a2ed.com

WP plays at being a Moral Standard

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:27:00 +0000

image modified by ed

In a previous article, i stated that the so-called ‘Worker’s Party’ attempted to get itself some moral points by sacking Yaw Shin Leong for airing his family jewels outside of the marital boudoir.

But instead of wondering if they messed up by not objectively considering if his extra-marital potency is relevant to his political adequacy, they decide to validate their approach, or cover their balls-up by demanding that the PAP do something about the supposed Don Juan of the PAP, Shanmugam.

Anyway,

What the hell does poor Yaw’s extra-marital fertility count got to do with his vote count? Perhaps the rest of the WP fellas think that all married men should just sigh and retire to the bathroom for 5-15 minutes with some tissue and Lianhe Wan Bao’s steamy stories when the wife has a headache, and other than that, confine their kicks to feeling special when the beer lady at coffeeshops stop by to pour their beer - whilst oblivious to the fact that she’s only doing it so they’ll just finish their goddamn beer fast and order more.

Perhaps the rest of the WP fellas think that all married men should just sigh and retire to the bathroom for 5-15 minutes with some tissue and Lianhe Wan Bao’s steamy stories when the wife has a headacheEven the so-called ‘truth-seeker’, Gopalan Nair, who fancies himself an Indian whilst sporting quite typically Confucian traits has jumped on the bandwagon and trained his eyes on Shanmugam. Perhaps he’s also a Lianhe Wanbao subscriber. Or Under the Willow Tree's attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill by deeming Shanmugam intimidating and having something to hide by taking issue with some singaporean site for making an issue about his sexual proclivities.

That's just a deviation from the issue, and a vilification of Shanmugam simply because he chooses not to publish his sexual memoirs at this point. Perhaps UTWT, Gopalan, and the following, Yap, ought to publish their sexual exploits before we choose to consider what they have to say about this or other matters. If not, they are hiding something and can't be trusted? Do these silly boys have any sense at all?

The point is, this whole thing is getting kind of childish. Like how childishly this so-called ‘uncle’ Yap states "Howz famiLee LEEgime going to answer the similar question on minister after WP Expelled MP YSL?" Besides this phrasing being an illustration of a juvenile standard of wit, this bloke Yap even starts off his video in mandarin instead of english and with a background picture of him in some China suit, mandarin characters, etc - like i said quite a few times in the past, and with enough evidence, the so-called singaporean ‘opposition’ is nothing but a product of the PAP’s racial and cultural biases. You can take all the opposition's ranting as nothing but pro-chinese parties squabbling over the spoils of economic exploitation, power, and discrimination.

Why on earth start off each new section in the video (below) in Mandarin and then supply an English translation later? Do the chinese not understand English? But to place mandarin over English, when it is completely unnecessary is to basically present chinese culture as singapore’s culture and english as a subsidiary language. And to top it off, he also sticks in chinese music every now and then. Same thing applies to chinese subtitles in local programming. I don't think J.B. Jeyaratnam would have started off his videos this way, though Yap kept yapping away about how he looks up to him in the video - obviously an effort to curry favour, or should i say, stir-fry favour for his cause from J.B. supporters out there. Connect the dots, and you’ll see this chinese racial supremacist nonsense everywhere. You don’t need to be biased to see this. You just need to pay attention to the facts. The only difference between the PAP and the so-called opposition is that the former is insidiously chinese-supremacist, whilst the latter, are blatantly so.

Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand, this Yap bloke states,

“The issues of Accountability and Transparency is precisely identical. WP set the example. And it is now just up to famiLEE LEEgime & Lee Hsien Loong to show the world weather they are able to follow.

It is obviously both the duites and obligation of minister Shanmugam & famiLEE LEEgime to respond to the allegation instead of abusing defamation suit threats to silent the voices doubting their own transparancy and accountability."

Like I said, to demand that the PAP do as you did, and expel Shanmugam, you’ll first have to prove that what you did was right. If not, like the PAP, your only argument for the righteousness of what you did would be based on your saying that it’s right as opposed to proving that its right. How does that make you any different?

In this, i have to give some credit to the PAP fellas in that they probably think, or at least i hope they do, that one cannot infer that Shanmugam’s political adequacy is compromised by his sexual proclivities. Or perhaps they’re just saving Shanmugam to be used as in the future to present Indians as good for nothing but being ‘MRT (mama rubba teh teh - as laughed some chinese after an Indian singapore president, Devan Nair, was kicked out for that in the past)’ so as to justify Chinese political hegemony as they did with poor Devan Nair. I know not. But for now, credit to the PAP.....for this.

