Partial Retraction & Thanks to TR: counter-'Gatecrash Water Festival' initiative


Thanks to 'the Exilian'(via the 'contact form' above) for directing my attention to Temasek Review's publishing of the Support Water Festival initiative the day after it was dispatched by


As previous communication between a2ed and TOC/TR had always resulted in an email dispatched by either, and this was not forthcoming in this instance, it was assumed that it had been ignored. Hence, thanks to TR for publicising this article - albeit to abjectly poor response.

But we are not about to fall for the usual strategy of whitewashing a main-fare fascist stance, as evidenced by their approach time and again, via the supply of side-dish egalitarianism. This acknowledged oversight on the part of a2ed does not, however, invalidate all previous points. That has to be proven, and not claimed via said oversight.

As of today, the 'Support Water Festival' initiative has 3 members - 2 of whom are old personal (chinese) friends of ed.



Just for experimental purposes, a2ed sent the ‘Support (Bukit Batok) Water Festival’(SWF) statement to both The Online Citizen and Temasek Review for publishing a week ago to study their reactions or lack of.

Earlier, a2ed had taken issue with the silence of bloggers, TOC, TR, and political parties and their stooges in the face of the ‘Gatecrash Water Festival’(GWF) fascist initiative by ‘nazi scum’ Aurora Long et al. It was also interesting to discover that ‘democrat’ Alex Tan had also signed up with the Shutzstaffel of the GWF group. Well, it was presumed that TR would at least publish the SWF statement in order to cover up their fascist and racist stance in the face of ‘foreigners’ and difference. It is a simple enough strategy - put out a significant number of xenophobic/racist articles, garnish it with economic pragmatism, and then present a democratic image by throwing in a few egalitarian-type articles.

However, both TOC and TR didn’t even have the sense to do that and have thus made their support for the xenophobic/racist GWF initiative clear enough. (perhaps Ng E-Jay, the political editor of TOC, wants to preserve unity amongst the opposition as opposed to ensuring its democratic nature) That both are fascist is obvious enough to the astute observer, but it was thought that their effort to take advantage of this opportunity to whitewash their fascist stance with the SWF statement could at least be used to garner more exposure for this initiative.

For those whom might not have perused earlier articles by a2ed, TOC, TR and most bloggers and ‘netizens’ in singapore are verifiable ‘nazi scum’ (as the British would put it - and as they did in a recent demonstration against the EDL in Bolton, UK, March 20th). They have, on the one hand, turned nationality into ‘race’ and either vilify ‘foreigners’ or remain silent in the face of their vilification; and do not take as much issue, if at all, with that which impacts on the interests of the local non-Chinese. Hence, in essence, the local ‘democratic’ movement (which i term, ‘fascist democrats’, and whom are seeking to maintain or acquire more privileges for those advantaged as a result of the fascist ‘Singapore must always have a Chinese majority’ policy and ‘appreciate Mandarin and Chinese culture campaigns) can be viewed as a result of the fusion of xenophobia-cum-racism.

Personally, on the basis of previous email interactions, a2ed suspects there is a connection between TR and TOC. If so, one can understand the 'division of labour' betwixt both, with the former being blatantly fascist, whilst the latter adds the 'pragmatic' touch. But whether this is intentional on their part or not, it is a fact that the latter, along with political parties, etc, do not take issue with the Totally Reprehensible Nazi stance of TR. In this, they form a symbiotic union.

God save singaporeans from themselves.



  1. The more you keep digging ed, the more is coming out about the true position of singapore's opposition. I didn't realise it before you started. Maybe too used to it and too pissed of with the PAP to see it.

    The opposition must be fascist democraPs not to notice it. I'm with you now. No votes for the opposition. Keep digging!

    I don't have a facebook but i support your SWF.

  2. I dont understand, i see the response you mentioned on the TR website. they did put it up.

    TR does carry alot of xenophobic material, TOC is a lot more measured and ensures a much higher standard of articles. neither of them however are fascist or right-wing, although commentators have used both platforms to post inflammatory and ill-considered comments.

    I really doubt that "the majority" of netizens are the racist jackboot stomping racists you paint them to be. That's the equivalent of saying that all New Citizens , PRs and skilled migrants are out to exploit the country and sod off. Your comments about the opposition are also quite harsh. You are taking the embarrassment you feel about xenophobia from certain sections of the Spore population, collapsing a whole range of people and groups into a simplified category and then crucifying the lot of em as racists. Sounds like what the xenophobes you are railing against are doing no?

    1. I agree that if you unhappy about policy you should not take it out on immigrants but with the government.

    2. however being unhappy with policy does not make you a fascist. There are genuine things to be unhappy about.

    - peace

  3. .
    I really don't know what reality you've been living in mate. The entire population keeping silent about the policy to maintain a 'racial balance in favour of the chinese' is not enough to indict the people?

    And that in addition to media representations; the SAP school system; the mother tongue policy along with 'mandarin-speakers' preferred jobs; the elevation of chinese culture above all; the opposition keeping silent about these things at most times; not a single (chinese) individual i've spoken to in more than a decade being bothered about these things; 'netizens' not kicking up a fuss over that which affects the interests of the non-chinese; etc, etc.

