‘Nazi Scum’ SG?

Unite Against Fascism Protest against English Defence League, Bolton from Jinan Coulter on Vimeo.

It is most heartening to see the ‘whites’ in the United Kingdom standing up for those whom aren’t a part of the ‘majority’.

But it is disheartening to see that whilst ‘Nazi scum’ are being contended with by the majority in the United Kingdom, such ‘Nazi scum’, according to British definition of the term (and as illustrated in the above video), might be a significant majority in Singapore. And what is even more ridiculous is how the the so-called ‘opposition’, the supposed ‘saviours’ of the people, via their consistent oversights, can evidentially be perceived as ‘Nazi scum’ themselves. What with the demonisation of foreigners by ‘Nazi scum’ Temasek Review, or TOC’s, most bloggers, and the opposition parties’ silence in the face of xenophobia, self-absorption and racism in Singapore, one can conclude that Singapore serves as an alternative to the UK. As i’ve said before, living in Singapore tends to lead one to lose faith in humanity, whilst being in the UK, reinstates it.

If I was to draw parallels between the UK and SG, i’d say that the British National Party rules in Singapore, and the English Defence League serves as the support base and comprises most singaporeans, bloggers, and other prominent elements in the ‘new media’. The PAP went ‘pro-Chinese some decades ago; the opposition went silent in the face of the interests of other ethnic groups; and they and bloggers went pro-Singapore Chinese, and overall, the existing local racism sort of ‘globalised’ and sees these well-practiced culturally introverted tendencies being leveled in the face of foreigners in Singapore. The opposition parties add the pragmatic perspective with regards to foreigners, whilst bloggers and the likes of TR vilify them, or remain silent in the face of their vilification. Hence, together, they present a complete picture that can only be described as, well, I'm sure the reader gets the gist.

I’ve never been concerned about the existence of racists and xenophobes. However, what raises the brow, is the absence of significant opposition in the face of its culturally introverted ‘Nazi scum’ grimace.


[I was planning to be at this demonstration held in Bolton, March 20th, but due to some personal reasons, had to put off my trip to the UK. Never mind, I will be there for the next one.]


a2ed

Irate netizen calls on Singaporeans to gatecrash “Water Festival” with TR's support

Irate netizen calls on Singaporeans to gatecrash “Water Festival” organized by Bukit Batok grassroots organizations

Written by Our Correspondent

An irate netizen by the name of Aurora Long has called on Singaporeans to gatecrash the “Water Festival” organized by Bukit Batok grassroots organizations to welcome the New Year for the Thai, Burmese, Laotian and Cambodians living in Singapore:

After the event was publicized on our site, many netizens expressed their dismay and disappointment at grassroots organizations using public monies for doing so.

While they do not object to foreigners celebrating their cultural festivals in Singapore, many wonder why we have to foot the bill for organizing them.

One commentator wrote in disgust:

“When we go to the United States, do we expect its government to organize CNY or Hari Raya for us?”

Due to the PAP’s liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies, foreigners now make up 36 percent of Singapore’s population, up from 14 percent in1990. Of the remaining 64 percent who are citizens, an increasing number are born overseas.

As too many foreigners were allowed into Singapore within too short a period of time, the PAP is now having serious trouble integrating most, if not all of them.

To tackle the problem, it has unveiled a mega $10 million Community Integration Fund funded by taxpayers to organize events, seminars and language classes to make the immigrants feel welcomed in Singapore.

The exact cost for organizing the “Water Festival” was not revealed, but it is likely to come from the Community Integration Fund.

Ms Long hopes that those who are not supportive of the government wasting taxpayers’ money on foreigners to turn up in BLACK on that day.

[Source: Aurora Long's Facebook]

EDITORS’ NOTE:

The Temasek Review is only reporting the event and does not endorse or support it. source

Whilst TR might claim to be ‘only reporting the event’ and ‘does not endorse or support it’, that claim is not borne out by the supportive arguments supplied after the report. They supply a quote made by a commentator that basically argues for cultural introversion on the part of the nationals of a country, and then go on to speak about the context that finds dissatisfaction amongst the xenophobes and racists populating singapore. And the final statement,

“Ms Long hopes that those who are not supportive of the government wasting taxpayers’ money on foreigners to turn up in BLACK on that day.”

is put forward as if TR is making it themselves with especial emphasis on the proper ‘BLACK’ - in capitals letters - colour to be worn by those whom aim to ‘gatecrash’ the event.

This is immediately followed by a link to the ‘Facebook’ site supporting this fascist initiative.

When one takes into account the numerous efforts by TR to vilify foreigners; their remaining silent on the fact that the ‘native-born’ Chinese and Indians are themselves of foreign ancestry; have nothing to say about how the influx of ‘foreigners’ and its affecting the interests of ‘native-born’ Chinese is not dissimilar to what the non-Chinese have had to contend with in the face of the ‘native-born’ Chinese; the ‘Editor’s note’ at the end can be seen as nothing short of an insult to one’s intelligence. In determining the meaning of what is being said, we have to look at what is not being said. It is the latter, that adds the perspectival slant to the former.

These fascist bastards running TR, along with most of the commentators, and the perspective of just about all bloggers’ perspective on this issue, just about reveals the real nature of the singaporeans of today - and which is why i personally deem the term, ‘singaporean’ as nothing short of an insult today.


a2ed's comment on the site:

Well, we cannot expect anything less can we. The opposition, TOC, TR, and even most bloggers have become a mutually supportive fascist and racist organism. Not surprising since the whole lot of them have been racists for quite a while as evidenced by their apathy in the face of the PAP’s pro-chinese policies and the opposition’s silence, at most times, when it comes to the interests of the non-chinese.

The singapore chinese are extremely well-practiced in the art of self-absorption, racism, etc, to the point that it is to be expected that we get the likes of Aurora spouting such rubbish. She is, after all, just one example of the xenophobics and racists whom form the majority of ‘netizens’. When one thinks about it, there are no variants of ‘democrats’ in singapore, only ‘fascists’. Products of the PAP, all of you.

a2ed

in comment: the fascist PAP? Let's not forget the fascist Opposition as well.

source: seelan palay

It indicates the effort to subsume and associate the very idea of the 'individual' with the party and its ethos - as in, one being unable to exist without the party, or the party being the ‘first cause’ of all reality. This is not as well implied if a regiment of men were to march behind a single flag. This is further amplified by the sea of white (outfits) blending almost seamlessly with the white flags. In this, the individuality of those comprising the marchers is further diluted. In a sense, this goes quite well with the age-old Chinese ethos where the masses are generally inclined to act as one unidirectional organism moving in rhythm with the dictates of the ‘Son of Heaven’.

Additionally, it also gives one the impression of force by numbers, as the viewers in the grandstand, who would certainly be more numerous, aren't as well defined as one in consciousness as are the marchers.


Interesting.

However, rather than just focusing on these superficial similarities between the PAP and the Nazis, more astute minds would also be cognizant of similarities on the basis of traits and perspectives. In this, one could most plausibly argue for the fascist nature of the opposition themselves, i.e. with their hero-worshipping, xenophobia, oversights in the face of the interests of the non-Chinese, discounting of critique from the masses, etc. In this, we could say, that the agenda of the party in power has been achieved where the opposition, the supposed saviours of the masses and’ alternative’, is quite the living breathing example of the perspective of the proposition in many significant respects.


a2ed

Human-Trafficking in Singapore...please help us we don’t want to be prostitutes

Jocelyn: “I used to work in Japan as a dancer and we just dance. So when my friend told me I can be dancer in singapore, i come. But when we are here, me and my friend (she points at a friend ‘entertaining’ a customer at a nearby table) find out we must ‘landi landi’ (get physical) with customer and have to do ‘barfine’ (where a customer pays the pub anywhere between $150-$300 to take her out of the pub for a ‘night’). I have work permit for work here for a few months as dancer but I don’t want to work here like this, i want to go back Philippines, I don’t want to be prostitute...what will my mother say if she find out...For some girls it’s ok, but for me I don’t like.”

Sara (txt msg): They say they will nvr force us to do barfine but they sumtyms get angry. So whenever a customer comes, all i'm saying to kuya xxxxx is I hv period so I can be saved from the guy hu want to take me home.

Pinky (txt msg): We can work evn without barfine but when can we pay our debts (3000+ sgd) to them. So expensive. I think mayb aft few months i go back to phil without any mony. Tht's y i think mayb i no choice so i do barfine. But i rily don't want.

Rain (txt msg): “I’m still not doing the barfine thing. Just this morning we went back at the house at 7.30am. Our boss talk to the new ones. Becoz I never do barfine, he talk to me and ask me how i want to make money. I said just work except for the barfine thing. Really sir, I cannot do that I said.”

“You see we don’t have that big sales this past 10 days we stay here and he is blaming all the new ones. He ask us what is happening and why we don’t have customers. I said, 1st thing, we’re just new here, 2nd there is no one coming around the bar, 3rd I always encounter uneducated customers, all of them want to take me out but I refuse them. My boss get mad bcoz I never do barfine.”

