Skip to main content

ed says, ‘No to Singapore’s Opposition’, ‘Yes to PAP’.

An email from an indian singaporean,

Dear Ed,
The singapore elections will be in less than a week. Hope you will vote even though you are in UK, and do please vote for the opposition candidate in your area!
Although you may be afraid of the opposition not protecting minority rights if they are voted into power, it cannot get any worse than the PAP's track record of pretending to protect minority rights while doing just the opposite. PAP only pretends that it is serving the interests of the minority, when in reality they are slyly and underhandedly promoting the interests of the ethnic Han majority, the interests of the PRC, and their own financial interests as well. This is our chance for vengeance.
This election, the opposition parties have many god quality candidates to choose from (better than in the past). They are credible and aren't motivated by money. Let's give them a chance to prove themselves this time around.
Best regards,



I used to think that way too.  Not anymore i'm afraid.  The opposition has to prove themselves betwixt elections. 
In this, they have proven themselves, beyond doubt, to be racially biased and xenophobic. 

To vote for them is to validate them as they are, not as they could be. 
I have experienced their racial/cultural bias for more than a decade now. 

It's about time they were sent a clear message to either get truly representative, or keep whining for chinese interests on the sideline. 

You need to look at things long term to appreciate that.  'Vengence', in this context, only plays against the interests of the non-chinese, and reinforces their advantage and self-absorption. 
It may be immediately gratifying, but few things, if they are immediately gratifying, are advantageous in the long term.
It is extremely naive to believe that things are going to change for the non-chinese under an oppositional government, given the overwhelming evidence.

I wrote an article yesterday with regards to this matter....will probably put it up today.

keep well,



I’d call for a resounding ‘NO!’ to singapore’s opposition. The basis for it is the same for why I’m voting ‘NO!’ to the ‘Alternative Vote’ System here in the UK. In both cases, minorities are being cast aside, with minority parties in the UK, and minority ethnic groups in Singapore.

The opposition rarely bothers about the interests of the non-Chinese ethnic groups in singapore. That is obvious in the way they keep silent about events that affect them where in the UK there would be a public furore. But their rationale for such disinterest is that ‘the unity of the opposition must be maintained’. I recall that confucian git, Ng E-Jay saying as much in a post a year ago to justify why, amongst others, was ‘editorially judged’ to be inappropriate for listing in the sexist, racially biased and censorious This Ng bloke, by the way, is the political editor of TOC, runs his own site, member of the SDP, and given his vehement critique of Singazine’s critique of SGdaily, probably one of the organ-grinders behind it.

..what can we make of this ‘unity’ that the so-called ‘opposition’ is so fond of calling for. It is, in essence, no different from the ‘unity’ which the PAP calls for - assimilation to the interests and whims of the powerful and racially and culturally defined ‘majority’.
But what can we make of this ‘unity’ that the so-called ‘opposition’ is so fond of calling for. It is, in essence, no different from the ‘unity’ which the PAP calls for - assimilation to the interests and whims of the powerful and racially and culturally defined ‘majority’. The PAP calls for ‘unity’ and ‘harmony’, gets rid of hijabs in schools, professes their intention to maintain singapore’s racial balance in favour of the chinese, promotes chinese culture and language with religious fervour, and imports China Chinese to keep up the preferred ‘balance’. The ‘opposition’ had little or nothing to say about these or a myriad of other policies that compromises the economic progress and cultural development of the non-Chinese for the sake of ‘unity’, conformity, and ‘harmony’.

The brand of ‘unity’ and ‘harmony’ that both the government and the opposition espouse is that of expecting those whom are disadvantaged and being assimilated to the confucian status quo to get used to their position so that harmony can be maintained. If this goes on long enough, the non-Chinese, on the one hand, will truly become so Confucian that they will be similar enough to the Chinese to get along with them without feeling that they are not being given room to express their culturally unique personalities. On the other, with enough non-Chinese being underdeveloped by this experience and ‘majority’ expectations when it comes to what’s right and not, they will naturally take to those professions that remain and think that they are doing it because they want to and not because of their being socialised to not want more or being conscious enough from their childhood that certain professions are not theirs to aspire to. And if they do get past discrimination, they only do so if they are chinese in persona, if not feature. This is the false brand of ‘harmony’ that is the status quo in singapore, and which the ‘opposition’ has nothing to say about. Neither Chee, Thia Khiang, Kenneth, or others, have had the sense to realise this, or simply can’t be bothered.