    The majority of netizens are not 'racist jackboot stomping racists' mate, they just don't bother about anything other than that which affects the interests of 'the majority'.

    As for foreigners exploiting the country, you've got your logic upside-down mate. Many of them are being exploited. And its been going on for a long while, or at least, since the country was 'founded' by ole Stamford. Where the hell do you think the forefathers of the Indians and Chinese came from? Ang Sua? They were foreigners as well, and that is another point the 'opposition' keep silent about and couch in terms such as 'native-born singaporeans' vs. 'foreigners'.

    I'm collapsing nothing into a simplified category. When fascism is allowed to reign long enough, the people stand to be simplified to little other than what they've turned out to be.

    Is it any wonder that xenophobia comes oh so naturally to such a people, and with few, if any, taking vociferous issue with it?

    I really have to wonder after your understanding of 'fascism' and 'racism'.

  4. Good points ed. I was watching the video you put up of the demo in the UK. I'm surprised that many of the whites really bother about others. You're right. You don't see anything like that here among the people or the opposition.

  5. .
    Thanks to 'the Exilian'(via the 'contact form' above) for directing my attention to Temasek Review's publishing of the Support Water Festival initiative the day after it was dispatched by

    As previous communication between a2ed and TOC/TR had always resulted in an email dispatched by either, and this was not forthcoming in this instance, it was assumed that it had been ignored. Hence, thanks to TR for publicising this article - albeit to abjectly poor response.

    But we are not about to fall for the usual strategy of whitewashing a main-fare fascist stance, as evidenced by their approach time and again, via the supply of side-dish egalitarianism.

  6. coments are just expression of views. simple as that. i think some comments are reasonable and factual. They are not as facist as you claimed. you are brewing storm in teacup.

  7. A very good reminder to our present generation who seem to have no idea that we are descendants of our immigrant forefathers. Am including links from Kopitiam and TR which has the same similarities as your topic, in all comments made. Maybe you can educate them, ignorant ones, further with your exceptional comments.
    "CHILD IN TIME" from your video, my favourite in the seventies and still today. Great song by DP and you have excellent taste ,bro!

  8. I will not support the Water Festival as it is both an offence and taboo to waste water in Singapore. Based on the organiser estimation, 3000 people may participate in the event. The amount of water going to be wasted is staggering.
    I have no qualms if they use sea water.

  9. .
    A pragmatic twist to a fascist stance? Wanting to save water. Sounds reasonable enough.

    But I have to wonder how many potentials were squandered by the 'singapore must always have a chinese majority' and 'speak mandarin and appreciate chinese culture' campaigns. And how about the Chinese burning 'hell bank notes'? How many trees are being wasted on that? Not to mention the terrible pollution that is caused by it. And where is the furore against the 'gatecrash water festival' initiative? Nothing to say about that?

    Now if you, amongst much of the fascist 'new media' have little or nothing to say about all that, than this 'pragmatic' 'save the water' and bunk the 'water festival' approach is nothing short of hypocritical matey.

    One can support the water festival in spirit, but have reservations with regards to the water. That point has to be made clear by support with reservations as opposed to withdrawal of support on the basis of a reservations.

    I'm alright with that, but in just taking the 'pragmatic' approach, and this being complemented by the racism/fascism of the 'new media' that is left unaddressed, it paints a picture that uses pragmatism to forward a racist/fascist stance.

  10. Dear Ed,

    You accused other people as racist/fascist. But you are also attacking the Chinese and treating them as your punching bag. If you are not happy with certain "campaigns", then go after the policymakers. Please don't target certain race. It makes you no different from the racist/fascist you are against.

  11. Ed's comment certainly does not make him a racist. He is making a point as to the hypocritical style of the local Chinese here over the peaceful, cultured and meaningful celebrations of the minorities. Every week, over different locations all over the island. One can notice these huge masts of coloured flags, with huge chinese characters fluttering,that are tied on the fences along road dividers. They can be unsightly and a road hazard as the flags unfurl in the wind.Obstructing motorists view.I wonder why are these flags being put up over different locations of the island. Who authorizes and issues licenses for these flags to be put up? Does putting up these flags give a reminder to the other races of the majority chinese presence here? Don't we reckon that the majority chinese should also be reminded of the other races presence here as well? When can the minority races begin putting up their own flags all over the island? To remind the majority race
    of the other races' presence here in multi racial Singapura.
    Henceforth, is it not justified to support and go ahead with the Water Festival for our SEA brothers and sisters.
    Stop whining you Spoilt Singapore Brats and start supporting the water festival. Or do you still prefer playing with fire, destroying the green patch and quenching the hunger of the ghosts.
    Thumbs up to our sensible Singapore Government in support of the Water Festival.

  12. Firstly, I would like to applaud your courage, Ed to acknowledge your oversight. This most certainly would not invalidate all your previous points.In fact, i truly admire your effort perseverance to do the right thing despite little support.

    The fact that the so-called oppositions, over the few decades, have done nothing significant to highlight the unfair treatments of the minorities in singapore or fight for their rights as equal citizens certainly says a lot about them. If they were to replace the pap, then it would be just another new group of pap in power.

