No. JBJ wasn't a 'Great Debater' and 'Dissent' should not 'Need' him

The following is a comment placed following the article by ‘Enquirer.sg’ entitled, ‘Why Dissent Needs J.B.Jeyaratnam’

“article: That’s because you’ve got to have dissent and opposition in any society and no one stuck it to the establishment better or as well as Jeyaretnam did....

commentator: Yes, i totally agreed we have lost one hell of a great debater, no one comes close to 2nd.”

True or False - Cultural Diversity as fuel for all other Vibrancies

The following was placed as a 'comment' following the article by 'Yours Truly Singapore' (One has to wonder how representative a fascist can be of 'singapore'), 'Counter Anti-Foreigner Talk' - more fascist rubbish by the so-called 'democrats' of singapore.

on the real issue behind native-born singaporeans vs foreigners - in a nutshell

The following was posted as a comment following 'Blowin' in the Wind's' interesting article, "How many Indians, Chinese, Malays and people of other races in Singapore's total population?"


The issue should be why there is a 'native born' chinese majority in singapore;

why the government favours maintaining a racial balance in favour of the chinese;

why the 'native born' chinese never had a problem with this racist policy;

how they, albeit unwittingly, thrived on it;

how this served to maintain the hegemony and longevity of the government;

how other cultures were thus diluted through this and related policies designed to elevate one at the expense of all others;

how difference of non-chinese origin was ignored and marginalised;

how the tyranny of the majority can now be equated with the tyranny of 'native-born' chinese;

how the call for integrating 'foreigners' is synonymous with assimilating them to the state-imposed perspectives and deficiencies of 'native born' chinese as assimilated non-chinese;

...and why, when all of the above is put together, the issue of 'foreigner vs native-born' becomes little more than an attempt to maintain the advantage of 'native-born' chinese over all others be they of recent foreign origin or local.

From an understanding of this, we can begin to understand the underlying spirit of much that is going on locally and in the face of new foreigners. We can begin to understand the intellectual ineptitude of the people, the opportunism and apathy that is prevalent, why gambling, shopping and eating are 'national pastimes', etc, etc, etc.

However, with regards to the article, given the stance of the government on race, one could logically suppose that to lump foreign Indians with local Indians gives people the false sense that disparities in racial numbers aren't as significant'. But given that more foreign Chinese might be inclined to stay in singapore as compared to foreign Indians who understandably view singapore as a 'chinese country' - just as the 'native born' Chinese do in practice - the government policy to maintain a racial balance in favour of the chinese can be pursued without public concern.

ed

Singazine's Back - online magazine of latest blog posts

In view of SG Breaking News being down for quite some time, a2ed's starting up Singazine.com again. Unlike previously, it will function solely as a 'blog aggregator'.

Additionally, we were quite surprised to note that people still visit singazine.com for blog updates up till the present, so, we decided to spruce up the site for their convenient perusal.

Focus will solely be on featuring the latest blogger updates as we do not have the finger power to do more such as a categorical arrangement of the latest posts. SgDaily does a good job there, albeit with much censorship. Perhaps Singazine will do more in the future, but that will be up to you.

[Singazine was started up in the past as we were not too thrilled about SGdaily's biased regulation of the SG bloggersphere by its featuring those their little minds can comprehend or which did not hurt their egos or challenge them - along with their sexist and racist 'daily chiobu' section. Its editors must have just fallen off some tree, along with their fans out there, like Ng E-Jay, amongst others. Never mind them.]

This is just a public information broadcast. The purpose is not to present what we think is worthy of attention, but what needs to be represented, whether we agree with the contents or not. However, the focus is generally on political and social issues. So whether it be analysis or opinion, it's in.

Send your blog links to according2ed@hotmail.com, if its' not already included that is.

cheers!

ed

Who says Capitalists don't love Communism?

Documentary: Death Penalty in China, and comment

As long as science is regarded as relevant only in the production of gadgets and cures, and not in the mass appreciation of society, it is to be expected that the ill-educated masses will choose to support the capital consequence of particuar crimes as opposed to appreciating crime as a consequence of a system many have learnt to thrive and profit within. In that, many would choose to see criminals as products of their own volition as opposed to by-products of our self-absorbed and mutually alienated preoccupation. ~ ed







Death Penalty
noun
The punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime
An attempt to exonerate the overarching system and ourselves from complicity in the production of the criminal.


An effective way to detract the attention of the masses from the unjust condition of the overarching system is to enable 'justice' and 'fairness' to prevail at the popular level. For instance, the application of the 'eye for an eye' principle gives one an impression that 'reciprocity' is being observed. We take the life of one who has taken the life of another. We return a disfavour for a disfavour. Everything seems to balance out. But the overarching variables that lead to the production of the 'criminal' is left out by common consideration in the course of, and due to, this process.

