a number of reasons why people ought to vote for the opposition and not the PAP. Just as a rifle needs to be relieved of a simple firing pin for it to be rendered useless, all I require is one simple and most significant reason, despite the weight of all the rest of the arguments, to not vote for the opposition - and i’d really like to see how the opposition is going to weasel out of this one, or perhaps, as usual, they are simply going to ignore critique as good little Confucians do because they have the numbers on their side.

Speaking with V, Sim, amongst others, I argued my case.

If we are to vote for the opposition now, and if they were to get a significant numbers of votes, whether or not it delivers the parliamentary seats to their posteriors, it will be perceived as a significant mandate for the opposition to carry on along their course. It will be seen as a vindication of all their stances and views. The PAP themselves have similarly used such a ‘mandate’ as a validation of all of their policies and institutions, such as the ISA, for instance. Lee senior had himself said that if the people are not happy with the ISA, they can vote them out, whilst appealing to the individual self-interests of the masses, for instance, in housing or economic matters, to vote them in. Every one of their policies is thus assumed to be given the thumbs up by association. The question is, is there any reason to believe the opposition won’t do likewise.

That is very easily answered. Just ask if the opposition are open to critique before the vote is ever cast. Just look at how they all gang up in an orgy of mutual validation. You don’t really see attempts made by party stooges such as Carlos Abdullah, Gerald Giam, Seelan, Jacob69er, Utopia8787, amongst others, second guessing their own do you. And you don’t see them taking any notice of critiques amongst the oppositional elements such as myself, amongst others, for instance do you. If they are this arrogant before they get the votes, how do you think they are going to be thereafter? Don’t you think that is reason enough, despite the umpteenth + 1 reasons other oppositional elements can give for ‘voting for change’ (you can keep your t-shirt Alex) and voting out the PAP?

The opposition has finally come of age after being nursed by the PAP for half a century. They are Confucians in that they expect conformity and subservience within the ranks. Oh, they talk the seemingly ‘democratic’ talk about not being on ‘bended knee’ before the government, but expect nothing short of that from their own congregation of blinkered zealots. They, like the party in power, appeal to the individual self-interests of the people (along individual and racial lines) to get their bums onto the seats of parliament. They aren’t attempting to rear an ethos of collective empathy amongst the people but are just relying on the self-absorption the party in power has brought about after half a century of rule. Hence, from these, it is to be expected that their approach is quite thoroughly fascist and racist (by numerous oversights on their part when it comes to the interests of, say, the ethnic minorities).

Just look at one instance out of numerous, Temasek Review puts out an article on the last day of the ‘River Hong Bao’ (one of the nationally celebrated festivities for Chinese New Year) is marked for ‘National Integration Night’ whereby ‘foreigners’ are welcomed into Singapore. They whinny about how foreigners are outnumbering ‘singaporeans’, but take absolutely no issue with the fact that this is yet another instance of associating the entire nation with the Chinese as opposed to its multicultural/ethnic make up. In this, is indicated that when the ‘opposition’ uses the term, ‘singaporeans’, they aren’t truly including the other ethnic groups. No other oppositional blogger, or political party has said anything about this event, or TR’s approach. Hence, in perspective, we can conclude that they are complicit in this self-absorbed view of reality. I can cite numerous other instances, which I have discussed in previous observations, but I'll leave the reader with this recent instance for consideration.

Don’t tell me how bad the PAP is. That is indubitable as they have provided the bases upon which the likes of the SG version of ‘opposition‘ and ‘democrats‘ can emerge. However, do tell me how transfigured the Saviour, that is purported to be the ‘opposition’, is. The masses congregating around the opposition is no proof of their Messianic value. Were there not masses around Mao or Hitler, were there not millions who wept at the demise of the murderous Stalin? Were not millions upon millions in support of the patriarchal system of the past? Don’t show me mere numerical numbers who support you. Give me numbers, in IQ, that is. We can all postulate on the evils of the PAP, but can we prove that we aren’t simultaneously apostles of an evil confused for good because it is not as evil as the one in power? Ask yourself if this is not a democratic movement in Hades that whilst seeking to overthrow its existing overlord, does not seek to extinguish its fires.

In the last elections, I made it a point to vote for the opposition in Hougang. V, who was hospitalised at that time (for concussion), made it a point to have herself discharged and rushed in a cab to the ballot box to cast her vote for the opposition, whilst being aided by 2 policemen as she couldn’t walk without help. My argument then was, ‘yes, the opposition are quite fecal in quality, but if we don’t show that there is a demand for them, we aren’t going to get supply of better quality in the future. You can’t the current generation of an Ipod if we shunned the first right?’

But, from hereon, i’m compelled by tyrannous reason to state, ‘if the opposition are as fascist and racist as they are today, would not our casting a vote of demand for them lead to their being validated in their current stance and view of things?’ Would i not be guilty of validating them as they are as opposed to what they can be in opposition to what they are? All evidence points to this being true.

I don't want to vote for an 'opposition' purely on the basis that they are against the government on a number of issues. I want to vote for an opposition that are a clear and egalitarian alternative to the government in power. Vote for Change? No, i'd rather vote for a true alternative than to make a fashion statement by voting for mere change.


a2,

ed


postscript: the only question that remains now is to determine if the vote ought to be ‘spoilt’ or if we ought to vote for the PAP. Reason is beginning to point to the latter. Further thought is required. Will write on that anon.

On Chavez's un-Socialistic criticism of British claims on the Falklands

Argentina rallies regional support over Falklands

I can understand Hugo Chavez stating that the ‘time for empires was over’ in his bid to support Argentina’s claim over the Falklands. However, is he also stating that proximity, or previous ownership of the said Islands is enough to legitimise a claim.

Then, would Saddam’s efforts to reclaim Kuwait a couple of decades ago, or China’s claim on Tibet and Xinjiang, or the Zionist claim on Palestinian land, be justified as well? And if all this is well and fine, then should the Falklands islands be returned to the Patagonian Indians whom may have reached the islands before European explorers? Or should a large portion of Argentina be returned to the descendants of the Incas who conquered present-day northwestern Argentina?

And what about Argentina’s claim to a vast expanse of ocean stretching to the Antarctic and including those waters upon which the Falkland islands are perched. Should Argentina, being next to the ocean, be allowed to appropriate a large expanse of it just because the other south American lands are not. What does Chavez have to say about this. I thought he was a socialist? And yet he seems to be on the side of the ‘haves’ who are claiming more on the basis of nothing other than proximity.

Chavez, and the similar minded ought to ask themselves if they believe that the ‘time for empires was over’ or that only empires based on proximity of the lands and waters should be accorded legitimacy.

C’mon el Presidente, let’s hear it.


a2ed

on Australia’s ‘Vindaloo against Violence'

Reverse Sexploitation, from purse-strings to g-strings

Previously, we had heard much about the exploitative nature of media, amongst other, representations of women. Feminists alleged, with good reason, that it reduced women to mere sex objects and diminished the value of the other aspects of their persona.

Whilst this is true, the increasing equality of women with men, the rise of many to positions of power and prestige - defined along previously patriarchal lines - the proscription on marital rape, the incorporation of women into the workforce and their ensuing financial independence, appears to have turned the tables on men and turned them into the ‘weaker’, if not ‘fairer’, sex.

From hereon, the sexuality of women turns into ‘bait’ and ‘bargaining chip’ as was men’s monopolisation of the economic milieu in the past. Rather than women moving on to becoming more than sex objects, their sexual objectification has become a medium of control, dominance and, at times, exploitation of men. There is nothing that a woman wants that she can’t provide for herself, but there is something that a man wants that he can’t provide for himself unless, perhaps, he was endowed with enough length to reach a few inches past his own posterior, or turn to homosexuality, or pay a few good dollars for a 20 minute transaction in some piss-scented alley.

Hence, what can we make of the ‘girl power’ that emerged in full force from the 80s onwards. Madonna didn’t cover up and extol her other virtues; the Spice Girls seemed to be as belligerent as men, in the working milieu, a women was considered to be as good or even better than men the more they became as bad or worse than men; and a whole bevy of booty-bouncing ‘stars’ flaunted their endowments as if to say, simultaneously, ‘you can’t touch this’ ‘unless’, ‘or else’.

Men have themselves to blame. In granting women equality, what actually transpired was that women were incorporated into the patriarchal pantheon of civilisation. And as a consequence, when they became little more than men in drag and acquired all the selfsame rights, privileges and protection, men inevitably found themselves holding the short end of the stick, whatever their individual length. That is when the feminist movement was turned on its head and the movement toward equality became the movement toward conformity with a patriarchal state of affairs. Hence, as men had marked history with exploitation, they found themselves earmarked for exploitation via the selfsame approach being taken on by women-turned-men.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with granting women equality, but there is something wrong with the granting of equality when it is accompanied with the assimilation of women into the male ethos. I, personally, would have preferred the subsumption of men into the feminine spirit as opposed to women into a patriarchal one. The feminist movement ought to have pushed for men to become more like women without women becoming less like men. Thus, a man on bended knee with a ring in the past might be a show of magnanimity, but now, it seems to be more of a plea.

The movement for equality is a double-edged sword. If we confuse incorporation for equality, we become the next champions of a system that had previously exploited us.