Jocelyn (txt msg): "A lot of grils r complaining to this kind of work. Our permit is performing artist for 5 months not as a prostitute. All of us here wer like prisoner a clone without feelings.."


Niki (txt msg): My friend Janet she have a 4month old baby and she really want to go home so please help us(to take us to the philippines embassy) we don’t want to be prostitutes here bcoz we are not that kind of person...”


related articles:

Human-trafficking in Singapore...with work-permits
Human-Trafficking in Singapore...hitting the ‘quota’ - a txt msg story



a2ed

Human-Trafficking in Singapore...hitting the ‘quota’ - a txt msg story

The following are text messages received or forwarded to a2ed from a variety of sources.


“To all the gals today is sat and i have done my part of the promotion. If all of u gals bit 20 point and above, if u gals do that we will take a break tomorrow and lunch will be on me.

daddy xxx”

‘Daddy’ is how the girls refer to the pub owner. ’20 points’ refer to $200 dollars worth of ladies’ drinks bought for the girl.


Pinky:
If I hit my quota today tomorrow is off day! Tomorrow (sunday) I want to go to church I want to go attend a church mass.

Jackie:
The girls said we all have to reach our point 20 today so tomorrow we can be free to go out

Pinky:
(late saturday night) Huh until now no customer so maybe canot reach quota n tomorow no off :(

Sunday...

Jocelyn:
Goodmorning I want to go out they did not allow us to go now bcoz I didn’t get my qota(quota). Now I’m stuck here again like a prisoner they locked up the gate cannot go anywhere

Jane:
Please do an article about our job so the public will know really at this moment don’t know what to do we r stuck here


related articles:

Human-Trafficking in Singapore...with work permits
Human-Trafficking in Singapore...please help us we don’t want to be prostitutes


a2ed

Human-trafficking in Singapore...with work-permits

Jocelyn (txt msg):
"A lot of girls r complaining to this kind of work. Our permit is performing artist for 5 months not as a prostitute. All of us here wer like prisoner a clone without feelings.."


In the past month, I’ve encountered quite a few Filipinas whom have been lured to singapore by pubs by job offers of ‘dancers’ or ‘waitresses’ validated by months-long work permits, but whom, upon arrival are forced into prostitution via ‘barfines’.

Some of those i’ve encountered were enticed over by ‘well-meaning’ friends whom are currently working in pubs in Singapore with the promise of the aforementioned positions and for which they get commissions or debt-reductions for every girl they help the pub lure over.

Said one Jocelyn (not her real name),

“I used to work in Japan as a dancer and we just dance. So when my friend told me I can be dancer in singapore, i come. But when we are here, me and my friend (she points at a friend ‘entertaining’ a customer at a nearby table) find out we must ‘landi landi’ (get physical) with customer and have to do ‘barfine’ (where a customer pays the pub anywhere between $150-$300 to take her out of the pub for a ‘night’). I have work permit for work here for a few months as dancer but I don’t want to work here like this, i want to go back Philippines, I don’t want to be prostitute...what will my mother say if she find out...For some girls it’s ok, but for me I don’t like.”

(at this point she breaks into tears, whilst looking fearfully at the manager and bouncers hoping that they aren’t noticing, whilst wiping off her tears quickly)

In addition to this, some of the girls who refuse are made to pay ‘penalties’ by the pub - between $50-$100 - and these are added on to their ‘otang’ (amount owed to the pub for the cost of their flight, food, lodging & transportation to and from the pub that is slowly, if ever, cleared by their being bought ladies’ drinks priced between $10-$50). And besides this, if they fail to bring in their ‘quota’ of drinks per night - usually between 15-20 - they are further fined ‘penalties’ and these are added on to their existing debt. Some, even after a few months, would not have cleared their thus-increased debts or earned a single dollar. The pubs however, earn huge amounts as the ladies’ drinks are usually watered down alcohol or soft drinks disguised as alcoholic ones.

Where the girls aren’t directly forced to do ‘barfines’ - a new innovation by pubs in singapore - they are indirectly compelled to do so out of desperation by their not making any money month after month. Currently, according to one report, the ‘otang’ of some of the girls on a 5 month work permit amounts to $5000. Previously, a few years ago, it used to be around the region of $2000 for those brought in on a ‘social visit’ pass. Given this huge debt immediately incurred upon arrival, some of these girls do inevitably turn to prostitution as not enough ‘points‘ can be acquired just from drinks. Besides this, the girls are kept virtual prisoners and their only view of singapore is from the vantage of transport to and from ‘work’. At best, they might be able to get an ‘off-day’ on a Sunday every now and then.

This is an absolutely appalling situation.

Something has to be done about this. Whilst some of the girls are not coerced and, as 2nd or 3rd timers in singapore plying the same trade, are well aware of the ‘job requirements’, others, many of the ‘1st timers’, aren’t. But over time, as I’ve found the Filipinas are highly adaptable creatures, and given their economic condition, many grow to accept their positions and move on to being 2nd and 3rd timers. Sad. Something has to be done about this. I hope that the pressure of ‘netizens’, AWARE, amongst others may be brought on the relevant authorities to save the souls that traverse the nocturnal side of life in an otherwise 1st world state.

I’ll leave the reader with the following text messages received...

Rain:
“I’m still not doing the barfine thing. Just this morning we went back at the house at 7.30am. Our boss talk to the new ones. Becoz I never do barfine, he talk to me and ask me how i want to make money. I said just work except for the barfine thing. Really sir, I cannot do that I said.”

“You see we don’t have that big sales this past 10 days we stay here and he is blaming all the new ones. He ask us what is happening and why we don’t have customers. I said, 1st thing, we’re just new here, 2nd there is no one coming around the bar, 3rd I always encounter uneducated customers, all of them want to take me out but I refuse them. My boss get mad bcoz I never do barfine.”

A message received from another...

Jocelyn:
I’m kinda scared of this job...But I talk to them diplomatically, and they won’t listen, I go to the embassy.”

And finally,

Jane:
"Please try to write something about our work. I tell u there’s a lot more filipinas who are suffering in this kind of job here in singa4.”


[such pubs include those found in Tanjong Pagar, (former) Seletar Camp, Balestier Complex, and Orchard Towers.]

a2,

ed

Aware Confirms Feminism is about Feminists telling Women what to do, not what women want to do? Part 2

As discussed at length at a2ed.com with Solo Bear, I really don't see how Aware speaks for feminism as a whole.

One should be aware of the existence of a whole host of feminisms - anarcha feminism, radical marxist, black, libertarian, etc., and the singaporean variant, Confucian feminism (termed as such by myself for its oversights when it comes to the interests of women whom aren't a part of the racially-defined 'majority whats!'

Jack's wife may have chosen to forgive the bloke for his hump & dump tendencies, but the issue here should not be if Aware has a right to get involved, but if women who put up with such infidelities do so as perspectival victims of a preceding patriarchal status quo.

Anyway, with regards to the women whom, a la margarine, spread with little resistance for Jack, I have to wonder after the degree to which celeb-worship contributed to it all. In that, the congregation of fans ought to engage in a bout of critical introspection. The grossly insensible overvaluation of the 'star' tends to open up a whole can of vulnerabilities amongst the populace, and which, in this case, seems to include Jack's harem.

All this, 'you cannot tell me what to do, therefore, you're imposing' is so typically Confucian and juvenile, i.e. being averse to 'foreign interference in internal affairs', turning away in the face of contradiction/challenge/novel ideas(as do most Chinese), 'you're not singaporean so you comments on local affairs are discountable' etc. Wake up and smell the parallels that draws its lines from a generic penchant for cultural introversion and self-absorption.

I'd rather focus on the points made as opposed to spending my time debating whose business it is and isn't. Isn't that just another way of discounting information?


[the above was placed as a comment at the 'solo bear's' site]


a2ed

Lesbian, Homosexual, Bisexual, Heterosexual...makes little sense these days

Mathia Lee: “I’m intrigued by the difference between the proportions of people identifying as straight/homosexual/bisexual, versus the proportions of people with same gender encounters.

Again, I’ll like to seek your, the readers’, opinions on this.

What i’m specifically curious & hoping you’ll share with us all (anonymously) is this:

How did YOU decide which sexual orientation to identify/label yourself with? Am really curious to hear personal experiences & personal decision-making thought processes, rather than theories……..

Straight & LGBT etc all invited & most welcomed to share!” source

I realised, a couple of years ago, that I couldn't classify myself under any of the aforementioned categories as that would reduce me to little more than one having a preference for particular genitalia, whilst diminishing the potential of wo/man to be defined by more than their nether regions. I recognised that as 'racism' in the sexual sense. 'Woman', 'Man’...means more than the possession of a clitoris or an elongated version of it.

For instance, if i was to be attracted to a woman, but she scores high on masculine traits as opposed to feminine ones, wouldn't it make me a homosexual in persona? And as for myself, having scored a 107 in feminine traits and 105 on masculine ones in a test taken in England a decade ago, wouldn't that make me ‘transgender’, if not transexual? Also, looking at present-day Confucianised singapore, where men seem more like women and women more like men, wouldn't that render many men heterosexual by virtue of their playing the role of the 'weaker' sex in the face of a belligerent woMan?

