SG presidential elections: considering Mark's observations

 (The following is eds consideration of Mark's earlier article - thoughts on SG presidential elections - due to the ‘chong hei’(long-winded) nature of this response, i decided to publish it as an article instead of a ‘comment’)

Hey ho Mark,

Very astute and empathetic observations Mark.  I'm glad to have your observations that can only add more value to this largely unexplored (by local 'democrats', 'socialists', bloggers, 'opposition') issue.  Your concrete examples of what this or that Tan said or didn’t say is certainly helpful as my own focus is on the meaning of the overarching affair.  Hence, your input is certainly invaluable.



To add... the problem with these blokes, in consideration of your account, is that whilst they pay lip service to the interests of the 'minorities', they fail to state what the overall problem is, i.e. underdevelopment, marginalisation, emerging from pro-chinese policies, and now, popular discrimination taken as the norm by all races. 

For the candidates to engage in a detailed analysis of discrimination would in itself be quite a self-incriminating venture as the resulting implication would be that they themselves might have become eligible presidential candidates because of said discrimination For the candidates to engage in a detailed analysis of discrimination would in itself be quite a self-incriminating venture as the resulting implication would be that they themselves might have become eligible presidential candidates because of said discrimination in the past decades which enabled them to achieve what they did personally and hence, qualify.  So, it is not surprising that they might tend to steer clear of the details comprising the issue and just stick to traditional and superficial approaches and statements like, 'uplifting the Malays', or anything else that sounds good but does not simultaneously compromise Chinese dominance or their being 'preferred'.

As 'V'(chinese girl from singapore) stated quite a few times over the past few days, this so-called 'singaporean' elections will only serve to further reinforce the notion amongst the chinese that the non-Chinese are good for nothing significant.   

To which, I added, that amongst the non-Chinese, they would bring up their kids in such a way that they would not work towards such significant positions as 'it is a Chinese preferred' arena - i’ve heard many non-Chinese state as much with regards to particular professions over the past few decades whereas the Chinese never needed to state it, or have their ambitions circumscribed by such notions.  This is already the case with the non-Chinese only focusing on professions where there is no such racial bar.  It is a combination of this, plus the racial self-absorption engendered by policies and legalism-confucianism that enabled Lee Hsien Loong to state, with impunity, that singapore isn’t ready for a non-Chinese PM.

Hence, the non-Chinese are today doing less than what they were doing in the 70s and 80s (when they were observably more advanced in the creative and intellectual sense)  and even less than the Chinese today.   What we’ve witnessed is basically an underdevelopmental process.  The first stage is where the non-Chinese will feel the pressure to abide by ‘Chinese’ norms, and do and think as they do via a host of pressures from the work to the social arena.  This is reinforced by the media, national celebrations, work and social arena.  The second stage will see the non-Chinese being like the ‘Chinese’, but also becoming less because they wouldn’t go into all fields and interests as do the Chinese because of the perception that this or that ‘is a chinese thing’.  In a nutshell, ‘being like the ‘Chinese’, but considering less ambitions, makes one even less.  I was personally conscious of this problem more than a decade ago but abided by the perspective that i still ought to do whatever caught my fancy even if it didn’t translate to ‘success’.  Hence, I tend to state that ‘whilst i’m from singapore, i’m despite singapore’. 


V did also ask earlier, ‘perhaps there aren’t many non-Chinese whom are qualified to stand for president....since the criteria is quite high...like holding high positions and so on.’  To this, i stated, if discrimination is already true, it wouldn’t be surprising that there might not be as many ‘qualified’ non-Chinese to participate in said elections.  This way, it wouldn’t come across as racist as the racism had already taken place in related arenas to ensure that when the time comes for the qualified to step up, it would be a mostly Chinese line-up.  Or as it is in this elections, a wholly ‘Tan’ affair.  When ‘V’ asked my mom whom she voted for, my mom replied, ‘One of the Tans’.  The fact that she can make such a statement is itself indicative of the degree of cultural and racial self-absorption in the state to the point that they're all 'Tans'.  Names aren’t necessary.  It’s akin to, ‘one of the chinese’.  ‘Multicultural’ indeed.


