Skip to main content

Singapore Heart Centre jumps on the bandwagon persecuting Beguia

source: asiaone

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, 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.



  1. I have already given those TR commentators a piece of my mind, emphasizing on their twisted logic of loyalty and telling them that the foreigners issue is just a red herring. As I would expect, the TR have decided not to publish my comment on the site. Further proves my point that they discount information that requires further thought. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear about your friend's plight. Can't those "native-born" be more sensible towards different others instead of acting like a bunch of juvenile Nazis of the East? It's time that all egalitarian-minded people should stand up and speak up against them!

  2. Ed, you are really a SOB. I really mean it. Some people like to be dogs, and you are one of them.

    Some will sniff at the arses of the govt pp, while you go around sniffing at the anuses of India Indian FTs.

    Such a disgrace, a local Indian like yourself kowtowing to foreign Indian trash.

  3. I'm surprised that TR 'moderated' your thoughts out of existence. They usually approve my rants. Haha!...'juvenile Nazis of the East'. Apt. Thanks for the support mate. You are certainly a role model for the local 'chinese'. You'd make your 'chou' ancestors proud.

  4. The funny thing is that you actually probably think you're making sense when all you've done is to confuse ad hominem for argument. But i'm not surprised given the insensible nature of most 'comments' at TR or the section of Penny Low's site dealing with Rachelle's comments.

    But if we were to cross swords with pure argument, you'll have to scamper away with your tail up your ass. But you know that don't you. Hence, the ad hominem. Why don't you put your face and name to your 'argument' so that i can show the world what 'stupid' looks like. That will certainly serve as incontrovertible proof as to whose mum is a 'bitch' here.

  5. Hey Ed,

    Looks like TR has decided to publish my comment as an article instead.

    I can't help laughing at most of the comments which are juvenilely fascistic in nature.

  6. Good stuff man! I dare say TR put up your comment as an article so as to satisfy the rabid xenophobes' desire to have fresh meat to sink their canines into. They'd like to think that putting up your viewpoint is an effort on their part to be 'objective', but the fact that they are obviously xenophobic given their focus on everything anti-foreigner, it is nothing but a ploy on their part to present themselves as democratic and open to all kinds of ideas. Fascists gits often do this kind of thing.

    Don't bother about the inane remarks. The ole thing about casting pearls amongst swine applies. They really can't argue rationally or logically, or do so only after ignoring lots of related factors. Such people should be sent for vasectomies and tuba ligations lest their stupidity is passed on to the future generations.

    By the way, have you considered putting your real name to your thoughts? You should. That really does much to make these other anonymous 'keyboard warriors' nothing but 'keyboard warriors'. It's up to you of course, but it does help. That said, anonymous or not, you've certainly got your points.

  7. Hey Ed,

    Yeah you're certainly right that they are projecting themselves as a "democratic" entity when they are nothing but just a fascistic version of democratic group. Anyway thanks for leaving a reply at the site.

    Anyway, this is my response to the more than 100 comments in summary:

    "Thanks to Ed for replying to those remarks. Many of you might have had the impression that I’m a foreigner. On the contrary, I’m a pure Singaporean Chinese. Instead of being sensitive to the challenges and thereby dismissing them entirely, we ought to assess the validity of the comments made by the person involved, be it Ms Beguia or Mr Gay. The comments made by the person was actually referring to those, whom the person labelled them as moronic, that had still made a fuss about the “loyalty” issue. S/he was NOT referring to all Singaporeans.

    Some of you may argue that the MP who looked down whilst the national anthem was being played was disrespectful. So this popular belief is established based on the fact that if someone, especially in a prominent position, stands still when the national anthem is being played, s/he shows a certain degree of respect to the country. So the “logic” by the majority is that if s/he does not stand still, s/he does not show basic respect to the country. I’m afraid I have to say that the preceding statement is NOT the negation of the statement prior to the preceding statement. The negation of the statement that “if someone, especially in a prominent position, stands still when the national anthem is being played, s/he shows a certain degree of respect to the country” should be that s/he stands still and yet s/he shows disrepect to the country by various means, which is really the case in the local context. The fact that the MP did not stand still does not show anything that she was disrespectful, unless more empirical evidence is required to substantiate the argument, which is a separate issue altogether."

  8. Hello Larrycampervan,
    Put your real name and our face when you dare to call someone ‘SOB’ on his site. If you think Ed is wrong, then please justify your case. Don’t just leave insensitive comments. You have clearly shown your racist and xenophobic inclinations by saying ‘local Indian like yourself kowtowing to foreign Indian trash’. It is not important whether the person is local or foreign, if there are reasons and justifications, we ought to listen, understand and react to the issues maturely. It takes great courage and maturity to admit when you are wrong.
    However, I think Rachelle is wrong to apologise. Living and working in singapore has given her the rights to express her opinions even if it is partially wrong. She did not insult all the singaporeans and yet, the chinese have again (examples have been provided by Ed) taken it out of context No one has discussed her opinions constructively, just bombarding her with irrational and insensitive comments. By apologising, she has reinforced the behaviours of the fascist and xenophobic singapore chinese that right and wrong is determined by how many people are offended by it and not whether it is true.

  9. "The negation of the statement that “if someone, especially in a prominent position, stands still when the national anthem is being played, s/he shows a certain degree of respect to the country” should be that s/he stands still and yet s/he shows disrepect to the country by various means, which is really the case in the local context."

    Well said Mark! My salutations.

    But i doubt there are many on TR whom are going to appreciate your views, albeit logical. It is obvious, looking at the comments to your published comment, that they come to conclusions after ignoring everything that contradicts their view. They do not take issue with your points, they just ignore it and focus on your being a singaporean who is standing up for 'foreigners'. Typically confucian i must say.

    But at least you're standing up man. Hopefully, others will began to learn from you and realise that one doesn't have to be chinese and be self-absorbed, and that one can be chinese and be egalitarian, empathetic, and multicultural - thus redefining 'chinese' as 'chou chinese' as opposed to 'qin chinese'.


Post a Comment

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.

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…