..what the opposition is actually doing is looking for those instances where both the interests of the Chinese and non-Chinese are compromised to claim that they are representative of both, and get the non-Chinese to join them, while, keeping silent about those events that only compromise the interests of the non-Chinese. I myself had to reject Chee’s invitation to join the SDP about a decade ago when he specifically told me to follow without question the dictates of the chinese leaders of the SDP youth back then. In other words, stick to the Chinese norm and do as you’re told or as others do. I was, however, not one with their perspectives as i still had my multiculturally-induced personality intact given my experience of a more multiculturally-egalitarian singapore of the 70s and 80s. I suppose, if i was born later, I would be like Seelan, Shamin, Farhan, amongst other oppositional underlings and writers, ‘intellectuals’ and ‘doctors’ whom do not have enough of the multicultural or Indian/Malay persona intact to feel differently from their confucianised chinese counterparts (not all chinese are confucians, and not all confucians are chinese) about things in order to question them or notice deficiencies that comes to my attention quite naturally and reflexively. And, as expected, when I spoke to some of these non-Chinese oppositional figures in the past (not necessarily the aforementioned), they remained silent about my observations about the bias of the opposition. They simply refused to pursue the conversation via questions, argument, or agreement. Just silence. All they were interested was in sticking to the party line and popular perspectives. Typical of the confucianised mind. This was a sharp contrast to my Indian and Malay friends of the 70s and 80s whom would engage in such conversation even if they had never considered it before, or didn’t think as I did - The same applies to most conversations i've had with the Brits and Africans.

Hence, it is not surprising that such a racially and culturally bigoted ‘opposition’, and whom are, perspectivally, more a product of the PAP than a true alternative to it, do not appreciate that there are 2 paths to unity. One, either get the slave to accept that her/is rightful place is at the foot of the master/mistress by keeping silent about such marginalisation, and then you can have a harmonious relationship between slave and master, or advantaged and disadvantaged,


Seek to address all instances of marginalisation and prove their claimed position as true representatives of the people.

Singapore’s ‘opposition’ have chosen, given the majority of their insights and oversights, the former.

But what the opposition is actually doing is looking for those instances where both the interests of the Chinese and non-Chinese are compromised to claim that they are representative of both, and get the non-Chinese to join them,


Keeping silent about those events that only compromise the interests of the non-Chinese. (i.e. they never bothered about the policy to maintain a racial balance in favour of the chinese, promotion of chinese culture, how the mother tongue policy disadvantages the non-chinese, or how the non-chinese were 'less preferred' in the media, jobs, etc, etc, etc)

The former gives the illusion that the ‘opposition’ are truly representative of all singaporeans regardless of race, creed, or language. But the latter is the litmus test of the representative claim of the ‘opposition’.

In other words, the Chinese get all their interests seen to, whilst the non-Chinese only get those interests that coincide with the interests of the Chinese seen to. That is easily verifiable via all of the opposition’s insights and oversights. And given their cultural/racial bias, it is not surprising that the opposition are also xenophobic in their approach to ‘foreigners’ without any appreciation of the fact that their own ancestors of singapore’s recent historical past, if they are Chinese and Indian, are foreigners and ‘foreign talent’ themselves. Ironic that there are equal opportunities when it comes to joining the opposition, but not when it comes to addressing the absence of equal opportunities in singapore between the different ethnic groups. That proves that the non-Chinese whom sign up with the opposition play the role of superficially proving that these oppositional parties are representative of all singaporeans.

So given that the PAP is the source of this problem, why would I still vote for the PAP?

The reason is simple enough. If we vote for the opposition, we are saying to them that they are truly representative of our interests and we like them as they are. The impetus for them to become more representative is compromised. The PAP’s logic is the same. “if the people don’t like our this or that policies, they wouldn’t vote for us.” A vote for the opposition is not only a vote for their insights, but a vote of their oversights as well. If they are open to change and challenge themselves, I wouldn’t mind voting for them. But given their arrogance and self-absorption, and refusal to take on board critique of their biases, the only way to get them to make more effort in being truly representative is to say ‘NO!’ to them until they get their heads out of their self-absorbed arses. If they are going to make so little effort to be representative of the non-Chinese before the elections, we can certainly not expect them to bother once they are validated for what they are and voted into government.