    If we have individual who thinks that the reason for not supporting the Water Festival is to save water, then when can we expect more mature people to help address the issues in singapore.

    If you, Ed are accused as being racist/fascist, then they truly fail to see that unfortunately the group of people responsible for the current conditions in singapore are chinese, and that a race. It's ironical, isn't it? The fact that you have old personal chinese friends shows that you are able to analyse issues and differentiate between problem and people. If you are truly racist, you would probably be keeping the company of your own race.

    Thumbs up to you Ed!

  13. I think you are mixing "support the water festival" initiative with your "hate Chinese" idealogy. One is to promote curtural pluralism, the other is to promote racial hatred and enmity. They are conflicting and opposite. Seem to me one is used to provide cover for the other motive.

  14. .
    Perhaps it would be more accurate to state that the Chinese are apathetic as opposed to 'being racist' - due to politically repressive conditions + top-down financial pressures + the provision of means to get around economic pressures, amongst others.

    But then again, a (legalist-confucian) culture of conformity, uniformity, traditionalism, rule-following as opposed to reasoning being the basis for rules, would provide a foundation for the emergence of bigotry.

    When these two are put together, the tendency toward bigotry would be amplified. It is then that racism becomes 'preference'. Amongst many instances, look at SGdaily's 'preference' for sino-type women in their 'daily chiobu' section; look at how SDP places the mandarin option over other languages to, unwittingly perhaps, to reinforce ‘majority by race’ as opposed to ‘majority by nationality’ on their website; people pairing 'beauty' with 'fairness'; media representations; making fun of the tamil language; derogatory terms for Indians being based not on traits but tamil words that are deemed funny simply because they different from Mandarin; president Nathan being referred to as 'prata man' which reduces Indians to nothing more than one traditional occupation despite their professional and perspectival versatility - Chinese presidents were not referred to as 'kway tiao man' or any such term; past 'chinese preferred' job ads, and now, 'mandarin speakers' preferred job ads - whilst no fuss is made of the mother tongue policy that disadvantages the non-chinese economically; etc, etc, etc, and to top it off, the opposition and people in general not bothering about any of the above. And if you think further about it, one might realise that this perspective is mirrored in the ‘we are we and they are they and they have no right to impose’ mentality in the face of western critique of ‘asian’ democracy.

    And it is a fact that the only chinese i've encountered who bother about it only did so after I personally educated them into the perspectives required to empathise and notice that which had previously fallen out of their culturally-introverted sphere of interest. They have done well.

    Are they racists or simply culturally introverted and apathetic? Or are both two sides of the same symbiotic coin? These aren't being addressed. That is a fact. What does this fact indicate?

    If we do not raise the bar and deem a racist to be one who is not only averse to cultural miscegenation with the 'non-majority', but also one who says nothing about how others are treated or even notice it when it happens, then the latter is going to certainly deliver the former. Underachievement will certainly result amongst the ‘non-majority’ and this will further argue for the superiority of the ‘majority’, and especially in the eyes of the young and impressionable. And that is when some are going to start speaking of the superiority of east asian ‘cultural drive’.

    The longer this continues, the more various groups will begin to exhibit certain traits and perceptions of themselves and others.

    I don't believe in just taking issue with the result whilst keeping mum about the means that deliver it.

  15. Ed certainly is a racist/facist and nazist. He is spreading the seed of hatred toward Chinese by blaming and accusing them for everything bad.

    Hitler did the same thing. He also blamed and accused the Jew for stealing, cheating...etc.

  16. What a thoroughly unschooled comment by Anonymous above on 12 April 2010 15:04.

    Racism is a form of oppression. Can you actually claim that the Chinese in Singapore are now oppressed by Ed, or by Indians, (or in danger of being so) just because he wrote this and other peieces?

    Well founded criticism against an oppressor group's racist speech or behaviour is NOT racism; it's ANTI-racism.

    Know the difference.

  17. Anon 1504hrs, 12/4/2010,
    You must be an ignorant racist to have such thoughts about Ed. Who has had the courage, patience and clearly explain. The asymmetrical situation here with regards to the social integration between the majority Chinese race and the minority races on National Level and Issues. Here the majority race looks upon race as priority over nationalism on any issues. Except national service. One wonders, if war ever takes place here. Would issues on race over-ride nationalism ?!!!

  18. Hi ed,

    I think it is very petty and opportunistic of you to keep raising the one thing thing that you can - the placement of language names on the SDP website - to smear the SDP as a racist, and worse fascist party.

    It is neither.

    Fascism is a *political* creed that informs law and policy, and from the consistency in the SDP's policy platform and its advocacy of the repeal of illegal and illegitimate laws, it has consistently demonstrated that it is the very antithesis of fascism. It's in fact the only political party that comes close to egalitarianism.

    Is the placement of language names corresponding to the traditional hierarchy of skin colour - lightest skin on top, darkest at the bottom of the heap - racist? Yes, it is one manifestation of racism. But I ask you instead if you truly believe in your heart of hearts that it was a wilful? Or do you think that it is the typical oversight that many people, even the well-intentined, commit in an environent where there is a next-to-zero level of awareness on racism. And especially when there are no other examples of the SDP's alleged racism that you have ever been able to cite, your charge against them is quite a shallow one; consistency in racism is key to determining its wilfulness.

