on, The Sikh Prisoner Haircut issue and 'Foreign Intervention

Well, the issue is....

AMRITSAR: The Akal Takht, the highest temporal seat of the Sikhs, has marked an inquiry into complaints and allegations that Sikh prison inmates in Singapore are being forced to cut their hair against the community's 'maryada' (code of conduct).

The takht has acted upon complaints filed by Madan Mohan Singh, a social activist, who works for a Singapore-based anti-narcotics association. - times of india

reactions from some chinamen...
Ah Chua:

The escalating fear of foreign intervention in our of life.

The more foreigners we took and issued them with pink ICs, the more pain we will get if we allowed them to impose their wills onto our system. The foreigners, the greater their numbers, are likely to make increasing demands for the system to accept and adapt to their ways of life, culture and religion. The Govt must make its stand very clear now that foreigners coming here and given citizenship must accept our way of life, social norms and our laws. They must adapt, integrate and change to fit into our system and not the other way around.

Now there is an organization from India demanding our Govt to answer to them. What next, from Italy, the Philippines, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, China or where else demanding that their citizens or believers be treated according to what they wanted and deemed fit.

Hey, we are a sovereign country and not answerable to any foreign agencies. And any foreigners taking up citizenship here better behave and accept what we are or else piss off. The Govt has to make this stand very clear to all foreigners before giving them the pink IC, and to all govts or non govt agencies to stay clear of our domestic affairs. We are not any country’s colony and answerable to no other countries, powers or what shit they think they are. We don’t even have to do anything when outside agencies make ridiculous and unjustifiable demands on our system, sovereign and constitutional rights. - Chua's site

ed says:
(comment on Chua’s site)

I wouldn't expect you chinamen to understand this given that you're a pretty racially and culturally self-absorbed lot, but a person remains a person despite being a convicted criminal.  To maintain one's non-criminal identities maintains an alternative vision of themselves and can be a part of the rehabilitation process. 

One thing the chinamen i've spoken to can never seem to understand is that we shouldn't see 'foreign intervention', (or more appropriately, perspectives of non-local origin) as 'foreign', but a cause for thought and critical introspection.  But i'm not surprised at the reaction here given chinese aversion to contradiction.  So typical.

As for 'foreign intervention', that's pretty rich coming from a race that hails from china and has basically appropriated a malay country for itself.  People like this chua and other commentators here should all be shipped back en masse back to their fatherland where they can be with 'same same' and have little to complain about.

end comment -----


Firstly, i don’t see this as ‘foreign intervention’.  Is it right or wrong?  That is the only issue.  Just because you are a foreigner, or not part of the majority, (as quite a few chinese like to state to justify their actions and approaches) does not make what you say wrong, or unworthy of consideration because it is not a local or majority view.

Secondly, what i mean by ‘chinamen’ is not in reference to the chinese, but to those chinese who don’t see anyone else’s interests other than their own.  I’m talking about the Chinese who deem nothing amiss when the msn.com site for singapore is called ‘xin.msn.com’; Chinese who have no problem with Chingay which is a celebration of singapore but which is titled in association with the Chinese; Chinese who don’t find anything amiss with the Syed Alwi Tourist information board in Little India that only speaks about the exploits of the Chinese there; Chinese whom have a problem with so-called foreigners coming in to take ‘our jobs’ whilst having no problem with ‘mandarin speakers preferred’ ads that advantages the local chinese over the non-chinese; Chinese who think the local ‘comedy’, ‘Serves You Right’ is funny whilst failing to appreciate that the non-chinese are cast in stereotypical roles; and so on and so forth.

When some amongst us are xenophobes and racists, and the rest of us keep quiet about it, we will allow the former to determine social evolution, and in time, the latter will become a product of it, and profit from it, for want of difference and competition. Thus, they stereotype themselves.Those whom qualify, according to the criteria above, can logically be termed, ‘chinamen’, rather than singaporeans because they do not consider the significance and interests of anyone but themselves.  That is when one qualifies for a term that identifies them as natives of what thus rightly becomes their homeland - china - hence, ‘chinamen’. 

