And as is the case amongst most chinese, they have taken it out of context.
To all foreigners, please note, the confucianised chinese are a ‘face value’ people. Metaphors, double entendres, etc, is lost on them - and which is most evident in daily conversations, and in their 'witty' productions. If it can’t be made sense of immediately, they’ll either just ignore it, or take the most obvious of what you said - an information-processing tendency that further reinforces racist and xenophobic inclinations.
Good cases in point may be seen when Gopalan Nair was taken to court for using the word ‘prostitute’ in a sentence with reference to a judge. It didn’t matter that in that context, the word meant, to ‘sell out’ or ‘pander’ to the wishes of the government whilst in her judicial position. In another case where a Malay bloke said, ‘let’s burn the government....let’s vote them out’, he was arrested for the term ‘burn’ which was taken literally, and deemed to be an incitement to violence. How stupid can these people get? It’s downright surreal. It seems that all intelligent life have little alternative but to get dumb to live in Qin-gapore, or to hop on a plane to another country and claim asylum from tyrannous stupidity.
It is not how you feel when something is said that matters, but whether its true. And even if it was discovered to be untrue upon further debate, the value of a false statement lies in us refining our perceptions via debate about it. Think about that mate. For such a people, right and wrong is determined by how many people are offended by it, and not whether it might be true. And they will tend to couch it all behind an ambiguous, ‘insensitive comments’. I wonder if children can take their parents to court for offending their ‘sensitivities’ when they are told that if they don’t study, they’ll be stupid. It is not how you feel when something is said that matters, but whether its true. And even if it was discovered to be untrue upon further debate, the value of a false statement lies in us refining our perceptions via debate about it. Think about that mate.
If one was to think about it beyond the ‘face value’, one will realise that this 'being sensitive' essentially protects the chinese from critique as they are the majority. This sort of ‘logic’, where something is deemed ‘insensitive’ because the ‘majority’ are bothered by it, or if lots of fuss is made over it, at the end of the day, panders to their dominance. At the end of the day, this ‘being sensitive‘, in the context of singapore means, no race can be criticised if it offends their sensitivities, but it also means that chinese dominance and racism cannot be criticised as well.
Whilst fascist scum like Temasek Review, and other racist scum posting extremely derogatory statements about Beguia and Filipinos and all new foreigners in general get away, the Heart Centre is now investigating Beguia for her ‘insensitive’ comments.Whilst fascist scum like Temasek Review, and other racist scum posting extremely derogatory statements about Beguia, Filipinos and all new foreigners in general get away, the Heart Centre - whose 'heart' doesn't seem to be supplying its 'brain' with much - is now investigating Beguia for her ‘insensitive’ comments - go take a look at the comments in TR. Talk about double standards. So Beguia ought to be ‘sensitive’ to what? Stupidity? The opinions held by the ‘majority’ even if it can be proven to be ridiculous? And even if it was insensible, wouldn’t that give us the opportunity to ask if it is true, or engage in critical introspection, or why such opinions are held, etc, for the sake of the betterment of society?
This reminds me of another case, where a friend of mine from China - i tend to get along much better with China nationals than locals...as, i suppose, they have yet to be taught to ignore non-chinese singaporean interests - working as a coffeeshop cleaner at Toa Payoh block 203, was beaten up by some of the 'pai kia'(triad members) whom are a constant drunken, and unfortunately, permanent installation there. My other 'pai kia' and non-'pai kia' friends told me about it when i came back to Singapore last year-end, and they kept harping on how this cleaner was outspoken and were completely unbothered about his being beaten up so bad that he had to be hospitalised.
Finally, the guys who had beaten him up, I heard, were fined a $1000 each, and the money presumably pocketed by the government, whilst my China friend was sent back. Singaporeans 1, Foreigner 0. I knew this bloke personally, and had spent quite a few times chatting with him over tea, playing chinese chess with him, and found him to be a pleasant and amiable chap. But he was fiery as well, but only when others stepped on his toes. I had told off an Indian acquaintance in his 50s once for picking a fight with him, and the others at the table for supporting this Indian guy just because he was a singaporean. I proved to them that it was the Indian guy at fault, told off the Indian guy with a, 'just because you're a singaporean doesn't make you right, and just because he's a foreigner doesn't make him wrong. That is all irrelevant. All that matters is what's right dei!', and everyone kept quiet after that, whilst I went off and tried to calm down the China bloke with my broken Mandarin -
"aiyah, bu yao ching lah, da mei tian zhe yang la. Wei she mo yao da zhia? Ni da zhia, ching zha zhiao ni huay zhong guo....bu yao ching la, lai, he ka fei, wo ching..."
(translation: don't bother about it. That guy's always like that. Why do you want to fight with him? If you fight, the police will tell you to go back to China. Don't bother about it. Come, have a coffee, on me...)
Well, back to the Beguia affair......
This is another case of confucianised chinese-led ‘intelligence’ (not all, but most) taking things out of context.
The statement by Beguia that is in focus is,
“These moronic ‘Singaporeans’, their code, their morals, their ‘loyalty’ and ‘patriotism’....all dropped at the first sign of trouble....just ask any of them if they want to be excused from serving NS and they will be the first to raise their hands....”
Did the people investigating Beguia go to school at all? Or perhaps they are from confucian SAP schools (‘Special Assistance Plan’ schools instituted in the past designed to give the Chinese exceptional education to enable them to take over the economy). Do they know that putting something in quotes gives it a meaning other than the obvious or literal? The meaning lies in the context mate. Beguia obviously meant those who criticised Penny, and who deemed themselves to be 'singaporeans' but whom may not behave with the loyalty that might be required to validate such an identity, but still have no problem taking issue with Penny regarding her loyalty. And it's not like I haven't heard some singaporeans say exactly what Beguia said, or stated that they would leave if there ever was war in singapore. Rather than being small-minded and devoid of any meaningful identity to find such a statement to be 'offending my sensitivities', i would always ask them why they felt that way.
And Beguia did not mean ALL singaporeans. She was referring mainly to those singaporeans responding to her and taking issue with Penny for looking at her handphone during the national anthem - these people really should go get a life, and a brain, and not bang on about such insignificant events. But the Heart Centre and AsiaOne news - which is a government-control rag - has presented it to mean ALL singaporeans as is stated in the title.
It is obvious that this is an attempt by the government to placate critique on the oppositional side about the influx of new foreigners. But making a victim out of Beguia when much of what she said was quite plausible just to divide the oppositional camp is nothing short of disgusting. And the oppositional side seem to be fuelling this with their racist rants and raves, or/and, not appreciating this issue objectively. It is certainly an abysmal state of affairs when the only difference between the government and the opposition is that the latter have yet to take the place of the former.
For goodness sakes, bring in more indians or British into the country please - or at least, in the case of local singaporeans, try and pry your eyes away from local mind-dumbing programming and pick up the perspectives of other cultures so that we wouldn't need the aforementioned. They have enough of a cultural background to know the meaning of a metaphor or double entendre, or when a statement is referring to all or some, or question after the truth of the statement rather than childishly focusing on how much the statement made them cry.
To all egalitarian-minded Chinese, or whom aspire to be so, stand up and say something about it. If you don't, you are a part of the problem as the vocal racists and xenophobes will be heard and emulated, but not the silent. Thereafter, it would not be inaccurate if all chinese were to be criticised as whole since there wouldn't be any perceivable perspectival difference amongst them - as is already quite the case at present.