The class system, defined along varying lines, distributes varying degrees of motivation, aspiration, desperation, opportunities, vantages from whence one might appreciate life. It maintains a spirit of mutual alienation and opportunism, promotes apathy, the contraction of the family unit to primitive levels ranging from one's immediate family to just oneself, etc, etc, etc.

This amplifies the 'me first, at your expense and despite your interests' tendency. Generically, the other is reduced to little more than a means (amplified in capitalist/legalist-confucian cultures). And than the state steps in to ensure that the worst examples of a system, designed to maintain the aristocracies and monarchies of the past in 'democratic' forms, is put on a leash.

Those we send to the gallows differ from 'respectable citizens' in degree, not orientation; in means, not aspiration. When we plot the starting point of human development at any point, we open up the possibility of both the best and worst consequences of it. Mutual alienation does not only promote mutual apathy and opportunism, but the generic view that the other is a means through the exploitation or abuse of which we are satisfied.

The existence of a jury, or justice 'being seen to be done', hence become little more than attempts to distract ourselves into thinking that since we are making the decisions, putting into power those responsible for producing laws, being 'reciprocal' by fitting the punishment to the crime, allowing the public to observe proceedings, or the press or international observers to report on its course, etc, etc, then, we must certainly be a just society.

The judicious means by which we get around unjust conditions does not render the latter just.

In the courtroom settings, we view 'the dock' as the locale wherein the one who is on trial is interned. But in the eye of the wise, the locale wherein the judge, the jury, the public, parliament, and those without, serve as 'docks' whose occupants have to first be proven to be innocent of complicity before anyone can be put in the dock.

As long as science is regarded as relevant only in the production of gadgets and cures, and not in the mass appreciation of society, it is to be expected that the ill-educated masses will choose to support the capital consequence of particuar crimes as opposed to appreciating crime as a consequence of a system many have learnt to thrive and profit within. In that, many would choose to see criminals as products of their own volition as opposed to by-products of our self-absorbed and mutually alienated preoccupations.


ed

SG: I’m Indian and my 'mother tongue' is English

I’m sure many in singapore would say, ‘but you Indian what! How can your mother tongue be English?’

To some of the Indians whom said that to me in the past, I would retort, ‘*Dei Baderwa, a ‘mother tongue’ is that which enables you to get to know and appreciate all that falls within the space where you interact. In Singapore, that’s English, since it enables us to get to know and be known by those of other cultures/races. In other words, the language is a ‘mother’ that nurtures us to become truly singaporean - which is an amalgam of the best of all culture found therein. Get it?’

SG: The Perfect Solution to Solve the 'Native-Born' vs 'Foreigner' situation

I think the problem of 'native born singaporeans' vs 'Foreigners' can be easily resolved. Just give the latter time to copulate and give birth to a native-born child so that the child can grow up and repatriate her/is parents for not being native born.

Too bad the current 'native born' singaporeans can't do likewise in the face of their foreigner ancestors of Indian and Chinese national origins as they aren't around any longer - excluding the Malays, whom are the relatively true 'native-borns'. That way, they can truly turn singapore into a country populated by 'true-blue' singaporeans.

Then again, I suppose that is the reason why these fascist primates can adopt such a stance against the foreigners of today.

ed


[part of the above was posted as a comment at Temasek Review's, 'Singapore-Born Singaporeans Cannot Oust PAP Unless They Unite' The rest of the comment follows below.]


As for oppositional unity, what are the Malays and Indians going to be gaining after kicking out the ‘foreigners’? Their 2nd class status and the usual ‘we are majority what!’ from the first class citizens. The so-called opposition says next to nothing about this or how, for instance, the ‘mother tongue’ policy grossly disables the non-chinese locally and regionally in the economic arena. They say nothing about how media representations and the SAP schools system, amongst a host of others, have undermined the self-efficacy of non-chinese children. There are enough psychological findings to prove the negative impact these have on development.

Let’s be objective about things shall we.

Do you think that a people whom have been culturally educated to be open to new ideas, difference, be innovative, critical, will underdevelop and underachieve compared to those whom have been trained to not question, play follow-the-leader, abide by traditions just because they are traditions, and associate with ‘their own’?

Anyone would say that the former would be the leaders or/and, more intelligent. So how is it that the Indians, for instance, have underdeveloped? How is it that the more creatively vibrant and animated Malays have underdeveloped? How is it that the Chinese head these arenas when those who practiced cultures that induce more creative/intellectual and popular vibrancy aren’t contributing significantly too? Surely we’ve all often heard the phrase, ‘this one cannot control, so better not hire her/im’. Isn’t that another way of saying, ‘this guy don’t let me do the thinking for him so better not hire him’.

Also, we have, ‘don’t think so much’, ‘why complain so much’, ‘don’t be long-winded’, ‘don’t question, just follow’, etc, etc, etc. What does this mean in this context other than an aversion to independent thought and critique? And would this not compromise relatively dull minds unable to appreciate detail, incapable of independent thought, aversion to difference and contradiction, amongst a host of other deficiencies. If this can apply in the upbringing of a child, why can’t it not apply to the rearing of a people?