It is factors such as these that render such classifications quite meaningless, unless one is taking on board the mere fact that it requires a female and male of the species to reproduce their mistakes into the next generation. But then again, such classifications can be meaningful only if we are reduced by the perspectives imposed by such classifications to be less than we could actually be.

If I was to classify myself under any category, i would classify myself a 'Lesbian', in that, despite my being a male by my possession of an obtrusive clitoris, I am attracted to those whom are high in empathy and relationship, as opposed to 'activity', focused. And given that I too embody such tendencies, which have been traditionally classified as 'feminine', I would say that my pairing with such a woman, if i ever come across one, would make us Lesbians in persona, if not in genitalia.


a2ed

Reply to 'Solo Bear', Ethnocentric Feminism

[the following is posted as an article as opposed to a comment as, well, there is a word limit for comments on the blogger platform. Solo Bear's comment may be found here]


Hello Solo Bear,

Your points are interesting indeed. I have to say that I quite agree with you and have written along the same lines in previous sites about 5 years ago. But your points do not take away the value of the points made in the above observation. However, it does raise questions that call for more than a modicum of critical introspection amongst feminists.

Whilst the spirit of feminism is egalitarian, the boundaries have yet to be determined conclusively as feminism constantly comes across new cultures and perspectives and tends to reflexively impose that which it deems to be the norm given the socio-cultural climate wherein it was born. This is not so much the fault of feminism as it is that of an overarching western cultural hegemony post-colonialism.

However, there are quite a few feminists in the UK who would agree with your views. Your point about the Hijab and cultural imposition has been heavily debated in the UK in academic and social circles, and in the press as well, and there seems to be a consensus that the Hijab is alright so long as the women donning it do not allow it to be a symbol of subjugation in terms of their appreciation of themselves relative to men. If some do take issue with it, it is generally because it is used as a symbol of subjugation by men in some climes and circles.

I too agree with your views on the Hijab. Whilst the Hijab may at times be a symbol of subjugation, one cannot discount the meanings attributed to it by women who choose to don it. For instance, a women who is a 'high flyer' in business, but who also dons the Hijab turns it into, amongst others, a symbol of culture, femininity, or modesty.

Singaporean feminists, given their being quite unAWAREs of related gender issues in the race, cultural and gender arenas (where it pertains to the rights of men and which i've take issue with in previous articles) can, i suppose, be described as the Confucian variant of the feminist. I've even at times been inclined to think that to be a 'feminist' in singapore is to stand up for the rights of men as opposed to women, given the generally weak character of the Confucian male relative to women.

I have come across your last 'test' question quite a few times in the UK and the UK press in the past and I can thus say that quite a few would agree with your point - including myself. The element of 'force' is overstated given that people can be 'forced' via socialisation to 'prefer' to exhibit more than they otherwise might, just as Muslim girls might similarly be taught to 'prefer' to don the Hijab.

As I have stated, ‘Feminism is about telling women that they can do and feel and want more than they’ve been accustomed to.’ That is irrefutable. But your points, nevertheless, are valid and calls for a refinement of an otherwise egalitarian spirit on the part of some feminists. Just as you have encountered ethnocentric feminists, I have encountered feminists whom would agree with you.

To say that feminists are as you state, we will first have to prove that intrinsic to feminism is ethnocentrism. That is simply not true given that the core of feminism deals with the right of women to partake in that which had previously been the right of men. Ethnocentrism, amongst others, are not intrinsic to the feminist perspective but a part of an overarching post-colonial mindset. All movements are affected by this, but with enough critical introspection, I'm sure that feminists movements will be rid of this perspectival debility - as is evident in the views of many feminists in the UK, and which includes both hijab and non-hijab wearers and Muslims and non-Muslims.

To stand by your take is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Your points are valid, but we'll have to be careful to extricate the intrinsic value of feminism and shake off that which compromises it and which is extrinsic to its core value. There is quite the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic value. In determining the value of any cultural phenomena, we'll have to be cognizant of either and study to see which is the core vs. the 'add-on'.

Thank you for your perspective. I'm sure it goes quite some way in refining feminism.


a2ed

Feminism is about telling women what to do, not what women want to do? Nonsense.

“Feminism is about telling women what to do, not what women want to do?”

Thus spake ‘Solo Bear’.

This, to the aforementioned, reeks of imposition and feminist authoritarianism, and to the untrained and historically near-sighted eye, seems a justifiable enough allegation.

However,

Could we apply the same ‘logic’ and deem Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Gandhi, Emmeline Pankhurst, amongst a host of other egalitarians, as imposing authoritarians for telling those they spoke up for to be rid of their chains?

It takes a particular twisted logic to deem it so.

Given the passage of time, socialisation, and the formulation of compensatory and recuperative mechanisms to cope with a status quo, people can quite get used to the way things are despite its unjust basis. Hence, slaves might get used to their chains; the Indians and Malays in singapore might confuse the fascist and racist opposition for democrats; and women might have sprouted enough callouses to not feel the pain of being rendered barefoot, pregnant, and oblivious to the burning cinders whilst stoking the coals in the hearth of the patriarchal home. It is then that perhaps, they might deem it an imposition if someone saunters by armed with a placard demanding that they deserve more, or at least as much as men, in terms of respect and opportunity.

I recall Ng E-Jay, a prominent self-proclaimed 'democrat' - though 'sino-fascist' would be more apt given his glaring oversights - deeming it an imposition when the now-defunct blog-aggregator, Singazine, issued a statement detailing how a democratic and truly blog-aggregator ought to be run. He viewed it as an undemocratic imposition and based his argument solely on the right of people to do what they want, or, in this context, for democrats to act like fascists and racists (probably a vitamin deficiency).

[When one blog aggregator makes an unfair jibe at another, So much for respecting individual opinion, Singazine]

Similarly, ‘Solo Bear’ deems feminism an ‘imposition’. Both have failed to appreciate the egalitarian impulse of either and err on the side of fascism by protecting the right of people to dwell in what they have been accustomed to. (however, ‘Solo Bear’, unlike most singaporean bloggers, has exhibited the egalitarian spirit in other articles, except for her/is ill-reasoned homophobic views and pro-patriarchal views as implied in her/is latest article on feminist authoritarianism.)

I’ve often said, in the past, that you can give a confucian an education, but you can’t educate a confucian. That is because they operate on the basis of bias and make sense of reality from that vantage, and discount all contradictory or novel information with a disinterested turn of the cheek unless it bolsters their views. Part of this debility involves near-sightedness and self-absorption. And hence, we can understand why some might simplistically view imposition as anti-democratic and stop short of appreciating the fact that being accustomed to 2nd or 3rd or 4th class citizenry is no excuse for its maintenance.


1. ‘Feminism is about telling women what to do, not what women want to do.’?

It would be more apt to state,

2. ‘Feminism is about telling women that they can do and feel and want more than they’ve been accustomed to.’

That is not imposition, its emancipation. Or should we not impose on children and let them do as they please in the interests of democracy? Should we give them the freedom to operate on the basis of learnt biases and ill-exposure? Democracy ought not to be pursued in a way that enables its undoing.

If one wants to insist that ‘1’ is true, one has to prove that feminists do not have cause to do the latter. We cannot rely on the freedom of choice to undo the effects of past proscriptions on freedoms. Without such ‘imposition’, history becomes little more than a movement toward the refinement of fascism as opposed to the advance of democracy.


a2,

ed

in comment, Yours Truly SG's, 'Cultural diversity in ancient China'

“Dear Dr Ong,

I refer to your comments in parliament as reported by Straits Times on 13 Mar 2010.

You pointed out the cosmopolitan atmosphere in the Tang dynasty capital of Chang An and the foreignness of one of China’s greatest poets, Li Bai to illustrate the importance of an open-door policy and of tolerance to a nation’s prosperity and the flourishing of its culture and economic development.

However, as cosmopolitan as Chang An was, it is doubtful that one third of its inhabitants was foreign like in the case of Singapore. So quoting the example of Chang An doesn’t justify the situation in Singapore where the percentage of foreigners is amazingly high. Also, while Li Bai’s place of birth lies in modern day Kyrgyzstan (rather than Kazakhstan), it was actually found within Chinese territory during the Tang dynasty. What’s more, Li Bai’s family originated from even closer within China. So quoting Li Bai’s place of birth also doesn’t justify a pro-foreigner stance since Li Bai wasn’t foreign born as far as the Tang dynasty is concerned.

While the Silk Road is a good example of the need to remain open to trade, it is not a good example to justify mass immigrations since the Silk Road was essentially a trade route, not a mass migration route.

You also pointed out the examples of the Ming and the Qing dynasties which ended up poorer for shutting up their doors. But those are examples that point to the danger of rejecting trade that has little if anything to do with cultural diversity or renaissance.

The most powerful example of how mass immigration changed a nation’s destiny is probably that of the Roman Empire which was subjected to mass immigrations towards the end of its five century dominion. The great numbers of Goth immigrants proved too great for the Romans to handle and when they finally rebelled, it marked the end of the once mighty Roman Empire.

