Some of the reasons cited for banning the use of e-cigarettes include,

That it does not wean a person off nicotine but maintains the addiction.

That it is not as healthy as claimed by its manufacturers.

Well, i have to agree with all of the above reasons.

How do you wean a person of nicotine by exposing the person to it? It is possible only if a person progresses to taking lower and lower levels of nicotine.

The same logic would apply when it comes to claims that it helps one to stop smoking.

Yes. It can serve as an introduction to smoking cigarettes if you consider the possibility that people tend to move on to that which might give a greater ‘kick’.

And yes. It is certainly not ‘healthy’ if it contains nicotine.

All of that said, now let’s look at the issue a bit further than it takes to maintain healthy profitable levels of traditional-cigarette sales and taxation, related fines, medical costs, insurance, et cetera.

Now, with regards e-cigs maintaining nicotine addiction, that is true. ONLY if it contains nicotine. If people move on from t-cigs to e-cigs that do NOT contain nicotine, than it certainly is an effective nicotine-replacement AND smoking-cessation device. One has to keep in mind that quitting smoking by reducing the experience would be more effective than quitting it altogether as one gives up too many aspects of an experience at one go. For instance, the experience of holding the cigarette, chewing on sucking on it, the feeling of the smoke ‘going down’ through inhalation, exhalation, seeing the wafts of smoke meandering skyward, and so on. These come together to promote an addiction that, i dare say, could be far greater than that supplied by nicotine. In fact, these sensations themselves can be a nicotine-replacement therapy as it can serve as a compensation for not receiving the chemically-induced ‘kick’ of nicotine.

(in this case, the Australian and New Zealand government is sensible in banning the sale of e-cigs that CONTAIN nicotine. That enables the e-cig to truly be a safe alternative to smoking t-cigs.)

If one chooses the option of smoking nicotine-free e-cigs, then it could very well be a healthy alternative to smoking t-cigs that renders ‘smoking’ as nothing other than a pastime that enables on to experience a more pronounced act of breathing.
So, when one moves on to e-cigs, one is able to get all these experiences without the tobacco, tar, and host of other hazardous chemicals put into t-cigs by manufacturers. One is able to, say, smoke without smoking. It is the difference between the content of both cigs that serves to add a dual meaning to the term ‘smoking’. And if one chooses the option of smoking nicotine-free e-cigs, then it could very well be a healthy alternative to smoking t-cigs that renders ‘smoking’ as nothing other than a pastime that enables on to experience a more pronounced act of breathing. In fact, it would be more accurate to call ‘smoking’ e-cigs ‘vapouring’ as one is basically inhaling water vapours as opposed to smoke produced from the burning of tobacco.

As for justifying the inclusion of nicotine in e-cigs, this is argued for by the existence and officially approved sale of nicotine patches and inhalators. They are distinguishable from e-cigs ONLY in terms of the way it is delivered. Nicotine levels for e-cigs could be kept at the same levels as nicotine patches and inhalators.

As for the claim that it can serve as an introduction to smoking, so do low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes. The same age-restrictions that apply in the purchase of t-cigs can apply to e-cigs as well. And as ‘smoking’ nicotine-free e-cigs is a safe alternative to t-cigs, it shouldn’t matter if it promotes it or not. The promotion of smoking is a bad thing only if it comes with health hazards. Not if it doesn’t. One could say that a can of Coca Cola a day, or a MSG-laden dish is far more harmful to a teen than a nicotine-free e-cig a day. Besides, even though people might move on from e-cigs to t-cigs, the same reason why people might move from t-cigs to e-cigs would apply in their case as well. And if governments do not want to encourage smoking, and hence make the ‘introductory’ e-cig illegal, than why do they continue to make t-cigs available? The freedom of choice? So people have the right to either choose not to smoke or to smoke dangerously, but not to smoke safely or relatively safely? I’d rather the tax accrued from t-cig smokers be used to fund further research and improvement of the e-cig as a prelude to banning the sale of t-cigs altogether.

If governments ban the sale of e-cigs, whilst having no problem allowing the sale of high-tar and high-nicotine cigarettes, nicotine patches and inhalators, than it would be plausible to surmise that they appreciate e-cigs as being too viable a form of t-cig smoking-cessation devices.
If governments ban the sale of e-cigs, whilst having no problem allowing the sale of high-tar and high-nicotine cigarettes, nicotine patches and inhalators, than it would be plausible to surmise that they appreciate e-cigs as being too viable a form of t-cig smoking-cessation devices. One can certainly expect a huge drop in the amount derived from taxing t-cig smokers; a huge drop in the profits accrued from treating t-cig related ailments; insurance premiums; fines; et cetera. When governments make efforts to imprint warning labels and images on t-cig packs, whilst banning safer or safe alternatives because it ‘resembles too much a t-cig’, than we can surmise that to such governments, profits as opposed the interests of the people, is paramount.

To tax e-cigs as one would tax t-cigs is tantamount to taxing one for breathing as the former is vapour-based as opposed to smoke-based. As taxes are increasingly levied on the basis of the weight of tobacco and not on the amount of smoke it expels, or the nicotine it contains, how are e-cigs going to be taxed and ensure that they deliver the same amount of tax given that they closely resemble t-cigs. Is it that governments, rather than lose the tax applicable to t-cigs and be forced to apply the same tax on e-cigs as they would apply to a sliced bread or tea-bag, choose to ban it altogether and maintain tax-levels that comes with t-cig addiction?

What ought to be made illegal is any government’s right to implement irrational laws unless it can be justified to the furthermost reaches of reason. When a government is allowed to implement irrational laws, it becomes nothing but an effort to circumscribe the furthermost reaches of reason within its definitional auspices. This will, with the passage of time, train the people to identify as reasonable that which is accompanied with the coercive force to back it up as opposed to the force of reason. One can be sure that all or most other laws will be product of profits and self-interest being paramount over all things, including the interests of the people.

My main concern now, is, how many more people are going to be dying of cancer and being burdened with related medical costs because of governments who ban the sale of e-cigs. Such governments are guilty of nothing short of murder for the sake of profit. If e-cigs ought to be made legal, in the least, it should be to enable governments to remain blameless in the death of another brought about by their consumption of t-cigs.

ed

“I am encouraged to see that although the Malays in Radin Mas are a minority, they are able to produce the nice performances which shows that they are keeping their culture, language, customs alive, which is a sign that we are respecting each other’s space, cultural space, religious space, personal space,” noted MM Lee. – source

Sometimes I have to wonder after this bloke’s brand of ‘secularism’.