It’s a combination of both educational/economic/media/etc marginalisation AND pressures to adapt and assimilate to an ultra-conformist status quo engendered within a legalist-confucian state that does it. Through the former, the non-Chinese are made lesser, through the latter, they are relegated to the underclass. So now the non-Chinese are supposed to team up with the so-called opposition with a, ‘f*** the foreigners, we want our 2nd class status back’. Your ‘unite singaporeans’ nonsense is simply a cover for the reinstatement of the privilege of the ‘native-born’ chinese over the non-chinese. You guys know how to kick up a fuss when you get what others have had to put up with because ‘they are not majority what!’

Cut the self-serving hypocrisy alright.

Till the opposition is able to prove, not only by words, but by actions and perspectives, that they are for all of the people, they are representative of nothing but the ‘majority’.


ed

Socialism: video, In Defence of Leon Trotsky

UK: Referendum on Electoral System, & TBP, a Farce?

[image shot/modified, by ed]


Oh, people just lurrrve choices. Their individuality is validated. Their ability to choose between one and the other, be it the devil or the deep blue sea, impresses upon them that their decision is of their own volition.

So now we are going to have this farce of a referendum for electoral reform next May, or more accurately, the refining of the ‘First Past The Post’ system. [BBC] I wouldn’t say that the proposed AV, or ‘Alternative Vote’ system, is a reformation, but rather a refinement. What does it refine? It is an attempt to fine-tune the electoral system to the point that popular dissent might be quelled - not that anything significant is done to reform the system.

The Take Back Parliament movement fell flat on its purple hindquarters. Looking at how things transpired, they needn’t have taken to the streets at all. After all, the powers-that-be were already seriously talking about electoral reform in their manifesto, and Gordon Brown gave it more than a brief mention in his bye-bye-i'm-buggering-off speech at Number 10, amongst others.

So what is the TBP doing presently? Taking to the streets to convince people of the need to support electoral reform, and hence, the AV. They have become nothing more than a mouthpiece of the PTBs. Nothing more, whatever they would like you to think through a ticker-tape parade of various shades of purple. Now, they’ve left it to the vote of its members, including myself, to decide if,

AV ought to be supported unconditionally - 18%,
Supported as a stepping stone to Proportionate Representation - 59%,
or
Rejected outright in support of PR - 23%.

[source]

If they saw it fit to go out into the streets and educate the public in the virtues of AV, then why do they not try to educate their own members - many of whom are youngsters, into the virtue of ‘PR Now!’ and ‘Fair Votes Now!’ given that the movement is called ‘Take Back Parliament’ as opposed to ‘Take Back Parliament a bit now and a bit more in a decades or so time’. Instead, they were already earlier supporting the AV in their postings, and now, they are leaving it to the vote of its members after being selective in what they said and left unsaid earlier?

And they talk about 'patience' and 'being realistic' in toning down the demands for 'Fair Votes Now!' and supporting AV for now? Isn't any democratic movement supposed to challenge and overturn what people have been trained to be patient and realistic in the face of? I was a tad bit worried in the outset when some begin to talk about 'change' as opposed to 'progress'. They did the same shit in Singapore and ended up simply refining fascism. 'Change' frequently amounts to what I would call 'hot-plating'. That is, switching from one foot to another whilst both are placed on a hot plate so as to make the experience less discomforting. With 'change', people could accept the AV. But with a 'progressive' approach, they would be forced to consider if 'change' amounts to true 'progress'. Then, they would most certainly stick to their placards and demand for 'Fair Votes Now', and with especial emphasis on 'Now!' But as it transpired, the TBP has descended to being nothing other than an attempt to incorporate dissent and channel it down paths congruent with the aims of the parties in power.

The significance of the least is that which serves as one of the pillars of democracy. How does AV elevate the significance of minority parties, pray tell? The TBP has now voted, with the earlier subtle goadings of its leaders, and by leaving a lot left unsaid about how AV is an affront to the spirit of the TBP movement, to marginalise minority parties, just as they were in the FPTP system. That is what it amounts to - political fascism. I don't see any progress in using the heads of minority parties as a stepping stone to a representative government.

Now, if AV is supported through the farcical referendum, not only are minority parties left unrepresented in parliament, but their votes are given to the major parties as well. So that’s how its going to be for the ‘stepping stone’ that AV is supposed to be. More like a headstone for minority parties for close to a decade at least. Another 4 years for the next elections, another four after that to try out the results of the AV system in the next elections, and perhaps, to attempt to try it out for another 4 years after that just to see how it goes. 12 years at least? Before ‘Fair Votes Now!’? Looks like the Take Back Parliament movement has descended to being nothing more than a ‘Take Back Parliament’ movement. As for the referendum, it may be giving the people the right to choose, but only after the menu has been carefully vetted through by the parties in power, and the silent acquiescence of those leading the TBP movement.


ed