91 posts tagged “singapore”

Quite a few Chinese singaporeans are going on about becoming ‘2^nd’ and ‘3^rd’ class singaporeans in the face of ‘foreign talent’.  Where does that place Malay and Indian singaporeans then?  4^th and 5^th class perhaps?  This basically serves as evidence of my observation in the past that Chinese singaporeans deem an event a non-event until it is they whom are at the receiving end.  Such is expected of a people whom have, albeit unwitting, taken cultural and political fascism as the norm in the course of associating the idea of the ‘majority’ with ‘race’ as opposed to ‘nationality’.  In this context, their gross hypocrisy is quite understandable, albeit unconscionable.

Complete article may be found at according2ed.com

ed

 

 

There is only one thing that I learnt from JBJ, who will always have my respect, and that is, the significance of the individual in attempting to see beyond what is being promoted via the prominent, powerful, and popular.  Even where many ignored him, and I couldn’t help noticing that the Chinese attending a Chinese martial arts performance at a well-lit stage a placard’s throw away significantly outnumbered those attending a memorial candlelight vigil for JBJ at a hardly-lit ‘Speakers Corner’, he still plodded on.

 

Unfortunately, the people, on both sides of the illustory divide between the proposition and 'opposition',  well-practiced in following the prominent or/and powerful, never appreciated this point, and to this day, they still abide by the Confucian notion of, ‘if you aren’t someone, then your ideas are not worthy of discussion or consideration.’.  That is the problem with many activists, be they Chee or JBJ or their bevy of sheep.  They fail to realise that whilst they are occupying the limelight amongst those whom are inclined to be mesmerised by the visual pitter patter of fairy lights, they are simultaneously devaluing the significance of the individual whom they hope to fight for.  That is a paradoxical situation that generally arises within societies used to leaving politics in the hands of the politicians. 

 

Hence, when you look at the ‘activists’ of today in singapore, they are most inclined to only discuss the ideas of the prominent, be they Obama, their own oppositional leaders, and those of the party they purport to oppose.  But there is little equitable appreciation of each other.  It seems that the formula by which one’s ideas might be given serious and popular consideration requires little more than the propensity to be burdened with government-initiated lawsuits, be seen to oppose, and be arrested for it.  Originality of ideas, or true insight seems to have little to do with it as, I have to admit, none of the ideas of JBJ or Chee can be accused of it.  They were just aping western methods and approaches for the realisation of democracy without appreciating how local conditions and culturally-induced biases had to be taken into account, and added steps taken to counter these.  Not appreciating this led to them being undone by these oversights.  It is all too easy to blame the authoritarianism of a government than to consider the impotence of one’s methods.  Hence, people are still inclined to hero-worship Chee or JBJ as an unwitting and subconscious effort to relieve themselves from doubt-inducing introspection whilst absolving them and their respective cultures and perspectives from complicity. 

 

In Chee’s reverential homage to JBJ, he presents him as one who constantly fought against apathy and indifference.  Unfortunately, as JBJ and Chee, rarely, if ever, touched on cultural factors, all that one can say is that both put up the 'good' fight whilst indifferent to the cultural foundations and means upon and through which apathy and indifference is based and reinforced.  The party in power, however, and unfortunately, did not make this mistake. 

 

Hence, today, thanks to their oversights, activists are inclined to simply follow their leaders; not give as much consideration for each others’ ideas; view critique of the opposition as indicative of one’s support of the party in power; discuss ideas of the prominent; whilst embodying in practice and oversights, their ethnically and hierarchically ordered depreciation of reality which is nothing short of culturally and racially fascist.  A wholly Confucian/Legalist paradigm seems to encapsulate and insulate the populace and singaporean ‘activists’ from that degree of empathy and appreciation of each other’s significance that is required to enhance their understanding of the essence of democracy.  How does one attempt to promote that which one has little understanding of? 

 

That is why the ‘opposition’ is, today, not truly a product of the insights of the past, but of its oversights.  The significance of ‘ed’, in the context of the title and this observation, is not about the author, but of the significance of the individual which Confucian/Legalist cultures is by definition incapable of grasping.  Whether people are on the side of the proposition or ‘opposition’, they always seem to engage from within the overarching paradigm instituted by Confucian governments.  In that is their undoing, or in the best case, slows down democratic progress immensely whilst the redefinition of the idea of ‘progress’ is itself redefined via the socialisation of subsequent generations.  The significance of ‘ed’ lies in the significance of every individual to see beyond the perspectival fashions of the day.  That is, to question their leaders, to deem oneself worthy of going past these leaders in perspective, to appreciate revered icons not only in terms of their achievements, but also in terms of their oversights.  In other words, not to live within the shadows of the giants of the past, but to realise that the ‘giants’ of the past and present appear as such on the basis of our ignorance as opposed to their aptitude.  (Hence, my being able to produce perspectives appreciating the phenomena of democracy, indifference and apathy in consideration of local/foreign cultural factors that verifiably cuts deeper than the perspectives of Chee and JBJ put together.)

 

Tto ask JBJ to move over for ‘ed’ is to direct the local populace to appreciate the value of their own significance in building upon and past the giants of the past and present, and to focus on both their achievements and oversights so as to present the best challenge to the Confucian/Legalist/Orwellian milieu that can be afforded it by way of horizontal valuation – that is, the popular appreciation of each other and oneself as opposed to the reverence of leaders and those whom are more known for a resume of arrests as opposed to insight.  That is the essential and only valuable message that is the stance and approach of JBJ.  And it is only in replication of it that we honour his memory.

 

 

 

according2,

 

 

ed

 

 

 

 

 

“

When people feel a part of a whole, they are not going to prefer being apart.  But when people are forced apart without the implementation of integrative measures whilst one group’s culture or ethnicity is lauded over others, it is going to allow the thus-dominant group to be apart from the thus-created minority group even whilst living in the same vicinity of x number of ethnic minorities. 

“

Mandarin becoming the 'mother tongue' of Singaporeans?  That makes orphans out of the Indians, Malays and all singaporeans aspiring toward an identity that can be an amalgamative and uniquely Singaporean culture.

 

 

The question I am inclined to ask in the face of the work of the ‘Promote Mandarin Council’ along with a host of other measures is, ‘if this decades-old effort a means to unify the Chinese masses, or to create it in dominant counterposition to others?’

 

I don’t see any reason why the issue of ‘race’ ought to be given any reinforcement in a multiethnic or multicultural community.  To hold on to a culture just because one looks like those who practiced it in the past is a refuge of the insecure unless such a culture contains elements that aids in our perspectival and humanitarian progress. 

 

Intrinsic to this is (ed’s perspective on) the philosophy of multiculturalism as it is based on the cognizance of the fact that no one culture can supply all the perspectives necessary for the full development of the said perspectival and humanitarian progress of a people.  Various historical experiences leads people to contend with varying experiences in varying ways and hence develops in them proficiencies and deficiencies that can only be undone or built upon by appreciating the proficiencies and deficiencies of various cultures with democracy as the overarching paradigm. 

 

That is why the non-Confucian Singapore of the past held much potential for the aforementioned development by way of the existence of Malay, Indian, and Chinese cultures – in addition to, and amongst others, Eurasian, Peranakan cultures – via the conduit of integration.  In this, the HDB housing quota system would have served quite well in bringing the people together.  However, when this was paired with exceptional education being given to (mainly) the Chinese; Chinese culture being relatively lauded; the undermining of the socio-economic position of the ‘westernised’ singaporeans whom were bringing together the east and the west along with integrating local cultures within a democratic paradigm; the mother-tongue policy that forbade all ethnic groups from learning each other’s languages; the separation of channels for various ethnic groups – with the Indians being left without one for years;  gross discrimination in the media; etc, the integrative potential of the nation and the production of a unique culture, perhaps shorn of the negative aspects of all cultures, completely failed.  Hence, singapore then moved from cultural integration to cultural introversion. 

