SG: Thoughts on the Formation of the Socialist Front

New opposition party founded by former WP leader Chia Ti Lik, went the heading in Temasek Review - a Totally Reprehensible Singaporean neo-Nazi site which is quite the discomfortingly popular site amongst the ‘netizens‘ of singapore. An excerpt from the brief report,

“A new opposition party – the Socialist Front, is being set up by former Workers’ Party candidates Ng Teck Siong and Chia Ti Lik.

An application was filed last month with the Registry of Societies, the Straits Times reports. It is not revealed who the other applicants are. ~ Temasek Review”

ed’s comment at the aforelinked site:

Is this a posthumous April 1st joke? If not, I can’t wait to see your manifesto mate. ‘Socialist Front’? Fantastic. I was just speaking to some of my Socialist colleagues, being a member of the Socialist Party UK, the other day and was bemoaning the absence of a Socialist alternative in singapore. Well well, as i said, i’m awaiting the manifesto. What singapore needs is an ‘umbrella’ party that ties together the interests of all with respect to sexual orientation, gender, race, nationality, etc. If this founds the basis upon which all other perspectives emerge, this party will definitely have my support.

Best wishes,

ed

Furthermore,


I have one concern with regards to the formation of this party. That is, given the degree to which racial/cum/national/individual self-absorption has been bred amongst the Singaporeans of today, and which has turned racism, xenophobia, self-absorption and mutual alienation into culture, to what degree is this socialist alternative going to truly be an alternative.

I have said in past observations that the compromising of the egalitarian spirit in singapore by self absorbtion-turned-culture, the spread and reinforcement of legalist-confucianism amongst the people, and the ensuing ‘horizontal activism’ (where people view each other opportunistically so as to get around the hardships emerging from top-down pressures) that resulted, has led people to make sense of democracy in, well, an extremely legalist-confucian sense. For instance, the aversion to contradiction and challenge; viewing critique from an ‘you’re either with us or against us’ standpoint; rallying around the prominent and publicised as opposed to reason and insight; focusing on the interests of a race-defined ‘majority’; are some of that which afflicts the singapore of today. Hence, the ‘democratic’ parties of the Singapore of today are not averse to xenophobia; keep silent in the face of it; rarely take issue with racism, or even notice it; expect rank and file loyalty amongst members of their respective parties; ignore all critique or view it as support for the party in power; etc, etc.

So, the news that a ‘Socialist Front’ was being formed was on the one hand most surprising given the degree to which the ‘S’ word had been demonised out of the most of the public’s and oppositional sector’s imagination, and on the other, met with some scepticism on my part. It is quite difficult to suggest a solution and not simultaneously be a part of the problem if one has been reared within such a state for long enough to produce mass apathy, mutual alienation, and self-absorption at individual and group levels. So, my second thought was, to what degree would the Legalist-Confucian spirit possessing the people of the Singapore of today serve as a rein on the evolution of the socialist spirit in singapore? Or would the Socialist spirit serve as a check on the influence of the Legalist-Confucian spirit? Or would it turn out to be a refined version of the ‘socialist’ Nazi party of the Germany of yesteryear or the so-called ‘Communist’ party of China?

To some degree, the pathetic state of singapore’s oppositional/activist sector is due to the absence of the egalitarian/socialist spirit amongst the said sector. They are ‘democratically fragmented’. In other words, everyone is focused on their own interests and there is little cross-cutting empathy, and hence, involvement. They tend to agitate for equality only amongst similarly-interested minds. That is quite the contrast to what i witness here in the United Kingdom where cross-cutting involvement is Socialism ‘seen to be done’ as opposed to being ‘said to be done’.

There is an appreciation amongst the Socialists in the UK that an interest in another is an interest in ourselves as the development of the other bodes well for the elevation of all. There is an appreciation that the compromising of my interests finds its root in my apathy in the face of the compromising of the interests of another. There is, in other words, an appreciation that if we allow apathy in the face of your interests, i will reap dividends in the form of apathy in the face of mine. Overall, our individual group interests will thus fail to reach critical mass, in numbers and vociferousness. There won’t be enough cross-cutting empathy to result in truly progressive ideas and perspectives.

The diametrical opposite of the UK is the plight and culture of the singapore of today. Hence, I cannot but wonder if the Socialist Front is not going to be similarly afflicted. Of course, I sincerely hope that’s not going to be the case. However, when we apply Newton’s First Law of Motion - that an object in motion will continue along its path unless met with an opposing force that either deflects or stops it - in the political-cultural climate of a country, we have to recognise that mutual empathy is just about non-existent in singapore and hence cannot be relied upon to deflect the current perspectival trajectory of singaporeans. Of course, the Socialist Front may be that force that steers the nation toward empathy. However, we have to be concerned after how this party would itself require a push away from the general direction of the entire nation. What ‘force’ are we going to rely upon? I realised years ago that the human will is insufficient to motivate any directional or perspectival shift. What is required is the manipulation of the variables determining this shift. Hence, the education of oneself, party members, other parties, and the people of singapore is needed, amongst a host of others. Critical introspection, open critique, and not allowing our ‘oppositional’ status to be simply defined by our being against the government of the day, but our being in opposition to the unegalitarian spirit wherever it finds market - even if it is amongst the so-called opposition as well.

In discussion with members of the Socialist Party (UK) over a pint at the local pub a couple of weeks ago, I stated, in discussion about China’s ‘communism’, that whilst the socio-political aims of the communist party may have been well-intentioned, theirs and the people’s philosophical spirit was not. In other words, the Legalist-Confucian ethos was well in place, and especially so after 2000 years of practice. For instance, how is it that precious few ever took issue with, or noticed at all, that the 60th anniversary of the communist party of China is celebrated with an emblem of a part of the Imperial Forbidden City? Does this not indicate that the Communist party of China were not an alternative to the imperial throne of the past, but rather its new tenants? Whilst one of those present at the discussion termed China a ‘deformed worker’s state’, and which appears to be the view of the Socialist Party (UK), I said that it would be more apt to term it a ‘refined Legalist-Confucian state’. It’s sharing some similarities with the communist ethos does not mean that the greater similarities it shares with the Legalist-Confucian ethos does not compromise the former significantly.

The same situation may be applied in the case of singapore and the formation of the Socialist Front. I’m not stating this would be a ‘deformed socialist party’, but that its initiators should be well aware of those perspectival impediments that might just significantly obstruct its true deviation from the way things have been for quite a while in singapore. If not, it might just mutate into yet another version of the xenophobic, racist and self-absorbed oppositional sector. I have to wonder how many true Socialists there are in singapore to enable the party to maintain its socialist orientation.

We do not make history, history makes us. It is when we can remake our personal individual histories in opposition to what history has made us, than we are in a better position to make history.