On the one hand, he seeks the promotion of Mandarin and Chinese culture, has stated that singapore must always have a Chinese majority, and also started ‘Special Assistance Plan’ schools to provide the Chinese with exceptional education – which paved the way for sinocentrism and those identified as ‘Chinese’ to take the helm of the economy, and also stated to the Chinese (from his motherland) that ‘in two generations, Mandarin will be our mother tongue’. What unacceptable fascist nonsense. But, that said, on the other hand, they do promote cultural and racial tolerance.

So basically, ‘we aren’t disrespecting non-chinese cultures, we are just respecting chinese culture more.’ And this is their brand of ‘secularism’?
However, when you put these two together, it basically means, ‘in respect of each other’s culture’, one mustn’t take issue with the government’s promotion and elevation of the Chinese and Chinese culture over all others. To criticise this would be culturally and racially intolerant.’ So basically, ‘we aren’t disrespecting non-chinese cultures, we are just respecting chinese culture more.’ And this is their brand of ‘secularism’? If that’s anything, it is fascism with a mask of secularism.

Now, allow me impart to you ed’s brand of secularism. Secularism is like Socialism. It’s just a preliminary phase. It’s a stage where we are trained out of capitalism-induced self-absorption, opportunism, and thus-induced mutual alienation, before going on to internalising the empathy required to be motivated by mutual respect and love as opposed to greed and fear.

Secularism is, like Socialism, a stage between cultural introversion and cultural miscegenation. It is a stage where EQUAL respect is accorded ALL cultures with equal space given to all without one being officially promoted and supported over others. The only generic culture that is supported and defended over all others is that which supports and defends the need to accord equal respect to all cultures.

Secularism is a stage where all cultures are given all resources necessary to fully develop themselves. Let me put it this way. An ill-educated accountant, manager, and clerk, can set up a company, but they can never maximise their output as a whole if they don’t maximise their individual development. Same thing here. We need to develop all cultures in respect of each other to the maximum before we are able to get the best that can be gotten from the totality of all cultures. To develop one and to underdevelop or marginalise others means that we cannot never get the max from all.

Additionally, a culture cannot be developed to the max in relative isolation. For instance, Chinese culture, developed in China, is only developed maximally in respect of all that is found within its boundaries, and can only be considered maximally developed if it remains within those boundaries. Its value is known by, or increased or decreased by, how it contends with novelty.

Before you, or anyone, is exposed to difference, one can’t say that your culture makes you resistant to new ideas or bigoted. But after you are exposed to difference, and ignore it, you become skilled in shunning that which is different, and this becomes your culture. In that, you are not still practicing ‘your culture’ per se, but you are tweaking it to ensure that it is resilient in the face of new ideas.
However, when it is transported to another clime wherein may be found other cultures, it reverts to a relatively undeveloped status as it has yet to take into account new conditions, cultures, and peoples. Positive development, from this point on means that they have to get rid of those aspects of their culture that might lead them to discount or shun difference simply because it is unfamiliar. This is where ‘respect and appreciation‘ of other cultures comes in. Without this, bias toward the familiar and ‘culture of our ancestors‘ will be true. That applies to all cultures. Indian culture, even though far more exposed to difference than its relatively monocultural counterpart in China, will still have to contend with continuing variation when exposed to, say, the Malays, Chinese, Eurasians, Peranakans, Filipinos, amongst others.

Now, if any of these peoples come together under a single national roof, and choose to, or are encouraged to carry on ‘sustaining their own traditions’, and do so in ignorance of each other, their respective cultures stand to become more practiced in resisting novelty. Like I told some Chinese mates in the past.

“Before you, or anyone, is exposed to difference, one can’t say that your culture makes you resistant to new ideas or bigoted. But after you are exposed to difference, and ignore it, you become skilled in shunning that which is different, and this becomes your culture. In that, you are not still practicing ‘your culture’ per se, but you are tweaking it to ensure that it is resilient in the face of new ideas.”

As i’ve said for quite some time, the Chinese, upon being exposed to difference when they emigrated to other s.e.asian regions, had a chance to ‘become Zhou’ and bring about what I would term, a ‘Chinese renaissance’ (as in, people of the Zhou period of Chinese history where there was much perspectival difference and vibrancy). But in learning to ignore the difference they encountered, they continued to ‘be Han’( as in, people of the period following the Qin dynasty where thought and perspectives were severely circumscribed in favour of the legalist-confucian philosophy).

In the context of Secularism, the practitioners, or victims, of all cultures, will have to bear in mind that one has to pursue their maximal development, or ‘sustaining of one’s traditions’ in respect and appreciation of difference. This is the basic rule that enables the movement from cultural alienation, to mutual cultural appreciation, and, finally, to cultural miscegenation and fusion. The latter of the three is where the best elements of all cultures are combined to form a ‘superculture’.

But that is not the end. The ‘superculture’, once formed, moves to being like the cultures that combined to create it – call it ‘cultural dialectics’ if you will. That is when it can itself produce lots of sub-cultures itself. And in the face of new ideas and cultures, served up by globalisation, it continues to evolve in respect and appreciation of other new cultures.

I am the best that I can be given what I know. But that is only a fragment of a fragment of all that i can be given what i am yet to know.

The former is the underlying tenet of the faith of true secularism.

The point here is not to ‘sustain traditions’, but to ‘develop traditions’ in respect of cultural variation. From this, we go on to ‘fusion’, and then to produce sub-cultures, and then to be exposed to new ideas, before going through the whole process all over again.

Singaporeans, Instead of abiding by the tenet,
‘I am the best that I can be given what I know. But that is only a fragment of a fragment of all that i can be given what i am yet to know. went by, ‘I am the best that I can be given what I know. Hence, what I know is the best that it can be.’
That is not the case in Singapore. The post-Qin version of ‘Chinese culture’ replicated its historical foundation by ignoring, marginalising, and assimilating. It didn’t become more, but made less of reality so that it could make sense of it more readily. And as it could, thus, engender subservience and mobilise unthinking consent in the face of official and officious decrees, it was able to generate a certain degree of ‘success’. But, like the company with the incompetent accountant, manager, and clerk, it simply made the best of a bad situation instead of doing maximising its output making the best of all . The critical, metaphorical, metaphysical mindedness that could have been produced by the integrative fusion of all cultures, and which was more a feature of Indian and Malay culture, was cast aside in favour of the immediately economically gratifying approach of ‘letting out leaders do the thinking for us’ legalist-confucian culture. Hence, today, singapore is simply the best that such a culture allows them to be, as opposed to being the best that it can be in respect of the cultural resources that were once available for their maximal development.