Hence, not too long ago, the men whom were subjugating women with their purse-strings. Now, the women are doing it with their g-strings. The medium might have changed, but the noose remains.


a2,

ed

Placating singaporeans by screwing foreigners? Thank the 'opposition'.

I suppose Temasek Review, amongst other bloggers and political parties played a part in inciting this approach in the government. TR, neo-Nazi style, demonises foreigners on the one hand, whilst mixing in a sweetener such as appealing to the economic interests of ‘singaporeans’. (Whilst oblivious to the marginalised status of ethnic minorities in the face of pro-local chinese policies and consequences.) The opposition parties join in the barrage by their ‘singapore for singaporeans’ fascist nonsense whilst keeping silent about TR’s and others’ demonisation of difference and attempts to condemn the whole lot of them via a few bad apples. And party-affiliated bloggers such as Jacob 69er, Seelan, Carlos Abdullah, Utopia 8787, Gerald Giam, all remain strangely and similarly silent on these matters.

It seems that neo-Nazi labour is well divided amongst these wollys with none attempting to take issue with the evils of the other, and thus presenting a particular type of unity amongst the thus fascist ‘opposition’. Let’s imagine, albeit with a shudder, that Hitler won the war. Half a century later, democratic movements arise, not to dismantle the (3rd) Reichstag, but to get a seat in it. Not to free the less preferred from existing concentration camps, but to stop themselves from being interned in it. Would you call them democrats? To the ‘house niggers’ and well-intentioned and egalitarian chinese individuals in the opposition, would you really consider yours a truly democratic movement?

By presenting a united front of such a type to the government and the people of Singapore, the oppositional elements have certainly laid the foundation for the government to ‘placate singaporeans by screwing foreigners’. They are stoking a hatred of foreigners, and self-absorption amongst those whom have been privileged by the previous bout of fascism effectuated by the government. It is no wonder that the government seems to think it can placate the locals via the aforementioned strategy. I’ve often wondered, at times, if all the wombles leading the opposition are actually in cahoots with the government. It seems that their gaping oversights, approach, and failing to clean up the oppositional side of things as far as their fascist tendencies and perspectives go, is constantly providing the government with the basis for doing what they do. However, what I do believe is that a fascist government that simultaneously delivers economic affluence will have much of the strategies and perspectives utilised to deliver them, sanitised and rendered normal by association, and especially after as long a stretch as half a century. Our attempts to cope, compensate, and recuperate within such a scheme of things can actually serve to make it all quite palatable. And that is when our perspectives can be incorporated. And those born into such a milieu are even more susceptible to such influences as they will already have the paradigms that have been produced by the people to access with immediacy, and fall prey to, and from birth.

My comment, in response to the approach in TR's article, which for some reason fails to register at TR’s site, is as follows:

Instead of putting the stress on the 'foreign workers', why not just focus on pushing for a minimum wage here. Why is the working class f*cking each other along along singaporean vs. foreigner lines? At the end, it is the fat cat that is gaining mate. You should get some socialism into your system, and this confucian-style mutual antagonism along the lines of learnt biases out.



a2ed

TOC, TR, SGdaily. The Unholy Trinity? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Regarding Singapore’s self-validating triad of bloggers

a2ed’s comment on 'Solo Bear's' site, with regards to the aforetitled, goes,

“By the way, whilst i personally feel you deserve a thumbs up for your avant garde take on things, it would be good to have your presence heard across other blogs as well via the comments section. If we don't begin to validate each other's significance as potential sources of ideas, through further development of ideas or critique, we would be guilty of reinforcing the thus continuing hegemony of the 'Powers That Be for their Prominence', i.e. TOC, TR, Sgdaily.

It is quite the tendency amongst singaporeans, both on and offline, that sees everyone speaking their minds without considering what's on the mind of others unless it fits with their own interests. That's a highly confucian thing btw. Anyway, this last bit is not in particular reference to yourself.”


A few years ago, on another site, I conducted a little experiment. I posted comments on 10 Singaporean blogs, and 10 Malaysian blogs. Then I waited.

result:

No comments were returned on my site from Singaporean blogs, as opposed to 5 from Malaysian blogs.

I also conducted a similar experiment with Australian and American blogs over the years. The Australians and Americans faired better than both the Malaysian and Singaporean blogs with, on average, 7 out of 10 reciprocal comments.

Now, when i did this experiment, I ensured that all the blogs i picked were focused on issues other than that which I focused on. For instance, they might be focused on tech, or photography, or just speaking about daily phenomena or local interests whilst I focused on socio-political issues. I wanted to know to what degree people from these different nationally-disparate samples would consider that which was out of their published sphere of interest. I later did an additional experiment where I would place comments on sites which had similar interests.i.e. politics. The results, again, were the same, with Singaporeans, again, averaging between 0 to 1 reciprocal consideration and comment whilst the Australian and American blogs maintained their earlier scores.

The singaporean result did not conflict with my own findings when it comes to social and offline interaction with singaporeans - particularly the Chinese. Basically, it appears that if you’re 'out of the box', you’re 'out of frequency' and the only response one might get is either a change of the subject, silence, no questions asked, amongst others. I encounter this 10 out of 10 times, and this is over a 11 year period.

My experience with the British in direct social interaction over 5 years in the UK was the complete opposite. In other words, I could speak about any issue with everyone that i encountered, and they would respond with questions, critique, cross apply my proposed perspectives and so on. However, with regards to the British, I did not conduct the above experiment.

Additionally, the difference between the races in singapore seems to be evening out in this respect, with the Indians I have spoken to in recent times responding in a manner not dissimilar to that experience with the Chinese, and returning silence in the face of the novel. However, I have not had enough interactions with the Malays to see if this tendency afflicts them as well. I also have to state that there was greater similarity between the Indians and Chinese in the 70s, but with both considering novel ideas and engaging in such conversations with greater depth. This, I mainly experienced in the English-speaking sector which was marked by multiculturalism, and hence, vibrancy of thought, wit, and intellectual engagement.

Amongst other reasons, I would put it down to the monocultural ethos of singapore. After all, when one is taught to appreciate phenomena from a singular perspective, one would be averse to the tedium which comes with considering other angles on things. My experience with the 'opposition', be it online or off, returns identical results whatever the educational level of the individual.

V (chinese girl from singapore), my confidante, who’s currently working in the UK, over a web-call today stated, ‘You know, the PAP really did a good job. They’ve even made the opposition like the people. They won’t consider anything that is out of the box. And that is why they’ll always see you as radical.” "Yup", i responded. "They all act like Triads. Gangs all over the place at all levels of society. Where there is no mutual empathy, the only thing people can do is to stick to their own and rely on control and loyalty, not reason." I suppose that's one of the differences between, say, India and China. In the former, people would be inclined to say, 'hey! Use your head, man!', whilst in the latter, it would be, 'just shut up and follow your headman."

A wise Chinese philosopher once said, 'what the state is to the people, the people will be to each other.' (i can't remember the bloke's name unfortunately, as I went through 2000 years of Chinese philosophy more than a decade ago.) I've never forgotten that pearl of wisdom, and the singaporean experience seems to validate the astuteness of that observation, and it never ceases to amaze the parallels one finds through all levels of society that appears to mirror the archetypal parallel between the government and the people.



a2ed

Anti-China Graffiti At NTU (Asiaone 19 Feb) - scapegoating foreigners

[image taken from transitioning.org]

Singaporeans, via the monocultural stance of the government, and via the thus trained apathy and self-absorption amongst the masses, and the 'preferred' and racially defined 'majority', has produced a nation of people whom are opposed to contradiction, difference, and second guessing. They have been taught that significance lies in numbers and 'same same is good' as opposed to the significance of the individual. Hence, the idea of 'majority' and 'minority' has taken a racist tincture over 3 decades.



Hence, i'm not surprised that students would behave in such a manner. They are bred by the oversights of the population and the opposition. They are victims themselves. As for myself, i get along very well with the PRCs at my neighbourhood coffeeshop, and love the sights and sounds of difference in this country. However, i do acknowledge that jobs should not be made available for foreigners unless it is made available to singaporeans first. And secondly, the salary ought not to be lowered to the point that a singaporean would have to share a flat with lots of other singaporeans before they can take the job.

Finally, whilst we are going on about how foreigners are placing singaporeans at 2nd position when it comes to jobs, the locals should also exhibit some empathy and ask how the chinese have been advantaged similarly relative to the non-chinese. If this is not done, all this furore over foreigners become little more than a hypocritical and self-absorbed venture by a people whom are used to having it to their advantage at the expense of others. We should use this situation as a call for introspection. Perhaps, the Chinese being put in a position others have been accustomed to could lead to that amount of reflection and critical introspection to add egalitarian multicultural meat to the term, 'Singaporean'. Hence, I see the influx of 'foreigners', or more aptly, 'new foreigners', as timely and heaven-sent. Perhaps this interlude of poetical justice proportions might engender true egalitarian justice in this country.

You see, the truth of the matter is, if the people did not remain silent when the government stated that singapore must always have a chinese majority, and which, together with other policies, advantaged them, we might have grown to be a nation of previously foreign talents whom have become far more intelligent instead of importing them, and the government would not see the need to bring in PRCs to maintain the 'favourable' balance. The right amount of empathy effectuated at the right time might have also seen the government evolving into a more empathetic and socially responsible entity. For the government to be this apathetic, one has to wonder how popular apathy has fed it as well. Let's not engage in self-absolution by scapegoating 'foreigners'.


a2,

ed

Xiang Ji - Total Annihilation

I had already checkmated the general earlier, but gave it up to see if i could take them all down before having the general for the main course.