With regards to an alternative voting system, what they should be looking for is pure PR, or Proportionate Representation.  Or perhaps that is what they’re talking about.  But I doubt that the government would be silly enough to consider it because if it is applied to the presidential elections, people would soon be demanding that it be applied in the parliamentary elections as well.  But you’re right.  I doubt that people would be considering this if the Tan, version ‘cheng bok’, won the elections.  And again, I have to agree with you.  I wouldn’t vote for a Qin-non-Chinese either. 


having one person, president or otherwise, with a veto basically renders the whole population politically impotent betwixt elections. What next? Have a non-elected president to check on the elected one? Silly gits. Anyway, this whole presidential thing is quite pointless - as you yourself recognised.  I don’t see how it is democratic to have one bloke veto anything.  It’s no different from the so-called Queen in the UK, or the House of Lords, with the only difference being that the President is elected.  The value of democracy lies not only in the person in power being elected, and hence, representative, but also in her/is being checked by opposition and debate from the other side of the house.  That can only possibly be the case in a parliamentary system.  I’m surprised that none of these ‘democrats’ in singapore realise that point. 

That’s the thing with fascist ‘democrats’ and ‘socialists’.  They don’t know their fascism from the democracy.  As you stated, if they had fought for true egalitarian multiculturalism, lots of the evils that they bemoan wouldn’t exist.  And, to add, they wouldn’t be banging on about the presidential elections and who ought to win as they would realise that not only would it compromise multiculturalism as a whole - as you stated - given the predominance of Tans as opposed to Ahmads, Rajas and Johns, but that having one person, president or otherwise, with a veto basically renders the whole population politically impotent betwixt elections.  What next?  Have a non-elected president to check on the elected one?  Silly gits.


All we need to focus on is to get more opposition into parliament, provided that they aren’t the racially-biased version that they currently are.  And even if the opposition was to take the reins of the government, i would certainly want more PAP opposition members in parliament as well to supply opposing perspectives.  (though personally, i’d prefer all parties to be socialist who have different approaches to things so that on the whole, whatever the party, whatever the arguments, whatever the opposition, we will know for certain that no elite is going to be laughing its way to the bank with the people’s money.  ‘Solo bear’ in his recent ‘critique’ of socialism is just making a public exposition of his ignorance-cum-self absorption.)  As you stated,

“in essence, the elected presidency system is a corollary of the Legalist-Confucian system, which I would advocate abolishing unequivocally”

You certainly have my vote, ‘Mark’, if you stand for elections.  Parliamentary that is.


ed




5 comments:

  1. Hey Ed,

    Thanks for your insight. I'll comment on this article in a few days' time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Ed,

    "For the candidates to engage in a detailed analysis of discrimination would in itself be quite a self-incriminating venture as the resulting implication would be that they themselves might have become eligible presidential candidates because of said discrimination in the past decades which enabled them to achieve what they did personally and hence, qualify. So, it is not surprising that they might tend to steer clear of the details comprising the issue and just stick to traditional and superficial approaches and statements like, 'uplifting the Malays', or anything else that sounds good but does not simultaneously compromise Chinese dominance or their being 'preferred'."

    I agree with you here. If they had been astute enough to realise that the election is to maintain the Qin-Chinese dominance as a consequence and be empathetic towards the marginalised groups, they would have been wise enough to not stand for presidential election and instead shift goalpost to channel their energy to champion for egalitarianism. Not doing so, just like sticking to traditional and superficial approaches, would show very much on the degree of self-absorption of the presidential candidates. Or I should say those who stand for presidential election are not true believers of egalitarian democracy due to the above situation and the fact that it undermines democracy.

    As for the part where the minority ethnic groups have been underdeveloped, it was the result of the overaching Confucian milieu that have enabled them to develop inferiority complex, especially since they are not given the same motivational opportunities as is the Chinese. It doesn't help that the Qin-Chinese were apathetic to the marginalisation. An example of then having inferiority complex would be that they do not venture into professional fields that are deemed "Chinese". Instances like this would result in further underdevelopment of the minority ethnic groups. Hence, the non-Chinese are doing less than the Qin-Chinese. Anyway, I'd really have loved to interact with the Malays, Indians, and Eurasians in the 1970s and early 1980s.

    As for the alternative voting system, they were talking about instant runoff to decide who should be the next president given that the votes count difference was significantly small at that point in time. Having said that, the presidential election is pointless. The "democratic opposition" is a product of the circumstances, so they couldn't see the true value of democracy under the fascistic system.