We don’t have to look far back into history to understand how important immigrants are to a nation’s success. Modern day examples abound such as those of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Western Europe which show that prosperity and cultural efflorescence can take place without mass immigrations.” ~ source

The reason why the chinese, in general, aren't as intelligent as the Indians or the British is for their lack of cosmopolitanism and egalitarian multiculturalism. However, this does not apply as much to the Chinese in HK or Taiwan given that the former was under the perspectivally-advanced British for just over a 100 years, and the latter had to redefine itself to justify its separate existence from the fatherland.

I wonder if your argument is purposed for maintaining the traditional chinese closed-door/mind policy in the face of migrants and difference and attempting to see how far one can go given such a fascist/racist approach toward reality. Have you ever wondered why India is producing IT professionals whilst China isn't? One's logical skills are much advanced in the face of non-ignorable difference as one isn't afforded the luxury of couching oneself in the familiar and traditional. When it comes to logic, philosophy, wit, the speed of solution-generation, multi-angular thinking, etc, do you actually think that China or Confucian states can touch the egalitarian multiculturals. Absolutely not. It is not a race thing, but a perspectival one, and the latter of which is honed by a truly egalitarian multicultural experience. By the way, if India is not doing as well as China economically, it is not because of their multiculturalism, but the ongoing effort to balance the interests of the masses and that of the elite. In China, as in Confucian states, it is only the elite that matters, and hence, the trickled-down effects post-foreign investment, etc, comes quicker, but at the price of popular intellectual individualism and humanity.

As for your Roman example, the migration of the Goths is a bad example given the context here. The Goths were not advanced in terms of civilsation. That is not really the case with India which has had much interactions with persians, greeks, romans, etc, and had learnt much from these interactions as opposed to China whose main foreign influx included the Mongols and Manchus whom weren't as advanced. Hence, China lost quite a bit by not pursuing foreign interactions to compensate for its not coming into contact with advanced civilisations who could have given them another view of reality. The centralised education system and the production of ‘scholars’ whom were most adept at regurgitating the pronouncements of the scholars of old didn’t help either.

Opening doors to foreigners is a good thing, one, for the difference of those whom come in, and two, especially when they are from advanced civilisations. But in the case of singapore, the government is inundating the state with China nationals, not for its cultural vibrancy or popular intellectual individualism, but for their being trained to kow tow in the face of authority and working hard as a consequence - which gives meaning to the Confucian idea of ‘pragmatism’.

This is just a continuation of past pro-chinese policies, and an effort to get around the negative effects of privileging the local chinese in the face of other ethnic groups which made them quite complacent - as the malays in the malaysia - and docile as everything became ‘same-same’ and relieved themselves of the ability to think critically, consider differing perspectives. Over time, they were thus trained to discount all difference and counterposition - which inevitably exacerbates all of the above. Just as such a milieu would be detrimental to the perspectival and intellectual advance of a child if it was to applied within the family, so it is within the state.

[the above comment was placed at the aforelinked site]


a2ed

in comment, SG Skeptic's, 'Some Singaporeans are Real Bastards' - the meaning of 'Singaporean'

"Watching the way Singaporeans treat their maids made me think that some Singaporeans are real bastards. Even the maid agency is crazy." - article

Just curious. In indictment, would it be more apt to say 'Chinese' instead of 'Singaporeans'? And even if it is applicable to all, given the overarching Confucian/Chinese milieu and its inevitable impact on the perspectival development of all, would 'Singaporean' then refer to Chinese in persona if not in sight?

So when we say, 'Singaporeans are apathetic'; '1 in 3 Singaporeans are premature ejaculators'; 'Singaporeans do not have an opinion'; etc, etc, etc, that might just be a statement of cultural and 'racial' self-absolution. In which case, it would only be a matter of time before such culturally-induced traits are attributed to 'human-nature' because everyone begin to exhibit it after decades-long assimilation.

If we do not locate the source correctly, we'll end up plugging our arseholes instead of the rupture in the dam.


[the above comment was placed at the aforelinked site]


a2ed

Jack Neo’s Sex Scandal - Fools Rush In

These confucians are really pathetic.

As I’ve said before, fetishising tradition, conformism, uniformism, compromises one’s eye for detail and amplifies the tendency toward prominence-worship, bigotry, and being appealed to by the sensational and well-publicised.

Jack Neo’s sex scandal has ‘gripped the entire nation’? Entire nation of what ought to be the question. Jack Neo, after all, is just an actor, and a pretty rubbish one at that - it is not surprising that someone like Jack Neo can rise to fame as an actor in a Confucian state that is quite devoid of passion and vibrancy and hence produces the kind of minds that does not deem Jack Neo, Gurmit Singh, amongst others, as ‘great actors’...they’ll be lucky to get a job as waterboys on a movie set in south India or Japan - so I don’t see why his sexploits ought to be an issue. Now if it was the Pope, with his vow of celibacy, that might be an issue worth considering. All this fuss over Jack Neo engaging in the humpty-dumpty with a bevy of women is quite unwarranted, but most certainly indicative of the degree to which mere prominence seems to be enough to overvalue anything emerging from a celebrity, be it a fart or an extra-marital ejaculation.

As i’ve said quite a few times in the past regarding contemporary Singapore, ‘I live under the tyranny of mass stupidity’.


related articles

What does this say about singaporeans?

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

In Praise of Hypocrisy


a2ed

BBC Breaking News: Gopalan arrested on charges of bestiality

California, US: Gopalan appeared before magistrates this afternoon after he was arrested at his home in a dawn raid by Police and RSPCA officers.

He pled guilty to eight hundred and ninety two specimen charges of unlawful sex with animals, after it was revealed he had been interfering with poultry in a series of famous turkey farms.

In court, despite being asked repeatedly to keep his remarks to "guilty or not guilty" Mr Gopalan alleged inter-species discrimination with, "If it's good enough for the gander, why shouldn't it be good enough for me!?"

A spokesman for the RSPCA said, "We are glad Mr Gopalan has finally been apprehended. We don't understand how anyone could... treat a turkey this way. Perhaps the occasional gobble, but not this."

The turkey, be it the victim or Gopalan, wasn't available for comment though it is suspected that this is Gopalan's way of contributing to the off-season decline in sales of Turkeys, and perhaps, deemed to be a remedy for a receding hairline and early signs of dementia.


*






And we all know that the above is a hoax, and that the number of hits this post has attracted is not due to the popularity of this site or its author, but the similitude between the named in the title and a certain someone who recently released a hoax on Lee's medical condition(see 'hits' below). So if the aforementioned namesake found that the whole furore over his recent hoax was gratifying, it shouldn't be. And, by the way, I didn't say 'Gopalan Nair', just 'Gopalan'. The sensational requires nothing but the merest allusion to the prominent for attention, and is not reliant on the prominence of the site or person who forwards it. Besides the above being an illustration of this point, it also serves to show that it isn't very nice to take jibes at others' infirmities or poke fun at that them just for 'a joke' - as Gopalan recently did with Lee's 'false teeth' falling into the River Thames. A2ed is not a fan of the Lees, but we ought to just stick to the issues instead of just engaging in malicious mud-slinging for its own sake.




ed




the above is a modified version of the original: The Spoof

River 'Hong Bao' 'National Integration Night', a sino-fascist event?

[chinese character on a national monument (singapore flyer) further reinforcing the association between the 'nation' and 'chinese'- Further emphasised by 'Chingay' parade held in the Chinese New Year period, amongst others.]


That’s obvious enough to myself, except to the opposition, local bloggers, and the ‘house niggers’ populating either. Temasek Review, a verifiably fascist organisation, wrote about this event and how foreigners are going to turn the locals into a ‘minority in their own country’, and the government’s stance is seen as a ‘liberal immigration policy’.

Why are they afraid of being turned into a ‘minority in their own country’? Perhaps there is a subconscious fear that they would suffer the selfsame consequences as the ethnic minorities in singapore in the face of pro-Chinese policies and mass apathy? And just as the interests of ethnic minorities have taken 2nd place in the past couple of decades, are they fearing that they are now set to take their place as ethnic minorities move down to 3rd place? But this effort to speak up for the interests of all singaporeans is obviously an effort to garner the support of all locals regardless of ‘race’ and the inability of many Indians and Malays being unable to get a job because they can’t speak Mandarin or aren’t the same-same as the majority, so that they may be hoisted back onto their previously privileged status.

They take Lee senior to task for favouring Chinese nationals over locals as ‘hard-striving’ and ‘hard-driving’, but remain mum about how this was the very same reason utilised by the government to maintain the racial balance in favour of the local Chinese in the past. Where was the hullabaloo than? Where are the discussions associating the two events now? Has this incited any semblance of critical introspection amongst them in appreciation of the two? What does this say about the singaporeans of today and the true aims of those who kick up a fuss over ‘foreigners’ and how they are compromising ‘local’ singaporeans?