Maybe now that've i've learnt how to play this great game, I could hang out in Chinatown and study the perspectives of the old Chinese men there who play it.  It's not the game or winning that matters, but the perspectives that one can acquire through engagement with various cultures.  That is most fascinating as it will hew out other facets in one's personality that has previously lain dormant.  And the cross-applicable value of such perspectives in other arenas is itself the best game of all.  Every thing is a stepping stone to a plane that had hitherto been rendered invisible to the relatively underdeveloped personality.

Frankly, I absolutely love how the Chinese innovated Indian Chess, the latter of which is more represented in its original form in western chess.  I will write more on that anon.







ed

The Difference between the Indian and Chinese Tigers

Tiger: Unpredictable, rebellious, colorful, powerful, passionate, daring, impulsive, vigorous, stimulating, sincere, affectionate, humanitarian, generous. Can be restless, reckless, impatient, quick-tempered, obstinate, selfish, aggressive, unpredictable, moody.


When I first heard that the year 2010 was going to be the ‘Year of the Tiger’ from my Chinese mate, V, I said, ‘oh? Not bad. So it’s the Year of the Indian then.’ After all, just as the star sign Aries, quite describes my persona, I have to say that the Tiger quite aptly describes the popular mindset in India, as opposed to that of China. At the base of it is passion and an aggressive spirit, both of which tend to make more of everything else - great dancers, singers, actors, orators, thinkers, etc. It can either produce great good, or great evil. As I said with regards to India to some a few years ago, ‘The problem with Indian history is that it produces great intelligence and vibrance. When one is bad, one is very bad, just as when one is good, one can be very good. And when we put forth capitalism as the best of all socio-political systems, we are set for a nice little battle indeed.’



The difference between the Indian and Chinese Tiger in the symbolic context is that in India, it symbolises not so much the nation-state, but the people. One can see, in films for instance, where a hero is perceived as a Tiger of a personality. The tiger is sort of personalised and its spirit is there for popular appropriation. That is one of the reasons why Indian men from the subcontinent might sport a mustache, likened to the whiskers of a tiger, or wear a tiger claw around one’s neck to symbolise ‘veeren‘ or ‘fierceness’ or ‘strength’.

In the Chinese instance, as in terms of the Zodiac, it is held apart from the person as a separate influential entity impacting on their destiny. Thus, this being the Tiger year, we are told of how this might impact on the interests of the people or according to their own Zodiac symbol. Of course there are those whom are born in the Year of the Tiger - i’m reminded of my Chinese father-in-law who was born in the Year of the Ox, but always asserted that he was born in the Year of the Tiger, who, when he was earthly-located, was quite the Tiger in personality, and maybe that’s why he kind of liked me enough to reserve a seat next to him at family dinners. But other than being born in the Year of the Tiger, the rest were chickens, rats, oxen, and so on. Their traits were assigned to them.

But in the Indian case, everyone could potentially be a Tigerish ‘veeren’ or Veerapandiya Kattabomman (a well-known fighter against early British colonialism....nice meaningful name, I’d prefer that to a ‘john’, ‘jack’, or ‘ed’;)). In the Chinese case, the government is the supreme Tiger running a nation of subservient individuals, with subsidiary Tigers such as employers, triad leaders, etc. In the Indian case, the government has to do its utmost to prove itself to a potential nation of Tigers - which is one of the reasons why India doesn’t have as systematised a secret society like triads, yakuzas and mafias. They are, to a large degree, and intellectually, a ‘reason’ as opposed a to a ‘rule’-based economy.

Another significant difference between both is how its symbolic meaning complements both nation’s histories. For instance, in China, the masses suffered political defeat and depoliticisation. Hence, the focus on money, and much of Chinese New Year symbolism and practices dwelling on wealth, fortune, luck, with a touch of opportunism (gambling, pushing against others to be the first to place one’s joss stick in the temple urn at the stroke of midnight). When one is not allowed to look askance at the government, they will have no choice but to view each other as an opportunity, rely on luck, hard work, amongst others to get around the financial and psychological pressures of life within such a milieu. That is when all symbolism that is produced is associated with wealth. If the tiger comes into the picture, it is in terms of economic strength.

I had gone down to Chinatown on the eve of the Chinese New Year to buy a few ‘red packets’, not to distribute, but to collect, as some of the designs are quite eye-catching - i especially like a set for the Year of the Ox I got last year which was done in traditional Chinese style paintings. Anyway, whilst admiring the Tiger set I got this year, I couldn’t help but noticing that the tiger on each individual ‘ang pow’ was flanked by taels of gold. Whilst I can appreciate the artwork in itself, I could also appreciate that the tiger has been enlisted in associating the Tigerish spirit with wealth acquisition. And in this, it served to reinforce the depoliticisation of the people. Of course, the pursuit of wealth can lead to people taking issue with a financially oppressive government, but the association between the Tiger and money does not necessarily entail that. Hence, in this case, as in others, we could say that the Zodiac, and the Tiger, serves to complement the popular depoliticisation that is one of the hallmarks of Chinese history.

In the Indian case however, the Tiger is either generally associated with individual self-worth, and justice and conflict with authoritarianism. The people are empowered, not economically, but in the context of either a righteous struggle against all odds for the people, or in personal strength. Whilst we cannot say that most of the population are ‘fierce tigers’, such associations in the cultural mindset will generally produce far more popular vigour than in the inverse situation. But in the Indian scenario, there is also a recognition that Tigers can be good or evil, and hence, in films, we can see a good Tiger clashing with a bad one, be it the colonial authority or a ‘rowdy’(gangster). What’s most important here is the idea of the Tiger is not generally associated as an unassailable entity influencing human affairs as it is in the Chinese case, but a force for appropriation by the people.

The symbolic and popular meaning of the Indian Tiger quite complements Indian history with oppositional movements for change dating back to before the birth of Christ; a strong sense of regional independence; the production of a variety of religions; the fact that the popularly derived wiseman or sanyassin, or freedom fighter had more influence over the masses than a King; and that conquering kings preferred to leave regional kings on their thrones instead of vanquishing them completely provided that they would symbolically recognise him as Maharajadhiraja (king of kings), and so on and so forth.

Very interesting isn’t it.

In my personal experience with the opposition in singapore, i know that it is a clash between an Indian Tiger and a Chinese one. Like China had it’s Son of Heaven, and Singapore has its Lee Kuan Yew, the opposition, in the spirit of the Chinese Tiger, prefers to have adherents instead of tigers in its respective parties. Critique amongst the ranks is seen as compromising unity - a way of seeing things that is wholly Chinese and not Indian. In my personal experience with Chinese triads and Indian gangs a couple of decades ago, i noticed an identical tendency. These parallels are most remarkable in their congruence in various levels of society. In the former, subservience and loyalty. In the latter, democracy and internal critique. So long as the spirit of the Chinese Tiger, a spirit of popular vigour that gets around top-imposed evils as opposed to getting rid of it whilst sacrificing thought for loyalty to their respective parties, reins in Singapore, change, when it comes, will be a diluted one. We have, in the Chinese Zodiac, metal tigers, water tigers, wood tigers and so on. Perhaps we ought to consider including an Indian Tiger as well.


Happy Year of the Indian Tiger


a2ed

Centralised Multiculturalism - the UK vs SG

Eid on the (Trafalgar) Square, 2009





Now that's one of the things I love about the UK. Whether it is Hari Raya Puasa (eid), Deepavali, Chinese New Year, or Christmas, amongst others, whatever the racial proportions, they are all afforded a central space for celebrations as opposed to Singapore's brand of 'multiculturalism' where only one is afforded a central space such as Marina whilst all others are left to their own devices in traditional enclaves. That's a touch of egalitarian multiculturalism for you. Having great differences isn't a problem, it is only when we marginalise and peripheralise difference that everyone loses, including the winners who won't be as much as they might be if they did otherwise. In centralising the least (in numbers), we champion the notion that significance lies in difference and the value of the individual despite numbers. That's one of the steps to be taken for the advance of mutual respect, as opposed to mere 'tolerance and sensitivity', and the enhancement of the self-efficacy of various groups.

You won't see the 'opposition' in Singapore talking about these things, and what is said about the UK in this observation can't be applied in the case of Singapore. Ever wonder why?

God bless the United Kingdom.


a2ed
[aspiring 2ward egalitarian democracy]

p.s., Oh, by the way, that's 'V' fiddling around with her lenses at 0.22secs.

Singazine - Statement of Intent

[statement approved by the Singazine team]


The time has come to wrap up the site. The reasons are as stated in the 'notice' by MM, and we have not been directed to shut it down by 'higher beings';)

However, the additional reason which is not stated, but which we have discussed from the start, is that our sole purpose was to stimulate mutual consideration amongst bloggers of each other's viewpoints. That was not encouraged by SGdaily's approach. That is also one of the reasons we started the 'singazine feature' section at the top so that people can consider opposing views by bloggers instead of just TOC or TR. You can call it the 'madison square garden tag team championship' if you like, except that everyone can be part of either team. The whole structure of the site, such as the said 'singazine feature', 'blogger spotlight', and giving prominence to the daily blog lists above news articles, was for the purpose of elevating the value of the singaporean blogger as opposed to the TOC or TR. We recognise that TOC or TR are just a small part of the aggregate of the value of all bloggers. Hence, our elevation of the status of the humble blogger in our structure.