So what’s the point here. Marital fidelity maketh a good political party? Is the slogan for the Worker’s Party for the next elections going to be, “I hump none other than the wife, so i’ll make a good MP. Thank you for coming to the Rally. Good night.”? That seems like quite the 'limp dick' of an argument for political adequacy mate.

So what’s the point here. Marital fidelity maketh a good political party? Is the slogan for the Worker’s Party for the next elections going to be, “I hump none other than the wife, so i’ll make a good MP. Thank you for coming to the Rally. Good night.”? There’s a lot to be said for and against marital infidelity. Briefly, if one was to think about it, one might wonder if John F. Kennedy would have been as much of an out-of-the-box thinker if he wasn’t a bit of a philanderer as well. I’m not saying that philandering is a good thing. Being faithful is also a good thing so long as one is very adventurous with her/is spouse - i’d recommend a touch of BDSM, roleplaying, kinky outfits, amongst others, so as to make one as creative or even more so, than a philanderer.

If you just abide by traditions for traditions sake, that wouldn’t make you a very creative leader would it. And if you don’t have much of a sex life, then you’re probably going to compensate for it by too much hunger for power, wealth, and perhaps, food - unless one is in the caring professions that is. (i’ve often been inclined to think that a culture where eating is one its main courses, the people have relatively rubbish sex lives.) So such a leader might be more controlling, self-absorbed, and greedy and power-hungry.

So if we don’t feel compelled to ask our leaders and future leaders to prove that they have a great sex life with their wives as proof that they’re going to do a great job in office, then i don’t see any reason why their being philanderers is a good reason to kick them out.

Anyway, for now, i’d like to see the WP prove that the philandering proclivities of an MP definitely impacts negatively on his political performance. If not, this witch-hunt for philandering politicians can be appreciated as nothing more than an effort to gain points where such points prove nothing when it comes to political adequacy, whilst presenting the WP as another moral powerhouse if not an empathetic and intelligent one.

dear PM Lee Hsien Loong: non-Cronyism must be seen to be done mate

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:00:00 +0000

(click pic to go to TR's apology letter)

So singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, son of erstwhile PM Lee Kuan Yew, the former of which became PM after the intermissionary PM Goh Chok Tong - like those intermissions in cinemas where people scamper off to the loo or to stalls outside - is kind of offended at Temasek Review (a singaporean neo-confucian/nazi/fascist site) for alleging that Mdm Ho Ching, the wife of PM Lee Hsien Loong, was helped to her position as the head of Temasek Holdings.

The above paragraph seems kind of confusing doesn’t it. And i wouldn’t be surprised that if the reader, in an attempt to make sense of it, basically summarises it with an, ‘well, whatever it is, they all seem related to each other.’ Well, you wouldn’t be wrong. They are, except the bloke Goh Chok Tong, who is only ‘related’ by race - just like the last presidential elections where the Tan clan put forth 4 Tans for the presidential elections - it’s no wonder with this racial cronyism, that singapore can now proudly have and msn address of - xinmsn.com. I suppose that’s the chinese version of multiculturalism.

Well, i don’t know if she was helped by Hsien Loong to her position, or merely given a lift in his car. I also don’t know if Hsien Loong was helped by his father to his position as PM or simply given a congratulatory gold abacus for achieving it on his own. How would i know? The ed wasn’t there.

a one-party state, the existence of secret police, and the absence of transparency and democracy, is itself the very definition of cronyism, or at least the foundations upon which it arises, and the means by which its longevity is ensured. But i do know that, like justice, non-Cronyism cannot be assumed to not be done, but seen to be not done. If not, given the relatively empowered position of those whom are alleged to be ‘helpers’ in the career advancement of those whom are alleged to be ‘helped’, the allegation of cronyism is not only possible, but plausible. In a population of a few million, it is quite the coincidence that my son and his wife end up holding high offices after my verifiably iron-fisted reign over a nation. At the end of the day, it is not merits of one’s son or wife that has to be held up as proof that one is guilty of cronyism. It is by way of proving that none other are as, or more capable, that serves as proof that one isn’t guilty of cronyism.

Given the lack of transparency, democracy, the existence of a secret police whom clamp down on political opponents every now and then, cronyism is just a natural consequence of the aforementioned circumstances as witnessed in history in many climes. Hence, given such circumstances, it is not up to the people to prove that it is cronyism, but for the leader to prove that it isn’t. And the only way to prove cronyism isn’t true, without the leader needing to make any effort to do so, is to ensure that the absence of transparency, democracy, a one-party state, and the secret police isn’t true.