The most glaring oversight in the article by TR and its discussion amongst just about all ‘netizens’ and other singaporeans i’ve encountered is that there is no mention of how the holding of the said ‘National Integration Night’ on the last night of River Hongbao 2010 celebrating the Chinese New Year fundamentally associates ‘national’ with ‘Chinese’. Why not hold it in the more representative ‘National Day’ period. This completely and utterly indicts the oppositional movement, and just about all singaporeans whom haven’t noted this point as fascists, or more aptly, sino-fascists. It seems that whilst the oppositional elements are going on about their fear of becoming a ‘minority’ in Singapore, ethnic minorities, by their failure to appreciate the above points, have become non persona. It seems that the doctorate of James Gomez or Chee, or the double-honours of Kenneth Jeyaretnam, isn’t helping in bolstering their insights in these arenas.

Singapore needs new and true democratic leaders, but for that, we require a population of non-fascists. As the latter is obviously not true, given a multitude of evidence, the most we can hope for is ‘change’, but not democracy.


a2ed

What does this say about singaporeans?

For myself, i'm not interested in the 'sex scandals' of any celebrity. 'Sensational' always tends to sell, and sell big, but that generally requires the masses to be quite juvenile in character, and especially if more attention is not paid to other articles of insight.

In the Confucian singapore of today, what sells is, firstly, the sensational; secondly, that which is prominent or 'this one very popular one'; thirdly, that which validates one's views without requiring much thought on one's part; and fourthly, that which challenges one's views without requiring much thought on one's part. Break these three rules, and you're not going to stand much of chance to win singapore's SGblogawards.


a2ed

In Praise of Hypocrisy

“US anti-gay rights senator Roy Ashburn admits he’s gay

A conservative US state senator who has voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in office has confessed he is gay.....Mr Ashburn said his votes reflected the way his constituents wanted him to vote, not his own "internal conflict". ” source: BBC

If that is true, then it is laudable enough. Putting aside his own proclivities to be representative is indeed praiseworthy - or perhaps he liked the benefits that comes with being a senator enough to confine his sexuality to the disrobing room.

But then again, I often wonder why it ought to matter if an anti-gay rights or anyone for that matter lives a life other than that which s/he vociferously promotes. People might say, you have to practice what you preach. To that, I would say, ‘you are in a better position to preach if you’ve had good practice in that which you stand up against, especially if one is able to learn from her/is personal practices enough to learn about the evils of such ways, even whilst indulging in it - something like older persons telling kids that they ought to never smoke as it is bad for their health, whilst puffing on a Havana. I suppose children need role models who practice what they preach as they are inclined to learn virtues by its association with people they like. But for adults, I would say, the inverse ought to be true. To pay attention to the point despite the practice of its purveyor is a practice in being objective.

So what if Martin Luther King might have kept a bevy of women for amorous pursuits; so what if it is found that Jesus actually fathered enough kids to populate a kibbutz and a half - which might give ‘the passion of Christ’ meanings other than that promoted by the church; so what if a couple of his male disciples were engaged in some heavy duty and very energized workout atop each other in a tent within a stone’s throw of a proselytizing pharisee; so what if we find out that homespun-clad Gandhi was actually a multi-millionaire with a couple of thousand acres of prime land in the choicest locations in India; so what if we were to discover that Pope Ratzinger was actually a member of the Schutzstaffel back in the 2nd western-initiated world war; or that Emmeline Pankhurst secretly enjoyed giving her hubby the odd spank and tickle whilst clad in a stud-studded latex SS uniform and hurling expletives in German?

If we expect everyone to practice what they preach, it must generally be because we’d rather spare ourselves the tedium of thought that comes with the objective consideration of things despite its source, and simply follow the crowd rallying around some prominent figure like some good little fan or confucian. And perhaps, in these figures practicing what they preach, we, in a way, feel it alright if we don’t do as they preach so long as we can live vicariously through the lives of some saint and claim credit by association and party membership. In other words, we expect our hallowed leaders to practice what they preach so that we might be relieved of the need to think and just follow them for their prominence. And when they are discovered to lead not-holier-than-thou lives, to spare ourselves the feelings of idiocy that comes with following the prominent for their prominence, we shout them down as hypocritical sons of B&*$h#s.

Of course, some would say, we need to know about their private lives in order to discern their 'hidden agenda'. And by doing so, we will know if we ought to pay them much heed at all. But this just opens up the possibility of great ideas being discounted just because the individual is discovered to be leading less than a laudable life. Anyway, the 'hidden agenda' only works if we are inclined to simply follow this or that individual for her/is prominence, or leave the business of, say, politics to the 'professionals' and 'experienced. In that, we are relieved of the need to consider other views be they supportive or oppositional. It is, generally, only under these conditions that the 'hidden agenda' works. Hence, the fault lies not in those whom have a 'hidden agenda' but in us for being blinkered in our consideration of our ideas.

I, personally, would rather listen to the sermonising of the devil as he is more well-experienced in evil ways to speak about the evil of such ways. A saint may be able to point the way to the heavens, but a sinner is better equipped, by experience, to point out the snakes that leads to our slide down to square one whilst ascending the ladder.

As for hypocrites, I thank the Gods for them, for they, in their hypocrisy, force us to practice our status as adults whom are able to appreciate the point despite the source.


a2ed

in comment, Father Luke's, 'The rise of the individual - the fall of the community'

Father Luke Fong:

The rise of the individual - the fall of the community, a thought-provoking article.

French philosopher Rene Descartes who lived in the early 17th century is hailed as the “Father of modern philosophy”. The ‘individualistic’ revolution is generally attributed to his thought of ‘cogito ergo sum’ or ‘I think therefore I am’. It made the world sit up and believe, erroneously, of course, that the “I” is what everything should revolve around....

Maybe then, we can hear ourselves say: “Even though I may not be getting anything from Mass, even though the hymns aren’t lively, even though I may view some of the Church laws as archaic and infringing on my individual freedom, I still go to Mass, still sing hymns, and still abide by Church laws. Because it’s really not about me.”

Anon:
what a timely reminder on this article. There's no such thing as "pick and choose" or either You are a catholic or not. period.

As a catholic.. we must accept the the teachings of the church of the magisterium "wholesale" and not at yr whims and fancies..

ed:
Hi Anon,

If we take the church at its word, then wouldn't some of the evils perpetrated by the church in the past continue ad infinitum? I know that the church isn't a democracy, and shouldn't be one as that only serves to tether the church to the whims and fancies of the populace whom are themselves subject to socialisation within the socio-economic system. Given the above 2 points, there is quite a problem here isn't it.

Hi Father Luke,

With regards to Descartes, if i'm not mistaken, the only thing he realised that he could be certain of was not the 'I' but his ability to 'doubt'. This, in part, founded the basis for the scientific method which attempted to discern the means by which we could 'doubt' correctly. I do stand by the scientific method without question though, as i'm aware that the only thing we can be certain of is the certainty of the fallibility of humanity.

With regards to 'the rise of the individual' and 'the fall of the community'. I am, on persuasion by reason, a Socialist - no, i am not an atheist...that's an illogical concept - and believe in the value of the community that abides by the 13th Commandment of the Christ. However, without the rise of the individual, would not the individual be subject to the dictates of the elite within a community? I suppose it is not the 'rise of the individual' that is the problem, but the 'rise of the individual' within particular socio-economic conditions, such as those which hold the class-system as sacrosanct, that compromises the community.

If we were to all live within a community where we hold true and fast the 13th Commandment of Christ, and bring about the institutions that do not put obstacles in the way of its practice, then the rise of the individual would further elevate the community would it not?

I am, officially, a Catholic by the way (parish, Risen Christ, where i was an alter boy between 1978-81 before i was sacked for bringing potato chips to a retreat amongst a couple of other ridiculous reasons). But have ceased to attend mass since 1999 as i find the church in singapore to be more of an opiate than a solution - unlike the Church in the UK where the priest proffers perspectives on how we can live good Christian lives in consideration of the socio-economic system and whilst acknowledging the evils of the capitalist system. It was quite the eye-opener for myself. This particular priest reminded me of a Father Adrian Anthony back in the 80s whose sermons drew thousands on the first sunday of the month. Gone are those days with the emergence of singapore as a Confucian state.

Thank you for the above perspective, it is an issue that i've been concerned about for the last couple of decades, and in essence, I do agree with your perspective. Keep them coming.


a2ed

Considering Gopalan Nair's Hoax

Those whom are upset over Gopalan’s hoax posting on Lee Kuan Yew’s ‘heart attack’ ought to first restrain their angst and ask if he has raised a valid point in forwarding the hoax and if this point deserves the medium of transmission.

“My last post in this blog, Saturday, March 6, 2010 "Singapore strongman 87 year old Lee Kuan Yew suffers massive heart attack", was a hoax. But the hoax was deliberately written by me. It was a deliberate attempt to highlight how tenuous Singapore really is, with all power in the island vested in one man, and the dire consequences to the island of his parting.”

This is quite illogical. He has complemented a hoax with an assumed scenario and goes on to claim that the hoax proves the latter when nothing happened at all.

“I have received no less than 40 comments to it, with so many readers really bowled over as to what will happen.”

