It is the Chinese, not the Malays, whom are 'distinct and separate'
Said Lee in his recently released and overly-lauded book, “Be less strict on Islamic observances and say, ‘Okay, I’ll eat with you.’”
Muslims do not have a problem eating with others. But that does not mean that they have to eat the same thing. But given the 'choices' available in the 'chinesified' singapore of today, finding a muslim shop in a coffeeshop is becoming exceedingly difficult. So is it that the Muslims don't mix, or is it that the chinese are not giving them an opportunity to do so by the absence of choices other than 'chinese-style food, conversations, or pastimes? [I myself 'get along' with my chinese friends only because i talk what they like to talk about, or in ways that they like to talk about things. I have to steer clear of everything else or risk being ignored and marginalised. But the reason why i'm aware of this is because I refused to be assimilated as I have always been pro-mutual integration - as was singapore in the 70s and 80s...which is the true 'singapore' which i've never stopped missing, and which takes the credit for contributing to my egalitarian vision.] I couldn’t help but notice, upon my return from the UK not too long ago, that the name of the neighbourhood coffeeshop has been changed to ‘choice @ 203’. So much for ‘choice’. There were only chinese shops and no non-chinese alternatives. That, essentially, the chinese definition of 'choice'. That is, 'a choice between what they like.' So who's being 'distinct and separate' eh? Let's be logical about this shall we.
The same goes for quite a few locations i’ve been to. I’ve seen Malays come to the coffeeshop, look around, and walk off. I’ve seen other Malays come to the coffeeshop, look around, discuss, and just settle with a drink whilst sitting under a television which airs nothing but chinese programmes throughout the day - with the chinese patrons sitting there being 'distinct and separate' enough not to bother. It would be alright if it was Hong Kong given that it was historically a chinese country. But what does that say about the chinese in a singapore that was historically Malay, and then moved to being multicultural, and then finally to a thoroughly confucianised ‘chinese’ state? Even my chinese friend, Vanessa, couldn’t help commenting that singapore has become very ‘chinese’. “Everything is so chinese. This has really become a chinese country. And the chinese don’t care.” She, by the way, acknowledges that without singapore's discriminatory milieu, she would not have had the success which she enjoys today. Hence, she practices quite a bit of 'affirmative action' by helping out the Malays and Indians under her charge in the various positions she has occupied over the years.
Continues Lee, “Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate”.
And are the Muslims distinct and separate? Yes, they are distinct. But that does not mean that they are separate. How inclusive have the chinese become given the way China’s culture has been lauded and promoted over all others, and the chinese have been force-fed perspectives reminiscent of the 'dark ages'? How has this led to the chinese turning into the culturally and racially introverted, self-absorbed, and arrogant people that they are today? And how does this lead to all other groups being given the choice of either assimilating to the chinese or being marginalised, or just aspiring to that which they allowed to through educational policies, media and social discrimination, etc?
Singapore's 'harmony', in a nutshell, has been brought about through getting the non-chinese to accept, evolve, and underdevelop in respect of their allotted and enforced 2nd class status. If there is 'harmony' today, it is due to non-chinese resignation and learned helplessness in the face of chinese apathy, and their therefore aspiring to and becoming less than they might otherwise would given an egalitarian milieu.
Blair made a similar statement about Muslims here in the UK not too long ago. He called them a 'self-segregating' community. But, unlike the predominantly Chinese-populated state of singapore, the 'majority' here took great exception to and took issue with it. Before one can term this or that community 'self-segregating' or 'distinct and separate', one has to ask after the efforts made to include them, as opposed to assimilating them. Because, if nothing much has been done to create an inclusive an egalitarian environment, than the 'distinctness and separateness' of the marginalised community might very well be a result of marginalisation. Whilst the UK brings up a debatable point of view given their highly-inclusive climate, the same cannot be said of singapore at all.