It is a fundamental democratic precept that we are not only made stronger in the consideration of the views of others, but in that act itself, we practice the valuation of the significance of each other whatever their status. That is why we frequently put opposing views on singazine feature, not because we support either viewpoint, but because we support the value of debate and mutual consideration amongst bloggers. We view bloggers as the real TOC and TR, amongst others, and we wanted to promote that view so as to temper the consequences of just waiting on the words of the prominent. The value of this lies in the opportunity it presents for truly discursive interaction between bloggers whatever their political inclinations. To date, unfortunately, quite a few seem to be operating as separate 'triad societies' whom are mutually antagonistic, ignore each other, whilst faithfully abiding by the dictates of their respective leaders. That's not democracy sir. That's popular fascism.

The point of the whole operation was to illustrate to local bloggers the value of being representative, encourage them to consider each other's views, and to stimulate change in existing blog aggregators - particularly Singaporedaily. We wanted to see as many 'views' of bloggers' articles and as many comments as one might see in TR on the sites of bloggers. In fact, the 'thank you' note we put out at each blogger's site before posting their article link at one time was in a way an invitation to them to come to singazine to consider the views of others and to appreciate true representation. We are not out to destroy or compete with other blog aggregators, but to illustrate the value of representation. It wasn't a 'war between blog aggregators' as it was the intention from the start to shut down Singazine once the stated message had been transmitted. If local bloggers are not going to learn from the example we put out and check on their own, then they truly deserve the government they get, and the type of 'opposition' that it produces.

As for Ng E-Jay's views on Singazine, it is ill-argued. Being pro-opposition does not have to come at the price of censoring out those who disagree with us. They really have to consider the value of constructive criticism, or are they against it just as the government has been in the past? He speaks about the need to censor opposing views so as to maintain unity in the opposition. Isn't that the same as having one race as a majority so as to bring about 'unity' amongst the people of singapore, or promoting one culture over others so as to engender cultural unity, or the PAP keeping their supporters from being too oppositional for the sake of 'unity'? It is worrying indeed that he thinks along lines that is identical with that of the party in power. if oppositional elements think along such lines when they aren't in power, what do you think we can expect when they are?

But then again, now, the PAP themselves seem to be considering oppositional opinions, such as that claimed by TR, Chua Chin Leng, amongst others, and which has seen them caving in on some issues. When are oppositional bloggers, or pro-PAP ones, going to start doing that amongst themselves? In our representation of all bloggers, and giving prominence to, amongst others, Not My SDP and Where Bears Roam Free, we took the first step. They are valuable in their proffering another take on things. And we appreciate that even though we might not agree with some of their views.

Secondly, singaporedaily, by purporting to be representative of singapore bloggers, is duty bound to represent all relevant articles. They may be 'privately-run', but they present themselves as a pro-democracy, anti-censorship, political site, and as implied in their name, representative of singapore socio-political bloggers - which they verifiably aren't. Being 'privately-run' is no defence for not being representative when you present yourself as a vehicle of change in the political milieu. For instance, some of the team has noted that they do not often, if at all, link the likes of Gopalan Nair, Solo Bear, Not My SDP, amongst others. If they believe that they are aggregating blogs with discerning taste, that cannot be assumed, it has to be proven. To date, they've done a regrettable job.

Singazine's purpose from the start was to represent all bloggers and illustrate the value of representation even if it doesn't agree with our personal views. For myself, I had initially refused to have my name associated with singazine as i was aware of much bias against myself amongst some bloggers and oppositional elements, and didn't want this to affect bloggers' objective appreciation of the representative nature of the site. If anyone was to ask who MM Sz is, tell them, s/he is the totality of all democratically-inclined bloggers and thus is not inclined to go against her/himself by censoring any part of her viewpoints, and considers all. There will be some whom might speculate whom MM might be, or what the agenda is and so on. But what is most important here is the points raised in this closing summation. We, as part of the Singazine team, are of no consequence. All that matters are the points discussed.


a2ed, for Singazine

a2ed responds to Ng E-Jay's critique of Singazine

The following is my personal response (as a member of the singazine team) to Ng E-Jay's views on Singazine - posted as a comment on his site. The 'postscript' section is added on for clarification. A team-approved 'closing summation' will be posted tomorrow.



The best ‘consensus’ that can be reached by SDP and others is that they be open and receptive to critique.

Hiding behind the idea of ‘unity’ should not come at the price of truth and progress amongst the opposition. I’d personally trust those whom are open to critique, and especially those whom purport to represent the oppositional voice. But i wouldn’t trust those who, for the sake of ‘unity’, stifle critique and ignore it as evidence of critics being ‘pro-pap’. That’s ridiculous, short-sighted and fascist. It brings to mind George Bush’s, ‘You’re either with us or against us’ approach toward reality. Isn’t that what the party in power did in the past, and to some degree in the present? Ng E-Jay ought to take a look at how democratically advanced nations do it, i.e. the UK. The way he is going on about it, he seems more like an unwitting product of the PAP as opposed to being a true perspectival alternative.

Anyway, as a member of the singazine team, along with MM, cloudyV1, simiTC, and senor Fifi, even though we personally may not agree with the views of some bloggers and TR and think that some are just downright racist (via oversight) or xenophobic , we still link them and give them prominence via ’singazine feature’.

Our own views are refined via the consideration, and, perhaps, refutation of contradictory views. That is what brings about consensus and unity amongst the members of the singazine team. It is then that we can engender a true unity amongst such progressive minds whilst refining our acuity via the sharpening stone of contradiction. If we take pride in featuring Not My SDP, Solo Bear, amongst others, we do so in knowing that we are open enough to considering counterpositional thought. We had hoped that message was clear, but, it seems, to good little confucians like Ng E-jay, a reiteration of that point is required.

As for Singaporedaily, unless you’re self-absorbed, it’s no secret that they do a fair bit of censoring. SimiTC once wondered why lots of thought-worthy articles were being left out of Sgdaily. They may be ‘privately-run’, but once they present themselves as ‘pro-democracy’ they owe the public a duty to illustrate it. If not, they should rename their site, ‘MYsingaporedaily’ as opposed to a nationally representative ‘SINGAPOREdaily’.

Additionally, I personally have wondered why Ng, Seelan, amongst others who link them, are not taking issue with their ‘racial preference’ in ‘daily chiobu’, not to mention its sexist nature – and i wonder if they even realised it before I wrote about it a while back on another site. Even privately owned organisations, companies, etc, in the UK make it a point to be racially representative, and especially if they are political in nature. The British population, in general, would not stand for that which the opposition here pass off as a non-issue. Thus, my personally terming them democratic fascists.

Perhaps Ng et al just want to preserve ‘unity’ amongst the opposition even if it comes at the price of egalitarianism and democracy. If that’s his brand of ‘unity’, we might as well stick to the PAP as the difference between them and the opposition is that between factions within the selfsame party.

I will post an (approved by the team) closing summation at my own site – at the request of the singazine team – in a day or so.


ed


postscript: by 'confucian', I refer to the tendency to play 'follow the leader', and value harmony and unity in itself without considering the basis upon which it is founded. That is one of the core features of Confucianism-cum-Legalism. And, one doesn't have to be Chinese to be Confucian. It's a matter of perspective, not race. One ought to wonder why the government, a couple of decades back begin to criticise 'western values' in favour of Confucianism. But, in truth, a Confucian society is not really a 'Confucian' society. A 'Confucian' society is actually the attempt to cope with the consequences of a Legalist and top-down approach toward the relationship between the government and the people. In that, the term, 'Confucian society' detracts one's attention from the Legalist basis for it existing as such. That, in a way, enlists the people, over time, to defend the battlements beneath which is enthroned the Legalist.

in Quip: Sodomy, Sex and Booze

Anwar’s Sodomy Case

Perhaps he should have just said, ‘salah aim la boss’.

And if he is accused of doing the deed with a man, he could say,

‘really really salah aim la boss’.


Malaysia canes three women over extramarital sex

“"The punishment is to teach and give a chance to those who have fallen off the path to return and build a better life in future,”

I’ve heard of ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’, but ‘spare the rod and spoil the adult’?!


At the neighbourhood OJS minimart

The boss asks me why i don’t buy beer everyday (since I only buy every other day as one bottle lasts me 2 days). I say, can lah boss, you bring the price down by 50% and then i buy every day.



ed

What might contribute to the rise in Social Tensions in the face of ‘foreigners’

Temasek Review, in an article citing a Buddhist monk’s doubts ‘over the usefulness of inter-faith dialogue to prevent another Rony Tan fiasco’, ended off with,

“...With the combustible situation exacerbated by the relentless influx of foreigners in Singapore, the social tension in Singapore society is set to grow in the years ahead.”