Many readers wondering ‘what will happen’ is no basis for claiming that anything will happen. One must remember that many, some of whom i’ve personally encountered, like to think that hell will freeze over and the pope will start reproducing like a hermaphrodite amphibian upon Lee dropping off the twig. This, if anything, only serves to add to the myth behind the man, Lee, and that his passing will see the hammer of Thor wrecking the earth with bolts of thunder whilst the land is plagued by locusts in biblical proportions. I’m sure Lee will be gratified to witness a portion of reactions in the nether regions of the political milieu before his passing.

“Is it not stupid that a mere blog like mine, which is not a major newspaper and not a news source of any major importance can be taken so seriously and cause such worry and uncertainly. I must say the overwhelming reaction to my humble blog about the Dear Leader is gratifying.”

No it’s not. It’s not his blog or its credibility that is the point here, but the bated breath with which Lee’s death is awaited in some quarters that even Pokemon’s blog might be taken seriously if the news is sensational enough. I bet if I was to release the news, ‘Gopalan Nair brought up on charges of copulating with a goat’, that would see quite a lot of hits and comments at a2ed, not because local bloggers, the opposition, or just about anyone else have the sense to appreciate the contents of the site, but because Gopalan has been cast in the hallowed glow of the media long enough for Confucians to flock to him - upon the same logic do prominent members of the fascist opposition earn their credentials, not by insight but being in constant sight.

“In fact I don't know anything. And neither do you. And that my friends is the story of living in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore. “

I’ll have to agree with him there. Especially when people come across as more of a product of the PAP than an alternative, and where democratic movements are nothing but an attempt to refine fascism as opposed to doing away with it altogether.

“Those with money will begin transferring it abroad, there will be a run on the banks, his corrupt friends at the top will be leaving with their money and their lives, there will be demonstrations at the junctions of Geylang Road and Mountbatten Road and Orchard Road and Patterson Road. There will be mayhem. And it will happen soon.”

I wonder if Gopalan is relying on the power of suggestion in the course of a dry-run or rehearsal as was almost the case with his hoax. If anything was to happen, it would probably be indicative of the people placing too much importance in Lee senior as to want to wait for his departure before being fired enough to picket and placard. That, actually, would indicate the possibility that a people who over-value a singular individual might simultaneously devalue each other enough to not do anything, or if they do, do so purely out of self-interest. Let’s not forget that many say that Lee is a great man because he ‘did all this’, whilst pointing to their surroundings. A people who can say such a thing are simultaneously a people who have no sense of the worth of the collective or themselves as significant elements in the movement for democracy.

“If not pack up your belongings and your families and fly Qantas to Australia or some other safer country. Singapore is not longer safe.”

Oh yes, I will certainly be doing that. Not because it is ‘no longer safe’, but because the spirit of the ruling party has found the people and the opposition as its host. They are all couched in the ‘safety’ and familiarity of the underlying fascist and racist status quo that they are incapable of critical introspection and empathy and are motivated to bring about democracy purely for self-interest without any appreciation of the fact that the latter negates the former.


source: My last post about Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew was a hoax. However it was deliberate.


a2ed

in comment, on the disabling of the audio track in Youtube’s, ‘Hippies Documentary Pt. 1’

ed:
IP is theft. Every production is a product of the consciousness of the masses. I understand that we live in a capitalist milieu, but that cannot whitewash the truth. Given the status quo, the most i can support is that every song should be in the public domain after the recovery of the material cost of production and a sum earned by both enough to maintain the cost of sustenance and production.

thoserandomaussies:

Freedom of information? Fuck you!! Currently researching the emergence of the counterculture for a university assignment and this is what I get?

I can't believe this shit, sure there is a copyright infringement, but I think information like this should transcend such limitations. Not everything has a dollar amount you repressive fucks.

I call this kleptocractic corporatism and I am not impressed

ed:

If you think about it, IP and ‘copyright’ is the bourgeoisie’s ‘counterculture’ in the face of the ‘Hippie’ communalist ethos. So this example ought to encourage you to broaden the scope and definition of your research on 'counterculture'.


a2ed

in comment, on Gopalan Nair’s ‘Lee suffers massive heart attack’ hoax

"And even if he did not have the heart attack yesterday and is not housed in the Intensive Care Cardiac Unit of Singapore General Hospital at present, if in fact that had happened, which I am sure is likely to happen this week or next, given his being a tottering old man of 87 years of age, all that I said is going to happen very soon.

Noone can live forever.

Those with money will begin transferring it abroad, there will be a run on the banks, his corrupt friends at the top will be leaving with their money and their lives, there will be demonstrations at the junctions of Geylang Road and Mountbatten Road and Orchard Road and Patterson Road. There will be mayhem. And it will happen soon.

My advice to those in Singapore with their cerebrums intact is this, if you can stand and protest the system, do it for your own good. Bring about a new Singapore. One that does not rely completely on an 87 year old tin pot." source

You overestimate Confucian societies Gopalan.

You forget that under Stalin's rule, when he dropped off the twig, millions cried despite his being responsible for millions of deaths. People tend to make sense of reality within the perspectival auspices of their leaders, and especially when they've had as long a run as Lee, and have their personalities reduced to the point that they can confuse economic affluence as reason enough to laud themselves as a great civilisation.

There are no true democrats in singapore, only fascists whom seek greater advantages for the previously advantaged. This bespeaks gross self-absorption and not much can be expected of such a people.

One ought to complement their attention to the blogging world with an on-the-street interaction with singapore's 'heartlanders', such as I have. You'll see another picture if you do.

One of the final goals of Confucianism is harmony after a people have internalised the morality of the rulers. Ask yourself if that has not already happened in singapore by what is said and felt by people and what is not.

As for this hoax you put out, I don't see anything significant has been achieved. You have just proved what people already know. At the end of the day, most of the prominent on the oppositional side of things have as much insight as that of a gnat. They serve the same function as Kings and Queens in that the masses invest in them that which they hope to be as opposed to said Kings and Queens serving the function of directing their attention to that which they are unawares. You people simply validate the masses for what they are, and in the hallowed glow of your prominence, spouting what the masses think, they are gratified. Speak on that which does not pander to their self-absorbed interests, and then you'll know their true nature.

You're a confucian mate, for not realising these things.


a2ed

What can we make of those whom call Lee a ‘dictator’...

...And whom generally go on, in detail, only about that which affects the interests of the racially-defined majority whilst saying next to nothing about that which affects the interests of the racially-defined minorities?

We’re just going to be exchanging one dictator for another, except that the latter won't be encapsulated within a single individual or party but comprise the masses to whom problems don’t exist unless it affects the majority. How different is this from the view of the ruling party whom appear to think problems only exist when it affects their interests.

What we are seeing is not the advancement of democracy, but the refinement of fascism.


a2ed

1SG - Why the 'Speak Mandarin','Appreciate Chinese Culture' Campaign is a monumental mistake

Well, the government has started yet another push to elevate Chinese culture again over all ‘others’. The ‘Speak Mandarin’ and a ‘new nationwide initiative to deepen the appreciation of Chinese culture and increase the competency level of communication in Mandarin. The Chinese Challenge will begin on 30 March 2009.’ source

My question is, as it has always been, where does it leave the Malays and Indians? Why is it that one culture and language is promoted over others in such a blatant fashion? And it is most ironic that whilst their promotional video shows an African child, amongst others, speaking mandarin, Malays and Indians are forbidden to study the language in this country.

Basically, what this does is to elevate the value of one culture over others. The advertisements illustrate the global appreciation of Chinese language and culture. Those whom are Chinese in appearance, if exposed to this from youth, will tend to identify with the culture and learn to be Chinese and be proud of it given the exposure it receives over all ‘others’. It is sociologically and psychologically verifiable that the promotion of one culture over another will tend to render its practitioners or those whom identify with it to take what I term ‘counterpositional relative pride’ in it. That is, feeling proud of one’s culture and looking down on others since the others are not given such exposure. And this is further exacerbated by promotional videos such as the above that tends to present Chinese culture and language as being lauded the world over. In the past it was promoted as preferable and an 'advantage' over other local cultures. Now, it is promoted as laudable on a global scale. Not only will this induce cultural arrogance and enhance the feelings of self-efficacy amongst those identified as 'chinese', but it will induce the inverse amongst local 'others'. Anyway, what is singapore doing promoting Mandarin on a global stage and not others? Yet another attempt to render 'Singapore' synonymous with 'Chinese' perhaps? But, as always, it is not those who promote such campaigns that I take issue with, but the masses who fail to see anything amiss in such culturally vainglorious promotion. Shame on them.




If I was Prime Minister,


I would give equal prominence to ALL cultures despite the numbers of any population. Why?

Firstly, when we give all cultures prominence, their practitioners and those who identify with the culture will have their sense of personal and cultural self-efficacy enhanced. When this happens equitably, they will develop their cultural propensities even further and contribute the fruits of such development to the collective pool.


Secondly, we will enhance what I term, ‘collaborative non-counterpositional cultural pride’. That is, all races will view their own and the cultures of others as equals and hence value each other’s cultural perspectives and contribution. (right now, the Chinese, culturalised to be Chinese, tend to view Indians as people who talk too much, ask too many questions, and not unquestioningly do as they’re told. The critical faculty of the entire population is thus severely compromised.)