And given the preference for 'self' that is engendered amongst the Chinese by their being given more than a leg-up over a few decades, and with the cultural and racial arrogance bred through SAP schools, the 'speak mandarin and appreciate chinese culture campaign’ breeds, and with media discrimination, etc, etc, aren't those whom are assimilated still going to marginalised given that they are 'different'. Let's not forget that a decade or so ago, there were quite a few job-ads asking for 'chinese preferred' applicants. This was thereafter changed to 'mandarin-speakers' preferred. So whom are 'distinct and separate'? And didn't Lee senior state that singapore should always have a chinese majority? So who is 'distinct and separate'? And how many chinese-led oppositional parties, oppositional websites, and even one's own social circles and 'friends' vociferously pursue such issues? So whom are 'distinct and separate? Let's have some honesty shall we. Not for the purpose of 'inciting racial hatred', but for the pursuit of racial and cross-cultural integration and miscegenation.
In singapore's fascist milieu, with the passage of time, discrimination would not only be on the basis of ‘race’, but on the degree to which one is ‘distinct’ from the chinese whom have been officially given the undue 'distinction' of being the ‘preferred’ race in singapore.
Given all of the above, it is the chinese, not the malays, whom are 'distinct and have separated' themselves from all others. And this would certainly lead other groups to 'stick to their own' and underdevelop wouldn't it? And the chinese would themselves underdevelop intellectually, creatively, and humanitarianly wouldn't they? Given that when one's culture and race is promoted over all others, one gradually becomes adept at ignoring all contradiction and difference - which is indispensable for the advance of the human intellect, creativity and compassion. In singapore's fascist milieu, with the passage of time, discrimination would not only be on the basis of ‘race’, but on the degree to which one is ‘distinct’ from the chinese whom have been officially given the undue 'distinction' of being the ‘preferred’ race in singapore.
It's not that Lee doesn't realise these things. He depends on it. If not, the PAP might just be an NGO or in opposition today. He said years ago that Machiavelli ought to be ‘bedtime reading for every politician’. Read it. That would explain why he did what he did.
Lauding one race and culture, and getting all others to accept it might turn the nation into a harmonious one, but certainly not an egalitarian one. One should not confuse 'harmony' for the existence of 'equality' mate.
What Lee senior says, according to Lee junior, may not be the government's views. But the government certainly reinforces it through its policies and 'oversights' till today. Didn't Lee junior say that singapore is not ready for a non-chinese PM some time ago? The question is, what has he done to ensure that it will be ready? If it's nothing, then he might not be saying what Lee is saying, but has not diverged from Lee senior's fascist line. Lauding one race and culture, and getting all others to accept it might turn the nation into a harmonious one, but certainly not an egalitarian one. One should not confuse 'harmony' for the existence of 'equality' mate. Singapore's 'harmony', in a nutshell, has been brought about through getting the non-chinese to accept, evolve, and underdevelop in respect of their allotted and enforced 2nd class status. If there is 'harmony' today, it is due to non-chinese resignation and helplessness learned and internalised in the face of chinese apathy, and their therefore aspiring to and becoming less than they might otherwise would given an egalitarian milieu. And what did he have to say when his daddy stated not too long ago that ‘in 2 generations, Mandarin will be our mother tongue.’? Nothing. If it isn’t the government’s views, then why is Lee senior being paid to be a ‘minister mentor‘ to the government. Lee junior should hone up on his logical skills. But than again, that is not required in a legalist-confucian state where the ‘majority‘ have been bred to be sheep in human clothing is it. I pity those whom are wiser. They would have to put up with a life not unlike an adult on an island reminiscent of Lord Jim’s, ‘Lord of the Flies’.
ed
I am studying in the UK right now and I think you have painted a more pleasant and rosy picture of the state of multiculturalism here in the UK than it really is. The 'majority' which you have mentioned just voted in the Tory government which is promising to clamp down on immigration and other multi-cultural policies. And unfortunately, racial stereotypes are extremely common amongst the majority of the people here. You would only think otherwise if you had only mixed with the liberal/labour crowd.