..given their racist foundations, it is not surprising that they are also attempting to get the xenophobic vote as well by calling for a unity of ‘native-born’ singaporeans vs. ‘foreigners’..
But there is another reason why the ‘opposition’ might not bring up the race issue.

Given enough time under a racial/cultural supremacist government, the people themselves will become a problem. Hence, the opposition does not want to marginalise the racists or those whom are accustomed to racism out there (of all races). They are relying on the racist vote as well, i.e. those who prefer to have ‘mandarin speakers’ as colleagues; those whom think the non-Chinese too dark to be included in the media; those whom have no problem watching only Chinese programmes in coffeeshop televisions; those whom don't think there's anything wrong with Indians and Malays being cast in diminutive roles in the local 'comedy', 'serves you right'; those whom have no problem with Chinese culture and language being promoted over all others and becoming the national culture and language; those whom discount the racism/xenophobia issue by callously dismissing it as an issue as it 'happens all over the world one'; those whom describe a person as handsome or beautiful with an ‘s/he very beautiful ha, very fair!’; those employers, oppositional party leaders, oppositional party members, other people, whom do not like the critical and analytical propensities of the Indians and view it as ‘trouble-making’; those whom think that the Malays are not making a success of themselves because they are ‘lazy’; et cetera, et cetera.

And given their racist foundations, it is not surprising that they are also attempting to get the xenophobic vote as well by calling for a unity of ‘native-born’ singaporeans vs. ‘foreigners’. That, in itself, reveals the opposition, and that overly-lauded Chee of the SDP for the nazi scum that they are. And they have the cheek to call themselves democrats.
I have to wonder why people don't notice whilst a site or party might claim to be non-xenophobic, they never take on the xenophobia and racial bias of others sites or parties. This is one of the significant factors that present the entirety of these sites and parties as xenophobic and racially biased. It's just that they divide the racially-biased and xenophobic labour between them so as to not come across as one monolithic xenophobic and racially-biased mass. That way, the oppositional supporters whom are against such things will not be disenchanted with them as a whole. So, for instance, you might think, "well, the TOC is not really xenophobic like TR, so the opposition isn't xenophobic as a whole." But the point is, if the opposition get into government, the TOC type of bloke isn't going to check on the TR type of bloke. That is how the xenophobia of the latter gets on the agenda unchecked. That is the 'good cop, bad cop' trick they pull to keep all their supporters. But their final agenda as a whole is the sum of all their oversights and insights. Think about that.

We’ll just have to stick to the PAP, and by doing so, send a clear message to the so-called ‘opposition’ that they have to do more than access populist and racially biased avenues to get support.
The problem is that the opposition has done just about bugger all to address these problems in the past and present that it has become the mindset of many people. Hence, to bring it up is to alienate voters or the bloke you're sipping tea with. What they ought to have done is to educate the voters betwixt elections into multicultural egalitarianism and the great perspectival, political, and practical benefits it can bring. I myself wrote to TOC and asked them start a ‘race relations‘ section for such a purpose but whilst they responded to my other queries, they ignored this suggestion. Unfortunately, they chose the easy and self-absorbed path and strove to gain advantage despite the disadvantage of the non-Chinese. Hence, they too are responsible for further depressing all singaporeans into this self-reducing racist and monocultural mire.

We’ll just have to stick to the PAP, and by doing so, send a clear message to the so-called ‘opposition’ that they have to do more than access populist, racially biased and xenophobic avenues to get support. Spoiling your vote is not going to help as it can be interpreted in many ways - be it suffering from a hangover, to not knowing that an ‘X’ means ‘Yes’. But a vote for the PAP, even if it is construed as a support for the PAP, will still mean that the opposition has to do more. And in their efforts to do so, perhaps, they will also make the requisite efforts to do right by all, with great regard to all, and in true and equitable appreciation of their race, religion, and language despite numbers. (notice how the wp banner above places mandarin above other non-english languages? These are one of the numerous freudian slips the opposition constantly make that reveals their true focus. But you aren't going to notice it if you're born into it or used to it.)



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…