I would encourage the Chinese to study Tamil and Malay; the Malays to study Mandarin and Tamil; and the Indians to study Malay and Mandarin. Why?

Very simple actually.

Firstly, people are generally more careful with culturally dissimilar others in business, amongst others, than similar others. For instance, the Chinese in China may be less culturally imposing toward non-Chinese from other countries than diasporic (derived from the word Diaspora) Chinese. Indians from India and Chinese from China may tend to view as inferior diasporic peoples since both nations are the ‘motherlands’.

Secondly, when a person of one ‘race’ encounters one from another race who speaks their language, they tend to feel gratified and become more amiable toward the other as a person. This is not the case when one encounters one of the same ‘race’ as cultural norms are imposed. Put this together in a situation between a ‘mainland’ Chinese in China and a diasporic Chinese, expectations and impositions are increased manifold. I’ve personally enjoyed positive reactions all my life with Singaporean and Malaysian Chinese and, especially, Chinese from China, when I speak Mandarin. I tend to get more favours and got things done quickly at work in the past.


Let me give you an example. In my late teens (2 decades ago), I worked for a short time as a labourer. One time, I had to deliver a heavy wheel-like item which had cables running around it. I approached the Chinese contractor at a construction site and told him in English that I was there to deliver it and where I ought to put it. He just nodded to a particular location up a slope. Then I broke out in Mandarin and asked him if he wanted it to be placed there at that moment. He immediately looked at me in surprise and said, ‘Wah, ni huay chiang hua yi ah?!’(wow! You know how to speak mandarin?!”). He immediately told me to stand aside and called his workers to do the job for me. In another situation, a Chinese boss had me promoted as a supervisor after 3 days of work due to my ability to speak Mandarin. I’m also popular with most of the China girls who serve drinks at the neighbourhood coffeeshop and get exceptional service. This was also the case when I was working for ‘Yellow Pages’ a decade ago. I was the pet of the Chinese female staff and this helped in getting things done quickly. Dealing with debtors on the phone, when they discovered that I was Indian, or when they came down to the office in a confrontational attitude, they would always tone down and be more amiable toward me when I broke out in Mandarin. Speaking Mandarin is not an advantage, but speaking it when you’re not Chinese is.


The lesson here is simple. Speaking any language is an advantage when you’re not supposed to be able to speak it.

Thirdly, locally, when people learn to speak each other’s languages, not only does mutual validation and consideration take place; not only are people brought together despite ‘race’; but it will certainly help to forge a bond that will, over time, lead to a singular Singaporean identity that is not synonymous with just one race.

Finally, being of one culture and being most open to other cultures – especially when one is not taught to discount other cultures by undue prominence being given to one over another – will develop in the individual what I term, multiangular thought. That is, we’ll bring to bear an arsenal of different perspectives in the appreciation and analysis of any phenomena. We will become acutely cognizant of detail; the tendency to discount information will decrease as we will have the trained propensity to ignore or discount that which is new weeded out of us; and we will tend to become more innovative, critical and inventive.


As I've said in other articles, to marginalise one race is to compromise the potentials of ALL. For the myriad perspectives that may be garnered from the development of ALL can never be compensated for by the development of just one. Sisters and brothers, let me tell you what the struggle for equality is all about. It is not the struggle for the elevation of the marginalised, but the struggle for the perspectival progress of all. For it is not the numbers of a people that matter, but the potential of even a single individual of another culture to add exponential value to the perspectives of all. The = symbol in a lengthy equation may just be 1 symbol amongst many. But without it, we will never have a conclusion that in turn serves as a stepping stone to further formulae.


a2,

ed


[this article was first published on 18th April, 2009. '1SG' image redesigned from the old Singapore $10 note by a2ed]

in comment, "Chee Soon Juan: We must believe"

Always listen to what's said, and what's consistently not said. Whilst in the UK people appreciate issues regarding 'the standard of living' along with how male chauvinism, class, racism, disability, age, amongst others, have to be considered so that people are not trained to feel and think that everything's ok when the 'majority' are well-fed, that is not the case here.

I have to wonder what's absent from Chee's 'beliefs'. Perhaps we ought to import some 'FTs' from the United Kingdom to replace Chee and other's of his ilk in Singapore.

The populist style politics of the 'opposition' in singapore leaves much to be desired. What populism amounts to is simply an effort to pander to the privileged of the past in pursuit of the perpetuation of said privilege.

[above comment placed at Carlos Abdullah's]


a2ed

Explaining Racism - overt racism vs racism victorious

People might look at the UK, and the antics of the National Front, the British National Party, the skinheads, the English Defence League, amongst other instances of perspectival decrepitude, and view it as a nation with lots of racism.

But having lived in the UK for half a decade, and spending quite a lot of time in the UK presently, I can conclude that it would be more true to say that it is the existence of egalitarian multiculturalism and even, at times, preferential treatment of difference (or disability even) that sees the racial supremacists and cultural introverts becoming more belligerent. Putting it another way, if there were no strong egalitarian movements, these racist or racialist organisations wouldn't exist, they would be in government and the people would, at least over time, be fascists themselves. This point is missed by most whom are shallow enough to just dismiss the UK as comparatively racist because the racism can at times be more overt.

Overt racism ought not to solely refer to the actions of those whom might be inclined to toss racist placards at difference, but the absence of the ‘racial’ majority standing by the different with arms akimbo. The latter point indicates the victory of racism to the point that belligerence is deemed superfluous. This, complemented by enough economic affluence to enable the disadvantaged ethnic groups to make ends meet, and meet with some modicum of a ‘majority-defined’ idea of ‘success’, tend to quieten 2nd and 3rd class citizens as they are led to believe that egalitarianism is true simply because a few amongst them can become 1st class citizens. The middle classes comprising members of the relatively disadvantaged ethnic groups will serve as the argument utilised by all to argue against allegations of racism. Toss in a figurehead of a president drawn from the disadvantaged, some ‘house niggers’ in the opposition whom are cast as evidence of the egalitarian nature of said opposition, and all allegations of racism is tossed aside and ‘harmony’ ensues.

The first reaction in the face of institutional racism is to do one’s best despite such conditions. The degree of success which one meets with in coping with, as opposed to contending with, such a milieu; the production of a middle class comprising members of all ‘races’; and the incorporation of the disadvantaged into activist groups not particular interested in the plight of ethnic minorities, is that which contributes to the nation transitioning from institutional racism to popular racism.

At such a time, the existence of harmony where the disadvantaged have gotten used to coping with such conditions, and the absence of overt and violent racism, is used as evidence of the absence of racism altogether. And with all 'races' gaining whenever socio-political gains are acquired by activists, they are detracted from the fact that it is only when the 'preferred race' gains, that they can hope for any gain.

But, in tandem with this, ethnic groups would have been diminished enough in terms of their unique cultural persona to not deem anything amiss as there is no conflict between what they are, in character, and what the dominant group is. And so long as not all of the ethnic minorities are identically disadvantaged all of the time, and with the aid of the socio-economic class system that fragments the consciousness of a racial group of itself as a class disadvantaged, self-blame, along with community self-help (along racial lines) can be relied upon to discount those whom allege racism as ‘troublemakers’. The advantaged group, themselves fragmented by class, and appreciating the similitude between the ‘races’ in that the working class comprises members of all ‘races’, will tend to themselves ignore such allegations. This, in turn, is exacerbated by the mutual apathy that is brought about in the face of monocultural and racially preferential policies uncontended with by all as they attempt to cope with it, and the 'preferred race' themselves not having to contend with such conditions.

Over time, the entirety of these conditions on the one hand, dilute the unique personas of members of other cultures to the point that the difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is closed, and on the other, leads to enough underdevelopment on the part of other ‘races’, brought about by the above and discrimination, to not be able to do as much than the dominant ‘race’ whom have had their sense of self-efficacy stoked and coaxed till they feel they can do anything, including holding top positions in the political and economic realms.

There is little or no violence in such a scenario, but that bespeaks the victory of racism. So when i look at the UK for instance, or the US, pre-Obama, I can appreciate the belligerence of racial supremacists and cultural introverts as they would not exist if there was not some semblance of an egalitarian movement. But, if the egalitarian movements win at the end, such racist groups would also cease to exist. But the absence of such racists can never be taken as evidence of the absence of racism unless it can be proven to be true that egalitarian movements had existed and become dominant prior to the disappearance of racist movements.


a2,

ed

in comment, Singaporeans ‘one of the most tolerant people in the world’? Nonsense.

The following comment was posted at TR, aka, Temasek Review, aka, Totally Reprehensible, but was automatically rejected. Perhaps it’s some browser problem.


Wong Kan Seng urged Singaporeans to be realistic and more tolerant of foreign workers

"After opening the floodgates and allow Singapore to be swarmed by foreigners without any proper screening or planning, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng is now urging “Singaporeans to be realistic and more tolerant of foreign workers....Mr Wong should be more realistic and not expect Singaporeans who are one of the most tolerant people in the world to make unnecessary sacrifices anymore to pay for the juvenile mistakes made by the PAP."