    Is your encounter with Dr Chee eight years ago, at which you recounted him as coming across as authoritarian sufficient to call him and worse, his entire party fascist? (I was not there, and I will not be taking your word for it, although I will note your observation so as be on the lookout for consistency in any authoritarianism in him.)

    Well, fascism is not about personal style. However, it can impact on personal style, and authoritarianism sometimes holds a clue. But again, is that the political ideology that he espouses, and if so is there any evidence, of his party's consistency in formulating fascist policy and advocacy in fascist law?

    I too have been called fascist once in one online encounter, but that would be confusing my having strong boundaries with any authoritarianism in me. I insist on my no-nonsense style with recalcitrants and cyberspace is swarming with them. Yet, look at what I advocate politically? Can anyone who really knows political creeds ever call me a fascist?

    I sincerely suggest that you resolve your one encounter with Dr Cheethat that has left you unhappy with him, but has resulted in your unfair smears against an entire party. You risk coming across as pathological as the other SDP-bashers online, notably BryanT and bratsalive.

    I normally would not tell someone something like "but's eight years ago", because it doesn't mean that the person you had an unhappy encounter with has done any changing, if indeed that is what needed to happen. But this time I would. Because, I sincerely believe that that there has been a lot of change politically, and the SDP has been the most responsive and reflective of that change.

    It was only in the latter half of 2006, that any anti-racism surfaced online when bellepepper and I launched it full blast in the old SBF, and for the very first time in Singapore, and kept it at that same full blast level daily for almost a year. I still loook back at it as a most historic event.

    Many changes have taken place since then.

  19. .
    Alright Robox,

    I'm simply raising the bar -

    "If we do not raise the bar and deem a racist to be one who is not only averse to cultural miscegenation with the 'non-majority', but also one who says nothing about how others are treated or even notice it when it happens, then the latter is going to certainly deliver the former."

    As for my encounter with Chee 8 years ago, i personally found him a very likable character, though pretty Confucian in his approach to 'rank and file' matters. That did not completely taint my view of him though - as we cannot expect perfection in anyone, though we can work toward it - and I still supported the opposition and the SDP wholeheartedly until recently when the evidence of the fascist nature of singapore's opposition became too overwhelming for me to ignore any further.

    Try not to reduce my critique of the opposition, or the SDP, to the encounter 8 years ago. That alone cannot be taken as conclusive evidence of the nature of the SDP or Chee. It is what a party consistently fails to say that says much about the party. That is my only point of contention.

    And as for the order of the languages, i've said before, that this simply reinforces majority-by-race as opposed to nationality. If this wasn't an issue, then that wouldn't really matter as much. However, if, on the one hand, we have a 'must have a nation that has a chinese majority' policy, and on the other, we validate this by the order of the languages, then both form a symbiotic whole with the latter validating the former.

    For instance, take a look at the 'bolton demo against fascism' video above. Notice how many sing, 'we are black, white, asian and we're Jew'? Notice the order of colour/race? In fighting against 'white' racism, 'whites' place themselves second in the colour order and elevate those vilified. But in fighting against fascism here, the order runs parallel with the officially professed preferable racial balance. Interesting don't you think.

  20. 13/4/10 0550


  21. Hi ed,

    Re: "It is what a party consistently fails to say that says much about the party. That is my only point of contention."

    First, if you know so much about the SDP, how is it you are unable to concede that they have been deliberately underresourced, particularly in human terms, and not least of all because of their status as the most embattled political party in Singapore? They do need to prioritize their battles too, you know, the major one being preparing for the string of court battles that have been lined up against them. (It does take a lot of time just to prepare for just one hearing - and I'm not even talking about an entire trial in one case; it's only because of thos battles that we we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel of corrupt judiciary.)

    Then, which other party has done that "speaking out" against racism so much so that you are singling only the SDP out for your smears?

    Most of all, are you asking for a repeat of PAP rule when you ask that political parties play the paternalistic role of moralists as well each and every time racist trangressions occur involving Singaporeans? The role of political parties is primarily to create conditions favourable to accomplishing goals that they have set. In this case, all any political party can realistically do is create conditions favourable for healthy race relations. But you would need to be in power to actually do that. There are only a limited range of events that are appropriate for political parties, even those that are not in power, to speak out against. This event, unfortunately, is not quite one of them. (My own hunch is that this xenophobic initiative will fizzle out and not materialize.)

    For the sake of devolution of power in Singapore, I prefer that the speaking out against racism be done by those individuals deemed 'ordinary Singaporeans' but are in most likelihood more qualified than anyone in any political party that they are better positioned to do so.

    In the meantime, you would be seen in a better light if you spoke out against the likes of Alex Tan (which you have and do), Goh Meng Seng ("The root cause of minorities being left behind is a result of dysfunctional families."), and worst of all, Kenneth Jeyaratnam who thinks that there is no racism in Singapore and any non-Jeyaratnam Indian or Malay opposition party member has equal chances as their Chinese conterparts in getting elected should the GRC system be abolished.