I really don’t see what the ‘relentless influx of foreigners in Singapore’ has to do with the Rony affair. Or perhaps TR believes that most of these foreigners might be members of Rony’s denomination? Hmm, sometimes, given the xenophobia that is pervasive amongst oppositional elements, i’m inclined to think that ‘the relentless influx of foreigners in Singapore’ should have been stopped when the local Chinese population hit 36%. Then, perhaps, all cultures would have been afforded equal development to the point that their fusion could have produced a more sensible approach to the immigration issue than is now currently being taken by most singaporean bloggers and the ‘new media’ saturated in perspective, by a singular experience.



If tensions are set to rise, according to TR, and I’m not sure if they aren’t contributing to it being a self-fulfilling prophecy with their stance, then I have to wonder after the basis for the tensions. On the one hand, the ‘opposition’ is not wrong in stating that foreigners ought not to be coming in to take jobs that locals can do because they are ‘cheaper labour’. In this sense, and this sense only, am I on the side of the opposition. However, by giving them my support on the basis of this reason alone might serve to validate their other ‘add-ons’ such as an aversion to difference, association of foreigners with crime, deviance and bad behaviour, and using this opportunity to rally all singaporeans whilst completely oblivious to the fact that local ethnic minorities have been subjected to the selfsame conditions in the face of the local majority as the majority are now facing from the ‘relentless influx of foreigners’. If I still gave them my support, that would simply indicate the degree to which my democratic sense is led by self-absorption, and that would be quite the paradox.

It is on this existing basis of self-centred bigotry that I place a significant cause for TR’s prophesied ‘social tension in Singapore society is set to grow in the years ahead.‘ After all, it is only natural for a people who’ve had the advantaged end of the stick to take issue with a ‘relentless’ and ‘foreign’ threat to their accustomed comfort as the preferred sector of society.

I stated once that there must have been something really good about British society for the ‘relentless influx of foreigners’ to have many ‘white’ defenders, just as there must have been something really bad about Singaporean society for precious few to take issue with bloggers and the ‘new media’s’ fascist stance against difference. Even if it was a purely economically pragmatic stance, their stance will still be a self-absorbed one given that the vociferousness afforded this situation was not similarly paid to the interests of ethnic minorities. This ‘something really bad’ is quite easy to discern. Just look at the existing and decades-long apathy of the masses and the ‘opposition’ in the face of the marginalisation of ethnic minorities, and then you can tell why few, if any, take on an egalitarian approach toward the immigrants of today - other than a2ed, no other site in this country has been vociferous on this issue. They are well practiced in bigotry, and hence, they would naturally take issue with foreigners from much of the stance that they do.

I remarked to a Chinese mate and my confidante, V, (a chinese girl from singapore) not too long ago that the reason for Temasek Review’s popularity is that they are populist, fascist, and racist - as evidenced by their stance toward immigration, their oversights when it comes to the interests of ethnic minorities, amongst others. Just look at the number of hits and comments they get, compared to The Online Citizen which is not blatantly fascist and racist. If democracy ever comes to Singapore, you can be sure that it is going to be of the fascist variety where people are following hallowed leaders like mindless sheep and one culture is lauded over all others. All that is going to happen is that the advantaged are going to gather more advantages for themselves whilst the relatively disadvantaged will look forward to having more than they were previously accustomed to due to trickle-down effects. That is why the likes of Jacob69er, Seelan Palay, Carlos Abdullah, amongst others, are as consistent and similar in their oversights to that of all of the opposition, and are probably fighting for the reinstatement of their 2nd class status as the influx of foreigners pushes them down to a 3rd. Malcolm X might term them ‘house negroes’. I would be inclined to do the same as well.

When you put all of the above together, and if social tensions rise, we can be sure that it is more than pure economic pragmatism that is inspiring it. I don’t know what TR means exactly by ‘social tensions’. Perhaps they are leaving it as a blank cheque so that whatever happens, it can be blamed on the government as opposed to the existing bigotries and self-absorption of the nation as a whole. Then again, given their demonisation of foreigners, and the chorus of head-nods from ‘netizens’, we could plausibly assume that this is a veiled threat to foreigners themselves. If they are referring to tensions between new and old foreigners/Malays, you can rest assured that a2ed will be on the side of the new foreigners. You’ll have to get past me to get to them. For they are today as were your forefathers of yesteryear. And if i shirk my duty to stand by them, it would be akin to going against your forefathers. In that sense, my defence of the new foreigners is a defence of the forefathers of non-native singaporeans.

Perhaps the opposition ought to practice some magnanimity as did the Malays in the face of the relentless influx of your forefathers. If they had kicked up as much fuss as yourselves when the PRCs and Indian national population a hundred years ago hit 36% in total, you might not be here today. Sure some riots broke out then, but don’t think the situation is similar. The Malays were not holding the reins of government, and they were severely disadvantaged as they hailed from a more communal strain of humanity and weren’t versed in the ‘dog eat dog’ art of capitalism (thus they myth that ‘Malays are lazy’), whilst fully aware that Singapore was their ancestral home for thousands of years. But instead, they were excluded from top positions. What if all local singaporeans are from hereon excluded from top positions in favour of the new foreigners? From your current position, perhaps you could begin to understand the past, and realise the wrongs we have committed. We need a major perspectival shift, far more major than that afforded the Singapore Flyer on the advice of feng shui masters.

I think this whole situation calls for an overly-delayed critical introspection on the part of all Singaporeans, new or otherwise. Too much self-absorption, too many racists, too many fascists, and too few egalitarians. If we appreciate all of the above, we might achieve a cultural epiphany and that might swing the Singaporean experience back to the trajectory it was on in the 70s and start producing real Singaporeans, whom were very much an amalgam of the Malays, Indians and Chinese, in persona, if not in sight. Then, when we look at foreigners, we might deem it more appropriate to term them ‘new Singaporeans’, and thus, inciting our own reflexive empathetic appreciation of their condition, and from then, being more focused on the true causes of just about all social evils.


a2,

ed

So some homosexuals want to be protected under the Sedition Act, well...

So some homosexuals want to be protected under the Sedition Act because they view themselves as a group with the selfsame rights to have their sensitivities molly coddled as are other groups.

One blogger, Solo Bear, has suggested that they do not qualify as a group that is on the same ‘league of religions’, and that unless they do, they cannot be afforded the protection of the Sedition Act.

My response, posted as a ‘comment’ on the relevant site :



“Quite well argued Solo Bear. However, your argument is quite Confucian in approach.

The basis for your view is that homosexuals (i don't like the word 'gay' as i think it an unjust appropriation of the word, which means 'happy'. So what are heterosexuals then?) need to conform to the requirements of the Sedition Act to be afforded its molly coddling. In other words, we have to work our way around existing laws and conventions. That is quite typical of the Confucian approach toward life where people(mostly chinese and those whom are pro-capitalism) make the best out of a bad situation as opposed to getting rid of, or amending, the overarching bad situation.

Rules and Laws can and ought to be changed in the face of a changing milieu. So if homosexuals do not qualify for protection under the current criteria for groups worthy of protection, that would be due to the oversights of the past having knock-on effects on the formulation of the laws of today.

For instance, when protecting particular endangered species of animals, or animal rights, ought we to insist that they first get upstanding, speak in human tongue, be able to sit cross-legged whilst sipping an overpriced latte and expounding upon America's pro-Zionist stance before they are afforded the protection of the law?

I'm sure you get my point.”


However, my point of contention with the homosexual movement for protection as a ‘sexual minority’ is that, whilst every group is going on about its sensitivities, very few are going on about the need to consider various views and not take issue with anyone who takes issue with theirs. I’m not into ‘sensitivity’ as I deem it quite childish and indicative of a cognitively retarded mindset that is averse to the novel or poses any threat to the basis upon which we base our self-esteem and identity, however weak and ill-formed - this of course does not refer to blatant insults or that which insults and diminishes another via exclusion.

Too much ado has been made of ‘sensitivity’. ‘Sensitivity’ is a double-edged sword that, whilst enabling a particular group to feel good about themselves, also protects ones penchant for the familiar, prejudices, biases, and so on. This can translate to the maintenance of an inegalitarian status quo that is, by law, entitled to our ‘sensitivity-cum-silence’. Hence, in the past, women might have been deemed ‘insensitive’ when they questioned the patriarchal society, or enslaved Africans, the right of ‘white’ dominance over their people, or a the culture of a household that abides by the dictum, ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’.

We have to ensure that whilst we clamour for ‘sensitivity’ toward our faith, ‘race’, culture, sexual preference, or the right to don jeans for the sake of exposing our boxers without critique, we do not marginalise the human potential to forward constructive criticism in the face of any phenomena. In that, I would recommend that the Sedition Act afford those forwarding constructive criticism its protection against the short-sighted use of the Sedition Act.


a2,

ed

Race & Representation, in response to P65 & TR

The following are a2ed's responses, and placed as 'comments' on their respective sites, to statements by P65 & Temasek Review.


P65, Gong Xi Fa Cai!

The “Yu Sheng” or “Lou Hei” is a traditional dish partaken during reunion dinners or gatherings during Chinese New Year.

It is a dish i dearly miss as i spend yet another Chinese New Year away from family in a distant land. But even as i reflect on this dish that i miss, i am amazed at how different ingredients of different qualities and traits come together to make such a unique and tasty dish.

I am reminded as well of the social fabric we have in Singapore and how different peoples, races, religions, cultures all converge together to form one unique Singapore.