 

So, I am left with the question, ‘did the means utilised to unify the Chinese simultaneously dispatch egalitarian multiculturalism to the guillotine?  Was it necessary to ‘unify the Chinese’ or ought the focus to have been on unifying Singaporeans?  Is it possible to ‘unify the Chinese’ and create egalitarian multiculturalism?  Mind you, the operative word here is ‘egalitarian’, not ‘multiculturalism’.  There can be such a thing as a fascist multiculturalism where one culture is held up over others and others are expected to conform whilst those associated with the dominant culture are given preferential treatment.  We must distinguish between countries that have been, for instance, historically ‘white’, and embark on including new migrants, and those that have been historically multicultural - taking singapore’s independence as a starting point where all cultures and ethnic groups could be considered ‘locals’ or ‘natives’.  So, in this context, the focus ought not to have been to ‘unify the Chinese’, but to unify a multicultural nation via egalitarian multiculturalism through the promotion of English as the main language whilst the main local languages are taught in schools as a second language without any proscription on ethnic groups learning any language.  This would allay the tendency to associate various ethnic groups with the historical language and culture of their biological ancestors and undermine the tendency toward cultural introversion and self-segregation – which is the case at present. 

 

In addition to this, I would give partial support to the HDB housing quota system if it is enforced in tandem with the affirmative action required for integration – the egalitarian elevation of all cultures, egalitarian representation of all ethnic groups in the media/politics.  If Mandarin/Malay/Tamil speakers are to be ‘preferred’, it should be paired with all ethnic groups being allowed to learn any local language.  However, I have to state that within this context, the HDB housing quota system would be quite unnecessary as the test of the quality of integrative measures may be discerned by the degree to which people would be inclined to move away from ethnic enclaves themselves.  When people feel a part of a whole, they are not going to prefer being apart.  But when people are forced apart without the implementation of integrative measures whilst one group’s culture or ethnicity is lauded over others, it is going to allow the thus-dominant group to be apart from the thus-created minority group even whilst living in the same vicinity of x number of ethnic minorities.  If a quota system in housing is to be implemented, then there must also be a quota system when it comes to hiring workers of various ethnic groups, representation in the media, etc.  If this is not applied in tandem, then the housing quota system can easily become a tool for the dispersion and decapitation of dissent in the face of discrimination.

 

As none of these integrative measures have been implemented in tandem, the various efforts to focus on the culture and language of one group has had the effect of turning ‘other’ locals into the paradoxical phenomenon of Foreigners of Local Origin.  By this, I refer to how the country is presented to all within and without as a Chinese country and the said Foreigners of Local Origin being given less consideration than the dominant group in the media, politics, work, etc – i.e. singapore not being ready for a non-chinese PM, singapore must always have a Chinese majority.

 

I suppose, it is within this context that the self-absorption of the local Chinese can be understood.  It is difficult to allege a group is being bigoted if we appreciate the nation as a ‘Chinese country’.  For instance, if any Chinese, Indian, or Malay were to migrate to a foreign country, they would not take issue with their not being represented significantly in the media, politics, etc.  That is based on the perception that it is ‘not their country’ historically.  However, for this notion to be pervasive in singapore can only mean that there is a subconscious recognition by all, regardless of ethnicity, that it is a ‘chinese country’.  That would explain why local ‘democratically’-inclined bloggers, regardless of ethnicity, rarely, if at all, take up issues that are discriminatory as there isn’t an appreciation of singapore being anything but a ‘chinese country’; that would also explain why ‘racial integration’ is now taking place under Chinese cultural auspices whereby everyone is expected to conform to the ‘local’ way of doing things; why the description of Chinese attributes are referred to as ‘singaporean’; why the local blogawards were promoted as a Chinese event by way of Chinese characters preceding English words on their website and with the panel of judges being all-chinese; why booklets promoting racial integration too have Chinese characters above English ones; why no ‘insightful blogger’ nominee is insightful enough to realise these points; why singaporedaily.net deems nothing amiss in their ‘girlie’ section featuring only models with oriental features; why hardly any local blogger, ‘insightful’ or ‘democratic’, took issue with the statement or consequences of the ‘Promote Mandarin, Appreciate Chinese Culture Council’ from a multicultural standpoint; why the issues brought up in these series of essays is not commented on or discussed; why local writers do not reflexively, if at all, notice bigotry as and when it manifests itself; why the local pidgin English has failed to reflect multiculturalism onward progress as opposed to its being generally a mixture of chinese and english languages; etc, etc.

 

A variety of bigoted perspectives ceases to be as such when a country transitions from being a historically multicultural state to, in this context, a Chinese/Confucian one.  That simultaneously indicates the movement of the thus-defined minorities from perceiving themselves as a historical part of the country to being Foreigners of Local Origin whom would henceforth be grateful for an increase in leftovers after an oriental banquet. 

 

It is in this context that the ‘incitement to racial hatred’ and ‘being sensitive in race matters’ take its meaning.  It  refers to not taking issue with matters that ought not to be an issue if one takes the country to be a Chinese country.  In fact, being ‘sensitive’, in part, means not taking issue with it till future generations take it as fact and take their natural position as Foreigners of Local Origin.  In this, 'being sensitive in race matters' does not mean getting rid of that which undermines egalitarian multiculturalism but in pandering to sentiments, proclivities and policies that promote its undermining by way of doing our best to make ends meet within biased conditions.

In sum,

In this context, when Lee Kuan Yew states, “In two generations, Mandarin will become our mother tongue”, the more insightful amongst us will realise that the underlying context has been well laid for Mandarin being not the mother tongue of the Chinese, but that of Singapore – predicted by ed back in 1994.  In this, taking care of 'minority' rights basically means helping the minorities to make the best out of biased conditions till the country transitions completely to a Confucian one wherein they will be grateful for that which they receive when they perceive  themselves, and are perceived as, Foreigners of Local Origin.  Hence they will deem nothing amiss with their not being accorded the treatment that can definitely be expected in a country which is perceived to be as much their own as it is any other local's. 

 

I’ll leave the reader with an except from China’s ‘People’s Daily’ with regards to this issue,

 

"Mandarin will become Singaporean Mother Tongue

In two generation, Mandarin will become our mother tongue," said Lee Kuan Yew, minister mentor and former prime minister of Singapore, at 'Speak Mandarin' campaign's 30th anniversary launch in Singapore on March 17, 2009.

A Singapore's official also said recently that Mandarin will become Singaporean predominant common language. Singaporeans are being encouraged to speak fluent Mandarin.”

Final question : If this degree of integration and cultural pride can be achieved amongst the Chinese, why was it not pursued and achieved amongst all ethnic groups through their amalgamation and production of a singular and multiculturally-induced 'uniquely singaporean' culture?

Mandarin becoming the 'mother tongue' of Singapore?  That makes orphans out of the Indians, Malays and all singaporeans aspiring toward an identity that can be an amalgamative and uniquely singaporean culture.

 

according2,

 

 

ed

 

 

‘With the growing importance of China on the world stage, Chinese Singaporeans who are competent in the language and familiar with the culture would have a distinct advantage when working and interacting with Chinese nationals,’ Lim Sau Hoong, chairwoman of the Promote Mandarin Council, told Reuters."  (source)

 

 

Nonsense.

 

Why does one have to be ‘Chinese’ to be ‘competent in the language and familiar with the culture’ to ‘have a distinct advantage when working and interacting with Chinese Nationals.’ 

 

Can one not be a ‘Malay’ and be ‘competent in the language and familiar with the culture’ to ‘have a distinct advantage when working and interacting with Chinese Nationals.’?

 

Can one not be an ‘Eurasian’ and be ‘competent in the language and familiar with the culture’ to ‘have a distinct advantage when working and interacting with Chinese Nationals.’? 

 

Can one not be an ‘Indian’ and be ‘competent in the language and familiar with the culture’ to ‘have a distinct advantage when working and interacting with Chinese Nationals.’?

 

Or is this a Freudian slip based on the notion that, ‘if you aren’t one of us, we’d be relatively biased against you’, and projected onto Chinese nationals? - to test if this is a popularly pervasive notion, we’ll have to wait to see how many local Chinese reflexively recognise and take consistent issue with this point. If not, this is yet further evidence, amongst other instances I have noted previously, of the fascist basis of the Singaporean democratic/oppositional movement.

 

 

When we feel uncomfortable working or integrating with those whom we are trained to view as different, we will also tend to feel that others are comfortable working with us if we are similar or identical to them. 