    Or you could speak out about against the absence in any meaningful numbers, of Indians and Malays in parties like SPP and WP, or walkouts from those parties by Indians and Malays.

  22. Next point/s - sorry if I seem like I am belabouring the point.

    1. First, I have never disagreed with your observation about the appearance of a ranking order for languages in the website. Indeed, I have been the only person who has openly agreed with you. But I hope that you will take up my suggestion to write them about it. Awareness raising demands action of that type, because awareness of racism is not going to descend magically from the sky onto those to whom it is not a disadvantage.

    2. If "raising the bar" is your rationale, then I'm afraid that I think you are applying the wrong strategy here. (This is coming from someone who is open to multiple strategies at work at the same time on any issue.) The reason I say that is that what you are doing is demeaning the very people who have made the greatest efforts. The corollary, of course, is that the people who most deserve the tongue lashing are let off by you. To draw an analogy, a true one, the racists at 3in1kopitiam have repeatedly claimed that the reason for their racism against Indians is to 'see Indians improve'. Not that I would fall for that crap, but do you think then that your strategy is no different from theirs. It's abuse!

    3. Dr Chee's 'Confucian' style is something that I found more believable because I see it in just about every Chinese male in any position of power. (I also see Indian and Malay men impacted by the same style, or perhaps drawing from other autocratic styles.) That takes us back to the point: why single out only one man for it then? (There is more to this point but I will leave it at that for now.)

  23. .
    Hello Robox,

    Well, i'm not singling out the SDP actually. I may have spoken more about them because they tend to be more prominent than the rest, but i have stated time and again that all political parties are complicit in their silence. The formulae used to critique the SDP is cross-applicable.

    Surely you don't expect that I reapply the formulae time and again in every similar or identical instance? - though I do try to time and again. So if someone hopscotches along and says, 'hey, what you are saying is applicable to all the parties, so why aren't you criticising them as well?', I'd say, 'My job is in showing you a perspective is cross-applicable, not in cross-applying it for you in every instance.'

    As for being underresourced, that is an unacceptable argument. So what are we saying here? That tens of thousands of non-chinese over decades are not a priority because they are not the majority? How many decades does the SDP need? How long does the SDP think this has been going on? A year or two? I'm sure you are aware that this is a decades-old problem. Isn't it a coincidence that when the SDP somehow manages to speak up, it is generally when it concerns 'majority' interests - with 'minority' gain being coincidental? I've spoken of these oversights time and again, and given SDP's, amongst others, not bothering about it, can anyone be blamed for concluding that the SDP, amongst others, have their perspectives ultra-right?

    And, of course, it's not just the SDP. Netizens can't be bothered about gross racism, or do not take issue with it with any appreciable degree of vociferousness, TOC ignored my suggestion to start a 'race relations' or 'multiculturalism' section to create public awareness and bring about egalitarianism, and loyal members of various oppositional parties don't bother about it as well, if they notice it at all.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter if anyone is singling out the SDP for critique. What matters is if that critique is plausible, and cross-applicable to other parties and individuals.


  24. "Most of all, are you asking for a repeat of PAP rule when you ask that political parties play the paternalistic role of moralists as well each and every time racist trangressions occur involving Singaporeans?"

    Now that is pure nonsensical logic if ever there was one. You are stating that political parties and the PAP become similar the moment they moralise. There is no government that doesn't moralise. Keeping silent in the face of a transgression indicates bias toward the morality that serves as its basis. Or do you think that the allied forces were as bad as the Nazis simply because they espoused another moral standpoint?

    And don't you think that standing up for democracy is also 'moralising'? No? But standing up for democracy when it comes to 'race' is? That, sir, is what i refer to as the mindset founding 'fascist democracy'. It is a one-sided, or in this context, (race-defined)'majority'-sided, democracy.

    We cannot rely on the 'ordinary singaporean' to speak out against racism unless they have been well-trained to mind the interests of another and not view 'majority' along racial lines. If people have been reared under a fascist scheme of things for long enough, all sectors, regardless of race, are going to be underdeveloped enough to take it as 'like that one lah', and 'stop complaining' - which i've heard many a time.

    I suggest you study how more enlightened states do it (i.e. the UK) lest we attempt to reach into a bag of vipers for an antidote to the bite of one.

    By the way, i'm not interested in 'being seen in a better light'. If i did, i'd join the opposition. I'm more interested in taking our saviours to task lest we end up refining fascism through our unquestioning support for them.

    I may not have taken Goh Meng Seng to task for that ridiculous statement - i've often thought that his photograph was not dissimilar to that found on HDB agents' namecards...perhaps he ought to consider a switch in profession - but my arguments against the SDP, amongst others, is nevertheless applicable in their case as well.(to be honest, i didn't come across those statements) I put out some of the perspectival formulae to deal with this, and its up to the people to apply it as and when required - as opposed to expecting ed to be the sole crusader in a party of 1 against a party of all. Now that is indeed being 'underresourced'.

    As for the absence of 'meaningful numbers' of Indians and Malays in parties like SPP and WP. I wouldn't say that there are 'meaningful numbers' of Indians and Malays in SDP either Robox - given their not doing much about SDP's respresentativeness and 'priorities'.