If not, we might just see the Socialist Front being populated by Legalist-Confucians who again fight for equality amongst those they’ve been taught to view as ‘their own’. Given the populist stance of all oppositional parties in singapore, which just amounts to their being racist/xenophobic parties given that ‘populist’ refers to pandering to a ‘majority’, and given that ‘majority’ has been associated with ‘race’, I have to wonder if those whom might be inclined to form or join the Socialist Front would not similarly lead to the party being populist and pander to the state-programmed inclinations of its members.

This observation is not a condemnation of the Socialist Front, but serves as a reminder to its initiators that they would be attempting to draw support from a people whom are self-absorbed. Hence, there would be a need to educate its members, along with the people, on mutual empathy. Gender issues, race issues, issues related to the plight of the aged, physically or mentally challenged, class, amongst a host of others, have to be simultaneously and vociferously addressed. One should not just pay lip-service to these issues, as do other parties who just state that they believe in equality, but then just focus on that which affects a race-defined majority and hope that the fact that this impacts on the interests of other groups is evidence enough of their being representative of all groups.

With that said, I wish the Socialist Front well, but its the actions and perspective of the party that will determine if it is deserving of such a name, or if it is to turn out to be little other than yet another variant of its Chinese counterpart.


ed

SG: I'll tell you what the 'Singaporean' of today means

The following is a response to 'Kojakbt' at the fascist Temasek Review site. Further elaboration follows.

Kojakbt:

Right! Chinese or Indian Singaporeans are Singaporeans. We are completely different in thinking and outlook from PRCs and Indian Nationals. After close to 50 years of independence, we are completely Singaporeanized. The most important difference, we all got NS and reservist liabilities. These free loaders don’t… remember that…

ed says,

What nonsense Kojakbt. Indians are hardly 'Indians' in the singapore of today. They are 'chinesified' singaporeans. Not very witty, not too critical, quite inept at metaphorical and metaphysical thought,averse to contradiction, etc. Given the overarching chinese milieu, fragmentation of the non-chinese via the HDB quota system, the need to adapt to the chinese way of thinking in order to get a job or promotion, the saturation of the media with the chinese view of things, singlish being an amalgam of Chinese dialects and English as opposed to Malay and Tamil, coffeeshops playing chinese programmes on the telly, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc - do you think that any culture will not suffer dilution, or its practitioners assimilation? Especially after half a century?

Come on mate. Get real here. Being any 'race' requires a complementary and reinforcing overarching culture. Without that, the family or communal unit itself cannot contribute much unless most of the above conditions aren't true. There is greater similarity between the chinese of singapore and the PRCs than the SG Indians and Indian Indians. What do you think this says mate.

Your 'singaporean' basically means nothing other than the identity that emerges when the 'majority' culture is elevated over all others, and all others assimilate for fear of exclusion, or want of similar others.

Furthermore,

I had written in a previous article that Chinese singaporeans, or 'native born singaporeans' as they are inclined to term themselves in the face of foreigners, are, amongst others, a product of the marginalisation of difference; the elevation of China's culture over all others; the government policy to maintain a racial balance in favour of the Chinese, and, in consequence, the casting of all other cultures/races as relatively undesirable.

Chinese culture, or more accurately, Legalist-Confucian Qin(dynasty) culture (a way of thought and thoughtlessness inaugurated from 221 b.c. onwards....I prefer the more intellectually vibrant and individualistic Chou era that preceded it) in itself, due to it's focus on traditionalism, top-down control, subservience, and stressing that one ought not to question the status quo but to make the best of it, founds the basis upon which aversion to difference, conformism, innovative and inventive ineptitude might arise. The imposition of the Legalist-Confucian way of thought in singapore made the Chinese its first victims as it was far easier to appeal to the chinese to take on such a culture as it was the 'culture of their ancestors'. Additionally, their culturally-induced and already-practiced way of social and familial interaction meant that there was already an appreciable degree of 'fit' between the two. Culture did not have to be reinvented in the face of the cultural differences that existed in Singapore then, i.e. Malay or Indian cultures, amongst others. People could just go on with the business of life from the vantage of an age-old way of doing things.

But even though, I would consider the Singaporean Chinese to be its first victims, they were relatively advantaged compared to 'others', and hence, unwittingly, were used to reinforce the cultural and ensuing political status quo.

Hence, when the 'singaporeans' of today talk about 'being singaporean', they are talking about nothing other than an identity that has emerged post-marginalisation and dilution of all other cultures. The relegation of all cultures to the periphery of singaporean imagination; through the HDB quota system, the peripheralisation of other cultural festivities; whilst the culture of 'the majority' was centralised; the economic advantageous reserved for the Chinese; the production of a chinese elite through SAP schools; impressing upon all that the 'Chinese way' was the only way worthy of emulation via discrimination in the media and the need to conform to the emerging way of thought in order to 'get along', get a job, or a promotion; the mother tongue policy then ensured that more industries and occupations would always be the privilege of the Chinese, or at least get them to the topmost positions before 'others' are allowed to study mandarin (in the future), amongst a host of others, tended to put forth 'the chinese' as the standard for everything, and for everyone.

One's sense of self-efficacy was thus made dependent solely on its goodness-of-fit with the Chinese criteria of what was fit. If the 'singaporeans' of today differ from PRCs or Indians hailing from the subcontinent, it is only in terms of the complacency that the Chinese had been allowed to couch themselves in given their relatively advantaged status - not dissimilar to the conditions of the Malays in Malaysia with their 'bumiputra' status - and the others have developed their own coping mechanisms to get around the discrimination that thus emerged and was appreciated as 'natural' in a state where ethnocentrism is deemed to be the right of a racially-defined majority.

Singapore provided the Chinese a unique opportunity to bring about a 'Chou' era renaissance through the existence of cultural streams of thought. It would have bode well for the undoing of the uniform, traditionalist, subservient, and apathetic consciousness that had taken over the evolution of the Chinese after the Chou era. However, as stated, the marginalisation and exorcisation of difference simply served to replicate post-Qin China within what has today become little more than a perspectival province of the China of today. It's ironic that even Confucius preferred the 'Zhou'. And yet, he contributed to a system of thought that enabled it to be relegated to dustbin of history.


ed

Video: FIFA World Cup Theme, the uncensored version

ed

SG: Just 4 Laughs: Sex with Anri Suzuki? Sorry to disappoint, but...

I came across this 'news' at '3-in-1 kopitiam'(kopitiam - coffee shop) about 10 minutes ago.(a singaporean forum that seems to attract and is dominated by those whom are inclined to handle both the trivial and significant in a juvenile fashion - which is generally quite the case when it comes to people reared within a legalist-confucian state) The comments there bespoke a mentality that serves as one of the reasons why i often suffix the term, 'singaporean' with 'unfortunately' when I'm asked about my nationality. The section in '3-in-1 Kopitiam' comes under the heading, 'China to f*** Japan real good'. I must say that the singaporeans of today, when they attempt to get witty or opinionated, just end up being annoyingly juvenile.