Singaporeans, Instead of abiding by the tenet,

I am the best that I can be given what I know. But that is only a fragment of a fragment of all that i can be given what i am yet to know.

went by,

I am the best that I can be given what I know. Hence, what I know is the best that it can be.

ed

Whether an Indian is representing singapore in a global pageant means little to one who can’t get a job because s/he doesn’t speak Mandarin; or children who are continuously taught to undervalue themselves because the Chinese are preferred or cast in preferable roles and not others; or to those who chance uppon a tourist information board in Syed Alwi Road in Little India and are ‘informed‘ on all that the Chinese did there whilst the Indians are presented as mere props in a wholly Chinese theatre. This must be the beginning, not an excuse to not appreciate more.
So now, we have an Indian with pretty un-chinese features and color in the limelight. It’s about bloody time! I’m tired of Chinese from China working in singapore, and even those i encounter in the UK, refusing the believe that i’m from singapore because i’m not chinese. The government has done a pretty good job in serving as the advance force in colonising singapore for China and presenting the state as a chinese one to the rest of the world via their Singapore airlines waitresses commonly known as ‘Singapore girls’; the Chinese design of their tourist promotion site some years back; the singapore blogawards being presented as a chinese event; holding foreigner-integration ceremonies on chinese new year; celebrating the Chinese New Year all across the state whilst other cultural celebrations are kept to their traditional enclaves; promoting chinese culture throughout the country whilst ‘for the sake of unity’ banning the tudung in schools; putting Chinese characters on the ‘Singapore Flyer’ during Chinese New Year – singapore’s version of the London Eye – and the list goes on and on and on. Being an egalitarian, i naturally baulk at such fascist nonsense.

However, now, i must nod my head in approval at the selection of Anusha for the Miss World nonsense. We are presented, finally, with another version of ‘beauty’. I’ve heard, often enough, the Chinese saying things like, ‘wah, that Indian girl very beautiful. She very fair.’ To which, in recent years, when i realised that to be tolerant is to be complicit in the evils it might reinforce, I would respond with a, ‘so she’s beautiful because she’s fair? So if she isn’t fair, then not beautiful?’ Of course, they always get taken back as they do not practice a culture ‘second-guessing’ the norm – unlike, say, the Indians, Japanese, or Brits (The Japanese , most admirably, practice a culture of ‘asking why 5 times’ whilst the Chinese practice a culture of not employing anyone who asks why. Not surprising that the former are well known for being innovators whilst the latter are world renown for copying them.)

I never thought that Indians were exceptionally beautiful, or more beautiful than the Chinese or those of any other ‘race’. But I do think that all races, in the variance of their features, teach us how to appreciate the many faces of beauty, and through the perspectives they all impart, we are in a better position to appreciate beauty in itself.
But, to be fair, i’ve heard many Indians spout such nonsense as well. And they, unlike the Chinese, are not let off so easily by myself – and especially since they tend to engage with criticism or a difference in perspective as opposed to just shrugging it off. With a couple of singaporean Indians, some years ago, this discussion carried on for more than an hour and we agreed, amongst others, that the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ with white vs. black can only be logically confined to the former being more easy to spot in the dark whilst the latter is easier to spot during the day; and that when it comes to certain expressions, those whom are less ‘fair’ have an advantage due to the contrast between, say, the colour of their eyes and teeth and their skin tone. I also added that Indians and Africans, amongst others, do not have a ‘dark’ colour but a richer one whilst the ‘whites’ and chinese, amongst others, are not ‘fair’ but subtly-toned. The usage of dark and fair, because of its being associated with right and wrong, and other historically-inherited values arising out of class discrimination (darker skinned people being thought inferior not because of their skin color, but their skin colour being a product of having to work for a living as opposed to fairer-skinned people living on the fruits of their work under the shade of a tree of palace), amongst others. It was an interesting discussion and was on par with the discussions i’ve had with the Brits on a host of other topics.(it was this that contributed to my noticing the perspectival and intellectual contrast between the chinese and others, and which in turn led me to wonder after the political-cultural causes for it.)

But sharing the same approach toward color as the Chinese only tended to disadvantage all the Indians as a whole whether they were ‘dark’ or ‘fair’. You see, the penchant for one’s ‘own color’, also reinforces the generic tendency to ‘prefer our own’. In that, a fair Indian may be ‘fair’ like the chinese, but s/he is still ‘not our own’. Hence, the ‘fair’ Indian may be ‘more preferred’ but not ‘as preferred’(as the chinese). Bigotry in one arena, such as color, always tends to reinforce one generic bigotry and further strengthen subsidiary forms of bigotry. Transporting to singapore the colour bias of the Indians of the subcontinent, thus, led to the marginalisation of the lot of them. However relatively smart the Indians of the subcontinent are, this colour bias severely compromises the further fruition of their culturally endowed proficiencies.

So, getting back to this Miss Singapore World nonsense. The selection of an Indian who isn’t very ‘fair’ is a good thing as it serves as an ‘equally good alternative’ and casts the state-reinforced ‘chinese preferred’ approach as nothing but an alternative as opposed to the summum bonum of civilisation. Whilst i’m still averse to the ‘beauty’ pageants for presenting one version of beauty as the criteria by which all beauty should be judged – such as the height and figure requirement – it is unfortunate that we have to rely on an evil to promote a good. I’m well aware that the usage of an evil to promote a good tends to incorporate all into an evil – such as women being given equality and becoming as bad as men.

Well, i hope that this small event will serve as one, albeit lilliputian, step toward teaching all within s.e.Asia that the path to self-realisation is constructed with a host of materials as opposed to being defined by those who sashay on it.Well, i hope that this small event will serve as one, albeit lilliputian, step toward teaching all within s.e.Asia that the path to self-realisation is constructed with a host of materials as opposed to being defined by those who sashay on it. I am not satisfied by ‘figurehead’ concessions in the face of general discrimination. Whether an Indian is representing singapore in a global pageant means little to one who isn’t able to get a job because s/he doesn’t speak Mandarin despite English being the first language in the state; or children who are continuously taught to assimilate to the Chinese, or to undervalue themselves because the Chinese are preferred or cast in preferable roles and not others; or to those who chance uppon a tourist information board in Syed Alwi Road in Little India and are ‘informed‘ on all that the Chinese did there whilst the Indians are presented as mere props in a wholly Chinese theatre. This must be the beginning, not an excuse to not appreciate more. Perhaps, then, we might see the chinese appreciating things even though it is different and not as publicised. Reminds me of the old and humble Chinese ladies I encountered in my younger days whom tended to think that Indians were beautiful because of their relatively pronounced features.

I never thought that Indians were exceptionally beautiful, or more beautiful than the Chinese or those of any other ‘race’. But I do think that all races, in the variance of their features, teach us how to appreciate the many faces of beauty, and through the perspectives they all impart, we are in a better position to appreciate beauty in itself.