    That said, i've noticed that many Indians that i've spoken to over a couple of decades tend to say, 'ah, what can we do? The chinese control the politics. They won't listen to us.' I suppose that kind of helplessness is learnt from the experience of socio-economic-political life in the country.

  25. "2. If "raising the bar" is your rationale, then I'm afraid that I think you are applying the wrong strategy here. (This is coming from someone who is open to multiple strategies at work at the same time on any issue.) The reason I say that is that what you are doing is demeaning the very people who have made the greatest efforts. The corollary, of course, is that the people who most deserve the tongue lashing are let off by you. To draw an analogy, a true one, the racists at 3in1kopitiam have repeatedly claimed that the reason for their racism against Indians is to 'see Indians improve'. Not that I would fall for that crap, but do you think then that your strategy is no different from theirs. It's abuse!"

    There is a big difference between critiquing the SDP et al and the racist comments at 3in1kopitiam you refer to. Racism holds people down and tells them they can't do more - whilst expecting them to do more whilst holding them down. What i do is to tell the opposition that more is expected of them and giving them some of the rope to ascend to greater egalitarian heights through critique of their oversights.

    Secondly, the SDP et al are presenting themselves as democrats. Don't you think we have a responsibility as citizens to ensure that they are? Your comparison isn't appropriate. The discriminated are hoping for equality. The political parties are hoping to be the saviours of the people. Or is the SDP, amongst others, as averse to constructive critique as is the party in power? One calls it demeaning and abuse, and the other calls it libel and slander. For goodness sakes. If you want the job, you have to prove your related worth. Or are we going to reserve that criteria for jobs alone?

  26. Hi ed,

    Re: "The formulae used to critique the SDP is cross-applicable...Surely you don't expect that I reapply the formulae time and again in every similar or identical instance?"

    I think you are being very dishonest. You only single out the SDP. If you truly believed that what you say is cross-applicable, you would have cross-applied yourself.

    Re: "Isn't it a coincidence that when the SDP somehow manages to speak up, it is generally when it concerns 'majority' interests - with 'minority' gain being coincidental?"

    Are you aware of their repeated promise to remove all the discriminatory policies against minorities should they form the government?

    Are you aware of the legal action taken againdst them for supporting the use of tudungs in schools?

    Re: "You are stating that political parties and the PAP become similar the moment they moralise."

    There are different types of morality, ed. We will be talking at cross purposes if you continue in your vein. Also note that I qualified what I said with 'each and every instance of racism'.

    Besides, what is wrong with social activitists playing that role? You have evaded the entire question of the devolution of power, which from many of your writings, you appear to support.

    Re: "I wouldn't say that there are 'meaningful numbers' of Indians and Malays in SDP either Robox..."

    Then I suggest that you are mostly likely not looking at what you don't want to see.

    Re: "There is a big difference between critiquing the SDP et al and the racist comments at 3in1kopitiam you refer to."

    No, there isn't. Both Indians and the SDP are targetted groups in two different types of oppression. I have been able to see for a long time now that are consumed only by one type to the exclusion of empathy towards others who might be experiencing the same.

    I have been a target of political persecution by the government as well; I know precisely what the experience of SDP members could be like. This is on top of being the target of homophobia and racism.

    I think it qualifies me to speak with a lot of authority.

  27. .

    What is it you're not understanding mate? I've already stated that the SDP appears to be one of the most prominent amongst the parties, and hence, my taking issue with them. If one can successfully challenge the Gods, the associated and lesser deities are immediately rendered suspect, at least in the eyes of the inquisitive.

    Yes, i'm aware of the tudung issue and how Chee spoke up about it years ago. I, however, am not going to believe anyone who states that they are going to remove discriminatory policies when they do not complement it with a critique of its incidence. Hence, due to these glaring oversights, i can only presume that Chee's speaking up about it is nothing more than populist as it was an issue that hit the papers quite a bit back then. Can you honestly say that the SDP has done at least half as inquisitory job as a2ed? If they or any other parties did, i'd move on to other issues.

    If one doesn't speak about a problem in its various manifestations, how on earth can i trust them to eradicate it when they form a government. Do you think that is unreasonable?

    Your statement that the oppositional parties become similar to the PAP if they begin to moralise on 'transgressions' at the social level - in the context of racism - is unacceptable. What 'devolution of power' are you talking about in this context? Are you saying that we can let things be as they are in respect of democracy? Don't you think that is quite paradoxical in a post-fascist state?

    I look at what is said and fails to be said by the so-called 'Indians' and 'Malays' comprising the so-called opposition mate. I dare say that the 'whites' i've encountered do a monumentally better job at being 'black, asian, and jew' as and when their interests are compromised than the 'Indians' and 'Malays' in the opposition. Give me the evidence. Don't tell me that i'm not seeing unless you can prove that there is something to be seen. I see it in the UK. Why don't I see it here? Perhaps you ought to look over yonder as well so that you might learn from perspectives that are not as easily produced in a state like singapore.