Well, that's what you get after a few decades of displacing democracy with Legalist-Confucianism; multiculturalism with monoculturalism; and equality with bigotry. Anyway, I don't see why this should cause much excitement given that 1 in 3 singaporeans have been found to be 'premature ejaculators' in a recent study - though how racially representative this study was is another matter. I suppose tissues had to be broken out shortly after the headline and a picture of Anri Suzuki. That might explain why no effort was made to check the validity of the claim that Anri Suzuki was offering sex to chinese students as an apology for what the Japanese did to the Chinese in WWII as they were probably well on their 2nd post-masturbatory cigarettes shortly after said heading and pic. Those seeking immediate gratification in all arenas, and thus being unbothered about the details that comprise the sinews of the tapestry of reality, frequently don't bother to '2nd guess' the obvious - and which also contributes to premature ejaculation btw.

NIPPONCINEMA: On June 5th, Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Po ran a story claiming Japanese adult video star Anri Suzuki wants to have sex with Chinese students in Japan as compensation for Japan’s invasion of China in 1937 which led to the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Rape of Nanking. The reporter attributed the story to “Taiwan media reports” but was apparently fooled by a forum post by someone going by the handle “Sniper”. On June 9th, realizing the mistake, he wrote a retraction; but the damage had already been done. The story had quickly spread throughout Asia in multiple languages, and retractions are not typically translated as quickly as sensational news about sex.

In Japan, however, the story was shot down almost immediately. Suzuki posted an in-depth blog entry in which she refuted the claims made in the article one by one. For instance, she’s never even been to Taiwan and has certainly never given any interviews there. The fake article also states that Suzuki has a doctorate in Sino-Japanese history. However, Suzuki points out that she’s a high school graduate and has never even attended university, let alone earned a doctorate. The only part of the story she seems to agree with is the fact that she’s appeared in adult videos.

Given the nature of the hoax-inspired article, it was inevitable that it would eventually catch on with the western media as an oddball “wacky Japan” story. A few days ago, The Sun ran with it, complete with skimpy swimsuit pics and scandalous quote translations. Since then, it’s been spreading to other news sites. with most conscientious reporters sourcing The Korea Times, which was apparently the first foreign paper to translate the bogus story to English for western consumption. So far, only Japan Probe and a few reddit.com members have posted anything refuting the story in English, but that hasn’t slowed it down much. If anything, it’s picked up steam.

The moral of the story? Check your sources. If something seems completely stupid and made up, it probably is.

P.S. My sincere apologies to any Chinese students whose hopes have been dashed. source

Here's a translated view of the 'retraction' on HK newspaper, Wen Wei Po


ed

UK: Has the 'Take Back Parliament' movement sold out?

The following is a statement by the TBP leaders. Ed's comment, placed on the linked site, follows.

“How should we approach the AV referendum?

Andy May: Before we met with Nick Clegg this week we wanted to hear what the purple people had to say on the government plans for a referendum. We set up a poll on a PR-supporting Facebook group to find out what people think.

The long term aim of this campaign is a fair proportional voting system for the House of Commons.

However there are also steps on the road, one of which might involve campaigning for less radical voting reform.

We feel the decision on what the campaign’s response is to the referendum on the Alternative Vote (not a proportional system) is not ours to take alone but must be driven by the volunteers and supporters within Take Back Parliament.

So far we've had over 200 comments on the AV referendum here.

If you haven't already replied, please state your views on the AV referendum here in this the poll or in the comments on this blog. Or if you want to comment in more detail you may want to blog yourself and send us the link below for us to tweet to supporters.” source

ed says:

I joined the TBP movement for 'PR NOW!', not 'AV now as a stepping stone to PR sometime in the future when we have to campaign again for PR'.

What this is amounting to is a campaign bolstering Clegg's position on electoral reform. Since when did we become a lobby group for the Godd Dems. Personally, i knew this was going to happen as activists are historically more inclined to accepting concessionary BS than sticking to real change as it promises immediate gratification, albeit of a severely compromised nature. That is not a 'gain', it is a 'loss', as people tend to get accustomed to much more than they otherwise would in the interim between the changes-come-lately and that which is yet to come. The former taints the perspectives underlying the latter and the BS of the past is refined for mass imbibing in the future.

I don't need 'baby steps to democracy', especially not when we are talking about the 'mother of all parliaments'.

Why is 'PR' now even being termed as 'radical' by the TBP? - as in 'However there are also steps on the road, one of which might involve campaigning for less radical voting reform.'

Is 'radical' determined by how far our approach diverges from the concessionary bits the PTBs are willing to toss our way. Isn't that how the supporters of the labour movement lost out? - amongst a myriad and multitude of other instances throughout human history. It seems that the 'left' of any movement gradually becomes the final refuge of the original aims of an organisation, and the 'centre', that which emerges after compromises have been made between the problem and the solution.

I think we should simply toss the AV/Lib Dem infiltrators - albeit unwitting - out of the TBP movement. Democracy must not be allowed to undo itself, or opt for 'baby steps' when we are already past the adolescent mark.

a2ed.com






ed

SG: Thinking aloud: Oh, Shut up about the Orchard Road flood

That's what happens when we have a country based on China's self-centredness-inducing Legalist-Confucian system, and a majority associated with it via an appeal to 'it's your heritage what!'.

What happens thereafter is that perspectival/cultural difference is fragmented and diluted enough for the non-majority to think in a similarly unthinking manner. What irks me about these political primates - regardless of race - is that they generally remain silent when, amongst others, the compromised interests of the non-chinese is discussed, but simply can't stop going on about it when it comes to the interests of the 'majority'; that which compromises it; or that which is sensationalised. How do you educate a people whom most adept at sticking their heads under water when it comes to the interests of others?

I remember no fuss being kicked up over the Indian woman who was punched in a public bus. I remember no fuss, comment, or follow-up article, being made when I posted pictures of a grossly racist tourist signboard in Little India - even though that post received more than a hundred hits. And likewise when it comes to other observations of bigotry in singapore. I've observed as much in social interactions, in the media, amongst bloggers, and opposition parties.

Well, I must give credit to the government. From observations from the 70s to the present, I can certainly appreciate the toll their policies had taken on the population/bloggers/opposition of singapore. Regardless of race, a nation of bigots, xenophobes, shallow minds, entrenched in self-absorption, mindless consumers, and hedonists. As Confucius once said, the role of the government is to internalise their morality amongst the people so that they would act according to their volition whilst mistaking it for their own. It's no wonder that that which distinguishes the government of the day and the 'opposition' and just about every self-proclaimed 'democrat' I've had the misfortune of encountering online and off, is in form, but not, essentially, in feature.