ReplyDeleteSo please, criticise Singapore if you would, but do not make the UK sound like a liberal paradise.
If you are from singapore, there is a problem there. Assuming you are relatively young - as can be plausibly assumed since you're a student here - and have been deprived of a multicultural experience in singapore, and thus quite narrow in your appreciation of reality, you would easily miss all those indications of deep multiculturalism here. Singapore - isn't that where you people are trained to view shopping, eating, and gambling as the be-all and end-all in life?
ReplyDeleteGiven that just about everyone would be well-practiced in that and little else - which a person can't avoid as the social experience is saturated with it and affects a person at both conscious and subconscious levels - your observations in the UK would be compromised by a compromised perspectival arsenal.
And if you're one of the 'preferred' in singapore, all the more you should get some humility into your system and appreciate all that is on offer here even if you're disinclined through underdevelopment via the singapore experience to bother about it or even notice it. Of course, what you're studying here in the UK might go a long way in enlightening yourself. But if it isn't sociology or Brit history, amongst others, than you're not going to be as well-versed in these issues as those whom study such subjects - as it gives one the paradigms through which reality can be more accurately perceived and appreciated.
The UK isn't a 'liberal paradise'. But it is very much active in making efforts in doing so in many arenas which is not the case in singapore. Look at the ground level empathy expressed here through a host of organisations, parties, the Commission for Racial Equality, etc. I'm involved in some of them myself - i.e. the UAF, Socialist Party. Are you? And I have associated with the non-labour crowd as well both on and offline, like the common person on the street, and i'm happy to say that, at most times, their inclusive spirit is very much commendable - compared to any Chinese I've spoken to in singapore in the past couple of decades. And that includes British Indians here who have voted Conservative themselves. The UK has come an extremely long way since the time of Mosley, the Black Shirts, and Enoch Powell. And the US, for instance, within 50 years of school desegregation, they have a Black president. How far has singapore come in 50 years mate?
I would 'only think otherwise if i only mixed with the liberal/labour crowd'? That is quite a silly statement. So i would think that the majority are biased, narrow-minded, and racists if i mixed with the non-liberal/labour crowd? Meaning the fascists? That is to be expected don't you think? And if you're saying that the 'majority' are fascists, then why, pray tell, aren't the BNP in power, or even have a significant presence in parliament? Your equating the 'majority' with 'non-liberal' has no foundation in reality mate.
ReplyDeleteAnd please. Don't be silly about this. The 'majority' voted in the Tories for a host of reasons, but not because they are against multicultural policies. This was never a prominent feature, if at all, of the Lib-Con manifesto before the elections - which i voted in by the way. And as for their clamping down on immigration, it is not of racist and xenophobic origins as is the case amongst the chinese-dominated and led 'opposition' in singapore - go take a look at the unfortunately and ever-popular fascist site, Temasek Review. Both xenophobia and and economic pragmatism forms the basis of foreigner-aversion in singapore. In the UK, it is mainly the economics and the realities that come with the EU where the influx of Europeans means that non-European entry will have to be cut down - i don't agree with that, but that's the reality of the situation.
Criticise singapore if would, but not paint the UK as a liberal-paradise? In other words, paint both as not to dissimilar? Isn't that typical of the singaporean view that if they are bad, it's alright because the rest of the world isn't really that different? You share that trait mate in your focusing on how the UK isn't a liberal paradise whilst not saying one word about the state of singapore. That is just being defensive of the status quo in singapore through your discounting what is a significant contrast to singapore by implying they are none too different. Typical.
The UK isn't a liberal paradise, but there are checks in place that can make it a reality. In the case of singapore, there are checks in place to ensure that if there is ever any equality, it will only be after the non-chinese become chinese in perspective themselves - just as the chinese were assimilated to the Legalist-Confucian ideal themselves over a few decades. The difference between sg and uk is that whilst there are racists here, there are many whom actively battle racism in all its manifestations. The same cannot be said of singapore. It can be easily verified with a checklist if people aren't self-absorbed or racist enough to even bother.