You must be joking. Singaporeans are generally self-absorbed, self-interested fascists and racists. There is a world of difference between 'tolerance' and 'appreciation-cum-appreciation'. The fact that it has moved from a Malay, to a multicultural, and finally to a confucian state 'swarmed' by local chinese - in view of the stated policy to maintain a racial balance in favour of the chinese - vindicates the aforementioned perspective. And if this isn't enough, the failure of the people and the opposition to take issue with that which compromises the interests of other minority groups consistently is further indictment of the fascist and racist state of the people.

I don't know what standards you are using, but perhaps you ought to take a look at the UK where the people are not only 'tolerant' but highly aware and active in the promoting egalitarian multiculturalism. In comparison, i've never met a single singaporean who isn't a narrow-minded, self-absorbed, fascist and racist twit (not only in terms of what they say or feel, but what they don't say or feel when they ought to). If truth be told, one might as well call singapore, ‘new Xinjiang’ or ‘new Tibet’. The methods used may be different, but the end-result is identical. When the opposition themselves fail to notice these things, all is lost.


ed

in comment, Pink Dot 2010: Homo Sapiens or simply Homos?

'Freedom to love'?

A thousand turned up for the pink.dot event in Hong Lim Park in 2009; 70 for the Abolish ISA event; and 40 for the 'Vui Kong we care' event'.

Even if all 70 in the second, and all 40 in the third were homosexuals, the question that begs to be asked is, where were the remaining 930 for the second, and 960 for the third.

That leads one to believe that pink.dot's 'freedom to love' basically refers to the freedom to 'go down' on one's same sex neighbour. Wouldn't that be a mockery of love and the freedom to do so outside of the boundaries of self-interest? I'd opt for the freedom to love another despite my not being able to sweat it out with said other between the sheets.

Where one puts one's homosexuality above humanity, that is when one descends to being nothing but a good-for-nothing-else-homo. The same would apply to, for instance, heterosexuals who can think of nothing other than 'the next shag' with a member of the opposite sex - i know a few of those cretins myself. I have no problem with homosexuals or heterosexuals, but either would certainly deserve a derogatory 'goddamn homo' or 'goddamn hetero' if they do not extend their 'freedom to love' outside of the boudoir to others in need despite not being sexually attractive.

Given the obvious self-absorption by the homosexual community, as evidenced by the numbers mentioned above, all I can say is,

..make up your minds. Are you homo sapiens or just homos?



a2ed


article/image source: Barnyard Chorus

Above statement placed as comment at aforementioned site

A Singaporean’s unhappy experience with the PRCs of yesteryear

The following article, published by Temasek Review, entitled, 'A Singapore Man's Unhappy Experience with a PRC Lady', and featured by Transitioning.org, yet again demonises China nationals working in Singapore. It starts off with an editor’s note,

"The below email has been circulating around in cyberspace and was forwarded to us for publication. For those of you who knows the identity of the author, please keep it strictly confidential."

This directs one to take the article as true, and therefore, the need to keep the identity of the author ‘confidential’. There is no reason to not deem this ‘email’ a malicious fascist and racist piece of propaganda, just as TR is. Their strategy is the same as most fascists and racists, (a2ed has been, and is, engaged in the study of such organisations in the UK, i.e. the National Front and the British National Party) will tend to pair an appeal to one’s economic pragmatism with the demonising of difference. I’ve personally had to put up with the demonisation of difference in the local context, but seeing foreigners suffering the same fate, if not consequence, is just about the last straw. The final statement,

"Please, my dear Singaporeans, look around you, what has happened to our country? Where have all these pests come from? Think about your loved ones and your other Singaporean friends. Forward this story and make sure that
they know what to do when the same thing happens to them."

The statement, 'Please, my dear Singaporeans,.....where have all these pests come from?' pens all these PRCs or 'FTs' in the same group and demonises the entirety by alluding to some examples. The same thing happened to the Afro-Americans whom were cast as delinquent in orientation where statistics, however, proved that the 'whites' committed more crimes than the 'blacks'. I can recount many instances of bad behaviour by the local chinese, but I suppose, to fascists, it is 'like that one lorr' or 'everywhere in the world also like that one' ('that's the way it is', 'it's the same everywhere else in the world') when we do it.

The following is a comment which i attempted to publish in Transitioning.org, but it was blocked for some reason.

*

Well, perhaps we ought to make more efforts to help the PRCs get a better economic foothold in singapore so that they might not see the need to resort to such methods of earning a living.

The same applied to quite a few of the forefathers of 'SGCs' who made their money from gambling, prostitution rackets, extortion, triad societies, syndicates, working with them whilst holding respectable professions, et cetera did it not. You can still see them sitting at coffeeshops throughout singapore. I've known, know, and get along very well with quite a few of them, many whom are ‘old timers’ now, personally, i.e, members of ‘Lo Guan’, ‘Ang Kun’, ‘Kun Tong’, ‘Ang Soon Tong’, ‘Sam Chuan’, 969, 369, 108, 08, 21, etc, etc, etc. Do these sound ‘Malay‘ or ‘Indian‘ to you? And I personally witnessed a gathering of the Toa Payoh 'Ang Soon Tong' at a neighbourhood coffeeshop a couple of weeks ago to celebrate the Chinese New Year, and had the opportunity to shake hands with the national head of the Ang Soon Tong himself when he came by my table to say hello to members of other gangs whom were sitting there before inviting us to ‘come eat, come eat’ - I had a bit...delicious stuff. To be honest, he came across as very humble and decent and i would never have guessed his other ‘profession’. And by the way, don’t ask me to identify this man as he has such a ‘normal‘ face and appearance that’s easy to forget - a very good qualification for such a post if you ask me;).

If you want to talk about ‘social problems with foreigners’, take a look at your own history and try a little empathy. ‘Getting whacked’ when you go into another’s ‘kampung’ by ‘pai kia’; Toa Payoh being considered Singapore’s ‘Chicago’ because of the pervasiveness of Chinese triads there; Lion and Dragon dance troupes being affiliated with different ‘numbers’; other races and even many Chinese steering clear of neighbourhoods, or observing a self-imposed curfew to avoid having their teeth kicked in by ‘pai kia’, and so on an so forth, these are not myths but realities that came about when the PRC population of yesteryear hit percentages of higher figures than the present. I’m forced to wonder how this might have contributed to the riots of the past, but it were the locals of yesteryear who were then marginalised. Perhaps Temasek Review should publish an article entitled, ‘A Singaporean’s unhappy experience with the PRCs of yesteryear’. Now how would that sound?

Let's not pretend that the PRCs are the first 'foreigners' to be ruthless and self-serving. Perhaps, if they had access to SAP schools; a racist policy that favours them as the preferred majority; enough apathy in the face of discrimination by them; have their children impressed upon by the media that they are more capable than others; have their culture celebrated with greater pomp than all others; etc, etc, etc, then, overtime, they might stop availing themselves of such strategies for ‘survival‘ and become as empathetic, compassionate, caring, and law-abiding as SGCs. What good for the goose must be good for the gander too right?;)

It's quite typical of people who've been used to their relatively advantaged status to miss the above points and be prone to demonising all others just as they've previously ignored all others because they aren't the 'majority what!'. In other words, people who’ve been trained to ignore difference will naturally move on to taking issue with ‘foreigners’ in such a demonising manner as well. Isn’t that just a more socially acceptable form of the ‘gang’ mentality? From ‘Kun Tong kia’ to ‘singaporean’. One gang to another, demonising or ignoring another because they aren’t a part of the clan.

To the 'SGCs', and, of course, the fascist and racist opposition, you've got a lot of critical introspection to do. Then, perhaps, you might adopt a different strategy when it comes to making sense of reality.



a2,


ed

in comment : What 'Singaporeans' are you talking about TR?

Temasek Review: Indian new citizen/PR told Singapore NSman complaining about foreigners to make himself more “marketable”

"How can Sinha expect Singaporeans to make themselves more “marketable” when they have to compete directly with foreign workers who cost a fraction of them?"

a2ed:

What 'singaporeans' are you people talking about? The 'mandarin-speakers preferred' singaporeans? The 'must maintain a racial balance in favour of the chinese' singaporeans? The 'speak mandarin and appreciate chinese culture as opposed to others' singaporeans? The 'mother tongue policy that makes one sector more marketable locally and regionally than others' singaporeans?

It's not very pleasant when the selfsame plight is visited upon you in the face of the new foreigners, but perhaps that could lead to the growth of an empathetic propensity on your part. Or has preceding conditions led to your being too well-trained in the art of self-absorption to care?

To the opposition, anything to say about this? I think not.

repost: Syed Alwi (Little India) Tourist information, an illustration of fascist racism

When I first came across this sign about a year ago - and to which I've alluded to in this site intermittently - I was thoroughly taken aback. I kept silent and directed a couple of local Chinese mates whom were with me to take a look at it. After they had read through it, I asked them what they thought about it and if they saw anything amiss. They looked at me as if wondering why I would ask such a question. I smiled, and asked, "What place is this?" "Little India", they responded. "And the information here is about whom?" After a few seconds, as the British would say, 'the pin dropped', and they got it.