It seems that to eke a drop of empathy out of the legalist-confucianised mind, one would first have to have the talent of extracting an ocean out of a pebble.


ed

Global: ‘Ambush marketers’ ejected from Soccer Stadium - FIFA explains action to advertisers

A Dutch brewery's World Cup publicity stunt has led to arrests, threats of legal action and the loss of an ITV pundit's job. Why is so-called "ambush marketing" such a high-stakes business?

It was, the authorities claim, a gimmick cynically designed to capture the attention of the world's media - and, if so, it was wildly successful.

When 36 young women wearing orange mini-dresses associated with the Dutch brewers Bavaria entered the stands at South Africa's Soccer City Stadium for the Netherlands versus Denmark match, the cameras, predictably, turned towards them en masse, capturing shots that would grab the attention of picture editors worldwide.

The reaction of those in charge was swift and ruthless.

All of the mini-skirted ladies were ejected from the venue and two were arrested on charges of organising "unlawful commercial activities". Meanwhile, a spokesman for the tournament's governing body Fifa said it was looking into "all available legal remedies" against the brewery. source

Dear Sirs,

We cannot make it too blatant. We cannot impress upon the masses that they are nothing but passive victims of advertising whose main purpose in life is to actively work on fulfilling its demands.

At best, we ought to stick to subliminal advertising, or advertising inflicted above or at the threshold of consciousness - and which works even better than blatant advertising according to psychological findings. Hence, it is best we disassociate the mega money-making event that is the World Cup, amongst others, from our intentions by getting rid of this most obvious example of treating the fans as nothing but consumers - not that being a fan is all too different from being one..haha.

The best way to get the masses to fall victim to all the strategies that spew from our ingenious profit-generation and regeneration department is to enable them to ‘value by association’. The ads flanking the football pitch; those that adorn stadiums; or even the jerseys of ball-kickers; their being paid millions and thus impressing upon all that the brands they sport must be of much value as well; et cetera, are subtly kept apart from the fans and thus maintain the masses belief in their own individuality and independence, and thus leads them to believe that the choices they make are their own. But to embed our advertisements amongst them through the aforementioned instance of ‘ambush marketing’ is to blaspheme against the independence of the fan and the sacredness of the event.

The fan looking beside and seeing a human billboard casts the whole event as nothing but a money-making event wherein s/he is nothing but a consumer. If the congregation of fans is tainted with human billboards, it compromises the sacredness of the event which we all thrive from through the international division it creates, our continued subjugation and use of the thus fragmented international working class, and our socialisation of them as nothing but self-serving consumers That’s like attending Sunday mass with Hitler. It would require either the eviction of the latter to maintain the sacredness of the mass, or cause one to leave the congregation to maintain the sacredness of oneself.

So, with regards to our ejecting the 36 young chicks from the stands, we have actually undertaken to do so to protect yours and the interests of all corporations and the global elite. The last thing we need is this instance of ‘ambush marketing’ leading the masses to question after all the ads that saturate their subconscious minds in all facets of life - we’ll leave that to academics whom are discounted by the global unthinking consumer we have produced as ‘psychobabblers’ and ‘know-it-alls’....haha. By ejecting these human billboards, we are in fact disassociating, or rendering subtle enough to ignore, that this whole ‘world cup’ thing is just another means by which we can generate profit, and maintain our hold over a thus divided humanity.


Yours sincerely,

FIFA

SG: In response to Gopalan Nair's, 'Singapore, Fascist One Party State'

The following was placed as a 'comment' at the following site.

Gopalan Nair: "Singapore's state owned and controlled official government mouthpiece, the newspaper Straits Times, online edition of June 13, 2010 has the story "Grassroots activity rewarded". The title is slightly misleading. It should have read "Pro Lee Kuan Yew grassroots activity rewarded".

It says the Peoples Association, (which is a branch of the Singapore strongman Lee Kuan Yew's Peoples Action Party, which has been governing the one party state island for the last 50 years), will reward those who take part in it's grassroots activities, by being eligible for better chances in a state lottery. Actually what they meant to say was, handsomely rewarded in their jobs, careers, and in every which way you can imagine." source

ed says,

Well, why not take part in 'grassroots' activities, reap the 'benefits' but use it as a platform to encourage mutual empathy and consideration? If one enjoy a modicum of success in that, would it not shift opinion against the PAP or 'Opposition' if either were to not present themselves as a vehicle for its realisation?

That said, your view of singapore's one party 'fascist' state is not incorrect. I have spoken about it quite a bit - and after which, it began to catch on with increased frequency amongst others, albeit in a narrow self-serving ‘kick the government without critical introspection’ approach - but we should also consider how a fascist state is not only known by the government's stance toward the people, but also the people's stance toward the government, difference, and contradiction in the face of what’s popularly practiced and perceived, and traditional.

If we were to engage in an appreciable amount of critically introspection, we would find that the fascism of the government, after half a century, is now bolstered by popular fascism - rallying around a particular racially-biased view of things - i.e. silence in the face of policies or that which compromises the interests of the non-Chinese; chinese-centred ‘blog awards’; media representation; Chinese-centred ‘opposition’; elevation of Chinese culture over all others; etc, etc, etc; popular xenophobia, even amongst the 'opposition'; apathy and disinterest in politics, amongst others. Isn’t this proof that the people in general now not embody the fascist ethos in their collective persona? The government may have promoted it, but do the singaporeans of today not maintain it? And how can a people whom embody the fascist ethos tell the difference between true democracy and fascism? These are fundamental questions that the so-called ‘opposition’ have yet to address to any significant degree. Hence, your vociferous critique cannot but be seen as both an effort to improve things and an attempt to absolve oneself from any responsibility. Singaporean ‘oppositional’ elements may be attempting to bring about democracy, but their oversights result, instead, in the refinement of fascism.

The discussion of a fascist state cannot be confined to how a state might promote it without attention to how it might be maintained at the 'grassroots' level by just about every individual walking the streets or watching sipping teh siew tai (literal translation: tea less sugar) and watching channel 8 in coffeeshops.


ed

UK: Socialist Party - Demonstrate against the English Defence League in Tower Hamlets

Communication from Paula Mitchell, Socialist Party,

"
A victory has been scored in East London as the plan by the racist and hooligan English Defence League (EDL) to “hit” Tower Hamlets on 20th June has been called off.

They planned to protest against a meeting of the right-wing UK Islamic Conference. This event has now been cancelled, and the EDL have called off their protest.

But there is more to it than this. The EDL have organised marches in different towns and cities over the last year against “militant Islam”. While they claim to be non-racist, many of their protests have descended into violent racist and Islamaphobic abuse and attacks. According to an investigation by the Guardian newspaper, they are now targeting Muslim communities deliberately.

The threat to invade Tower Hamlets was a huge provocation and was rejected by the vast majority of the local population. On 20th June they would have been faced by a big demonstration of the local community. Young people in particular were preparing to make it clear that the EDL were not welcome. It is this that has contributed to the EDL backing out.