 

So, to assume that one has to be Chinese before one is going to ‘have a distinct advantage when working and interacting with Chinese nationals’ might just be an indication of a local perspective.  You see, the standards by which we judge others will generally be assumed to be the standards by which others judge us – thus, the nonsensical assumption that it is only the Chinese that Chinese nationals are willing to work with. 

 

Of course, if it is true that Chinese nationals are bigoted, or can afford to be bigoted, then one has to wonder why China has a thriving economic relationship with the rest of the world whom, unless I’m very much mistaken, aren’t of oriental persuasion in form or cultural feature.

 

And if doing business with China is lucrative, why are the Malays and Indians being left out of it by way of the ‘mother tongue’ policy that forbids them from taking Mandarin as a 2^nd language?  First, the number of jobs that they were qualified for in singapore decreased with the pairing of the ‘mother tongue’ policy and quite a few jobs requiring one to be ‘bilingual’ in English and Mandarin.  Now, they are denied business transactions with China as well?

 

Long time ago, the SAP school system that provided relatively exceptional for, mainly, the Chinese were set up.  I was quite young then, but I do recall reading an article somewhere that it was purposed for preparing the Chinese to take over the economy from English-speaking singaporeans whom were becoming the dominant force culturally, economically, and politically.  That’s when this Confucianising nonsense began to take place – I call it ‘nonsense’ not out of disrespect for this essential component of China’s culture, but because singapore was a multicultural state and I, for one, looked forward to the amalgamation of elements of Chinese, Malay, Eurasian, and Indian cultures to produce our own, and what would certainly have been, a ‘uniquely singaporean’ and highly vibrant and popularly intelligent culture.  This led to the devaluation of all other cultures and peoples as the Chinese were afforded a barrage of self-efficacious benefits from the lauding of China’s culture, language, media representation, amongst others.  This has, to date, severely impacted on the self-efficacious perceptions of ‘others’ whom are today doing less than their predecessors, whom incidentally, were doing, proportionately speaking, more than the predecessors of the Chinese of today in a host of arenas – creative, media, arts, political, intellectual, etc.  That is why I began to wonder about a decade ago why people whom were doing more in the past, began to do less, and vice versa.

 

Now,it seems, that non-chinese singaporeans are being nobbled yet once again on a region scale.  Tsk, tsk.  Everyone loses out here regardless of ‘race’.  When we fail to learn from and integrate with difference, all we are left with is conjoining with similarly disabled others for the purpose of overwhelming our competitors with sheer numbers as opposed to aptitude.  Perhaps that explains singapore’s cultural and economic union with China – which I predicted more than a decade ago.

 

 

according2,

 

 

ed

I was perusing the news on a ‘singapore-born porn star being found dead’ when I came across the following comment that referred to S.R. Nathan as ‘prata man’.  Ed's comment and thoughts follow.

 

Hairy Dead :

“What ShitTimes reporter must use the expression “Ex Porn Star?”

Why they never use “Ex Traitor” for Vampire Lee and Prata Man?

 

ed:

Why ‘vampire lee’ and ‘prata man’ Hairy Dead? I assume that you are referring to Nathan with the latter. It’s not the first time I’ve heard it.

Why appreciate a chinese in character traits whilst reducing Indians to just one profession as opposed to a myriad of others – given that Indians are well known for their position in the medical, IT, humanitarian, legal professions? I don’t recall any chinese president being referred to as ‘kway tiao’ or ‘carrot cake’ man. Think about it.

ed

source : TemasekReview

 

*

 

Here are additional instances extracted from the net.

 

In SgForums,

 

“(singapore’s) President S R Nathan will be performing for the first time in this annual charity event.

Julie Sim-Chew, Executive Producer, President's Star Charity 2007, said: "The highlight for this President Star Charity is of course having President Nathan take centrestage.

"He will be reciting this poem called 'The Desiderata' by Max Ehrmann….”

 

Cool Gal : chey, i tot he will perform roti prata stunt.

 

Darkness Hacker 99 : World most expensive roti prata man.

In Uncyclopedia,

S.R. Nathan is referred to as ‘Prata Man’ whilst Lee Kuan Yew is ‘the Eternal’; Lee Hsien Loong, ‘MM Lee’s Elder Son’; and Goh Chok Tong, ‘Seatwarmer’.

 

In TalkingCock,

“Prata Nathan is very much in demand. Leading food court operators like Kopi Tiam, Banquet and Food Republic are keen to engage him as an advisor. Well, actually, they just want him as a poster boy for the roti prata stall but Con/Fairy assured me that this can be considered as an advisory job. Remuneration would be US$1.5m per year, with free food at the food court.”

 

In JohnHarding.com,

I see it quite differently. LKY (who else is in complete control except him) is thorough enough to check out the background of Chip before hiring him.The whole espisode is staged to get Ho Ching “off the hook”. Now that the dust has settled (and there is no political openning for Ho Ching because Prata Man Nathan is still obedient), she needs to oversee LKY’s Temasek empire again. LKY only trusts people with blood tie.

 

*

 

Now just pair the above with the portrayal of Malays as parking attendants and obese rockers, Indians as corner-shop proprietors, whilst the Chinese are portrayed as professionally versatile, in singapore's, or more aptly, chingapore’s sitcom, ‘Serves You Right’; the vainglorious and quite embarrassing promotion of Chinese culture and language in the country with little regards to other ethnic groups; no other local commentators or ‘democratically’-inclined writers/bloggers, whatever their ethnicity,  taking issue with such a portrayal of Indians or S.R. Nathan; and one can began to understand the fascist basis of singapore’s so-called ‘harmony’ which is evidentially based on every ethnic group knowing and taking their ‘rightful’ place in a monoculturally-defined, and hierarchically-ordered, ethnic-wise, scheme of things.

 

The above tends to train the Chinese to appreciate detail only when it comes to the Chinese because that is when they are referred to in terms of traits or metaphors for such traits (i.e. ‘Vampire Lee’), whereas perceptions of the Malays and Indians are based on occupations of relatively less perceived status that basically indicates a subconscious refusal to recognise the Malays and Indians as equal to or better than the Chinese in various arenas – and with cultural, institutional and media bias effectuated over 2 decades, aids in its becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

 

In relation to this, one might also recollect how singapore began to consider importing ‘whites’ to teach English locally whilst discounting the fact that Indians were generally and comparatively as well-spoken in the language as 'native speakers'.  (My own attempt to teach English in some schools in singapore had been rejected in the past because I was not ‘caucasian’….which is quite amusing since Indians are actually ‘caucasians’.)  You might find Indians being over-represented as newsreaders in the BBC or teaching English in England, but the Chinese still need a ‘white’ to teach them English to circumvent the feelings of inferiority or equality they might experience if Indians began to flood the English-teaching market – which tends to feed the notion that I’ve heard from time to time that, ‘the Chinese can’t get ahead unless they keep others whom are better down’.  If the Chinese are now not well-spoken in English, as pointed out or alluded to from time to time in the mainstream media and campaigns, this also evidences the failure of integration with ‘others’ as Indians generally spoke better English than them and could have afforded them quite the linguistic boost (in English that is).

 

When one puts the above together, one can began to understand why the Chinese don’t see a problem with referring to, or having S.R. Nathan referenced as, ‘prata man’.  Given that there are monumentally more Indian IT professionals, doctors, lawyers, etc, globally than ‘prata men’, one cannot but wonder why S.R.Nathan is nothing but a ‘prata man’.  You see, to stereotypically refer to members of an ethnic group in terms of a relatively lauded profession is to recognise that person as equal to or better than oneself or one’s own ethnic group.  Where the inverse is true, the inverse is also true. 