Without further ado, on behalf of the P65 blog, i would like to wish all our readers a prosperous and happy Chinese New Year and to those who are not celebrating CNY, a happy holidays!

Gong Xi Fa Cai!


ed:

Nonsense. You’re probably ignorant enough of other cultures to think that ’singaporean’ culture is a fusion of all local cultures. The Malay culture has been left to express itself within the Malay community, and Indian culture has been diluted to the point that many are just Confucians with another epidermal tincture. What has taken place is assimilation as opposed to integration. The evidence is overwhelming. It takes exceptional self-absorption, and an internalised fascist mindset, to not appreciate it.



The fact that ‘eating, gambling, shopping’ is a ‘national pastime, ‘national integration night’ being held on the last day of the CNY period, ‘chun’ being stuck on the Singapore flyer, amongst a myriad and multitude of others, indicates something does it not. But one has to not be a racist and a fascist to see it.

An intelligent mind, however, will realise that the only aspects of Malay or Indian culture that has been adopted is that which does not conflict with the traditional taste of the Chinese. All others have been ignored and marginalised into non-existence.


Temasek Review, Temasek Review to set up subsection on Korean TV drama

As part of its continued efforts to expand its readership base and to reach out to apolitical Singaporeans, the Temasek Review will be setting up a subsection under “Entertainment” on Korean TV drama.


ed:
I can understand the reason why you might dangle the trivial to encourage consideration for the significant.

But i have to wonder if this does not simultaneously reinforce existing cultural introversion amongst the Chinese - as does Singaporedaily's racist and sexist 'daily chiobu' section.




a2ed

To the 'Opposition' : The meaning of 'maintaining harmony'

In the days following the 3 Chinese teenagers and the Rony affair, there’s much that’s been said about the need ‘to maintain religious and racial harmony’.

To all those whom are inclined to make such a statement; or to observe that the government has done an admirable job in maintaining it; or that the harmony that’s been for quite a while must be ‘maintained’ - all of which i’ve come across amongst ‘neitzens’ - remember this, there is a great difference between maintaining a harmony despite the religious and racial status quo and maintaining it in respect of an egalitarian religious and racial status quo, just as there is a great difference between tolerance-cum-sensitivity and appreciation-cum-respect. Till the latter is proven to be true, the former can serve to maintain a fascist and racist state of a affairs.



What the people have to ask - and which all oppositional elements are not inquiring after, including the ‘new media’ like the TOC and TR, whom all as a totality oscillate between nodal points within a web of xenophobia, self-absorption, self-centredness, and a grossly arrogant sense of complacency emerging from the knowledge that a majority defined along racial lines do not have to bear what the thus-defined minorities had to for a couple of decades till the influx of ‘foreigners’ - is, if the ‘harmony’ you seek to ‘maintain’ is a racially and hierarchically ordered status quo where everyone has learnt to accept their ‘rightful’ positions.

A2ed is all for maintaining a religious and racial harmony that is pursued in tandem with assiduous efforts for the realisation of an egalitarian religious and racial status quo. But where this is not true, A2ed expects the ‘opposition’ to afford this its rightful attention. I personally had written to the TOC to suggest a ‘race relations’ or ‘discrimination and identity’ section to explore these issues and educate a public sorely in need of it given the self-absorbed and bigoted stupor they will inevitably suffer after 50 years of PAP rule. They ignored this suggestion.

I’ll state again, as I always will, that the entirety of the Singaporean opposition, by their constant oversights with regards to these matters, by British standards, is nothing short of racist and fascist. In perspective, they are nothing more than a faction within the existing party and not a true alternative as they’ve never taken issue with the elevation of the culture of the majority over the rest, or the host of policies that have advantaged them over all others, amongst others. I’m waiting. Prove your worth as a Singaporean alternative, as opposed to bending over for a populist-style rectal anointment and validation of your status as 'opposition'.

Populism, sir, within an inegalitarian status quo is, oftentimes, the maintenance of the iniquitous legacy of the past.


a2,

ed

New Foreigners, Housing, and a novel approach for the Old Foreigners

Whilst i’m highly critical of the xenophobia that afflicts the ‘new media’ and many bloggers - who got their training for xenophobia from the previously practiced oversights in the face of the interests of ethnic minorities - I am not, when it comes to economic pragmatism, pro-immigration myself. I support the influx of new foreigners provided the following conditions are met,

They are not brought in as relatively cheaper labour,
And that locals are given first digs at the jobs that might be offered to new foreigners.

With regards to point 1, I would support the influx of relatively cheaper labour if the cost of living, HDB flat prices, etc, are structured to make it affordable for new foreigners, and these prices, available to locals.



So, these new foreigners, must potentially be able to purchase a HDB flat as opposed to sharing a flat with other foreign workers. To not do this is to subject old foreigners plus natives (local Indians/Chinese and Malays respectively - i do not, for now, consider either the local Indians or Chinese as ‘natives’. That will be discussed in another observation.) to similar strains as the NFs. But unlike the NFs, OFs and natives do not have a native homeland where the cost of living is far lower, and where they could potentially hope to build a bungalow with their financial gains in singapore.

What oppositional elements ought to be doing is not speaking against the influx of NFs, but demanding that life in singapore is made comfortably affordable for them, and that this affordability is naturally extended to locals as well. Not doing so leaves OFs and natives with similar strains as the NFs, minus the benefits of a bungalow overseas. If we keep the inclusive approach above self-absorption, we could head toward a reality where everyone gains at little expense to anyone else. But not doing so simply sets the foundations for us to suffer as everyone else, or even worse.

With regards to point 2, that is self explanatory.


The term ‘new foreigner’, as opposed to ‘FTs’, ‘PRCs’, ‘foreigners’, and so on detracts one’s attention from the fact that the bulk of ‘native born’ singaporeans hail from foreign ancestry themselves. It is this detraction that leads to the compromise of that degree of empathy required to turn a thus perceived disadvantage into an advantage.

The above is just a taster. I’ll let any true democracy-aspirant out there to make more of this little tongue-in-cheek observation, if there are any out there that is.


a2,

ed

Poor Rony

What’s with the constant furore on the part of oppositional elements on the net with regards to Rony Tan’s discriminatory statement. After his apologising to the people, the leaders of the respective religious sects, stopping short of taking a trip to Dharmasala to kow tow in penitence to the Dalai’s Lama, people are beginning to call for his prosecution, starting up Facebook sites supporting such a stance, and a whole bevy of bloggers rising up to condemn the bloke - you won’t find such vociferousness amongst singaporean ‘netizens’ when the interests of ethnic minorities are compromised.

But I think I can understand the knuckle-dusting stance of these fellows and fellowettes. Feeling a sense of their new found prominence given the government seemingly giving in to the pressure of the sans culotte of the oppositional movement, aka, ‘netizens’, they want to feel as powerful as the government themselves by doing as the government does.



Strange, don’t you think. On the one hand, they present themselves as an alternative to the government, and on the other, wanting to prove their strength as an alternative, they become as draconian as the government with various sectors of the oppositional movement calling for his arrest by the ISD, and a host of punishments. It sort of reminds me of those Chinese dramas I used to follow enthusiastically as a child up to my early 20s (Huang Fei Hong, a Hong Kong serial in the 80s, was always my favourite besides other 80s local chinese productions which me and my mother used to watch together) where the errant official, teary eyed and kneeling in front of the emperor, is forced to undergo one punishment after another before swallowing a Chinese version of Hemlock to prove his devotion to the Son of Heaven.

But only a short time earlier, ‘netizens’ were speaking out against the arrest of the three Chinese teenagers on Facebook who spewed some racist nonsense. Magnanimity on the one hand, and vociferation on the other? Why? Well, one could say, for instance, that the 3 were casting slurs on ethnic minorities and the ‘majority’ defined along racial lines in the Singapore of today were unaffected. And given the relative and consistent silence on matters affecting the interests of ethnic minorities, that might hold some water. But one could also say that there is more credit to be gained in taking down the prominent, such as Rony, and especially when they have been let off by the government. That would be double the credit.

Can you imagine if Rony was to now be punished for his statements, how this might feed the already bloated sense of self-efficacy amongst oppositional elements as opposed to if he was a nobody like the three Chinese teenagers. But this goes well with the tendency amongst the oppositional elements to worship the prominent, just as those supporting the party in power rally around Hallowed be Lee’s Name. It is thus to be expected that the fascist mindset, trained to rally around prominence as opposed to insight, would naturally prefer to take down a bloke such as Rony as opposed to the 3 Chinese nobodies.

What is a constant in both cases is opposition. In wanting to validate themselves as ‘the opposition’, it seems that they are going against for the sake of going against and failing to appreciate phenomena objectively, the need to do away with the ISA altogether, and the need for common empathy to tackle bigotry as and when it rears its head. For instance, nobody seemed to appreciate the fact that whilst the three Chinese teenagers were arrested for racist slurs, the 2000 or so members of the site might have said nothing, and nobody seems to be paying that point any mind. And in that, they are abettors are they not? And in that, would it not point to some malaise amongst the population of Singapore itself, given that they’ve been socialised within half a century of fascist rule? Being conscious is not evidence of one’s not being a consequence. It’s only conscious and conscientious critical introspection that alleviates the latter condition.