If that is the case, then that stands as the leader’s defence against any allegation of cronyism, and s/he certainly wouldn’t need to have her/is lawyers send any notice to have such allegations removed from any site. If not, a one-party state, the existence of secret police, and the absence of transparency and democracy, is itself the very definition of cronyism, or at least the foundations upon which it arises, and the means by which its longevity is ensured.

In other words, the leader should have to ensure that s/he never needs to prove that s/he isn’t crony-istic by ensuring that the government is transparent enough, and society is democratic enough, for society itself to as plausibly assume that there isn’t cronyism. If not, one is simply denying the right of the tree to make a crashing sound after one has felled it.

If not, that opens up a slippery slope of me being able to do anything behind closed doors, and then demanding that the people prove that my intentions and actions are as they say it is despite the consequences of said intentions and actions serving as proof of, at least, evidence of its being plausible.

Cronyism isn’t a problem in itself. Nothing wrong with that. But what it does indicate is the possible existence of greater evils that serve as the foundations upon which cronyism arises. And it is these foundations that serve to usher it from the realms of possibility to that of probability.
Secondly, no political figure of such prominence should be allowed to sue citizens for libel, slander, or anything. Till transparency and democracy is true, the only means by which transparency and democracy may be achieved is by way of assumption and demand for justice, non-cronyism, etc, to be seen to be done. Because, to do otherwise is to ensure that transparency and democracy may never be achieved. And that, in turn, serves as the foundation for either the emergence of cronyism - be it by party, race, or familial lineage - or renders plausible the allegation that it is cronyism. In the LHL condemns himself to such allegations by his own actions. The same logic is used to clamp down on people who speak of the existence of racism as people who are inciting hatred. These people have confused the effect for the cause. A common occurrence amongst both the confucianised people of singapore and the government responsible for it.

Anyway, personally, i can’t be bothered if it is cronyism or not. I can’t be bothered if LKY fixed up the prime ministership for his son or not, or if his son fixed up the position of head of Temasek Holdings for his wifey. In a way, it is, discrimination of a lesser sort to say that your son or your wife cannot be a PM or head of a holding company of the assets of the people. All we can do is to prove that they aren’t capable, and that there are others whom are more capable. And if we can do this, and they aren’t replaced, then we can move on to claiming with an even greater degree of certainty that it is cronyism.

Cronyism isn’t a problem in itself. Nothing wrong with that. But what it does indicate is the possible existence of greater evils that serve as the foundations upon which cronyism arises. And it is these foundations that serve to move it from the realms of possibility to that of probability. The absence of democracy; the existence of discrimination at all levels that ensures that nobody will be as capable through oppression, persecution, etc; the existence of a one-party state of affairs; the apathetic condition of the people; the oppression of dissent; etc, etc, etc. If i was the leader of the opposition, i wouldn’t bother with the effects of evils. I’d focus my attentions more on the foundations that give rise to it - which is basically what a2ed.com is all about._._._._.connecting the dots.

Anyway, I can’t be bothered if the Lee family want to place all their loved ones from son to pet fish in positions of prominence and power. All that matters to me is that my interests are more than adequately looked after, and there are none other whom are more capable to do so. If the latter isn't true, then, family or not, they need to be replaced. If not, then maybe we can allege that Hsien Loong is engaging in cronyism. Or maybe he’s just being a devoted husband. Well, that goes well with the asian ethos of filial piety i suppose.

And in singapore’s case, cronyism isn’t just possibly political, but national, cultural and racial as well - xenophobia, cultural self-absorption, racism. These are just some of the significant conditions upon which cronyism emerges and thrives. You’ll need to know, as stated, how to ‘connect the dots’ to appreciate that point. And i have to wonder why the so-called opposition fuss about 'familial cronyism' whilst being oblivious to some of the foundations that give rise to it. Weren't there four 'Tans' at the last general elections? How is it that it's such a 'coincidence' that all 4 were chinese? Then you can ask yourself if the self-absorption that led to this did not also serve to found the basis upon which familial cronyism might arise.

Every evil that we bemoan is supported by a host of evils which we take as 'culture' or ‘normal’. The wiser mind will realise that it is our oversights that serve as the foundations for much that we whine about. As i stated some years ago, ‘the root of all evils find its incubatory refuge in that which we perceive to be good’.

of 'sinkies', 'chinkies', and 'foreign trash'

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:00:00 +0000

The following was placed as a comment beneath the article by Chua Chin Leng, entitled, ‘Paying foreigners with money to call us dogs’.

The article is reproduced in full below. ed isn’t taking on CCL because of some personal vendetta, or because he talks sense, but as an effort to address perspectives, as contained in CCL’s article, which appears to be quite pervasive on the net amongst singaporeans. This bloke is really good at summarising the pervasive sentiments. Hence, ed choosing to take on his issues and addressing pervasive perspectives by doing so at the same time. Alright. On to the issue.