 

Now of course we cannot conclude on the basis of just this instance and we’ll have to triangulate to study the context, extent and pervasiveness with which such perceptions persist or meet with little popular contention.  So, when we take this together with hardly any so-called opposition figure or ‘democratically’-inclined local writer/blogger taking issue with such portrayals or even noticing it; when we look at gross media misrepresentation and underrepresentation of non-chinese or ‘dark’ skins; when hardly anyone takes issue with the ‘speak mandarin/appreciate chinese culture/mandarin is cool’ campaigns; when we consider how many Chinese find the ancient tamil/dravidian language – that precedes Chinese history – funny and worthy of ridicule simply because it is more intonationally rich than mandarin; when we look at how ‘white’ teachers are preferred when it comes to learning English – which is also the case in HK and China by the way; along with a myriad of other instances; we can began to appreciate the chronic cultural introversion amongst the Chinese in singapore; the imposition of their cultural standards as the norm; the abject failure of integration in singapore between ethnic groups; the devaluation of difference; and the refusal to appreciate any other ethnic group as better than ‘the majority’ in any arena other than that which they themselves do not deem of high status or in which they themselves do not participate.

 

Quite unfortunate really.  The Chinese had a valuable opportunity to acquire multiangular thinking skills which Chinese history – borne of an oppressive and popularly depoliticised experience – denied them through integration with difference and the consideration of perspectives from the Malay and Indian cultures.  It is the absence of such a perspectival progress that today sees Sellapan Rama Nathan being reduced to nothing more than ‘prata man’, and with so-called ‘democratically’-inclined ‘thinkers’ and oppositional figures not deeming anything amiss with such portrayals, or how it indicates the degree to which they themselves have been ‘Confucianised’ to the point that there isn’t much significant distinction between themselves and the party they purport to take to task. 

 

Can you imagine public reaction if terms such as ‘shoe-shiner’ and ‘cotton-picker’ were used to refer to Obama in the US?  That indicates an almost reflexive appreciation of the value of difference and detail, and the significance of the individual.  The absence of this in singapore indicates that ‘significance’ is attached only to a racially-defined ‘majority’ and that there is little detail without.

 

As I’ve said before, critical introspection is needed amongst the Chinese.  But I won’t be holding breath. 

 

 

 

according2,

 

 

ed

 

 

 

 

 

The following is my response to a ‘KK’ on the issue of Singapore’s race-based quota system in housing that stipulates that every block of flats can have only x amount of ‘minorities’. 

Amongst a host of Singaporean sites that I’ve had the misfortune to peruse, Where Bears Roam Free, is one site that is quite the altruistically empathetic site – from whence ‘KK’s’ comments were extracted.

 

 

KK :

 

"What would your suggestion be (with regards to the HDB quota system)? It is always so easy to critise without having to come up with an alternative.

 

Would you suggest that there be no racial ethnic quota so minorities will be able to "live near their relatives"? I find this such a shallow argument."

 

ed:

Firstly, the path to a solution is found in the symbiotic union of critique and resolution.  They do not have to be located in a singular individual but in a mutually empathetic organism of people whom associate the idea of ‘the majority’ with nationality/humanity/sentience as opposed to ‘race’ – as do most Chinese in singapore as a justification for self-preferential treatment.

 

Secondly, integration does not require HDB quotas for 'races', but efforts to eradicate the reasons why people might want to live with 'racially' similar others.  In a society that is truly integrative and egalitarian, people would not generally feel inclined to 'stick to their own'.

 

Thirdly, ask yourself if the HDB quota system which is supposedly founded on the recognition of the need for integration is significantly undone by the national quota system founded on the officially stated need to 'maintain a chinese majority'.  When you take these 2 together, the first quota system can very plausibly be argued to be in existence for the purpose of undermining dissent in the face of the latter quota system and ensuing discrimination, self-preferential treatment and relegation of ‘others’ to the status of 2^nd class citizens.

 

 

KK:

(without the quota system) People then become so racially insular in their thoughts and way of life because unless you go out of your way, you don't really have to even see someone of a different race, what more mingle. 

 

ed:

As stated above, with the pairing of the 2 quota policies, it is the Chinese whom will become, and have certainly become, ‘racially insular’ as they will not feel the need to consider different others when difference is thus diluted whilst a singular people and historically insular and mono-perspectival culture (Chinese) is elevated and promoted through ‘Mandarin is Cool’ and ‘Appreciate Chinese culture’, ‘Speak Mandarin, it’s an advantage’ campaigns whilst ‘others’ are not allowed to study Mandarin as a 2^nd language with the nonsensical ‘mother tongue policy’ – which will garner popular disgust and branded as nothing short of fascist in more multiculturally enlightened states such as the US or UK.  When one thinks about it, the HDB quota system paired with the National racial quota system is identical in effect with the pairing of the Mother Tongue Policy and the ‘Speak Mandarin, it’s an advantage’ campaigns.  When you take the pairing of various policies, it begins to paint a very clear picture as to its consequences. 

 

Hence, with this, the ‘minorities’ will underdevelop and themselves become insular as a reaction against the insularity of the Chinese for social support and cultural identification as the overarching Chinese culture is not identified with due to the said insularity of the Chinese and the association of race and culture.  This will persist till the thus-underdeveloped ‘minorities’ take on the Chinese persona – due to its overarching influence – and learn to abide by the culture’s perspectival norms whilst simultaneously accepting a 2^nd class status that is inevitably created.  When one ‘racial’ group is preferred, even in the face of the conformity of ‘others’, the generic ‘aversion to difference’ basis is maintained and the ‘others’ will be deemed to be less preferred when one is afforded a choice between a person of ‘one’s own race’ and that of another in a variety, but not all, arenas.  Let’s also not forget that this is not simply a matter of cultural difference but is also paired with Chinese love of ‘fair’ and its equation with ‘beauty’, and the socialised penchant for conformity, uniformity and being unquestioning in the face of top-down pronouncements or any status quo that does not impact their ‘rice bowls’ directly – I prefer banana leaves myself.  In this is evidenced a generic aversion to difference which will inevitably impact negatively on the degree to which the assimilation of ‘others’ will engender egalitarianism.

 

If one was to think about it, it was the failure of those who maintained slavery and discrimination in the US to enforce a singapore-style ‘quota system’ that contributed significantly to the growth of the abolitionist movement, and later, the civil rights movements such as that of the NAACP or the Nation of Islam.  If such a quota system had been maintained, the Afro-Americans would have been prudentially dispersed and not afforded the proximity required to engender a race-based class consciousness that enabled them to take issue with their 2^nd class status.

 

 

 

according2,

 

 

ed

 

 

 

 

Firstly, let me say that we cannot actually state that the states of Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and China are Confucian in its entirety or in essence.  It would be more accurate to say that these states are a combination of Confucianism, Legalism, and Taoism.  In fact, it could easily be argued that these states give Confucius a bad name.  I suppose people tend to think these states as Confucian not because they truly are, but because people like to think that they are identifying with the ideas of a person as opposed to an ideology that is relatively apart from them so that they, as persons, can identify with the life or perspectives of another individual – Confucius.  Something like, if another lauded person can do it, so can we.  Ideas in themselves seem to be alien to people unless they can be encapsulated in a person in itself.  I suppose this in way shows that people tend to be more subjective instead of objective.  Following the teachings of another Chinese person – Confucius – also aids in reinforcing the feel-good-factor that is cultural and racial pride.

 

So, getting back to the issue, it would be more accurate to term the states of Singapore and China as Legalist as it is this perspective that determines which aspects of Confucianism is appreciated and allowed influence. 

 

 

Legalism

 

In its fundaments, comprises 3 main principles.

 

Fa (Law or Principle) : That all are equal before the law, and the law should be strongly enforced.  Focus is on punishing those who break the law and reward those who abide by them.  The law replaces all other standards of right and wrong.

 

Shu (Method or Tactic) : the employment of secret methods and tactics to ensure that others don’t take control of the state.  The true motivations of the ruler is not to be made public and that ‘getting ahead’ can only be achieved by the people in simply following the law(which can be appreciated as the ‘rewards’ part of Fa.

 

Shi (Legitimacy, Power, or Charisma) : Focus is on the ruler’s position to analyse and study trends and facts for the maintenance of his position.

 

According to the teachings of Han Fei – whose ideas were adopted from the Qin period onward (221b.c.),

 

Human beings are selfish and deemed to respond mainly to reward and punishment;

 

That reward and punishment are the main tools of government;

 

Good government requires the employment of law, power, statecraft;

 

Clear and well-defined law replaces the moral norm and serve as the standard of behaviour;

 

Political power is to be held by the ruler and not shared with the aristocracy or ministers;

 

That order is achieved when names correspond with reality (what Confucius termed, ‘Cheng Ming’ or the ‘rectification of names’ where people abide by their defined roles in society.);

 

That governance of a people must lead to the people’s internalisation of the perspectives of the government.