[thanks to Vanessa Neo for bringing this event to my attention]

ed

If we create a society where people’s imaginative faculties aren’t monopolised by billboards and celebs, and where everyone is able to maximally develop her intelligence, than I don’t see why the people’s ever-developing intelligence cannot serve as the fuel for their change as opposed to their money funding the Corporational effort to manipulate it
It’s no wonder that Samsung, amongst others, have a built-in auto-shut down feature that requires one to ‘upgrade’ constantly if they are ‘backward’ enough to keep it past its upgrade-by date. We have Microsoft churning out one rubbish OS after another; we have mobile phones that will very probably be outlived by a sea monkey; et cetera, et cetera. Well, i can almost hear them say, ‘if things lasted so long, we wouldn’t be motivated to innovate them!” That’s nonsense given that we always have the option to recycle our products, and move on to those with features that fit our needs. And if we create a society where people’s imaginative faculties aren’t monopolised by billboards and celebs, and where everyone is able to maximally develop her intelligence, than I don’t see why the people’s ever-developing intelligence cannot serve as the fuel for their change as opposed to their money funding the Corporational effort to manipulate it.

And at least then we would have a choice. Right now, when you buy a mobile, or computer, or just about anything, what isn’t stated is that you do not own it. You have rented it for the period of time that it is allowed to last by their manufacturers, promoters and fashion gurus from Oprah to Vogue. You own your product as long as they allow you to. Whether it be the latest fashion, mobile phone, slang words, television set, refrigerator, car, et cetera, their victory lies in either ensuring it conks out before your sea monkey, or you throw it out because, ‘its soooo last year’. In an ed-ocracy, the latter would be stripped off their right to vote till they grow up. That always irks me as would the scratch of a mirror to some, or the sight of blood to others. ‘Stupid bastard. They must have cut off the umbilical cord too soon and deprived his brains of its requisite oxygen and blood supply’, is what i tend to think about whoever says that. But I don’t say it out loud given the need to ‘get along’ with everyone even if they have the intelligence of a Neopet a month after one stops feeding it, or a day after the battery runs out.

To live to the fullest, one had to figure out why one lived the way one did, explore various types of experiences through every means available, always wonder after your preferences, and, in a nutshell, foreswear allegiance to anything but the belief that I will never know better till I know all.
When the movie, The Matrix, came out, some thought that it indicated the degree to which people are becoming increasingly aware. For myself, I thought that it was nothing more than the depth of the understanding of reality as evidenced by the great thinkers of past ages being reduced to mere entertainment – and thus cast as discountable. I viewed it as a ‘mother goose’ version of the ideas of great thinkers whilst it was appreciated by the masses as the product of a period where great thought abound. It is such an abstract appreciation of our reality that people are generally not going to engage in that amount of critical introspection it takes to figure out its detailed manifestation in our own lives. That’s the thing. If you want to stop a people from thinking, all you have to do is to give them such an abstract understanding of a great idea that they are just going to say, ‘ah f**k it’, and go back to the way they understood things. If you go into detail, some might listen. If you don’t talk about it all, some might think about it. But if you present it on a global scale on a silver screen and make it abstract, the people are going to take it as entertainment and shove it aside in their DVD cabinets thereafter. And they’re never going to think that the cinema is itself a structural part of The Matrix.

In my early 20s, i sat in front of the telly, and told myself that i would have to account for my every eye movement as it flittered across various parts of the screen; that i would have to account for every finger movement; every penchant for this or that dish; every whim and fancy, every identity that i was to take as ‘mine’. It was tiring at the time. But thereafter, it enabled me to have greater control over the subconscious backdoor to my conscious mind. It was, in a way Cartesian, in approach – though I hadn’t heard of the bloke at the time. But i realised that to live to the fullest, one had to figure out why one lived the way one did, explore various types of experiences through every means available, always wonder after your preferences, and, in a nutshell, foreswear allegiance to anything but the belief that I will never know better till I know all.

But I suppose that is what led me to wonder past the norm, and swear at the Ipad as well as most of the cherished traditions and penchants of our ‘modern’ times. If more thought along these lines, I suppose we might already have the 100th generation of the i-whatevers, be enjoying afternoon tea in a biosphere on the moon, and, of course, not have to put up with auto-shut down features, blue screens of death, Bush or the Lib-dem government, and Saddam might just have very well have been the last winner of prize tomatoes.

ed

for this, and related articles on a2ed:

The Fascist monkeys of Temasek Review. Listen up.
Temasek Review goes, ‘Sieg Heil!’, again
“Singapore for Singaporeans” says the Fascist Opposition. What utter neo-Nazi nonsense!

The following is a2ed’s comment, in response to an ‘Alex’, and which serves to sum up the argument against those who might be inclined to think TR to be democrats per se.

start comment

Alex: “In a word of fairness, TR does serve a democratic function to Singapore. It also contains good articles that provokes us to question the existing policies which may veer the country towards the wrong direction.”

Fascists globally promote their fascist ideology along with addressing practical matters – go do a spot of global history mate. The latter does not mean that one is not guilty of the former. Rather, it disables one from taking issue with it, or makes one more receptive to it given that other issues that concerns oneself is still addressed. This is not an ‘opinion’ but a statement of fact on the basis of verified sociological, political and psychological realities.

The sinocentric racist perspectives of the population in general, engendered by a host of cultural and political means, and into which the young have been socialised, has naturally progressed on to xenophobia. The former has served as a prep school for the latter.
The same problem is going on here in the UK with the fascist British National Party and their more violent offshoot, the English Defence League. Their perspectives are identical to that of TR. They have the same approach as TR toward foreigners and constantly ignore the fact that many Brits are a mix of ‘foreign’ stock themselves – including the monarchy. However, unlike TR, they get quite a bit of egg-pelting and criticism from the general public who do not care about their addressing ‘practical’ issues as well. They do not appreciate the practical concerns of a party if it is paired with fascist rubbish as well. You’ve got to be pretty self-absorbed to do so. That undermines democracy and refines fascism. Learn to appreciate the difference Alex.

In singapore, a site like this can actually become popular. What do you think that says about the people, and you. The sinocentric racist perspectives of the population in general, engendered by a host of cultural and political means, and into which the young have been socialised, has naturally progressed on to xenophobia. The former has served as a prep school for the latter.

Given your definition of ‘democrat’ as implied in your statement, one could say that even Lee KY is a democrat given that whilst his party is authoritarian politically, they are pretty democratic in terms of allowing people to start up businesses, etc. But that would be a one-sided view of things wouldn’t it.

That said, its obvious that TR has published this article as they are well-aware that they can rely on the self-absorption of the majority, and their fascist supporters to defend them. You can do so with numbers mate, but not reason and logic.

end comment

It is sort of poetically just when one thinks about it. The government, over half a century, has taught the Chinese to identify themselves along racial lines, and through the self-absorption that has been engendered, assimilate all ‘others’ whilst being concerned only with their own interests. Now, as they bring in more foreigners into the country, the government has to contend with the xenophobia that the people’s racialised bias has progressed to.