Nonetheless the community demonstration on 20th June goes ahead to send a clear message to the EDL and the far-right that they should not dare step foot in Tower Hamlets.

The Socialist Party has argued that the demo in Tower Hamlets on 20th June should be around slogans such as “Jobs, Homes and Services – Not Racism” to help cut across any support the EDL may get. This is even more the case now. With the correct slogans, this would be a brilliant first opportunity to hold a united working class demo through the borough against public service cuts and for jobs.



Join with the Socialist Party and Youth Against Racism/Youth Fight for Jobs on Sunday 20th June, 12.30pm, Stepney Green Park.
"

SG: Sex in this City - is Sex ‘learned’?

The following is a response to 'Solo Bear's' diatribe against homosexuals and the TOC. The first paragraph was posted as 'comment' on his site. Further thoughts on Sex in Singapore follows.

“The Online (Gay) Citizen has recently resorted to (high class) sex talk to shore up its flailing number of visits. The Singapore Daily has its Daily Chiobu, the Temasek Review will splash juicy stories, paparazzi-style, whenever there's news like Jerk Neo. So to up that ante for the share of the internet veiwership pie, TOC puts up "expert" sex advice.

Problem is that this time round, TOC shoots itself in the foot. You see, as we all know, TOC is a gay controlled site. And the gay community has always said that being gay is "natural" and not "learned". Really? TOC sex expert advisor, in an attempt to tell everyone what everyone does naturally (ie having sex) is learned, implicitly gives us message that homosexuality is also learned, right?” - source

ed Says,

Have you ever considered that TOC is not 'gay controlled' but rather attempting to be, to some degree, egalitarian, or, given the numbers attending the Gay Rights event in Hong Lim Park, seeking to appeal to the numbers out there? And have you ever considered that the heterosexuals in singapore might just be homosexual in nature since they are not averse to having relationships with women who obviously dominate them? Hence, your hetero and homo division does not take into consideration the real differences between men and women that might indicate that singaporean women are little more than men in drag and men, women in drag.

Personally, I think TOC is mindlessly pro-opposition just as PAP supporters are mindlessly so as well.

And, like yourself, i'm inclined to believe that socialisation/learning plays a greater role in homosexuality than genetics. If, for instance, a decades-old hetero can turn homo, or vice versa, or bisexual, wouldn't that be evidence of learning over genetics, or at least, that learning can never be discounted in favour of genetics?

Actually, sex is NOT 'learned'. It is a genetic predisposition. If, generally, and for instance, chinese women as opposed to Filipinas, are not similarly inclined, we can look into cultural causes for it. We all know that the totalitarian nature of chinese culture is suppressive of overall vibrancy and intellectual/emotional independence and impromptu-ness as the control, suppression or/and, channelling of these basic impulses tends to perpetuate the power of the state from the 'ground up' - i.e. the government stepping in to ban bartop-dancing some years ago or the need to get a license to whistle a tune whilst standing still anywhere. This has a tendency of controlling a people to the point that the desire to feel independently disappears and one awaits trends, traditions and official thumbs-ups before feeling and thinking. Hence, the sexual/intellectual/vibrant/curious tendencies of a people reared within such a culture can be, well, quite relatively sedate.

We are all programmed to want a good goddamn bang when we come of age. And this tendency can be tempered by social expectations, the difference between gender socialisation, amongst others. However, the means by which we might want to satisfy said desire can be said to be learnt or coaxed in particular and even idiosyncratic directions given the type of overarching socio-economic climate it is reared within. As we move away from a previous sex-for-reproduction period, and focus on the act in itself and the pleasures that it might bring in an undoubtedly increasingly hedonistic climate, the traditional association and expectation that a man and a woman is the precondition for copulation, illicit or otherwise, is diluted. Hence, as reproduction and the traditional family unit founding the acceptable reasons for sex wanes, the tendency to appreciate same-sex persons for sexual intercourse is relieved of its fetters.

I suppose the attempt to 'learn' sex in chinese societies for women, is to get around the suppressive climate of life within a legalist-confucian state. Additionally, as the chinese aren't renown for critical introspection - unless its within 'practical' arenas - it is to be expected that they move on to stating that ‘sex is learnt’ to get past the possibility that this need to ‘learn sex’ might just indicate that there is something wrong with them because they do not desire it as much as those of other cultural races. And we all have often heard the statement discounting western ideas with, ‘they are they and we are we’. This, in addition to the aversion to difference, amongst others, can exacerbate the tendency to absolve oneself from any blame and view the general tendencies of the people as ‘natural’.

I've personally had romantic relationships with Malays, Indians, Filipinas, and Chinese. And i can state, unequivocally, that Filipinas occupy the first position - and are most suited to my passionate nature in the non-intellectual sense - Malays and Indians come second, and the Chinese, the third.

And, i have to add, that the difference between the second and third is by quite the mile and a half, whilst the difference between the first and second is discernible but not as significant as between the second and third.

Such is also the experience of all my non-Chinese friends without exception. And all my Indian friends of the 80s whom married chinese girls, frequently complain of the sexual infrequency or disinterest of their partners, but not so when other Indian friends and acquaintances are paired with Malays (from singapore of Indonesia) or Filipinas.

So, to reiterate, this tendency to state 'sex is not natural' can be attributed to the chinese disdain for critical collective/cultural introspection, and the desire to thus simply state, 'its like that one lah', or, in other words, 'that’s the way it is'. Perhaps, that might also explain why 1 in 3 chinese singaporeans are premature ejaculators according to studies.

The study stated '1 in 3 singaporeans', but failed to supply stats on the number of non-Chinese included in the study. Hence, given the percentage of chinese in singapore, we can assume that it applies to the 'majority what!'. However, I cannot say that the Indians of today, reared within such a climate, would be all to different since their relatively vibrant culture does not have as much and continuous an influence over them given the overarching highly-regulated legalist-Confucian climate. I cannot say that about the Malays as they are quite the close-knit community and their culturally-induced tendencies might be thus kept alive.

I suppose, when one is reared within a suppressive culture, the tendency to enjoy and prolong 'the experience' as opposed to being fixated on the end-result - be it the ‘relief’, reproduction, or using it as a bargaining tool - is compromised. (For instance, in speaking to even Chinese men about their illicit encounters, they frequently add that the Chinese prostitutes they engage are ‘all about money’, whereas they and others have attested to the sexuality and ‘horniness‘ of Filipina prostitutes.) This, in addition to the hallmark apathy and inability to appreciate the detail in things, engendered by being socialised within a traditionalist/conformist state of affairs, will tend to disable one from prolonging the 'event' for the sake of the other, or from appreciating enough details in the 'act' to want to immerse oneself in it past the few-minutes mark as one might when appreciating the work of Michelangelo in the Sistine chapel. Even in conversation with singaporean men about their sexual encounters for decades, I’ve noticed that the Chinese tend to talk about it in superficial terms whilst the Malays and Indians speak about the details.