 

*

 

Basically, Legalism recognises the ruler and the law as the supreme arbiters of popular reason and not the inverse.  In other words, popular intellectual individualism is frowned upon.  Also, by assuming that human beings are selfish and always work toward their own interests at the expense of all, authority is geared toward ensuring that this does not lead to chaos but is regulated.  This is not purposed to get rid of selfishness, but to restrain its socially-destructive potentials.  Paradoxically, whilst it seeks to restrain it, it also validates it by accommodating it thus, and hence desensitizes the people to the idea of exploitation in itself and renders them amenable to an authority that gain at the expense of the people whilst the people do similarly to each other within ‘legal’ means.  When one looks at the ‘Confucian’ states such as those mentioned, one might began to appreciate that Legalism serves as the foundation determining the space that is accorded the superstructure of Confucianism.

 

 

Confucianism

 

Han Fei took issue with Confucianism in that it placed relatively too much emphasis on personal morality.  However, the reason why Confucianism could still be adapted to the overall Legalist culture is that when it was passed through the filter of Legalism, what remained could serve to reinforce Legalism.  Consider the following,

 

Xiao (Filial Piety) : the cultivated feeling toward one’s parents;

 

Di (brotherly love or respect) : the cultivated feeling toward one’s contemporaries;

 

Zhong (loyalty) : the cultivated feeling toward one’s superiors, lords, emperors, employers, one’s country;

 

Li (rituals, rites, proprieties) : behavioural norms where one’s ‘cultivated feelings’ are expressed;

 

Yi (righteousness, proper character) : expressing one’s cultivated feeling at the right times and right places;

 

Junzi (superior or perfect person) : refers to the person who has been maximally developed in all of the above.

 

 

If Han Fei took issue with Confucian thought, it is because he was ambiguous about the locality of control.  On the one hand, Confucius would place the responsibility of education on ‘sage-teachers’, but on the other hand, he would laud the position of the ruler as one who would lead the people by example and morality whilst the people knew their place in relation to the ruler. 

 

Additionally, Confucius did not recognise humans as naturally selfish people.

 

“A superior person is conscious of, and receptive to Yi, but a petty person is conscious of and receptive to gains.” (IV, 16)

 

If one was to pass Legalism through the filter of this Confucian perspective, then it undermines the capitalist-value of the Legalist perspective that seeks to order society hierarchically, recognise selfishness and exploitation as natural, and attempts to regulate it.  Such a perspective would naturally lead people to question after what ought to be the rightful content of Yi if a ruler was to ‘gain’ at the expense of the people, or the people of each other.  In fact, if one was to take this perspective along with the exhortation, “What you don’t want yourself, don’t do to others”, and use it as the overaching filter to determine what elements of Legalism are to be accepted, Confucian states might very well have become socialist states honouring the principle of egalitarianism and empathy without rulers being able to profit greatly at the expense of the people.  That, obviously, is not the case when one looks at, for instance, Hong Kong, China, and Singapore.

 

And Confucius also frowns on capital punishment as well,

 

“Why is there a need of capital punishment in your government?  If you set your mind toward morality, your people will become moral.  The character of the ruler is like the wind, and that of the people, grass.  The grass bends when the wind blows upon it.” (XII, 19)

 

Yes.  Like Han Fei, Confucius too places moral development in the hands of the ruler.  But unlike Han Fei, he views authority as a sort of sage-ruler who places love and empathy as the guiding principles for the development of the people’s constitution. 

 

However, where Confucius undoes himself and plays himself into the hands of the Legalists is in his division between the people and the state. 

 

“Let the lord be the lord, the minister be a minister, the father be a father, and the son be a son.” (XIII, 11)

 

As espoused in ‘the rectification of names’, or cheng ming, everyone had their place in society and the people had the responsibility of abiding by the moral precepts of the ruler. 

 

In this, Confucius effectively undermined the significance popular intellectual individualism and its serving as a check on the ruler should he be less than Confucian in his ‘human-hearted’ morality.  ‘Names’ had to be ‘rectified’ till it was internalised.  In other words, people had to be taught their place till they reflexively abided by it.  So, Confucius’ rhetoric on ‘human-heartedness’(ren) or ‘love’ and empathy becomes little more than the said rhetoric as he places too much hope in a ruler being moral.  Whilst I believe that Confucius had good intentions and was quite the ‘human-hearted’ person himself, he failed to see the interrelationships between his various exhortations and how one might undo the other.  He developed a system of conformity within a state that had yet to attain perfect status through his 6 principles for social behaviour.  On the one hand, he ‘advised’ morality amongst the leadership, but ‘told’ the people to abide by their relatively lower status.

 

In the Confucian system of good governance, ‘human-heartedness’ or ‘love’, lay at its centre, but he placed the ruler as the supreme ruling body.  Therefore, when we fuse Legalism and Confucianism, it could be easily argued that the Legalist view of things is not anti-love or anti-ren as the ‘regulation’ of exploitation and selfishness was the best act of ‘love’ that could be accorded a people whom are deemed to be ‘naturally selfish’.  Of course, this is a perversion of Confucius’ belief that humans are capable of empathetic and egalitarian love and are therefore not naturally selfish.  But where we have an overarching conception that people are naturally selfish, empathetic and egalitarian love can easily be twisted to mean, ‘whilst you’re naturally as selfish a bastard as I am, let’s do our best to ensure that we can carry on co-existing in respect of each other’s selfish natures by regulating our exploitation of each other.”  That is when the ‘law of the jungle’ is ‘civilised and a ‘dog eat dog’ world is afforded no alternative reality.

 

 

Hence

 

We can say that Confucian states are not truly Confucian in ‘human-hearted’ character, but ‘human-hearted’ in accordance with Legalist perspectives.  We can also say that it is only those ‘Legalist’ principles of Confucianism that can be viewed as ‘Legalist’ when taken out of a Confucian context, that is being applied in ‘Confucian’ states. 

 

Confucian perspectives that viewed the family as the beginnings of moral education by its practice and appreciation of Li (rites rituals, proprieties that recognises the value of the preceding principles of Xiao, Di and Zhong) can be said to have served the Legalists well in directing their attention to the need to maintain elitist hegemony from the ‘ground-up’.  In this context, the Qin dynasty could be seen as a crass application of Legalism whilst the following Han recognised the symbiotic value of Confucianism and Legalism in delivering Legalist ends. 

 

“When the personal life is cultivated, the family will be regulated; when the family is regulated, the state will be in order; and when the state is in order, there will be peace throughout the world.  From the Son of Heaven down to the common people, all must regard cultivation of the personal life as the root or foundation.”

 

When one takes this together with,

 

1. that everyone had to recognise their place in the socio-political scheme of things through the ‘rectification of names’

 

2. that human-heartedness and love ought to rule the vision of the ruler

 

3. that Confucius provides a well-articulated and systematic system whereby order and subservience may be engendered and maintained amongst the people as illustrated in the 6 principles without any item serving to empower the people to check on the practice of ‘human-heartedness’ in the ruler,

 

We can began to appreciate how Legalism could still find a place for, or required Confucian input.  Legalism’s central focus is on the maintenance of leadership, whilst Confucius’ focus is on preparing the people for it – whilst his egalitarian and empathetic perspectives are conveniently ignored or given an alternative meaning within the Legalist paradigm.  With this combination, Confucius’ ideal government of ‘wu-wei’ or ‘non-action’ could be delivered.  In this scenario, Confucius advises the government to lead by moral examples and education as opposed to legislation and enforcement via punishment.  A sage-ruler governs with morality instead of law or power.  Overtime, the people are supposed to internalise these and regulate themselves.  This principle, when fused with Legalism’s focus on power, delivers a population that abides by a morality internalised through familial and social experiences after it has been successfully reinforced amongst the population through the exertion of law and power.  This is where Chinese culture comes in as the greatest mechanism for socialisation as it is a product of 2 millennia of Legalist enforcement and reinforcement.  That is why Chinese culture might be the choice of alternatives in states desiring authoritarianism as the choice of control as it can deliver wu-wei with great speed with its host of perspectives, rules, symbolism, rituals, etc, that prepares the mind to accept authoritarianism as the natural order of things whilst the population are rendered bereft of the persona it takes to deem anything amiss.

 

It is no accident that in Singapore, for instance, employers look for employees whom can be ‘controlled’ – with intelligence taking a second place; people view political activists as ‘trouble-makers’; argument and logic is deemed to be ‘twisting words’; people who can argue logically are derided as people who ‘only know how to talk’; questioning the status quo is discounted with an ‘its like that one lahhh’ (that’s the way it is); in inquiries between a customer and a company, questioning after the justice of their acts are abruptly discounted with, ‘its company policy’;  salespersons promote a product with an ‘its good because its popular’ whilst knowing little about its features; tend to make sense of a phenomena from its most obvious features so that they can act immediately as opposed to having to think about it beyond the obvious – which illustrates the popular penchant to acting immediately as can be expected from those whom are inclined to act upon instructions as opposed to critical thought;  and so on and so forth.

 

In this, the final aims of Confucianism, where governance can largely be based on wu-wei is realised with the aid of a self-regulation amongst a people that is also based on popular ‘non-action’ when it comes to politics.  And this too delivers another aim of Confucianism, that of peace and harmony.  Where Confucius might stop to wonder if this is based on an empathetic society, the Legalist step in to focus the people on ‘peace and harmony’ as an end itself.   One of the maxims of Legalism is, “When the epoch changed, Legalism is the act of following all laws.”…And Confucianism is harnessed to bind the people in those perspectival proprieties required to deliver their subservience when ‘the epoch changes’.

 

Personally, I’d prefer a Confucian state where Legalist perspectives are weeded out of Confucianism as opposed to the inverse.

 

 

 

according2,

 

 

ed

 

 

 

 

 

 

“

When ‘it’s like that one lahhh’ is deemed as ‘argument-enough’, ‘one-party democracy’ would logically be perceived as ‘freedom enough’.  And that, essentially, is how a one-party democracy can be deemed to be a 'democracy realised' as the individual does not deem it her/is business to contradict the status quo.  In that, the full expression of freedom revolves around doing one's utmost to make the best of a bad situation recognised as nothing other than 'like that one'. 

 

 

Some might say that a ‘one-party democracy’ is quite the oxymoron.

 

Is it really?

 

Yes and no.

 

Let’s put it this way. 

 

Democracy is not the existence of freedom, but the acceptance or internalisation of the perspectives necessary to view any status quo as ‘freedom enough’ – as opposed to the ‘freedom to suppose otherwise’.

 

So, if my personality is moulded to find full expression in, for instance, the freedom to shop and eat; the freedom to do whatever it takes within legal means to make the most of myself so that I might avail myself of an increasing array of eateries and shops; the freedom to not engage in an unaccustomed and therefore tedious learning and empathetic curve when it comes to politics and simply leave it to the ‘professionals’; that is ‘freedom enough’.  And then, I suppose, I would be endowed with the personality to confuse a one-party state and nation that enables me to express this persona as ‘home’. 

 

To such a people, a one-party democracy’ delivers ‘freedom enough’.  ‘Two-party democracy’ delivers ‘chong hei (Chinese word for ‘longwinded’), ‘chaotic’, ‘word-twisting’, ‘ask so many questions for what?’, ‘trouble-making’, democracy’.

 

 

When we study the usage of such phrases amongst singaporeans, and more accurately, Chinese singaporeans, we can proceed to appreciating how a ‘one-party democracy’ is not an oxymoron at all.   In a few decades of personal interactions with the locals, the social context within which such words are used is in the face of analyses, inquisitive questioning, contradictory opinions, calls for empathy and critical introspection, and argument.  In other words, everything that is not of the norm, traditional, commonly accepted, and which does not simply abide by everything that is top-down imposed, is deemed to be problematic as evidenced by the popularly pervasive usage of the said phrases. 

 

The quintessential phrase that illustrates the essence of the overarching paradigm from whence such phrases and perspectives emerge is, ‘it’s like that one lahhh’. 

 

This is not a phrase that is to be taken lightly.  It basically means, ‘that is the way it is’.  That is deemed to be ‘argument-enough’ in the face of questioning and argument or challenge - which is derided as 'complaining' - in the face of a status-quo.  It is dismissive in value.  And if this doesn't stop the 'complainer', the final argument, 'everywhere in the world also like that lahh' (it's the same everywhere in the world).  The difference between the Confucian and Indian/Western mind, I've discovered over the years, is the former seeks the slightest reason for non-change whilst the latter tends to deem the slightest reason as reason enough for change. That is why, for instance, i characterised the quintessential difference between the Confucian and Indian mind some years ago in terms of,

Confucian : "It's like that one lahhh."

Indian : "Why must be like that one?"

And which explains why singapore's Confucian government stated some years ago that the nation must always have a Chinese majority ;) (it's no accident that the 'lion of singapore's opposition, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam, is an Indian.  He was 2000 years (of Indian history) or so in the making.)

 

And we also ought not to take the suffix, ‘lahhh’, lightly either.  The word ‘lahhh’ is casual, relaxing or trivialising in value.  When used as a suffix in ‘it’s like that one lahhh’, it indicates that there is little tension experienced on the part of the person who states it in the face of arguments against a status quo.  It is not a grudging acceptance, and hence, evidences the conformist, non-questioning, subservient and traditionalist goodness-of-fit between one’s persona and the status quo. 

And this is a crucial point - When ‘it’s like that one lahhh’ is deemed as ‘argument-enough’, ‘one-party democracy’ would logically be perceived as ‘freedom enough’.  And that, essentially, is how a one-party democracy can be deemed to be democracy realised as the individual does not deem it her/is business to contradict the status quo. In that, the full expression of freedom revolves around doing one's utmost to make the best of a bad situation recognised as nothing other than 'like that one'.  That denotes the acceptance of top-down control with little, if any, tension.  And it is this that delivers society to ‘doing one’s best in a bad situation’ – as opposed to taking issue with the ‘bad situation’ – whilst taking the ‘bad situation’ as natural.  That is when thought and empathy revolves generally around self-interest and takes little issue with the government unless it fails to deliver the means via which self-interest may be pursued.

 

So, when we apply this common perspective – that is practiced at the family, work, and personal relationships arenas –  to the political milieu, we can appreciate why more-than-one-party-democracy is viewed as tedious as it does not enable the people the freedom to not engage in critical and empathetic thought.  That is why, for instance, the peoples of China and Singapore might view democracy as ‘chaotic’.  A history of traditionalism, awaiting top-down instructions, monoculturalism, subservience, conformism, and fetishising peace for its own sake whatever the unjust foundations upon which it is based, will certainly render those undergoing such an experience bereft of the information-processing abilities required to produce formulae by which democracy might not be perceived as ‘chaotic’.  It is on this basis, amongst others, that the idea of the ‘Asian Democracy’ is founded.

 

 

At its root, the value and potential of empathy and thought is inextricably linked to work and self-aggrandizement via the umbilical conduit of opportunism.  ‘Pragmatism’ in such a milieu is a non-collective and self-absorbed one – what I term, ‘familial pragmatism’ as opposed to western/Indian-style ‘collective pragmatism’.  Hence, if a one-party state can deliver the means via which one’s self interests may be pursued, that is ‘freedom enough’.  The individual is linked to other individuals in an opportunistic relationship as opposed to an empathetic, or ‘collectively pragmatic’, one – as, historically, empathy had been associated with political activism and ensuing state-sanctioned mass incarceration, torture, and slaughter (one Chinese emperor who suspected an official of plotting against him had him, his family and friends, and many who knew them killed.  That amounted to about a 100,000 people.)  That is why there is a stream of thought running through Chinese history that deems an emperor to be worthy of the mantle of ‘the Son of Heaven’ if he can maintain his rule by any means necessary.  Power is the reason.  Not empathy.

 

Hence, the imposition of Confucian/Legalist thought in China in the course of the Qin and Han dynasties – the true starting point of the history of the 'Chinese' people of today – and the success with which its rulers met with in depoliticising the population through a combination of force and the provision of the means by which they might contend with the consequences of their depoliticisation - through apathy and opportunism – prepared the people for a ‘one-party democracy’.  In fact, we could even say that ‘one-party democracy’ in Chinese civilisation was attained long before the bulk of the western world could spell d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y.  Confucian/Asian Democratic/One-Party Democracy can be understood as a combination of the depoliticisation of its population whilst the rulers remain cognizant of the need to maintain the means by which the masses can pursue self-aggrandizement at each other’s expense to counter and maintain the elite-aggrandizing consequences of popular political failure - in other words, to create a people in its own image.  So, great congruence between the one-party state of China and its perspectival satellites and the self-perception of the people was attained and maintained to the present to the point that the popular persona deemed their freedoms as ‘freedom-enough’.

 

 

You see, a more-party democracy is not only based on efforts to manage varying interests, but is founded on, and reinforces, the popular cognizance of theirs and each others interests.  In other words, it is based on some modicum of popular mutual empathy and critical thinking (which is itself contributed to through historical cultural/political/perspectival instability.  Replace empathy with apathy by way of successful top-down oppression, and we found the basis for the non-oxymoronic emergence of a ‘one-party democracy’ with its complementary apathetic, self-absorbed and depoliticised citizenry.  The self-absorption of the one-party democracy is thus mirrored in the population and serves to symbiotically maintain each other.

 

On this basis, it could plausibly be argued that the effort to bring about democracy in Confucian states is quite the oxymoronic venture in itself. If one was to embrace Confucianism/Legalism, one simultaneously attaches a ball-and-chain to the demonstrative placard.  However, since Confucianism/Legalism is the father of Chinese culture, and so long as the phenomenon of ‘cultural pride’ remains intact, one would be hard-pressed not to harness cultural pride for its ‘feel-good factor’ whilst blinkering oneself with the oversights and apathy that comes with the practice of a culture borne of popular political failure. 

 

In this, the challenge faced by the Chinese people is not only in terms of how democracy might be brought about, but how to do it whilst undoing it via the practice of a culture borne of the Confucian/Legalist approach to reality.  As I’ve said in a previous treatise on the need for a Chinese renaissance that recognises the value of the pre-Qin era, the only way the Chinese can move forward whilst being Chinese is by way of bringing back the multi-spoked intellectual heritage of the Zhou era – which incidentally, Confucius himself, in his weaker non-Confucian moments, lauded.  In that, they will have to cease to be ‘children of the *Han’ and began to become ‘children of the Zhou’.  For that, much of the perspectives, cultural practices that evolved after the advent of the Qin and the institution of Confucian-Legalist perspectives has to be weeded out. 

 

I wish them well, if they choose this path.

 

 

 

according2,

 

 

ed

(of the Zhou lineage)

 

 

 

* In brief - The Han Dynasty overthrew the Qin dynasty by force and built on the new civilisation that the Qin had brought about by brutal force.  We can say that the Qin did the ‘dirty work’ via Legalist approaches in founding a new culturally and perspectivally monogamous society, got displaced for the brutal means required/used to bring it about, and the Han later stepped in after the said ‘dirty work’ was done with the relatively benevolent face it could afford to have given the completion of the ‘dirty work’ courtesy of the Qin. The route laid by the Qin – top-down control and Monoculturalism – was maintained with the fusion of Legalism and Confucianism in the Han.  The inclusion of Confucianism can be appreciated as an attempt to incorporate the populace into accepting legalism by a popular practice of those principles that would deliver subservience in the face of authoritarianism.  In this, the Qin and Han played ‘bad cop, good cop’.

 

 

In quotes,

 

“

Where ‘the Devil’ is rendered transparent and called to account for his bigoted and self-absorbed perspectives, his defensive posture is more overt, as opposed to locales where he may couch himself in tolerant benevolence with the aid of bigotry being institutionalised, popularised, and normalised.

 

 

“

When we look at nations where racism is not as overt, but the means and empathy required to eradicate it are absent or insignificant, we can say that racism is ‘pronounced’ because it is Institutionalised with a capital ‘I” and continues an existence unpunctuated by empathy. 

 

“

Pronounced Racism is the means by which the self-efficacy of disadvantaged groups are negatively affected by popular and bigoted perspectives and practices perceived as the norm despite the absence of overt and violent racism.  In this, the final goal of racism, subtle or overt, is realised with impunity.

 

 

*

 

 

I do not, like many, conceptualise pronounced racism in terms of the degree to which it is expressed, but the extent to which the means and pervasiveness of the perspectives required to counter it is absent.

 

Some years ago, a childhood friend of mine by the name of Geevan (indian) who was in the process of migrating to Australia, said, “Yes, there is racism in Australia.  But at least there we can do something about it.  Here (in singapore), we just have to live with it, can’t talk about it, and the majority either don’t care or just say it doesn’t exist.” Geevan, along with a few of his indian professional friends, has since taken his accountancy skills and migrated to Australia.

 

When I went to Australia for a bit, I too encountered racism there.  However, I must admit that the amount of racism I encountered in Australia in a couple of weeks was more than I encountered in the UK in my 5 years here between 1994-1999.  Perhaps it was due to my being located in a student town where anti-fascist/racist movements held sway; students having to contend with and include difference; and it not being a major city where there is a higher incidence of racism.  I was aware that there was overt and gross racism in the UK compared to singapore.  But, I was also made acutely aware that people here seemed to be falling over each other to eradicate it.  For instance, when I looked at the media, I often thought that the ‘Asians’ (taken to refer to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indians, Sikhs, etc.) comprised a significant portion of the population – say, a fifth or so.  Looking back, I realised that I was projecting my learnt idea of ‘significance’, courtesy of the ‘uniquely singapore’ experience, onto the UK.  In other words, upon critical introspection, I realised that in singapore, we were taught to appreciate ‘significance’ in terms of ethnic numbers (and power, prominence, position, socio-economic status, popularity – corollaries of a regimented and conformist society), whereas in the UK, it was in terms of existence and difference.  i.e. singapore’s ‘significance by racially-defined numbers’ vs. UK’s ‘significance by existence and difference’. 

 

Hence, I was then an unwitting bigot myself who thought it natural that a racially-defined ‘majority’ can be expected to ‘naturally’ marginalise a thus racially-defined ‘minority’, and that it was acceptable or 'logical'.  

 

 

The UK is quite the education when it comes to empathetic matters.  Extra advantages are accorded the physically disabled; readers are employed to cater to the visually-impaired; guide-dogs would be trained for them (where in singapore, one tends to see the visually-impaired eking out an existence selling nuts and tissue papers on the streets…’1^st world’ country indeed); parking notifications enabling the disabled to park anywhere are issued; all sorts of organisations exist to care for the rights of foxes, donkeys, horses, dogs, the homeless, children, environment; the public are frequently petitioned for support for integrative and humanitarian causes; buses are provided for university students throughout the UK to ferry them to London for anti-fascist/racism rallies; efforts are made to identify discrimination and eradicate it wherever it exists; ‘minorities’ are well-represented in the media in significant roles or play starring roles in dramas; there are unions for foreign workers; and, unlike singapore, it is not just the ‘minorities’, be they ethnic groups/physically-challenged, who speak up for their own interests but those of relatively advantaged groups. 

 

In fact, one could say that racism becoming more overt in the UK in the present is, in part, a function of the efforts to eradicate it within a relatively democratic and highly empathetic environment. (other scenarios where racism can be pronounced is when a people encounter difference for the first time whilst deeming themselves to be superior in terms of perspective; or on the basis of their being the ‘majority’; or their privileged position being threatened)    If the UK was to adopt the ‘tolerance, harmony, and order by any means’ approach and focused on suppressing dissent as opposed to getting rid of inequality, racism would not have become as overt in the UK as ‘minorities’ would not have been given equal status in practice/the media/policies/etc; be ‘developed’ to view significance in terms of numbers; and taken their ‘rightful’ place within a majority-defined scheme of things.  Thus, the overt racism that is encountered in the UK today is an incubatory phase where the value of difference is being actively and empathetically appreciated.  In a democratic but national/class-based system, that is when overt and violent racism can emerge from the woodwork.  Where ‘the Devil’ is rendered transparent and called to account for his bigoted and self-absorbed perspectives, his defensive posture is more overt, as opposed to locales where he may couch himself in tolerant benevolence with the aid of bigotry being institutionalised, popularised, and normalised.  But, in the long run, in a society such as the UK, minorities add to the definition of ‘British’, as opposed to being assimilated to the past definition of ‘British’ whilst being treated as non-British.

 

 

So, even though racism in the UK can at times be overt and violent, there are significant, empathetic and overt attempts to eradicate its entirety.  When we look at nations where racism is not as overt, but the means and empathy required to eradicate it are absent or insignificant, we can say that racism is ‘pronounced’ because it is Institutionalised with a capital ‘I” and continues an existence unpunctuated by empathy.  Underdevelopment of all, by way of the underdevelopment of the racially-defined few, is a certainty – as it indubitably has been the case in singapore.  Non-overt racism in perpetuity is a greater evil than overt racism that is being undermined from foundation to pinnacle as we can aspire toward the equitable integrative development of all, and through that, the further dialectical development of all.

 

When I look, for instance, at the Indians in the UK from the 50s to the present, I see that many have moved from humble beginnings to professional versatility and prominence.  Additionally, they have and are contributing to the definition of the ‘British’ identity.  However, when I look at singapore, where racism is less overt and violent, the Indians have moved from higher intellectual and creative levels to lesser planes, and the Malays’ cultural persona of communality and vibrancy has not been afforded further development and popular adoption.  Hence, in the present, many are becoming like the ‘majority’ in persona, whilst being perceived as ‘minority’.  It is from this example that one might find the definition of Pronounced Racism. 

 

 

Pronounced Racism is the means by which the self-efficacy of disadvantaged groups are negatively affected by popular and bigoted perspectives perceived as the norm despite the absence of overt and violent racism.  In this, the final goal of racism, subtle or overt, is realised with impunity.  The existence and impact of overt racism is relatively insignificant here in the UK because its final goal of the marginalisation and underdevelopment of ‘minorities’ has been undermined significantly by the empathetic activism of a large, vocal, and significant proportion of the British population. 

 

 

 

according2,

 

 

ed

 

 

 

 

The following are ed’s thoughts on the observations of Alfian Sa’at on bigotry in Singapore and *Article 152 (refer end of page for details) – that guarantees minority rights.  (Source – The Online Citizen)

 

 

 

Alfian Sa’at:

“The event was a screening of Singapore short films. During the Question & Answer session at the end, a member of the audience, a Korean man, offered an observation: “Despite the fact that Singapore is a multiracial country, why are the films shown tonight all in Chinese?”

His query provoked an immediate response from a lady in the audience. Before the microphone could be passed to her, she had shouted out, almost defensively, ‘Majority, what!’

There is of course a certain undeniable logic to the woman’s outburst. The Chinese are an overwhelming 75% of Singapore’s population. This is a very sizeable majority, if we compare it to other ‘multiracial’ countries: Malaysia (65% Malays and Bumiputra groups), Fiji (55% Fiji Islanders) and Guyana (44% Indo-Guyanese). If there were more media representations of the Chinese than the other races in Singapore, it was a matter of simple arithmetic.”

 

ed:

Actually, it is not ‘a matter of simple arithmetic’.  Rather it is a matter of simplistic arithmetic that does not include all relevant variables in the equation.  By ‘relevant variables’, I mean the appreciation of the idea of ‘the majority’ being linked to ‘nationality’ as opposed to ‘ethnicity’; the appreciation of the fact that numerical superiority is insignificant when compared to the perspectival/cultural contribution of a numerically inferior portion of the population; the appreciation of the notion that unity achieved within a ethnically-hierarchically ordered state is nothing short of a fascist harmony; amongst others.  When these variables are taken into consideration, as they certainly ought to be in a multicultural state, we will be able to appreciate the woman’s outburst as a reflexive ejaculation founded on the appreciation of humanity from an ethnically and numerically-superior standpoint as opposed to the significance of the humanity of the other despite their numbers.

 

 

Alfian Sa’at:

“When I was younger, I used to question why local advertisements rarely featured non-Chinese faces (bank and credit card companies were notorious for projecting images of well-heeled Chinese yuppies). I wondered why TVMobile showed Chinese programmes, which only served to marginalize those of us sitting in the bus who didn’t understand the language. But I came to realize that equal representation was simply not possible in a country where one particular ethnic community formed the bulk of the target market.”

 

ed:

The above seems to be a successful attempt at accepting a fascistic harmony for the purpose of alleviating feelings of discomfort in the face of verifiable cultural introversion on the part of a people who place more significance over shared ethnicity as opposed to common humanity – and which I’ve encountered most of the time.  The ‘target market’ that is alluded to here is actually the perspective that bigotry ensuing from ethnic numerical superiority is natural – the relatively advantaged always tend to promote as ‘natural’ that which their advantage is founded upon.  In this, the ‘target market’ is reinforced in such perspectives.  The singaporeans of today have been well socialised into appreciating reality from a racialised point of view and therefore have no appreciation of the value of integration – which takes the best of all cultures and puts them together as opposed to mere cultural replication-cum-introversion. 

 

In the case of the UK, where the ‘whites’ form 92.1% of the population, they don’t seem to have any problem in representing ethnic minorities in the media and according them roles of significance, or even series where they take the starring roles.  They understand the significance of media representations in developing and underdeveloping people’s sense of self-efficacy.  In fact, one could say that they go out of their way to accord ethnic minorities greater representation and significance so as to paradoxically undermine notions of significance-by-racial numbers.  So why is this not possible in Singapore?  To deem it ‘not possible’ betrays one’s incorporation into accepting things from a significance-by-racial-numbers point of view and an unwitting apologist for cultural fascism. 

 

Hence, in the singaporean context, all are assimilated into the cultural norms of ‘the majority’ and much is lost in terms of what people might learn from various cultures.  In this, the chinese have lost much in terms of what they could have learnt, and the ‘others’ have lost the ability to teach what their respective and unique cultural and historical experiences had afforded them.  And on top of this, the chinese are yet again not afforded the opportunity to become multiangular thinkers given their being made bereft of difference – as they historically were in post-Qin china (as opposed to the Chinese of the preceding Chou era).

 

 

Alfian Sa’at:

“Recently, the Straits Times ran a feature article asking whether minorities in Singapore deserve a ‘special position’. What the article failed to recognize, however, was the ‘special position’ enjoyed by Chinese Singaporeans.

Simply put, these are the privileges that come from being members of the majority race.”

 

ed:

No.  These are not the ‘privileges that come from being members of the majority race’ but which ensue when bigotry is taken as the norm upon associating the idea of ‘the majority’ with ‘race’.

 

 

Alfian Sa’at :

The tendency of any majority, if left unchecked, is towards tyranny. The tendency of any minority, if left unattended, is towards alienation. The presence of Article 152, a constitutional guarantee of minority protection, goes a long way towards alleviating the damaging forces of such vectors in our society. Far from undermining equality, Article 152 is an attempt to rectify asymmetries of power, to achieve parity, among those who are not born equal. It takes a particular form of genius to observe the reverse.

 

ed:

With regards the first statement, agreed.  As for the second sentence, alienation is followed by underdevelopment and assimilation into a racially-ordered society.  Everyone loses more than they can imagine as their imagination is itself curtailed by such experiences – excluding ed.

 

However, Article 152 can be perceived as mere lip service if it is paired with efforts to elevate the race and culture of another.  In this, Article 152 performs the dual role of silencing allegations of bigotry whilst doing just that – such as having an indian president on the one hand whilst stating that ‘singapore is not ready for a non-chinese PM’.  Taking care of the interests of the malays and ‘racial and religious minorities’ with ‘Article 152’ whilst stating that singapore must always have a chinese majority comes across as an attempt to effect enough affirmative action for the interests of the malays so that they might achieve at least a modicum of success within a bigoted state of affairs.  In other words, helping the malays and other ‘racial and religious minorities’ make the best out of a situation that accords greater advantages to another ethnic group.  In this, such ‘affirmative action’ is simply farcical.

 

 

according2,

 

ed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Article 152 :

 

‘Minorities and special position of Malays

152. —(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.

—-

(2) The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.’