As for the xenophobes,

Going by the logic of many of today’s pro-oppositional Singaporeans and bloggers, we could say that even though that Japanese slaughtered numerous Chinese in the Nanking massacre, and even though Hitler’s regime slaughtered millions of Jews during WWII, they were still ‘democrats’ given that they were seeking the upliftment of their respective peoples. Well, I wouldn’t say or think it, but these xenophobes ought to ask if the difference between them and these others are only in degree, and not orientation.

ed

source

As a country is moved from its potential collectively empathetic nature to a self-absorbed, self-interested, and materialistic one – that is stage 1 – it is rational to peg the salaries of ministers to that of the private sector. If not, the government, that hopes to instill in a people that amount of self-absorption that it takes to be apathetic enough for a self-aggrandizing government to enjoy political longevity, will be undone in spirit.

When the government becomes opportunistic and view the people as a means to a self-aggrandizing end, the people will thus be nurtured, over time, to think, ‘if the government thinks its alright to do that to us, why should we not be able to do that to each other?‘ – and especially since they need to do so in order to contend with the financial pressures that come with top-down exploitation – That is stage 2 of the empathetic underdevelopment of a people. Stage 3, cements it when the government themselves say, ‘well, if the people think its alright to do that to each other, why can’t we?’ In this, the people are silenced, except for a few irrational people who actually think that it is alright to do unto each other that which they do not accept from the government.

For the government to maintain an austerity policy when it comes to their own salaries is a direct contradiction of the spirit that they brought about amongst the people. So why should not the government increase their salaries over those of other states’ leaders? How many amongst the populace will spurn the opportunity to make millions a year at the expense of their neighbours? And why should not the government have the opportunity to do likewise given that they maintain the socio-cultural-economic environment for you to do as they do? Why should the devil not enjoy the selfsame benefits as do his kingdom of demons? And via the same approach as they take toward each other?

People think of the Han period in Chinese history as the ‘Golden Age’. I view it as an evil age where the top-nurtured nature of the Chinese people, since the Qin dynasty, had been underdeveloped to a particular level, and from that low point, they achieved the best that they could, whilst losing the personality to appreciate or want more
When we reach that phase in (un)civilisation, that is when we reach the ‘Golden Age’. People think of the Han period in Chinese history as the ‘Golden Age’. I view it as an evil age where the top-nurtured nature of the Chinese people, since the Qin dynasty, had been underdeveloped to a particular level, and from that low point, they achieved the best that they could, whilst losing the personality to appreciate or want more – as did the people of the Chou period that came before the Qin. It was a period when the path that Qin Shih Huang Ti set the Chinese people on (in 221 b.c.) was realised and the people became like the government and the government used that to justify their own continuing to be as they are. That is when Chinese history ended and has been replayed ever since. It was the conclusion of a totalitarian past and democracy was born – with democracy meaning that people had a right to do unto each other that whilst attempting to get around the consequences of it being done unto them by the government and the people.

In essence, the political longevity of an evil government is justified by the spirit of the people. When people complain about the salaries of ministers, they take issue not with the right of the government to earn more than them, but for the government not facilitating their right to do unto each other and hopefully earn as much to put up with cost of having such a government.
That is why I always react with a fearful ‘oh oh‘ whenever i hear of anyone talking about a ‘Golden Age that is upon us‘ as that tends to mean that the evils perpetrated by a government or socio-economic-cultural system of the past is coming to fruition by way of underdeveloping a peoples’ collective persona to the point that they can think that all that a human can naturally desire is going to be supplied in said ‘Golden Age’. A ‘Golden Age’, in essence, refers to a period where people pass from the aforementioned Stage 1 to Stage 3. In other words, a people become the government in persona, and the government uses that as a justification for continuing to be what they had always been. Till we have a ‘Golden system’, all ‘Golden ages’ are nothing but periods where the undeveloped personality of the masses have come to accept and incorporate the spirit that their foreparents might have taken issue with.

So, when we look at the case of Singapore, those whom are objective would be forced to wonder if the government is not justified by the inculcated spirit of the people. In essence, the political longevity of an evil government is justified by the spirit of the people. When people complain about the salaries of ministers, they take issue not with the right of the government to earn more than them, but for the government not facilitating their right to do unto each other and hopefully earn as much to put up with cost of having such a government.

ed

I’ve often said, Singapore needs more Malays and Indians as they hail from relatively highly metaphorical and metaphysical cultures – Both Indian and Islamic philosophy is profoundly metaphysical and metaphorical as opposed to Chinese, or more accurately, Legalist-Confucian, philosophy which developed after taking the overarching authoritarian political environment as a given. Foreign talent would not be required as much if Singaporeans had made more of cultures that were foreign to ‘Chinese’ culture.

I personally view the Chinese as hapless victims of a system of thoughtlessness inaugurated by Shih Huang Ti in 221 b.c. (well, if the government sees fit to maintain a chinese majority in singapore, and promote ‘Chinese‘ culture over all others, there is no reason why we can’t critique it, rationally of course.) A metaphysical or metaphorical history enables people to ‘connect the dots’ between various phenomena and make sense of a whole lot of things that those whom are appealed to by the obvious miss out. Even to my Chinese mates i’ve often found myself repeating in frustration, ‘connect the dots!’.

I’ve often said, ‘if you don’t appreciate details, let it be because you can’t be bothered, and not because you can’t do it’. That is the difference between being ‘at rest’ from using your mind as opposed to ‘not being able to use it when required’.
They rely on me too often to make sense of things for them. And they know, too, that my ability to ‘connect the dots’ and bring to their attention the relation between various details in an experience enables them to make far more informed decisions – from when and where to purchase property; invest in currency; what businesses to start in what locality; how to solve their computer problems; what girl one might ‘try’ for; what one could expect in a decade if one was to marry this or that girl; how to have multiple orgasms; how to last past the hour in bed; how to relate various features of a scene to take a good photograph; how to handle various types of characters in their respective workplaces; et cetera, et cetera. Yes, i’ve been of much help to my Chinese mates over the decades and always look out for them in the hope that they would be able to experience more of life than they otherwise would, and hopefully develop to degrees that would see them contribute more to the mutual development of those whom they encounter. I’ve often said, ‘if you don’t appreciate details, let it be because you can’t be bothered, and not because you can’t do it’. That is the difference between being ‘at rest’ from using your mind as opposed to ‘not being able to use it when required’.

Metaphorical Thinking

If we don’t learn to appreciate the interconnectedness of reality, than that is going to result in reducing our appreciation of the idea of interconnectedness to that which serves our thus engendered selfish purposes.
That is the value of what i would allude to as metaphorical thinking. That is, learning to appreciate the interconnectedness of reality. In other words, how one thing that is seemingly of one nature can be connected to something else that is seemingly of another nature. It is a great ability to have as it alleviates conditions such as bigotry, self-absorption, apathy, and so on. It makes one better performers at work, in bed, in cooking, the arts, problem-identification, solution-generation, and basically gives one a sort of ‘Midas touch’ that enables one to excel much quicker in anything past more experienced persons. I’ve tried, and still do try, to impart these strategies to my Chinese mates, as I have to my Malay, Indian and Filipinos that i’ve encountered. To be honest, to date, i’ve encountered far greater success with Filipinos, Malays, and Indians. But what the former three might learn in a week, my Chinese mates could take from months to years. Whilst that is extremely frustrating, it had led me to wonder after the social causes for their relative ineptitude. But as that has been discussed in other articles, i’ll leave it at that for now.

Foreign talent would not be required as much if Singaporeans had made more of cultures that were foreign to ‘Chinese’ culture.
But the reason why I’ve attempted to, and still do, teach these methods to my Chinese mates, amongst others, is that if everyone is attuned to detail in anything they experience, they will make more of such an experience. And as none of us experience the same things, and given our varying experience of the past and the variable development of our senses and sensibilities, we would all be certainly able to contribute relative unique insights to the group. Hence, by becoming greater, we are able to contribute even more to the upliftment of the group. No one person can see all. But with the collaboration of people who see much, they, as a totality, become the ‘all-seeing eye’. And if all humanity was to become as such, than humanity becomes the very image of an all-seeing, all-knowing, and a present-everywhere ‘God’. That, I dare say, is the true meaning behind the biblical, ‘God made wo/man in his image. But we aren’t going to see God when we look in the mirror till all our lives mirror the strategies required to make the most of us. But if we abide by a culture where we mindlessly follow tradition, not question authority and laws, go with what ‘hot’ and ‘hip’, value harmony over equality, are biased toward the stability of the familiar as opposed to incorporating the knowledge that comes with the new into our formulae for making sense of things, then we are certainly going to be, amongst a host of others, be imprisoning people for metaphorical allusions.

Metaphorical Crimes

The first person i’ve heard of being arrested for a metaphorical crime is Gopalan Nair. ‘Poor bloke’, I thought, ‘a metaphorically-challenged people, that the Confucianised Chinese indubitably are, serves as foundation for his arrest.’ His statement was,

..the judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders. – straits times

He was then found guilty of insulting a High Court Judge.

One cannot be blamed for shuddering at the thought of living amongst a country dominated by Confucianised Chinese

(‘Confucianised Chinese’ refers to people who have been educated out of attention to detail and thinking in abstract or philosophical ways that enables one to appreciate the interconnectedness of reality by an overarching authoritarian state, and which is reinforced by employer-worker teacher-student parent-child relationships. One does not have to be a Chinese to be a Confucianised Chinese, nor are all Chinese Confucianised.)

One has to become the sort who is appealed to by the obvious, ceases to think metaphorically or ‘connect the dots’, put up with the financial pressures that comes with an authoritarian government and Corporational Cons by being opportunistic to each other, and, of course, get behind the queue when it comes to getting jobs and being cast in the media, etc, etc, etc for not being ‘part of the majority’.

[If anyone takes issue with this statement, i’d like to see them prove it untrue as opposed to simply stating that it offends the biases of the majority. Sensitivity swings both ways mate. Taking issue with the insensitivity of another is not being insensitive. Rather, it is being sensitive to insensitivity for the purpose of getting rid of insensitivity and bringing about an egalitarian society.]

Now, we have a Malay bloke, Abdul Malik Ghazali, being arrested. The article on ‘asiaone’ goes,

A Singaporean man who attacked the ruling party on Facebook and urge people to “burn” a cabinet minister has been arrested on charges of inciting violence, police said Wednesday.

Toward the end of the article, we see,

He said it was time to “burn” the sports minister and the PAP. “Rally together and vote them out!!!” he wrote. – asiaone

From the order of the article, it is obvious that a metaphor is being present as the main thrust of the Abdul’s statement. Absolutely ridiculous. The word ‘burn’ has been used in increasing frequency since the 80s amongst the ‘pop’ classes – which included myself. For instance, when we issued breakdance challenges to other groups, we might say something like, ‘we’re gonna burn you man’. No. Nobody in the opposing group rushed off to the police alleging that we intended to literally burn them. Even us juveniles had the sense to realise that. Doesn’t Lee Kuan Yew? Or his son? And how about the ‘first world’ people of singapore? No, the Lees do know this. But that is why they ‘preferred’ a Chinese majority in singapore publicly and in the newspapers – a grossly racist act which, i’m surprised, didn’t lead to their arrest by the Internal Security Department, or anger amongst the Chinese community.

How did this come about?

But the reason why they preferred the Chinese was not because the Chinese were naturally stupid or subservient in the face of authority. Rather, it would be easier to promote China’s culture amongst them by way of saying that it was naturally ‘their culture’. This occurred in the context of the increasing westernisation of singapore back in the late 70s and 80s. The English-speaking Singaporean community were increasingly taking the helm in the media, the economic milieu, cultural production, and, were also becoming highly vocal in the political front. That is when there was a crackdown of the so-called Marxist Conspiracy, a more fervent promotion of Mandarin and ‘Chinese’ culture, more stringent proscriptions on ‘talking about race’ – so that the government neo-Nazi promotion of ‘Chinese’ supremacy could continue with impunity – increasingly public celebrations of Chinese festivities in every corner of Singapore, the increasing association of Singapore with all-things Chinese, et cetera, et cetera.

These events basically indicate that Singapore’s totalitarian recent history is coming to a successful conclusion. When people lose their metaphorical natures, and are appealed to by the obvious, they cease to ‘2nd guess’. And ‘2nd guessing’, by the way, is the root of all progress. You won’t have your Ipod without it, and neither would we have the likes of Jimi Hendrix on it.It was, no doubt, the old strategy of ‘divide and conquer’ fused with ‘preferring’ one race over another. The Chinese didn’t see a problem with it as they weren’t disadvantaged by this, at least, not yet. The Indians and Malays, fragmented throughout the country via the seemingly ‘multicultural’ HDB quota system (whereby only a set number of non-Chinese were allowed to live in any particular space), could not get together and engender a ‘critical mass’ in appreciating the consequences of this racist stance of the government, and, in an attempt to ‘get along’, ended up assimilating to the increasingly Confucianised Chinese via their local places of abode and coffeeshops where they were welcome so long as they did and spoke along lines that the Confucianised Chinese could appreciate. Thus, overtime, their own culturally-induced personas were diluted.