    To get more real opposition into the parliament, we ought to address the racial issue and its consequnces. This is of paramount importance. I wish PAP would change its perspective back to its socialistic origin in the 1950s so that it might help in leading the people back to an egalitarian path. Someone enlightened has to do the job within the party. This is based on the fact that given the situation right now, one of the only few ways to bring about positive change is to tackle the problem where it started, which would be to change the perspectives within the party. Oh well, I'm being too idealistic here.

    Nah I don't have what it takes to be a politician. Haha.

    Thanks for your input anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Mark,

    Actually, i wouldn't say that the Tans weren't astute enough to realise that the elections just maintains qin-Chinese dominance. They are well aware of that, and happy about that. When Hsien Loong said that singapore isn't ready for a non-Chinese PM, that was a clear statement in favour of Qin-nese dominance. They aren't morons you know. It's the same thing with the local chinese being unhappy about foreigners. If they can be unhappy about foreigners doing them what they had done to the non-chinese, that shows that they are aware of it. If i can complain about the slap i receive from others, i would be very well aware of the pain it causes those whom i slap. Same thing bro.

    Yes Mark. You're right about the underdevelopment of the non-Chinese and their perception and shying away from 'chinese' fields. I'm doing less in the employment sector because of this - though i've not allowed this to make less of my own pastimes. That sort of feeds my 'superiority complex' ;) But i pity the rest. I've seen many Indians and Malays with great potentials degenerate over time and become less because of this. Others became more belligerent and opportunistic to counter this and became irksome company.

    There is actually a 'curve' here. (1)At first, the non-Chinese would be superior to the chinese in intellect/etc because they consider more differences since the chinese are in the majority. They practice their own cultures, and also pay attention to chinese culture. (2)Then comes the equality as they realise that their culture is irrelevant. Thereon, they become chinese in character and perspective. (3)Then comes the decline as they are afforded less motivational resources, opportunities, etc. And hence become lesser than the chinese over time.

    All three stages have already run their course. The story is complete for most, if not all.

    Yes. You'd certainly have loved hanging out with the Malays, Indians and Eurasians back then. The Malays were highly individualistic. The Indians were witty and intelligent. And the Eurasians were fun. The chinese back then mainly played the role of followers but it helped to get rid of the negative effects of confucian culture and many chinese i knew were very nice and fun people. Though, i'm sure, they've all degenerated now.

    Actually, the PAP now is a breakaway from the socialist PAP. The socialists were evicted. Then they were demonised during the 'marxist conspiracy' debacle. And thereafter, the socialists that emerged were too confucianised to be true socialists, i.e. alfian saat, other 'leftist' persons in the opposition, etc. They are a mix of 'national socialists' (like Hitler's 'National Socialist German Workers Party') or bourgeois socialists. In other words, not socialists.

    I've studied socialism more than a decade ago in the UK, had fantastic conversations with some of my socialist/radical feminist marxist/marxist professors about it over drinks, and also interacted with members of the socialist party, etc, in the UK, gone for a few demos, etc, .... so i sort of know what i'm talking about. You can be sure that most of those claiming to be marxist or socialists in singapore, including alfian saat, wouldn't be considered socialists in the UK with their xenophobic and racially biased BS. Not surprising, amongst a highly ignorant and self-absorbed population as may be found in SG, they would enjoy great popularity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Mark,

    Actually, i wouldn't say that the Tans weren't astute enough to realise that the elections just maintains qin-Chinese dominance. They are well aware of that, and happy about that. When Hsien Loong said that singapore isn't ready for a non-Chinese PM, that was a clear statement in favour of Qin-nese dominance. They aren't morons you know. It's the same thing with the local chinese being unhappy about foreigners. If they can be unhappy about foreigners doing them what they had done to the non-chinese, that shows that they are aware of it. If i can complain about the slap i receive from others, i would be very well aware of the pain it causes those whom i slap. Same thing bro.

    Yes Mark. You're right about the underdevelopment of the non-Chinese and their perception and shying away from 'chinese' fields. I'm doing less in the employment sector because of this - though i've not allowed this to make less of my own pastimes. That sort of feeds my 'superiority complex' ;) But i pity the rest. I've seen many Indians and Malays with great potentials degenerate over time and become less because of this. Others became more belligerent and opportunistic to counter this and became irksome company.

    There is actually a 'curve' here. (1)At first, the non-Chinese would be superior to the chinese in intellect/etc because they consider more differences since the chinese are in the majority. They practice their own cultures, and also pay attention to chinese culture. (2)Then comes the equality as they realise that their culture is irrelevant. Thereon, they become chinese in character and perspective. (3)Then comes the decline as they are afforded less motivational resources, opportunities, etc. And hence become lesser than the chinese over time.