But that’s quite the rare tendency amongst oppositional elements who get a thrill from feeling significant by acting with immediacy as opposed to proceeding with a caution incited by the knowledge that it’s easier to suggest a solution than to not be a part of the problem. For those wanting to punish Rony for his ridiculous stance against Buddhism, ask yourself if the great Buddha would support what seems to be your vindictive and politically opportune position given that this misguided individual has apologised quite profusely.

What we should be focusing on is the generic malaise of apathy and self-absorption that afflicts Singapore. When one looks at the monocultural stance of Singapore, the apathy of the majority, the xenophobia of oppositional elements, we ought to wonder if Rony is not a consequence of it all, and hence, a victim of the said generic malaise. In that, wouldn’t his bigoted stance be just another denomination of the bigotry that abounds in this nation, and which oppositional elements themselves constantly exhibit via their oversights. How about we practice some Christian and Buddhist magnanimity and forgive this bloke. But instead of doing this, along with questioning after the Sedition Act, everyone seems to be wanting to appropriate it.

I asked a Chinese mate last night, after an invigorating game of Xiang Ji, if he thought that Rony ought to be arrested for what he said. He responded, 'well, if they can arrest the 3 chinese teenagers, they should also arrest him'. I shook my head. A wrong isn't made right just because it is repeated a second time. My ability to do unto others that which is done unto me doesn't validate what is being done. What we need is common empathy, and a questioning after of the fundamentals of democracy. We ought not to confuse democracy for the right to subject others to the guillotine just as they had subjected those of our pack. It is the guillotine that ought to be done away with.

What the best minds amongst oppositional elements don’t seem to realise is that there is quite the difference between tearing down the Bastille and partaking in its management.


Rony, a2ed forgives you.


a2,

ed

Was the support of some Indians for the Japanese during WWII 'anti-Singaporean'?

I recall, when I was in early primary school(St. Gabriel's), the Chinese teacher begin to speak about Singapore history, and then stated, that it was only the Chinese who fought for Singapore whilst the Indians either did nothing or supported the Japanese. I recall how I felt when all the Chinese in class turned to look at me in an accusatory fashion. I just kept quiet.

More than 30 years after, I’m surprised to still come across such views on the internet. Well, I’m not remaining silent any longer even if this offends the sensitivities of the racists and ignorant out there. Here is a byte of a2ed’s response to some insensible remarks on ‘3-in-1 Kopitiam’. It has been expanded slightly for clarity.



*

Jah Rastafar:

LOL kelings also betray sg but it's never mentioned.

a2ed:

Actually, since rastafar is too vitamin deficient to think straight, for the benefit of other readers, the Jap conflict with the local chinese was not a conflict between the Japs and 'Singapore'. It was a conflict with the Chinese carried over from the conflict between them and China. If anything, you could say that the actions of some Indians were 'anti-China' in consequence, if not in intent. The Chinese, then, were not standing up for Singapore, they were standing up for themselves.

You'll have to appreciate this period from the colonial context. Secondly, there were quite a few Indians whom supported the Japanese given that they were attempting to evict the British from India with the aid of the Japanese.

Singapore was one of the fronts where these colonialism-induced clashes took place. Chinese and Japanese mutual antagonism was due to their foreign relations, just as was the support of some Indians for the Japanese - though many Indians did die fighting the Japanese as well. There was nothing 'anti-singaporean' about Indian action when one considers these points. However, it must also be stated that the notion that Indian support for the Japs was 'anti-singaporean' indicates how those who think it view singapore as a Chinese country - including my Chinese teacher in primary school. Such people should be forcibly put on a severely leaky junk on a one-way trip to China.

Most importantly, what makes Indian support for the Japanese an alright thing to do was the fact that Singapore was then under the British. Thus, the conflict between the Indians and the British in India would quite justify their support for the Japs in Singapore. Just because Singapore was called ‘Singapore’ then and now doesn’t make it one and the same. It is the context that has to be considered.

Of course, those with the IQ of a dead gnat, such as 'rastafar' et al who post here wouldn't be able to think about these things. And i dare say that they wouldn't have the brass to repeat such statements to my face. These are the true 'keyboard warriors'.

By the way, i wouldn't lodge a police report when it comes to their comments, but i would recommend that they be reported to the SPCA for their rabidity.

*


a2ed

Considering Bloggers: Gopalan Nair, S’porean Skeptic

re: Gopalan Nair's, Singapore's fear factor. The hidden commentors.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Gopalan, yesterday, published a brief statement under the heading, ‘Say it like a man’, and advised commentators,

‘To all out there who comment on the Internet. Say it like a man, if you are one. Identify yourself. Who are you?’

I dispatched a polite comment stating that perhaps he ought to reword the title with, ‘Say it with conviction’, or something to that effect as the phrase, ‘Say it like a man’ is quite sexist. However, he chose to moderate this comment out of existence - along with another comment that attempted to explain one of the causes for that bemoaned in, a preceding article entitled, ‘Singapore's fear factor. The hidden commentators.‘ Perhaps he thought he was being upstaged.



I would not expect him to leave my comment there as it might not look good on him to have committed such an oversight and have his attention brought to it by someone whom has yet to earn the dubious accolade of being arrested by the government - to local activists, being arrested for political misbehaviour is not unlike a holy anointing reminiscent of the papal anointing of the Holy Roman Emperors of the past, or how, in Mafiosi terms, one ‘makes one’s bones’...i’ve often thought that if i was the government, i would make it a point to arrest the wrong people so that the people might confuse them for great leaders - but I thought Gopalan would have at least replaced the ‘man’ with that suggested above. Strange. I thought this bloke was into egalitarianism. But then again, it seems, at least from these instances, that Gopalan is quite the Confucian in that he operates by learnt biases as opposed to reason, doesn’t take kindly to contradiction, or receptive to novel ideas and approaches. That said, I have to give Gopalan credit for some of his other articles which are certainly of the right spirit.

Well, with regards to the sexist title, I’d say, c’mon Gopalan, Be a man, and try some Womanly empathy mate. I’d say you’re a size 10.

*

re: Singaporean Skeptic's, Changing landscape of religion in Singapore

Singaporean Skeptic, today, in a post entitled, ‘Changing landscape of religion in Singapore’, stated, with regards to the question,

“And will the Indian and Malay religious ratio continue to remain static?
I think it will remain unchanged for the ethnic Malays but not so sure about the ethnic Indians.”

Surely people can’t be that ignorant. ‘Indian’ does not denote ‘Hindu’ - or perhaps S’porean Skeptic meant something else. If ‘Indian’ did denote ‘Hindu’, then Buddhism wouldn’t exist. In case the reader didn’t get that, the logic goes, if all Indians are Hindus, then an Indian wouldn’t have started Buddhism, given that Buddha was an Indian whatever some pictures and statues depict. But then again, i’d say that Buddhism is one of the schools of thought within the Hindu faith given that Buddha was attempting to improve on the Hindu system and not subvert it, and utilised many approaches and concepts that were and are a part of Hinduism. Perhaps it’s people’s ignorance of Hinduism that leads them to perceive either as separate faiths. This is not unlike the various Christian denominations being derivatives of the initial one.



a2ed

Advice on Email hoaxes and Activism

I received an email informing me of the death of 7 women at Gleneagles Hospital after they had inhaled some perfume samples mailed to them. The email goes,



***

URGENT NEWS
News from Ampang Gleneagles Hospital Important news to pass it on
Please spend 1 minute and read on.... News from Gleneagles Hospital (Ampang) URGENT !!!!! from Gleneagles Hospital Limited

Seven women have died after inhaling a free perfume sample that was mailed to them. The product was poisonous. If you receive free samples in the mail such as lotions, perfumes, diapers etc.. throw them away. The government is afraid that this might be another terrorist act. They will not announce it on the news because they do not want to create panic or give the terrorists new ideas. Send this to all your friends and family members..


Warmest Regards,
Mei ling
Gleneagles Hospital Limited
Human Resource Department
Tel: 03-4270 3474
Fax: 03-4270 3472


***

I suppose that people, ed included, generally get quite the feel-good buzz from taking action with immediacy as it validates their significance as intelligent/good/activistic/a notable fighter against evil a la ‘Justice League’, ‘Wonder Twins’, Popeye, or Ultraman. I’m inclined to think at times, that the path to Hell is paved with the ‘good works’ of such self-gratifying individuals.

We ought to just hold off, at least for a moment, and wonder if we could possibly be wrong - all articles written on this, amongst others sites, are a result of a war against my own previously sacrosanct beliefs, and I’m constantly looking for new evidence to contend with a2ed’s current findings and perspectives. I suppose, one could say, that this is metaphorically illustrated by Lord Nataraja who dances the eternal dance of creation and destruction - and whom I view as a religious representation of the idea of Dialectics.

Advice

The next time you receive such emails, or are inclined to follow any hallowed leader or oppositional movement, stop, and remind yourself that you’ll never be smart enough to discern truth in its entirety. Thereafter, do what you will, but always afford your chosen path, leader, party, etc, the skeptical eye as well.

As for such emails, just copy a couple of lines of the message, paste it into the search bar and ‘google’ or ‘yahoo’ it. If it is an unreliable message, you will find identical messages being returned in the search results, and some of which will be discussed at sites such as, nuketown.com, hoax-slayer.com, or breakthechain.org. The above message, if i’m not mistaken, is about 7 or so years old.