Let me put it this way, if it wasn’t for this period in Singapore’s history, Gopalan Nair and Abdul Malik Ghazali would never be arrested. The people of singapore would have fused and become a highly metaphorical people as a result. Thus, everyone would know that the statements of the above two were simply metaphors. Nothing more. Gopalan did not call the judge a ‘prostitute’, and neither did Abdul mean that people should actually invest in a can of kerosene and a box of matches or a 60 cents ‘yipee’ brand lighter and send off the PAP to Great Forbidden City in the sky.

A metaphor, in this context, is known by the literal statement that follows what is thus determined to be a metaphorical statement. In other words, saying that a minister ought to be ‘burnt’ would mean just that if it was not followed by a ‘rally together and vote them out’. It is the second that gives meaning to the first. The second statement is not a conditional, or, in programming jargon, ‘if or else’ statement. In other words, he did not say, ‘let’s burn the PAP, and if we don’t succeed, then let’s get together and vote them out’. The same applies to Gopalan’s case.

These events basically indicate that Singapore’s totalitarian recent history is coming to a successful conclusion. When people lose their metaphorical natures, and are appealed to by the obvious, they cease to ‘2nd guess’. And ‘2nd guessing’, by the way, is the root of all progress. You won’t have your Ipod without it, and neither would we have the likes of Jimi Hendrix on it.

ed

A day after, the following response from Fridae.com,

Well, on the one hand, i could deem it quite reasonable. That is, if they are to be taken as the majority. Catering to the linguistic proclivities of the majority seems sensible when it comes to ‘reaching out’. But from their ‘about’ page, it seems that this organisation has been around for a few years, and still no ‘other’ languages? So, I’m left to wonder, is it that the Chinese are the most deficient when it comes to picking up other languages – hence the need to provide subtitles to accompany English programmes even in states where English has been the first language for decades, i.e. Singapore – or is it that if it isn’t to their interests, that it deserves not interest.

The purpose of egalitarianism is not to assume an evil to be the traits of all, but to identify its source so that we might eradicate it at its root. If not, we might just end up sharing said traits by assuming it to be a ‘human condition’ as opposed to it being a result of conditioning.
Why ‘gay Asia’ when they are primarily catering to the interests of a chinese gay community? What’s with this ‘asia’ thing? I recall a conversation about gambling with a Chinese mate in his early 50s in the neighbourhood coffeeshop in Singapore, who said, ‘ahh, you know, we Asians like to gamble.‘ To which I retorted, ‘not Asians, the Chinese.’. To this, he was taken aback, and disagreed with a, ‘no lah, Asians, not just the Chinese.‘ ‘Well, don’t you Chinese tend to gamble as part of your new year celebrations? And also all those lucky charms and numbers for bringing in money? Gambling isn’t a national pastime for the Malays or Indians, or the Filipinos or anyone else in Asia right?’, said I. As a response he just smiled uncomfortably, averted his eyes, and moved off. Quite the typical response I have to say. It seems that when the Chinese exhibit particular negative traits, it is assumed to be the trait of all. But when it comes to positive traits, it is a Chinese trait. The purpose of egalitarianism is not to assume an evil to be the traits of all, but to identify its source so that we might eradicate it at its root. If not, we might just end up sharing said traits by assuming it to be a ‘human condition’ as opposed to it being a result of conditioning.

From this, amongst a host of other instances, one cannot but assume that to the Chinese, the ancient, ‘central land’ (english translation of the Chinese characters for ‘China’) mentality still reigns supreme. And in a globalised village, that simply results in right-wing nationalism on a regional scale. I suppose it is easier to remake the world in your image than to engage in the tedium of thought and re-evaluation in the face of different cultures and peoples. Sort of like a child trying to force a circular object into a triangular slot. If the child is successful, then circular object would be deemed to have been always ‘triangular’. And if people with such a mentality are allowed to be the ‘majority’, than we can expect the kind of response received from Fridae, amongst a host of others. I do recall sending an email to SFD.org (Singaporeans for Democracy) about 8 years ago – i don’t know if they are related to the current SFD in singapore – and asking why they did not have an Indian translation of their site as opposed to English and Mandarin. To this question, the response went, ‘we cannot please everybody and why do you need special treatment.’ I was flabbergasted at this response, and, over the years, realised that this was a typical worldview of every Chinese i have ever encountered. The Chinese are, generally, rubbish at empathy, but admirably high on self-absorption. That is beyond dispute. But the question is ‘why’. It is definitely down to socialisation and political oppression. So, it is not a racial trait. But, if a particular race identifies with a particular socio-political culture because it is the culture of their ancestors, then, with the passage of time and tide of generations, it does become a racial trait.

Coming back to Gay ‘Asia’, I couldn’t help but wonder at Fridae.com’s response. If they are so into the ‘majority’, than how is it that they are seeking to ‘empower gays’ whom are a minority? This irony, I’m sure, is lost on the Chinese in s.e.Asia whom are generally poor at metaphorically appreciating of reality. They tend to be appealed to the obvious – like children do according to psychological textbooks. Hence, the sensational, the publicised, race-based majorities, tradition, one’s own interests, power, prominence, and the popular. Little thought is required when it comes to these – a result of Legalist top-down oppression and management of society. Whilst parents seek to lead their children out of this immaturity, Confucian/authoritarian governments seek to maintain, and profit from it. Hence, the above deficiencies amongst the Chinese in s.e.Asia. It is also perpetuated by the culture which therefore does not require a Confucian government to maintain said condition. One ought to remember that a culture, or components of a culture, borne of a particular historical climate can serve to replicate such a climate when practiced in present times.

It is within this context that we can understand how Fridae.com can on the one hand, cater to the majority (Chinese), whilst standing up for the minority(gay). The first is obvious in numbers (to them), and the second is obvious in its being to their interests.

It is only when we can extricate the best of all cultures in s.e.Asia and embody their values, even if it wasn’t practiced by our hallowed ancestors, that we can truly call ourselves Asians. If not, the usage of the term ‘Asian’ can simply refer to ‘what’s left after one sector has marginalised another for being an other’.
Hence, it would be expected that those whom are severely racialised by their cultures or governments to the point of ‘sticking to their own’ and seeing none other but themselves would miss the obvious point that the Chinese aren’t the ‘majority’ in s.e.Asia – and i certainly hope they won’t be if this is going to be their approach toward the non-Chinese. When you put the Indians, Malays, Filipinos, Indonesians, Australasians, Thais, Burmese, Cambodians, Lao, Koreans, Japanese, amongst others, together, they form a significant majority, not only in numerical terms, but in their providing richer cultural vibrancy given the differences between them. One could even say that all the non-Chinese in s.e.Asia are different dialect groups of one singular non-Chinese race. But, as always, i don’t think Fridae.com is going to be overly concerned with reason and logic, not if it isn’t supported by ‘the majority’.