    All three stages have already run their course. The story is complete for most, if not all.

    Yes. You'd certainly have loved hanging out with the Malays, Indians and Eurasians back then. The Malays were highly individualistic. The Indians were witty and intelligent. And the Eurasians were fun. The chinese back then mainly played the role of followers but it helped to get rid of the negative effects of confucian culture and many chinese i knew were very nice and fun people. Though, i'm sure, they've all degenerated now.

    Actually, the PAP now is a breakaway from the socialist PAP. The socialists were evicted. Then they were demonised during the 'marxist conspiracy' debacle. And thereafter, the socialists that emerged were too confucianised to be true socialists, i.e. alfian saat, other 'leftist' persons in the opposition, etc. They are a mix of 'national socialists' (like Hitler's 'National Socialist German Workers Party') or bourgeois socialists. In other words, not socialists.

    I've studied socialism more than a decade ago in the UK, had fantastic conversations with some of my socialist/radical feminist marxist/marxist professors about it over drinks, and also interacted with members of the socialist party, etc, in the UK, gone for a few demos, etc, .... so i sort of know what i'm talking about. You can be sure that most of those claiming to be marxist or socialists in singapore, including alfian saat, wouldn't be considered socialists in the UK with their xenophobic and racially biased BS. Not surprising, amongst a highly ignorant and self-absorbed population as may be found in SG, they would enjoy great popularity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Mark,

    Actually, i wouldn't say that the Tans weren't astute enough to realise that the elections just maintains qin-Chinese dominance. They are well aware of that, and happy about that. When Hsien Loong said that singapore isn't ready for a non-Chinese PM, that was a clear statement in favour of Qin-nese dominance. They aren't morons you know. It's the same thing with the local chinese being unhappy about foreigners. If they can be unhappy about foreigners doing them what they had done to the non-chinese, that shows that they are aware of it. If i can complain about the slap i receive from others, i would be very well aware of the pain it causes those whom i slap. Same thing bro.

    Yes Mark. You're right about the underdevelopment of the non-Chinese and their perception and shying away from 'chinese' fields. I'm doing less in the employment sector because of this - though i've not allowed this to make less of my own pastimes. That sort of feeds my 'superiority complex' ;) But i pity the rest. I've seen many Indians and Malays with great potentials degenerate over time and become less because of this. Others became more belligerent and opportunistic to counter this and became irksome company.

    There is actually a 'curve' here. (1)At first, the non-Chinese would be superior to the chinese in intellect/etc because they consider more differences since the chinese are in the majority. They practice their own cultures, and also pay attention to chinese culture. (2)Then comes the equality as they realise that their culture is irrelevant. Thereon, they become chinese in character and perspective. (3)Then comes the decline as they are afforded less motivational resources, opportunities, etc. And hence become lesser than the chinese over time.

    All three stages have already run their course. The story is complete for most, if not all.

    Yes. You'd certainly have loved hanging out with the Malays, Indians and Eurasians back then. The Malays were highly individualistic. The Indians were witty and intelligent. And the Eurasians were fun. The chinese back then mainly played the role of followers but it helped to get rid of the negative effects of confucian culture and many chinese i knew were very nice and fun people. Though, i'm sure, they've all degenerated now.

    Actually, the PAP now is a breakaway from the socialist PAP. The socialists were evicted. Then they were demonised during the 'marxist conspiracy' debacle. And thereafter, the socialists that emerged were too confucianised to be true socialists, i.e. alfian saat, other 'leftist' persons in the opposition, etc. They are a mix of 'national socialists' (like Hitler's 'National Socialist German Workers Party') or bourgeois socialists. In other words, not socialists.

    I've studied socialism more than a decade ago in the UK, had fantastic conversations with some of my socialist/radical feminist marxist/marxist professors about it over drinks, and also interacted with members of the socialist party, etc, in the UK, gone for a few demos, etc, .... so i sort of know what i'm talking about. You can be sure that most of those claiming to be marxist or socialists in singapore, including alfian saat, wouldn't be considered socialists in the UK with their xenophobic and racially biased BS. Not surprising, amongst a highly ignorant and self-absorbed population as may be found in SG, they would enjoy great popularity.

    ReplyDelete

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo