Is singapore doomed because of its size?
In a nutshell, if size does matter, it is the size of the collective brain that matters. In the context of singapore, given its monocultural and confucian ethos, not only do we have a small size, but a limp one as well.
The following was placed as a brief comment beneath the article, 'Singapore needs creativity and gumption to beat odds of history’. It has been elucidated upon below. article
All of these arguments about whether singapore is doomed because history has shown that quite a few small states do not enjoy political longevity can be put aside with one main fact. Globalisation was not as developed back than as it is now. With globalisation, the size of the state does not matter. Hence, referring back to small states that couldn't last in the past because of its size is completely irrelevant to the analysis of the factors contributing to the longevity of the state in the present. You could say that when it comes to the smallness of a state, size doesn't matter, only its multiculturally-endowed and perspectivally-rich versatility. Singularly-cultured states can only play copy-cat whilst convincing itself that this serves as evidence of the viability of its culture.
You could say that when it comes to the smallness of a state, size doesn't matter, only its multiculturally-endowed and perspectivally-rich versatility. Singularly-cultured states can only play copy-cat whilst convincing itself that this serves as evidence of the viability of its culture.
This is even more so where states can serve an important and crucial function in global economics by moving to expertise in the service and technological economy. In that, a small state can be likened to a 'central business district' for a region, or perhaps a creative or technological one. Unfortunately, in the case of singapore, the government, and later, the chinese, have turned their back on their most important asset - multiculturalism. By becoming just 'one (legalist-confucian/chinese) culture, different races', they replicated the intellectual stupor of their cousins in the mainland. They couldn't draw on the intellectual and perspectival vigour that comes with cultural miscegenation. If they did, singapore might have become s.e.Asia's 'silicon valley' and perhaps rivalled innovative Japan or IT-inclined India. That is something no chinese has ever considered. Hence, they count their gains in comparison to the most undeveloped nations whilst discounting those of more developed nations with a juvenile, 'they are they, we are we'. Infantile indeed. I have seen the chinese move from a more perspectivally vibrant and quicker lot in the 70s to the blinkered people that they are today brought about the zealous Confucianisation/stupefaction of singapore for a few decades. That is something I never cease to bemoan.
In a nutshell, if size does matter, it is the size of the collective brain that matters. In the context of singapore, given its monocultural and confucian ethos, not only do we have a small size, but a limp one as well.
@kute Steiner
You are right. India didn't exist as a singular state then. Asoka did try to 'unite' it at one point, but he failed to acquire the southern part of India, and his empire didn't last either.
However, the 'different countries' comprising India did not comprise 'distinctive races'. India for quite a few thousand years has been a fusion of 'races', i.e. Greeks, Parthians, Parsees, Arabs, Romans, Africans, etc. Due to inter-state warfare, migrations, geographical location, etc, we can only say that they are a cultural and 'racial' hodge podge - which explains why they are generally more intelligent, quick witted, and creative than the chinese whom have been culturally interbreeding for way too long, and up till the present (221b.c. to the present) - singapore, or rather, chingapore, is a good example, along with all the 'chinatowns' across the globe.
Their only hope is to stop this stupefying 'cultural pride' and appreciate, as opposed to 'tolerating and ignoring' difference. Practising a culture that is borne of such conditions doesn't help either. I wonder how many chinese out of more than a billion realise this. Well, it takes a creature borne of a multicultural milieu and culture like myself to realise that i suppose.
@trulysingapore
The reason why India was never strong militarily is because they never had the 'unity' as does, for instance, china. Additionally, the locus of power was not centred on the government only, as it was in China, but the wandering ascetic, the priestly class, and oppositional bodies. You could say that there was much more 'popular intellectual individualism'(author's term) there as opposed to China. Hence, people could not be rallied under a single banner professing a single faith in the power of a single elite or racially-defined people.