The point of this article is not to ‘incite racial hatred’ as lesser and self-absorbed minds might assume – to allay the need for thought, critical introspection and objectivity which this article requires – but to promote an egalitarian vision that requires all of us to critically introspect for the purpose of detecting those strains within all our cultures that enables one to dominate another simply because we are the majority in numbers or power. Be it the ridiculous caste system or the BJP in India, the self-absorption produced by Legalist-Confucian culture, amongst others, we would do well in eradicating these negatives from our Asian cultural experience lest it leads us to make less of ourselves by us making less of others. It is only when we can extricate the best of all cultures in s.e.Asia and embody their values, even if it wasn’t practiced by our hallowed ancestors, that we can truly call ourselves Asians. If not, the usage of the term ‘Asian’ can simply refer to ‘what’s left after one sector has marginalised another for being an other’.

related articles:

Syed Alwi (Little India) Tourist information, an illustration of fascist racism, in pictures

Time for another bout of racist Singapore Blog Awards

Racist ‘Singapore’ Blog Awards

ed

We’ve all heard the ‘get up to x mb per second’ claims. I’ve heard it coming from singaporean ISPs as i’ve heard it here in the UK.

Now for those whom are quite tech-savvy, you know what this actually means. But for those whom are inclined to have faith in billboards as if it is no different from the tablets brought down from Sinai, listen up.

First, what the hell is MB per second? Most people are accustomed to MB meaning MegaBytes. Such and such a file is a 100 megabytes, that holiday photo you took with the orang utan pinching your butt is 1.2 megabyte – perhaps owing to the size of the butt, or the orang utan – an email attachment being 2.5 megabytes, and so on. So, when you look at, say, singapore’s Starhub’s ‘100mbps’, or similar claims by BT, you’re going to think, ‘hey, i’m gonna be getting x megabytes per second’ downloads!’ Not true.

The ‘mb’ in these claims actually refer to megaBITS, not megaBYTES. The conversion rate between megabits and megabytes is 1 megabyte = 8 megabits. So, a 100 mbps, or megabits per second refers to? Get out your calculators. Of course, these companies will tell you this, usually in ‘fineprint’ – which is synonymous with ‘rendering less visible that which might make you think twice about parting with your money’.

If we put up with Corporational Cons, it will certainly come at the price of us opportunistically compensating for the losses incurred through each other’s pockets.
Secondly, even if you have BTs allegedly 20mbps or Starhub’s allegedly 100mbps, you’re going to run into another problem that might prevent you from ‘blazing through the web’. That is the bottleneck problem. In other words, you can have a car that is able to match the F16 in speed, but there’s only so fast that you can go in a traffic jam. That ‘jam’ refers to the bandwidth of the site you’re accessing, the number of people whom are accessing that site at the same time, the distance of the site which you are accessing.

And of course, you won’t really know how much the ISP is actually giving you. In an unfortunately confucian state like singapore, where people check on their getting screwed by screwing each other, corporations can do as they please. I’ve often wondered why my lower internet speed allotment in Hong Kong, where i lived for a year, was obviously faster than the speed i experienced in Singapore where my broadband allotment was supposedly double that of my Hong Kong’s allotment. Thankfully, here in the UK, we have a body such as Advertising Standards Authority that checks on CorpCons and even clamp down on false claims. – BBC:BT broadband ad banned over speed claim.

Anyway, this brief article will be the first of the CorpCon series. If we put up with Corporational Cons, it will certainly come at the price of us opportunistically compensating for the losses incurred through each other’s pockets. Addressing cons at the ‘consumer’ level is the first step towards making us more human. Not doing so is simply going to turn us into gross opportunists, and turn such compensatory activities into ‘culture’.

Live long and prosper, nanu nanu.

ed

T.Rajendran (excerpt):

I am also very disturbed by the influx of foreigners, especially students. In my secondary school, 20 scholars from China were brought in each year. Within months they outperformed everyone else even in English. Many Singaporean students felt they were being denied the chance to be the first in the subjects and tests.

ed:

What nonsense. You want to be ‘first’ by excluding those who can beat you simply because they aren’t ‘local’? And where do you think your foreparents came from? Bukit Merah? They were ‘PRCs’ themselves. You are obviously a self-centred jackass who simply wants the company of other jackasses so that you don’t have to think you’re dumb and docile when compared to better others. That’s what was done to the non-chinese in singapore, and now you’re adopting the same approach in the face of ‘foreigners’. That’s what happens in a confucian society where monoculturalism reigns. You think you’re going to have people becoming smart in a ‘one way of thought’ kind of society? Multiculturalism is the key, i.e. India, UK. Take that out, and we have ridiculously argued rubbish such as this letter.

p.s. the above critique applies to singaporeans regardless of ‘race’. It seems that everyone is ‘talking confucian’ now, even local ‘indians’.

-end comment

Now, let me clarify what ‘Indian’ means, in a nutshell. To ‘be Indian’ is to be a logical corollary of a multicultural milieu as is India. In other words, one who isn’t averse to or discounts difference. As a result of having to contend with a highly and culturally variable milieu, they tend to produce logical and critical thinkers, able to process and respond to new information ‘realtime’, would be able to reformulate one’s own perspectives in appreciation of an everchanging milieu, and tend to also engage in the manipulation of one’s environment at all levels for the purpose of change, amongst others. When one becomes monocultural, as are the Confucians, or the nationalist/fascist Bharatiya Janata Party in India, they cease to ‘be Indian’ in essence.

I take the meaning of a term such as Indian, Chinese, Malay, American, African, amongst others, as referring to people whom are consequences of related or practiced cultures. Other things remaining equal, practitioners of different cultures will tend to exhibit contradistinguishable traits.

For instance, a victim of a monocultural milieu will tend to be less analytical, poor in adaptation, superficial in perspective, and socially apathetic – given the authoritarian top-down management of society, traditionalism, and top-imposed financial pressures and exploitation.

One practicing, or being reared within, a relatively democratic and multicultural milieu will tend to exhibit a greater degree of innovativeness, critical intelligence, being able to appreciate phenomena from a variety of angles, be able to process new information ‘realtime’ and reformulate existing ways of understanding things, tend to use metaphors, analogies, poetical expressions, amongst a host of others. If we were to subject our very own children to either of these conditions, we will see a similar result. So there is no reason why this would not be the case when it comes to ‘culture’ simple because it is called ‘culture’ and has been practiced for thousands of years.

ed