So, in sum, gentlemen and ladies, sex is not learned, but unlearned, or the energies and mindset that fuels it, channeled into more 'practical' arenas.


ed

Global: Waive Your Flag 2010

Global: Hitler Endorses the World Cup, video

ed

Global: World Cup 2010 Unmasked, video

ed

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

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

Singapore: a utopia no more?

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


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

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

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

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

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

end...

furthermore,

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

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

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

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

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


ed

SG: Gatekeeping (censorship) by SG 'Blog Aggregators'

I have written a while back on how the internet is 'censored' by singaporean blog aggregators, with particular reference to singaporedaily.net. Not only does Sgdaily censor this site, but, according to my associates, the likes of 'Solo Bear', 'Gopalan Nair', amongst others.

According to self-appointed advocate for SGdaily, Ng E-Jay stated that 'unity' amongst the opposition is important and therefore sites which compromise it could be left out when 'editorial judgement' is practiced. He defended the right of SGdaily to leave out sites on the basis that it is their 'democratic' right to do practice said editorial judgement and leave out sites from their lists. What this mandarin of the opposition fails to appreciate is that democracy ought not to be used as a medium to undermine it. Hence, to stand up for democracy and the right to censor on the basis that individual rights to censor has to be protected is nothing but a nonsensical confucian twist to the idea of democracy. Well, enough about Ng and the narrow minded and racist twits behind SGdaily. (btw, Ng is not only the political editor of TOC, connected to the SDP, and seems to have been quite vociferous in defending SGdaily that I cannot discount the possibility that much of the main sites of 'new media' are connected behind the scenes and divide labour in how information is filtered for the imbibing by the general singaporean populace.)




Whilst I do quite support Sgbreakingnews.com for its quite representative approach, I have to say that they too practice some slight censorship, or gatekeeping, themselves. So far, my main problem with them is that they too play favourites in determining which article remains under the 'Most Popular SG Blog Updates' for more than a day or so, whilst others are removed before they can become as popular. In putting forth articles as 'popular' on the basis of hits, and keeping particular articles up beyond the time given to other articles is nothing short of creating popularity as opposed to reflecting it.

We must also remember that Legalist-Confucian societies in general, being ultra-conformist, will tend to laud the value of the 'queue', 'billboard' and 'publicity' as opposed to insight and quality. The former, in other words, is used to determine the latter in states where people have their appreciation of detail and independent thought compromised by the general ethos of awaiting top-down directives before thought and action. This tendency is exacerbated by top-down oppression compromising empathy which in turn compromises one's appreciation of the detail in things as empathy tends to take one out of one's zone of familiarity and consider the value of contrasting phenomena and take on novel perspectives required to do so.

An Indian friend, by the name of Mo, once said to me some years ago, that if he was to start a food stall in singapore, he would hire a few Chinese to form a queue. "Like that", said he, "the business surely make it! Other see the queue, surely join!", said he, seriously. Whilst that might sound offensive to those not inclined toward critical introspection, it is, when all is said and done, a true reflection of Legalist-Confucian societies where independent thought is dependent on the trends of thought and thoughtlessness determined by the powerful, prominent and publicised. That is why, amongst a host of other instances, when one goes into a shop and asks for a quality product, the salesperson almost always states with confidence, 'This one is good, its very popular one'. Ridiculous of course, considering that the experts are generally the producers and not the consumers.

In such a state, to 'tweak' the prominent, or to 'publicise' through gatekeeping, is a technique that can have significant impact on the development of thought and thoughtlessness amongst the masses. With that in mind, all truly democratic minds ought to check on those who purport to represent the nation's interests and play the role of the purveyor of information.


ed

Global: How 'Israel' Justifies Tibet et al

[the following article was first published in 2006 by ed at a previous site]


The state of Israel was formed on the basis of a number of reasons, with one of them being the increasing rate of Jewish occupation of the region which in turn served to bolster the Zionist claim to a significant portion of the land of the Palestinians. (what may be termed, 'Ethnic Saturation').

The Ethnic Saturation of Palestine commenced with the efforts of the Zionist movement - convened in 1897 by Hungarian-born Jewish journalist, Theodor Herzl. This movement sought to unite those of the Jewish Diaspora in the land of the Palestinians in order to escape the historical persecution they had suffered in the hands of the Europeans in Europe. (the population of Jews in Palestine at the time was about 5%) This accelerated after the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that expressed British support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the hope of garnering American/Russian Jewish support for the Allied war effort - whilst the British made similar promises to the Arabs for their aid in capturing Palestine from the Ottomans in 1917 and 1918.

When Palestine was placed under the British Mandate by the egalitarian-sounding 'League of Nations', express approval was granted to the British to create a Jewish homeland in the land of the Arabs. This may be seen as the assumption of 'The Colonial Right'. That is, the right of western occupying forces to do as they pleased with the lands they thus viewed as their 'possessions'. And where the land of another is transmuted to little more than a 'possession' of another, the inhabitants of the land, as far as its possessors are concerned, become little more than persons occupying the land at the pleasure of its true owners - the colonial powers. Thus, the British, with the approving nod of equally rapacious others fired from the selfsame kiln, saw nothing amiss in their facilitating the mass influx of Jews into 'Arab land'(Palestine). I close the word 'Arab' with quotes to emphasise the point that a 'possession' turns the natives of that land into little more than 'tenants' occupying what in effect becomes the land of the Colonial Power occupying it.

The ethnic saturation of 'Arab Land' picked up even greater momentum when yet another European nation (Germany) begin to carry out yet another pogrom against the Jewish nation in the course of a European-instigated 'World War II'. We can view the said ethnic saturation of Palestine with Jews as a non-militaristic colonisation of Arab land under the 'benevolent' auspices of a militaristic colonial power. In other words, the guns of the British provided the requisite and protective cover whilst the Jewish nation was allowed to colonise the land of the Arabs. This finally culminated with the inauguration of the state of Israel, by the renamed and equally egalitarian-sounding, 'United Nations', in May 14th, 1948 with the approval of the US and the USSR.

It would not be unreasonable to assume that the state of Israel would not have been inaugurated if the Jewish population remained at 5%, which was the case in 1880. The Colonialists' occupation of the land saw them claiming, or should we say, presuming, the right to do as they pleased with these 'possessions' and this, along with their policies, facilitated the exodus of Jews from all parts of the world into Palestine.