To be a singaporean, one has to consider, with equal interest, the interests of all locals, despite their not being part of the ‘majority’.  If this is not forthcoming, then one can rightly be stereotyped as ‘chinamen’ because they have made themselves the same by their inconsideration of the interests of the non-chinese.  They have become inward-looking, and variation, without the consideration of difference, is compromised.  That is when they truly become so similar to each other in perspective that they can rightly be lumped together, logically speaking. 

One cannot say, ‘well, i’m not a xenophobe’, so you can’t call me a chinamen’.  When some amongst us are xenophobes and racists, and the rest of us keep quiet about it, we will allow the former to determine social evolution, and in time, the latter will become a product of it, and profit from it, for want of difference and competition.  Thus, with the passage of time and diffusion of responsibility, they stereotype themselves. Consider that.

To the Chinese, I would say, don't be Chinamen, don't be Chinese singaporeans.  Be Singaporean chinese.  That is, be an amalgam of the best elements of all cultures, be they of local or foreign origin.  That is the only factor that qualifies you as Singaporean.  That applies to all the other races as well.

Thirdly, as for the Sikhs,  They certainly should be exempt from haircuts in prison as their Sikh identity can serve to be a counterposing identity to their criminal proclivities.  In the movement toward change or rehabilitation amongst anyone, the existence of different identities can help to prevent one from being taken in by a singular one.  Hence, being a parent, or a sincere friend, for instance, helps one from being just a mindless occupational automaton, i.e. workaholic.  The same logic applies in the case of maintaining religious identities whilst in prison, at work, or in school.  At the least, it maintains difference which in itself trains all observers to realise that there are more than one or the majority way, to appreciate things (which is one of the reasons why the banning of the Tudung in non-muslim schools is wrong.)

Finally, this ‘foreign intervention’ that this idiot Chua criticises is actually most helpful in alleviating the self-absorbed tendencies in singapore that has been engendered by the monocultural and chinese-supremacist policies of the government, and which the so-called opposition has resolutely and willfully turned a blind eye to for the claimed interest of maintaining ‘harmony’ amongst oppositional supporters, which is just another way of saying, ‘to maintain chinese hegemony’ (which is one of the reasons why SG blog aggregators and blogs censor or refrain from linking this site).  True harmony is engendered via mutual appreciation and consideration mate, not by everyone getting along after accepting their racially defined and hierarchically apportioned places. 



  1. i've been reading ah chua's blog for years. as a s'porean i need to know what the chinese chauvinists are thinking. u don't have to worry about this guy. he and his fellow commentators like matilah and veritas are just a bunch of old apeks at the coffeeshop. they are typical apeks - everyday complain, complain, complain. this apek chua even thinks north korea is paradise.

  2.  Hey Edwin,  I'm not concerned about this Chua actually.  But he is just another one of those racist xenophobic pricks whom are unfortunately dominating the so-called 'opposition' as evident in statements by 'oppositional' leaders, TR, and quite a few sg chinese bloggers. 

  3. First of all, to demand “foreigners coming here and given citizenship must accept our way of life, social norms and our laws” which by the way is the chinese way of life and the chinese social norms, is therefore very chinese-centric.

    Secondly, the only issue as you have pointed out is whether the claim is right or wrong, not a question of “foreign intervention”. Has this chua forgotten where his parents came from? 

    To Edwin,

    I dont think we should let anyone get away with re-enforcing wrong perspectives to others, especially someone like this chua who as Ed has pointed, dominates the so-called “opposition”. There will be people who might be easily influenced by his racist xenophobic views.

    To Ed,

    We need someone like you to continue sharing a broader perspectives and call out wrong doings happening around us.



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.