The Fascist monkeys of Temasek Review. Listen up.

I was disgusted to read Temasek Review’s ‘Nigerian on S-pass charged for murder of Singapore woman in Bukit Panjang’. The title itself is abhorrent and reveals the TR, amongst others, for the fascist monkeys that they are. Apologies, but i don’t see any reason to afford non ad-hominem respect to fascists. In the UK, the general population are not disinclined to hurl rotten eggs and tomatoes at TR’s, amongst others, counterparts such as the NF or BNP. Don’t tell me that is the UK. Reason knows know borders mate.



What the fascist monkeys of the TR ought to do is to look into the percentage of foreigners whom commit crimes in comparison to locals. If one was to look into that, perhaps, one might find that the locals are more a cause for concern than ‘foreigners’. However, whilst stats on the foreigner vs. locals crime commission rates might not be available, the ‘oppositional’ side ought to steer clear of such associations as illustrated in the title lest they open themselves to allegations of hiding behind the absence of such stats in order to associate foreigners with crime. If you want to go on about how the government is giving jobs that locals can do to foreigners, that's reasonable enough. But leave the 'they are not integrating with us', 'they are running brothels', 'they are diluting our 'singaporean' culture' fascist rubbish out of it. I really don’t look kindly on the constant attempts by fascist cretins, TR or others,(like chua chin leng, amongst other bloggers whom vary in degree, but not stance) to demonise foreigners via association with crime, bad behaviour, etc. If the majority of foreigners, or the majority of one’s experiences with foreigners reveal tendencies, then yes, let's discuss it. However, to pick a mere handful and demonise all foreigners via implication-via-association is unacceptable. TR, amongst others, deserve a smack for that, metaphorically speaking that is. Notice how ‘Nigerian’, ‘S-pass’ and ‘murder’ is linked in the title? One would expect such associations in press releases or comments by the BNP, but it is ridiculous that the allegedly democrats in the local arena consistently mirror the former via such ‘insights’ and oversights.

What’s most significant is that there are hardly any amongst the opposition whom take issue with this stance amongst some of the fascist cretins comprising the TR or TOC or other bloggers. And given the anti-immigrant stance of the opposition, and most importantly, their silence in the face of efforts to demonise foreigners, we can move on to say that they are part of the problem and undoubtedly led by fascist perspectives and leaders themselves - listen up Chee, Chiam, Gomez, Low, Ken J, amongst others. As i’ve always been inclined to say, the opposition’s fundamental perspectives ought to be evaluated, not only by their insights, which are few and far between, but by their oversights. Given the apathetic silence amongst them, this article cannot be alleged to be demonising most of the opposition. They are complicit in their silence.

The idiot who wrote the article for TR even ends of with,

“At the rate the ruling party is mass importing foreigners from elsewhere, Singaporeans may have to put up with newcomers from more “exotic” places like Nigeria and other African countries.”

In this statement, ‘Nigeria’, ‘African’, is termed as ‘exotic’ whilst this is presented with meaning taken from the rest of the article that associates them with crime. That is nothing short of racist and fascist. I suggest the fascist democrats in singapore take a look at singapore’s history and look into how the ‘exotic’ chinese were quite a problem with their syndicates, triad societies, gambling dens, extortion, violence, etc, before casting the proverbial. What we are facing with the foreigners of today is nothing compared the antics of quite a fair bit of their forefathers. Let's dispense with the double-standards shall we.

Related Article: Temasek Review goes, 'Sieg Heil!', again


a2,

ed


postscript: The above image only relates to TR's stance on immigration as illustrated in the aforementioned article. It does not refer to its approaches in other issues, some of which, are laudable in themselves. Pro-PAP persons whom might be inclined to use the image to vilify the totality of TR, you can do so, but you'll find it difficult to justify it on the basis of reason. So don't start.