Thus, amongst others, did the English with N. Ireland, the Chinese with Tibet, and the Muslims with Pakistan. Ethnic/Cultural saturation seems to be the key element in the effort to legitimise any state that comes into being under the auspices of an invader. There is nothing new about this perspective. However, one ought to note that it is nothing short of hypocrisy to call for China to release Tibet from its talons and N. Ireland to be freed from English Rule if they simultaneously support the continued existence of the State of Israel. This would be akin to global support being forwarded for the handing back of the land now known as Israel to the Palestinians if the latter were to successfully invade and occupy it, with the aid of the Islamic/Arab nation via its militant wings (mka 'terrorist groups'), and then proceeding to ethnically saturate the region prior to utilising the said saturation as a reason to form a Palestinian State. After all, the means via which Israel's existence was validated must surely be accessible to others should it not?

The issue here is not whether Israel should be dismantled, but whether the aforementioned method of State-Validation via the twin methods of Ethnic Saturation and the assumption of The Right of Acquisition and Disposal by Colonialists (which refers to the right of the existing colonisers of the land to do as they see fit) should be countenanced. If we choose to ignore this problem, then we have in effect granted carte blanche to any powerful state to form new ones at their whim and fancy. This, additionally, validates 'Power' and 'Violence', as opposed to Reason, as the arbiter of 'right'. In which case, those the west/ernised term 'terrorists' are 'terrorists' by virtue of their not having pushed through their agenda successfully. If so, then we should not hesitate to proffer our support to the totalitarian Imperium of China, the English Government, and others of their ilk in the present and in the future in their efforts to claim, via The Colonial Right of Acquisition and Disposal, the lands of others via the aforementioned method.

The Arab League’s declaration of war on the state of Israel after its inauguration was, in essence, not a movement against the Jews but a war against The Colonial Right.

The saga continues.




It is my wish that the Arabs and Israelis recognise the above and how they have been cast against each other via the imposition of The Colonial Right. The Israelis and Arabs, in recognition of this historical fact, must come to a mutually agreed resolution that will enable these 'Persons of The Book’ to live side by side in harmony and independent of the Imperious agenda of the Colonialists. The Israeli state should be absorbed into the Arab one and vice versa. They must realise that their mutual animosity, setting aside historical and logically irrelevant reasons, of recent decades was a result of the misconceptions and ensuing arrogance of the Colonialists and that they both are its victims. Reclaim and realise the Transnationalism that lies at the core of your faiths by the unification of your peoples.


ed


[above image designed by ed]

To all you Xenophobic Singaporeans

Here’s one of the many xenophobic articles that may be found amongst the fascist and racist oppositional elements populating the opposition and singaporean bloggers. Even if there are some who claim to not be fascist or racist, the fact that they take no issue with it casts more than a tad bit of doubt on said claim.

Foreign Talents Committing Heinous Crimes all over Singapore

There are of course numerous petty crimes gone unreported. The once peaceful and safe haven called Singapore is going, going and gone. Less people will be walking on the streets alone from now on.

A Malaysian man from Sarawak was charged Tuesday with the murder of a construction worker in Singapore while two others were accused of gang robbery.

No plea was taken from Michael Garing, 22, a general worker who allegedly committed the murder of Indian national Shanmuganathan Dillidurai, 41, with three others at an open field along Kallang Road on Sunday.

In the same court, Sylvester Barogok, 26, and Shahman Milak, 21, both also from Sarawak, were charged with committing gang robbery of a mobile phone, cash of $32, a work permit card and an ez-link card from Raja Kana Kazi under an overhead bridge Friday evening.

The duo were allegedly with Micheal, Hairee Landak, 19, Tony Imba, 31, and Donny Meluda, 19, one or more of whom were armed with a parang.

All three were remanded at Singapore's central police division lock-up for further investigation.

If convicted of murder, Micheal faces the death penalty. The maximum punishment for gang robbery is a jail term of five to 20 years and not less than 12 strokes of the cane. source

My comment, following the xenophobic approach of the article above went,

ed:
Look at the stats, and you will find that your 'foreign talent' forefathers were guilty of far more. Stop vilifying foreigners for doing that which was a career for many of your forefathers - though not all. But I suppose its natural for a people who take racism as natural to move on to xenophobia. Pathetic mate. Real pathetic.

---end comment


The fact that singaporeans are gross racists is beyond debate. They, as i’ve stated time and again, either do not take issue with that which compromises the interests of the non-Chinese and other minorities; only do so when it comes to its most obvious instances; as opposed to its subtle and more insidious manifestations, or do not notice it at all.

Hence, I do not find it surprising that such a perspectively decrepit people would naturally move on to xenophobia in the face of foreign competition or upon encountering difference of a ‘foreign’ origin - as they had already been well-practiced in doing so in the local arena prior to that. Well, given the traditionalist/conformist/uniformist/subservient ethos of the legalist-confucian climate, bigotry and shallow-mindedness is to be expected. And given that the non-Chinese have also been reared within such a state of affairs, and have, in varying degrees of success, learnt to live on whatever’s left for those at the end of the queue, have also taken on the xenophobic views that come naturally to those who fall victim to the national enforcement of the legalist-confucian perspective. The Chinese were first assimilated to such a perspective via an appeal to 'cultural pride', and the rest, over decades, having no other recourse given the dilution of their cultures and fragmentation of their communities, amongst others, fell victim to the only perspective that was promoted top-down, and later, through its first vitims, the Chinese. I've personally told off an increasing number of Indians, in recent years for their xenophobic attitudes. Something that was experienced amongst the Chinese first(because of the legalist-confucian culture, and not because of race), is now to be experienced amongst all - and even amongst the so-called 'Indians' in the opposition.

Thus, it is not surprising that these people tend to scornfully view all workers of recent foreign origin as ‘FTs’ or ‘Foreign Talents’. The subject of the above article is obviously not an ‘FT’ but an ‘FW’, or ‘Foreign Worker’. Whilst an ‘FT’ might be an ‘FW’, an ‘FW’ is not always an ‘FT’ mate. But I suppose the xenophobic condition, trained beforehand by viewing reality in an us vs. them dichotomy based on the most salient or observable features, i.e. race, will miss this point. Let me explain. A ‘foreign talent’ makes up for the absence of such talent in the nation, whilst a ‘foreign worker’ is one who is exploited locally at a far cheaper rate than local workers.

I’ve often empathised with foreign workers for the past 2 decades as i’ve been aware that they were being grossly exploited. In a sense, they mirror the experience of ‘indentured labour’ in the early years of singapore history when Chinese workers, amongst others, were brought in to provide labour, had to pay up the exorbitant prices charged to bring them over, and had to spend what little money they had left on shops owned by their ‘benefactors’. How different is it now? Are not these workers suffering the same condition as your forefathers? But it is to be expected that given the compromise of empathy by the prior racist state of affairs taken as natural and discounted offhand with an ‘everywhere also like that so stop complaining’, it is not surprising that they do not have the empathy it takes to appreciate this point.