    You could have been a target of a thousand arrows, but other than the pain it certainly delivers, the perspective required to ascertain their value lies not in experiencing it, but the perspective utilised to do so. That is not acquired via the experience alone, but through the study of such experiences in various climes and how it is made sense of given historically distinguishable conditions - which in turn produces varying perspectives. In other words, for instance, if i want to study racism, i cannot rely on my experience of it as the conditions that oppress will simultaneously suppress our vision as well. Hence, to get around that, i have to look at how others contend with it globally, and through various historical periods. It is that which gives one greater authority to speak on such matters.

    As i've been inclined to state, a rock in the ocean absorbs far less than a sponge in a puddle.

    Keep well.

  28. Good one ed! The opposition need to prove that they are really representative and start making noise about what affects the lives of the non-chinese. Just talking about what Dr Chee said about the tudung isn't enough when they are making noise about much more that affects the chinese. Keep it up ed!

  29. ed, I would like to reply to your posers. But I sincerely feel that you are the one who has much growing up to do. As North americans would say, "You are in a stuck place". (The "place" referred to is the "emotional".)

    I happen to believe in much the same things you do such as that opposition parties should [be allowed to] play a bigger role. Yes, even in issues on race. Or that reform needs to take place "internally" within the opposition ranks.

    But knocking them down for trying - yes, they are TRYING - when the odds are stacked so strongly against especiallly the SDP in case you have been going round with eyes wide shut, is not going to help.

    I definitely think that you don't even know what you are hitting out at.

    And it shows when actual racism is allowed to pass under your radar. But you single out the SDP for what they are NOT ALLOWED to say.

    If I were from the SDP reading this, this is what I would be saying: This man rants and raves about us not speaking up, while ignoring the wilfully racist, but he is not willing to come to our aid when the speaking up, presumably because he doesn't believe in democracy and his own power to voice an opinion, he would be nowhere to be found.

  30. To the Anonymous above:

    If the SDP is so wanting, why don't you name the parties that are not?

  31. And one final thing, ed. I will not be replying to further comments by you, if any, for the reason that I don't think you are prepared to hear the many things I have to say.

    Maybe we can pick it up after you have had time to mature around some more issues. In the meantime, you can educate your self about the precise roles that political parties play in a democracy, and the roles that others can play to complement their roles, the latter being the devolution of power that you are clearly disclined towrads at this moment.

  32. To Robox,

    The motto of a2ed, if you do not know by now, is ‘aspiring 2ward egalitarian democracy’, which is reflected on the site banner itself. In doing so, a2ed often speak about issues which are commonly ignored (consciously or sub-consciously) due to oversights or for whatever other reasons. The articles in the site can attest to that. It is not a2ed’s intention to be partisan, support, defend or against any political parties. If no one is to play the devil’s advocate, how can one be sure that those who claim to be ‘good’ are truthful (or even they can feel they are truthful, can they be absolutely certain that they are free from biases.) For that matter, non can, therefore it is essential and important to have views and criticisms from within and without to check on that.

    Focus and get into the essence of the issue here. If a2ed can point out and prove with evidence/s of a particular oversight or behavioural trend (be it done intentionally or otherwise committed by the subject), shouldn’t one be objective and consider those points and judge if they are valid/ true? If they are valid/ true, shouldn’t one take immediate action to rectify/ remedy the situation rather than giving reasons for not doing so? Isn’ this the method one adopts to improve?

    Don’t you agree that it’s much easier for one to spot the obvious ‘willful racist’ act around than those which are covet?

    Again, a2ed supports, advocates and aspires toward ‘Egalitarian Democracy’ where ALL regardless of race, gender, age and among others receive equal treatment.

  33. Sorry typo error:

    Replace 'covet' with 'covert'

  34. .
    Dear Robox,

    You failed to overturn my arguments at just about every turn and finally resorted to allegation. You should have taken my points apart logically - as i did yours - as opposed to simply discounting them because they are leveled at your beloved Chee who art in SDP.

    You keep saying the SDP is 'trying'. Well, why aren't we seeing it mate? You say it is there. Well, where is it? We don't need to look high and low and peer into every crevice to look for that which speaks up for 'majority'-interests do we. 'Trying' is a term i would use when it comes to, say, the US or the UK, whilst you so-called 'democrats' give 'trying' a bad name. Compare and be enlightened by the stark contrast.

    Well, I was thinking about one of your points - that social activists can speak up against racism as opposed to governments. Take a look at the governmental 'Equality and Human Rights Commission' in the UK and ask yourself if such an organisation is dispensable in the singaporean context. Or if there is enough mass empathy in singapore to forego it. Does that reek of moralising and authoritarian to you?

    Don't talk nonsense such as equating the SDP and the PAP along authoritarian lines should they 'moralise' on social (racism) transgressions, whilst on the other thinking it great that the SDP speaks up for 'democracy'.

    I as one of the electorate am telling the SDP, their stooges, and all oppositional parties to prove their egalitarian spirit to us. But all we get is goddamn lip-service and rhetoric such as that which you have generously supplied. And to top it off, they are either xenophobic or remain silent in the face of it. What do you expect us egalitarian-minded to make of that mate?