The bad thing about it is that a belligerent fascist beast like china will rise as the overlord of the whole of s.e.Asia with the aid of its 'don't complain, just follow lah' diaspora throughout the region (mark my words...i've been saying that for a decade now), but the good thing about it is that without their antagonism toward the rest of the planet, they are quicker at adapting, learning, and incorporating perspectives and skills from others.
ed
The following was placed as a brief comment beneath the article, 'Singapore needs creativity and gumption to beat odds of history’. It has been elucidated upon below. article
All of these arguments about whether singapore is doomed because history has shown that quite a few small states do not enjoy political longevity can be put aside with one main fact. Globalisation was not as developed back than as it is now. With globalisation, the size of the state does not matter. Hence, referring back to small states that couldn't last in the past because of its size is completely irrelevant to the analysis of the factors contributing to the longevity of the state in the present. You could say that when it comes to the smallness of a state, size doesn't matter, only its multiculturally-endowed and perspectivally-rich versatility. Singularly-cultured states can only play copy-cat whilst convincing itself that this serves as evidence of the viability of its culture.
You could say that when it comes to the smallness of a state, size doesn't matter, only its multiculturally-endowed and perspectivally-rich versatility. Singularly-cultured states can only play copy-cat whilst convincing itself that this serves as evidence of the viability of its culture.
This is even more so where states can serve an important and crucial function in global economics by moving to expertise in the service and technological economy. In that, a small state can be likened to a 'central business district' for a region, or perhaps a creative or technological one. Unfortunately, in the case of singapore, the government, and later, the chinese, have turned their back on their most important asset - multiculturalism. By becoming just 'one (legalist-confucian/chinese) culture, different races', they replicated the intellectual stupor of their cousins in the mainland. They couldn't draw on the intellectual and perspectival vigour that comes with cultural miscegenation. If they did, singapore might have become s.e.Asia's 'silicon valley' and perhaps rivalled innovative Japan or IT-inclined India. That is something no chinese has ever considered. Hence, they count their gains in comparison to the most undeveloped nations whilst discounting those of more developed nations with a juvenile, 'they are they, we are we'. Infantile indeed. I have seen the chinese move from a more perspectivally vibrant and quicker lot in the 70s to the blinkered people that they are today brought about the zealous Confucianisation/stupefaction of singapore for a few decades. That is something I never cease to bemoan.
In a nutshell, if size does matter, it is the size of the collective brain that matters. In the context of singapore, given its monocultural and confucian ethos, not only do we have a small size, but a limp one as well.
@kute Steiner
You are right. India didn't exist as a singular state then. Asoka did try to 'unite' it at one point, but he failed to acquire the southern part of India, and his empire didn't last either.
However, the 'different countries' comprising India did not comprise 'distinctive races'. India for quite a few thousand years has been a fusion of 'races', i.e. Greeks, Parthians, Parsees, Arabs, Romans, Africans, etc. Due to inter-state warfare, migrations, geographical location, etc, we can only say that they are a cultural and 'racial' hodge podge - which explains why they are generally more intelligent, quick witted, and creative than the chinese whom have been culturally interbreeding for way too long, and up till the present (221b.c. to the present) - singapore, or rather, chingapore, is a good example, along with all the 'chinatowns' across the globe.
Their only hope is to stop this stupefying 'cultural pride' and appreciate, as opposed to 'tolerating and ignoring' difference. Practising a culture that is borne of such conditions doesn't help either. I wonder how many chinese out of more than a billion realise this. Well, it takes a creature borne of a multicultural milieu and culture like myself to realise that i suppose.
@trulysingapore
The reason why India was never strong militarily is because they never had the 'unity' as does, for instance, china. Additionally, the locus of power was not centred on the government only, as it was in China, but the wandering ascetic, the priestly class, and oppositional bodies. You could say that there was much more 'popular intellectual individualism'(author's term) there as opposed to China. Hence, people could not be rallied under a single banner professing a single faith in the power of a single elite or racially-defined people.
The bad thing about it is that a belligerent fascist beast like china will rise as the overlord of the whole of s.e.Asia with the aid of its 'don't complain, just follow lah' diaspora throughout the region (mark my words...i've been saying that for a decade now), but the good thing about it is that without their antagonism toward the rest of the planet, they are quicker at adapting, learning, and incorporating perspectives and skills from others.
ed
Comments
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.