Most would prefer to err on the side of caution, i’d elect erring on the side of skepticism in the face of my beliefs and reflexes. At the very least, the latter produces less spam emails than the former.


a2,

ed

on the arrest of the 3 youths for racist comments - in conversation

The following 'conversation' is extracted from 3in1Kopitiam, and which provided me with the opportunity to consider the issue further.

On a side note, I would recommend the aforementioned site to bloggers. The problem in a fascist state transitioning to what I would term 'democratic fascism'(as it is now) is that, amongst others, people tend to stick to their mutually supporting groups and not consider anything contradictory, or dismiss it as evidence of the critic's support for the 'other side'. Greater ideas cannot be produced where there is no dialectical result from the mutual consideration of contradictory ideas. 3in1Kopitam goes some way in addressing this by its existence.

Alright, on to the issue...



Raffles1823:
“Chinese teenage racists on Facebook or anywhere else should be taken to task by other Chinese.

Having an Indian complain against these teenagers leaves a bad taste in my mouth

If our children do anything wrong, its the parents who should take action, not outsiders.... especially neighbours...even if they were to be the victims of the kid's bad behaviour.

Let us handle our own kids in our own way. Other races, please dont make things worse by lodging Police Reports against kids....

Do you agree with my observation?”

a2ed:
Yes. That has been my point in quite a few of my articles.

Whilst people's attention might be focused on the 3, i'm focused on the 2000 or so members of the site who might have kept silent.

Without the apathy of the majority, the minority of racists cannot get away with what they do - whether they are teenagers or any government.

These 3 are the symptoms, and not the cause. In that, they themselves are victims of what might probably be an overarching racist status quo that produces, on the one hand, academic/economic/achievements amongst the 'preferred', whilst producing negative perceptions of others. When we promote one race and culture over all others, we are also encouraging negative views of the less preferred, underachievement amongst the less preferred, and achievement of the preferred at the expense of the less preferred.

I would, like yourself, prefer to educate the chinese into empathy as opposed to threatening them with police action. The former encourages moral internalisation, whereas the latter causes racism to mutate into more socially acceptable forms, i.e., ignoring the interests of other ethnicities and cultures which is the typical experience in singapore, as opposed to, for instance, the United Kingdom.


Goodnessm1:
Yes. Agree 100% is always the Malays, Indians against the Chinese. Whereas the Chinese they don't mine and would brush it off. The police would take such matters as serious crimes.

a2ed:
The Chinese might 'brush it off' as you might say because they've got the advantaged end of the stick. Every chinese in the country would know that whatever the Malays and Indians might say about them, they are still going to be representing the nation in beauty pageants, have a chance to be PM, be the majority in significant posts in the military and government, and always be preferred when it comes to jobs. When one is already up there over all, they aren't going to bother about the grumbles that go on below are they.


MadmanSG:
but is a fact that chinese use ‘ar pu neh neh’ as monster to scare their kids into good behavior? then like that must as well put the entire chinese population into prison.

a2ed:
Yes. I think quite a few have been doing it for decades. I heard it as a child, and my sister recently told me about how she went to Popular book store with a her kids and a chinese kid went up to her, pointed at her, and said, 'ah pu neh'. That is the singaporean experience for you. Nothing 'Indian' or 'Malay' about it (ar pu neh). But if the Chinese don't know how to check on the racist mentality of some of their own, or even the bigoted approaches by the government, people cannot be taken to task for assuming all of them to be a problem in their apathy-cum-racism.

I've personally experienced racism myself, by way of 'mama', 'black', etc, but what I find absolutely appalling is how other chinese whom are around just carry on completely unbothered. Whilst I have many chinese friends with whom i'm popular, I cannot but say their apathy is absolutely appalling. Psychologically speaking, this indicates a gross lack of empathy for anyone, regardless of race, or their deeming nothing amiss, and which indicates their own racist perceptions. Either way, it's unacceptable.

In the UK, i would not be able to have a negative perception of the 'whites' as whilst there may be a gathering of a couple of hundred 'white' racists, there will be a couple of thousand 'white' anti-racists to stand up against them. Can that be said of singapore? Be honest now.


*

a2,

ed

TR: Arrest of three youths for posting “racist” remarks on Facebook: Who is a greater threat to social harmony? - comment

source

“A more appropriate and sensible response would be to send the three youths for counselling and let them off with a stern warning rather than to ruin their futures altogether with a conviction – the potential threat to social harmony in Singapore is so low that it doesn’t warrant criminalizing it.”

Oh my. That’s not right. So should emancipation movements worldwide have been criminalised because of the ‘potential threat to social harmony’? There is quite the difference between an act that is criminal in itself, as opposed to an act that pisses people off. I bet the feminist movement, or the NAACP pissed lots of men and ‘whites’ respectively and created the potential for social unrest. But they were addressing deficiencies in the practice of egalitarianism. So we ought to leave aside the potential for unrest and law and order problems if the Cause is worthy one. The biases of the masses, whether they are used to it or not, ought not to be taken into consideration when determining the value of a Cause.

It’s too bad that this article came without an author’s name and was just presented as ‘opinion’. If not, we could have done something about getting the author’s fees refunded from her/is kindergarten school teacher for negligence.

“After fifty years of nation-building, most Singaporeans have come to see themselves more as Singaporeans than ethnic Chinese, Indians or Malays. We are Singaporeans first and ethnicity comes a distant second.”

That is because just about everyone have become culturally chinese - beginning with the those of chinese descent, and thereafter, others...the chinese are victims here as well, though they have the advantaged end of the stick. Ethnicity doesn't matter when there is none other.

And where the nation has been associated with ‘Chinese culture’ and the Chinese, whether it is by turning the Singapore Flyer in the right direction upon the advise of Chinese Feng Shui masters; or LKY stating that in 2 generations ‘Mandarin will be our mother tongue’; or Tamil being removed from signboards at the airport; or that ‘shopping, eating and gambling’ is perceived as ‘national pastimes’ when they aren’t the national pastimes of India or Malaysia/Indonesia/Brunei but quite the event in China/Hong Kong; or other cultures are kept to their traditional enclaves whilst Chinese culture is celebrated nationwide; or the last night of ‘River Hongbao’ this year being organised as ‘National Integration Night’ for new immigrants; and where all culturally produced difference is marginalised whether in the working or social milieu; and when all this had gone on for a couple of decades and all difference is eradicated in sound if not in sight, then we can say that we all feel singaporean after everyone has become Confucian.

There is a simple test one can do to see people see themselves as singaporean as opposed to chinese. Just try to be a real Indian with the Chinese and study the response. I've done that in the UK and Singapore. There was engagement and learning in the former, ignorance or allegations of being 'chong hei'(long-winded) in the latter. So, for the sake of 'harmony', I just keep my multiculturally/Indian-induced personality at home. That way, our dinner table, though multiracially endowed, conforms to the dominant mindset. Hence, and over time, people can begin to think that Indians and Malays are the same in quite a few respects, and then move on to asserting that this is 'singaporeans culture' where it would be more true to say, 'singaporean culture post-assimilation'.

If you want to see a people whom really saw themselves as singaporean and not OIMC (others, Indian, Malay, Chinese), take a trip back to the 70s to the English-speaking sector in singapore. They were the product of multiculturalism, not despite it - which describes the people of today, and that short-sighted and self-absorbed person who wrote this almost nonsensical article - i’m in agreement with the writer that the 3 chinese who posted racist remarks ought not to be arrested but censured by the empathetic majority, if you can find them that is.

“Though the PAP government must be credited with maintaining social, racial and religious harmony in Singapore....”

It’s quite easy to maintain ‘social harmony’ when you maintain a racial balance in favour of a majority defined along racial lines as opposed to nationality, promote their culture, dilute all others, and threaten action if anyone says anything about it. With time, all others, fragmented by the HDB quota system, would have adapted and accommodated their culturally-gifted personas out of existence - though I’m happy to see that the Malay’s are maintaining themselves given their communal nature - something we could all learn from.

“Some policies are also deemed discriminatory to the ethnic minorities and can well sow the seeds of distrust among them. For example, the influx of large number of new immigrants from mainland China who cannot speak English may cause some discomfort to our fellow Malay and Indian Singaporeans.”

The ethnic minorities don’t have to complain about that. They were already complaining, all those whom I knew, prior to that with the ‘chinese preferred’, and thereafter, ‘mandarin speakers preferred’ vacancies, along with media underrepresentation/misrepresentation, the SAP school system, the policy to maintain a racial balance in favour of the Chinese, etc, etc, etc. The influx of PRCs was yet to be at that time. It seems that the relatively advantaged members of the majority in the opposition, feeling the strain that the ethnic minorities have been put through for a couple of decades, are now attempting to enlist their support for their own benefit. Not much was heard from them about the position of ethnic minorities prior to the influx.


But what is going to be interesting, albeit predictable, is that the comments section following the above article is not going to indicate much awareness of all the points brought up above. That is telling, and not just of the writer of the article.

Empathy from the Chinese. Is that too much to ask? All they have to do is to be as vociferous about that which affects the interests of others - like the British do - and i’ll be able to focus on other matters.


a2,

ed