    I said to some of my mates at the coffeeshop last night - the difference between the electorate in the United Kingdom and singapore is that when many in the former vote against a party - such as the BNP - they do so because of their love for their neighbour. But in singapore, they do so despite their neighbour. Your precious SDP and Chee, amongst the rest of the oppositional parties and bloggers do little to address this state of affairs and instead reinforce it by their populist-cum-fascist rubbish. You need to be quite a frog in the well to not realise this. Try to do a spot of comparison between the UK and SG, amongst others, and then you might realise more than you currently do.

    As you stated, no response will be forthcoming from yourself. That's fine. It's not been enlightening and serves to further vindicate my point with regards to the fascist nature of singapore's 'opposition' be it SDP or otherwise. This response is put forth for the benefit of the inquisitive passer-by.

    Keep well

  35. ed, despite all the ultra-academic language that you use - and I am preasuming, very likey correctly, it is only for the purposes of trying to impress the impressionble - you are still only proving my point.

    Why aren't either you or sim holding any of the other parties, including the PAP that you are cowering in fear from, accountable for what you are claiming that ONLY the SDP is accountable for?

    If this is the brand of a supposedly egalatirian democracy that you and sim are promoting, then I definitely don't want any part of it.


  36. .
    The PAP is the progenitor of the stated problems. What we are taking issue with are the 'saviours'. If we don't take issue with their orientation, we are simply refining fascism by giving them our confidence. As for taking the PAP on, i've done so at great length at a previous site. But they are an old story, the 'opposition' want to be the new chapter. Thus, the urgency to take them on lest the future becomes quite the reiteration of the past.

    No. It is not 'ONLY' the SDP that is accountable. They all are. I've stated it time and again, and have taken issue with TOC, TR, and bloggers. I've even mentioned Kenneth Jeyaratnam, James Gomez, etc, in past observations in less than a favourable light. SDP is just an example of a problem that is as such amongst ALL of the 'opposition'. Get it?

    And as for 'academic language'. Perhaps it is just your challenged vocabulary that is leading you to make much of little.

  37. Re: "SDP is just an example of a problem that is as such amongst ALL of the 'opposition'."

    No, it isn't. The SDP is an OBSESSSION with you; it is pathological.

    And thank you, but I have no problem with my own extensive vocabulary. Or even yours. But I use plain English to make my message accessible to those who might not have the same vocabulary, unlike you who preaches your egalitarianism from the very top of your ivory towers.

  38. What's wrong with fascism? Don't get me wrong, but it's beginning to smack like the old and tired cry of 'racist!' that's being thrown around as the first, last, and only resort against arguments, especially in the US and UK. Don't like somebody's argument - cry 'you're a fascist!'

    Can we get away from that?

    I'm beginning to think that if we boil everything down to its essence, we're really all living in fascist states, where overpowering states force their views down onto their subjects, in the name of achieving a common good (whether that common good is achieved is another matter) for nationalistic purposes. Even the US. Even the UK. Even Canada! Few things are as fascist/totalitarian as forcing a particular type of healthcare down people's throats 'for their own good'.

    Looking at the SDP manifesto, I saw this:

    Building a free market economy driven by the people, not the Government.
    Developing a more equitable distribution of income and wealth.

    Uhm, and how would you achieve this 'more equitable' distribution without the state stepping in?

    Good god... they aren't the brightest bunch, are they?

  39. .

    The 'old and tired cry of 'racist''? I'd rather the overdone cry of 'racism!' then the complacency that it takes to turn it into 'preference' and an acceptable state of affairs where 'majority' is defined along racial lines - as is the case in singapore.

    That said, the allegation of 'fascism' and 'racism' is alright so long as we move on to proving that it is or isn't so. Without that, methinks, historical 'progress' might become nothing less than a movement geared toward the refinement of fascism, etc.

    But i have to agree that 'we're really all living in fascist states' - I wrote a few years back that the 'nation-state' is in itself one of the greatest symbols of fascism.

    Sometimes i'm inclined to think that fascism in itself is not too dissimilar to the 'socialisation' process, and is most felt as and when it conflicts with what one is accustomed to. The question we are then left with is the preferable sort of fascism. But then again, fascism/totalitarianism/authoritarianism is generally one milestone along a trajectory. Once, with the passage of generations and economic progress, people are reared to know or want no better, it becomes the 'natural' state of being.

    'Enforcing a particular type of healthcare' is not an evil just because it is 'enforced'. What is being 'enforced' should be our point of focus. In a class system, nothing is acceptable to all as it is a system of privilege and want that requires the latter for the former and vice versa. 'Enforcement' is not an evil in itself so long as it has egalitarian goals in its sight. You could say that feminism, the abolition of slavery, amongst others, are a check on 'enforcement's' tendency to favour the privileged and the status quo.

    Have to agree that the SDP, along with the rest of the parties, aren't the 'brightest bunch'. But that is to be expected given the severe perspectivally debilitating circumstances people in singapore have been reared in for close to half a century.

  40. .

    "The SDP is an OBSESSSION with you; it is pathological."

    Seems like that would be more applicable to yourself since your focus seems to be whinnying about how a2ed is 'pathological' in its taking issue with the SDP as opposed to considering said issues.

    Think about it, and try not to be juvenile about the language bit please. Focus on the issue. As for 'ivory towers'. Those who know me quite well would find that laughable given my 'connections' and experiences below and above ground-level.


Post a comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Popular posts