The nation is diseased at all levels. Racism, xenophobia, self-absorption, opportunism, et cetera, seems to be the order of the day. But, I suppose, that which the legalist-confucian climate produces, also serves the means via which one get round top-down pressures via a compensatory horizontal alienation and opportunism.


ed

When ed turned Red

Personally, since I turned 21, besides my mom sponsoring my piercing my ears, I became a Socialist. I suppose that was the second act of engaging in a 'permanent revolution' within myself and going against my state/social/church-sponsored beliefs and inclinations. My first act was in assuming my stupidity and ignorance despite the respect I received from my peers three years earlier.

I had, prior to that been anti-communist, on the basis of my being told by the media, the church, the state, and the ignoramuses i was surrounded by - and which included myself - that communism=USSR/China, communism=authoritarianism, communism=oppression, communism=violent overthrow of the government, communism=anti-religion.

Not so.

That was, I've realised ever since, nothing short of an effort to vilify a phenomenon via negative and verifiably false association. In singapore, this false association was manufactured via the 'Marxist Conspiracy detentions' of 1987. I personally, being into nothing other than breakdancing and being a 'Far East kid'v(in Far East Plaza), believed those involved to be 'bad men' and bought into the allegation that they wanted to overthrow the government through a violent revolution and create chaos. Well, till today, I have no evidence that was or wasn't the case. But what I do know for a fact is that being a Marxist/communist/socialist does not necessarily equate with a 'violent revolutionary'.


The Opposition

And the so-called opposition in Singapore, till today, have been raised on what was left of alternative ideologies after Socialism/Marxism/Communism had been vilified out of public consideration. Hence, with the eradication of the Socialist spirit, they've fragmented into interest groups quite unbothered by the interests of all except for the majority - which is why one might see a huge turn-out for 'gay' rights, whilst only a handful protest against the death penalty or the Internal Security Act. That is, in significant part, a product of the legalist-confucian system of self-reliance-cum-self-absorption. You could call it a socially acceptable update of the ‘triad society’ mentality where one is empathetic within the boundaries of the ‘gang’. Thus, I wasn't surprised to observe that even the young amongst the opposition make assiduous efforts to distance themselves from socialist ideologies and vociferously assert that the 'Marxist Conspiracy' detainees weren't Marxist or Communist. In this, they too, it appears, fell hook, line and sinker for the general association of Marxism/Socialism/Communism with 'bad'. Hence, they were deprived of the Socialist benchmark that has checked on the spirit of all democratic movements from the plebeian revolts of the Roman era through to the present. Thus, in being deprived of such a check, they became victims of the general legalist-confucian ethos and begin to make sense of democracy from within its bowels after being digested by it. We all tend to make sense of reality given which aspect of reality is deemed to be worthy of consideration don’t we.


Undeniable Truths

Upon my reading of The Communist Manifesto in 1990, written by the brilliant Karl Mark and Friedrich Engles, I couldn't deny its truth, and the truths that I extrapolated from it in the years after

Yes, we are living in a class system; Yes, it’s true that the elite own everything and use the labour and mind power of the masses for their own profit; Yes, the maximal development of all is dependent on the maximal development of all; Yes, equality of opportunity does not equate with equality of access to the resources necessary to exercise said equality of opportunity; Yes, the motivation of individuals cannot be maximised when they are hierarchically minimised or maximised within the various levels of the class system; Yes, the governments of just about all states are little more than a phenomenon mediating between class interests whilst taking the class system as sacrosanct, and in other words, helping the masses make the best out of an inequitable situation - and this is one of the core factors shared by the capitalist and legalist-confucian approaches toward reality.


Religion

Whilst I was pro-Captain America, pro-capitalist, pro-America, pro-PAP at that time, I couldn't help but acknowledge these to be truths. Thus, I was led by the force of reason to move against my own beliefs and turn 'red'. But whilst Marx might have viewed religion as an opiate that enabled the masses to successfully compensate for their general impotence as the masters of their destinies, I realised that this was not a necessary evil of religion but an incorporation of it. I saw no conflict between the approaches of the Buddha, Guru Nanak, the universalism of Islam, the dialectical principles embedded within Hinduism, or the 13th Commandment of Christ - love thy neighbour as thyself - and Socialism. In fact, I realised that ideology could either be an effort to 'materialise' religious concepts or detract the masses from its value.

I realised that religion, whilst being a movement against self-absorption, is, in significant part, a product of a a history of power, class division, and technological/scientific decrepitude, and cannot have existed to this day unless it accommodated it and allowed its own incorporation. In other words, religion made the best of a bad situation by compromising with it even whilst trying to compromise said bad situation. We could say that the development of religion was stunted by its attempting to speak against a system of self-absorption, helping people to cope with it along with a scientifically/technologically backward society, and asking them to take solace in the ‘Lord/s’ as a compensatory and recuperative device. Hence, it seems, after millennia of accommodation, that religion is little more than an opiate. But that would be nothing short of blaming the victim and casting aside its potentials because it has been malformed through a negative experience. I realised that when we get past these, and appreciate its core values, then it serves as the north star checking on our technical and material navigation of socio-political reality. It’s when we refuse to use religion as a compensatory and recuperative device, that is when we can appreciate it as a motivational resource that can be used to rid ourselves of the need to compensate and recuperate by addressing the socio-political sources of the devaluation that leads to religion being used to compensate and recuperate. Religion ought not to be used to compensate, but to motivate us to get rid of the circumstances that leads us to compensate. In that, Socialism takes the selfsame approach.

Thus, I could continue being a Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, et cetera, and use its location to check on my ideological inclinations, whilst using socialism to check on the democratic aspirations, or pretensions, of all political ideologies.

In fact, quite a few religions serve to check on any impulse that might be engendered by the desire of some revolutionaries to ‘pick up the sword’ and give birth to Utopia with immediacy through a bloody c-section. In fact, the ideal religion, like culture, is a product of the best of all religions being fused into one. If it’s good enough for the production of the best of scientific perspectives, I see no reason why it can be applied in our appreciation of religion or culture. Too often, the best of intentions are spoilt by our desire to bring about change immediately. In other words, we want to be ‘immediately gratified’ and think we are doing great things by accessing the most obvious ‘solutions’. What frequently happens is that we just end up refining evils and perpetuating them in more acceptable forms by not considering the possibility that the means can, at times, compromise the appreciation or/and effectuation of the ends.


In Sum

In realising these, amongst other truths, over the 2 decades that has since passed, and in not being able to overthrow the initial premises that via my subsequent inquiries and discoveries, I am forced by the tyranny of reason to continue along my current perspectival trajectory. However, the selfsame skepticism that swung myself from right to left, has continued to exercise its tendency toward self-critique. Hence, It could be said that my being inclined toward red is a product of my continuous failure to find sufficient evidence to exchange it for alternatives. The best way to stick to your inclinations, as far as I’m concerned, is to continuously seek evidence to overthrow them. In adopting such a stance, we cannot be sure where we’ll be. But we can certainly be assured that it would be better than it would otherwise be.





ed