‘Despite sparking widespread anger among Singaporeans with his offensive remarks on there “being more dogs than humans in Singapore”, NUS PRC scholar Sun Xu remains unrepentant and unapologetic.
When asked about the controversy by a Chinese tabloid, Sun replied nonchalantly without offering a public apology or showing any signs of remorse:
I am only complaining. It is just a small matter and I do not want to blow it up. Anyway, I have already deleted the comment.’

The daft Sinkies have been bitten again, by the dog that it is feeding with the public’s money. How can the Sinkies accept such a situation, giving out money out of our generosity to be called derogatory terms by the recipient?

What is the moral of the story? Are we that dull? Are Sinkies offended? - source

Yes. Singaporeans, thanks to monocultural confucian fascism, are indeed dull. I've interacted with Africans, Brits, Indian nationals, China nationals, Filipinos, Americans, Australians, and have to say that 'dull', with reference to confucianised singaporeans is an understatement. Pathologically moronic might be more apt. It is inevitable that perspectival, intellectual, and creative docility be the lot of those whom choose one way as opposed to different ways. Even in the academic arena, everyone knows that our being adept at any subject requires our attention to various schools of thought, and a variety of ways in achieving similar ends via variable methods. The same thing goes with multiculturalism. Get rid of multiculturalism, and its similar to reading only one book and expecting a degree thereafter.

Why is it on the one hand, you people condemn the new foreigners as ‘foreign trash’, and not realise that you are of foreign origins yourselves.As for paying foreigners with ‘our money’, you aren't paying these new foreigners with your money. They are also making money for singapore, and hence, contributing to your paycheck as well. You can only say what you do if most of these scholars do not stay in singapore to work after their education. From my understanding, they would have to subject to a bond, and hence, we cannot talk about how charitable we are to those whom we sponsor. Nobody works in singapore without singaporeans getting a return. That's logic. If you need to have a problem with the flow of finance, take issue with the confucian-capitalist system, and the people getting treated like the indentured labour of old. In that, if there is anything foreign to the interests of the people, it is the government, and the self-absorbed and highly unintelligent ‘opposition’ that don’t realise these things.

In fact, we can also say that the chinese and indians are making money whilst doing so on Malay soil. So you paying the Malays rent or something? And let’s not forget that the ‘founding fathers’ of singapore are the British, not some Confucian imperium that has been ruling singapore ever since our foreparents made the big mistaking of demanding independence. So whatever modernity upon which you are making money, we owe the Brits as well. So let’s not talk about ‘our money’ as if we pulled it out of our ass after a plate of prata, mee siam, or hor fun. We owe a lot to those whom we aren’t paying for our gain.

If the same thing applied to your grandparents, i don't see why it doesn't apply to these new foreigners.

this is just part of Greater China, and ‘sinkies’ ought to be categorically divided between those whom are a product of multicultural singapore, and those whom have ignored it by saying, ‘we majority what!’ and switch on their channel 8 programmes throughout coffeeshops in singapore.Anyway, your ancestors and the ancestors of this guy who called singaporeans ‘dogs’ took a shit in the same place didn't they. For all you know, they probably shared the same toilet roll or whatever equivalent they used back then.

And considering the fact that 'native-born' chinese singaporeans did more to ignore and exclude multiculturalism than integrate with it, it would be more accurate to distinguish between 'native born' chinkies (china-bred native born singaporeans) and sinkies (multicultural-bred native born singaporeans) as opposed to taking the latter as inclusive of the former. In that, you and the PRC bloke are more same-same than you and sinkies. To be a sinkie is to be a product of the multicultural ethos of the state - and in that, one wouldn’t take to xenophobia as many confucianised singaporeans. If not, this is just part of Greater China, and ‘sinkies’ ought to be categorically divided between those whom are a product of multicultural singapore, and those whom have ignored it by saying, ‘we majority what!’ and switch on their channel 8 programmes throughout coffeeshops in singapore.

Anyway, if you think about it, these PRC fellas are as averse to difference as you guys have been for a while, hence, your xenophobia and institutional racism. Pretty hypocritical don't you think. And pretty indicative of your being the same-same as well.

the UOB 'Blackface' event...racist?

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:53:00 +0000

“Several Chinese employees of United Overseas Bank have raised eyebrows online after posting pictures of themselves in ‘blackface’ at a Bollywood-themed staff dinner. Pictures of last Friday’s event at the Fairmont Hotel were posted on social networking site Facebook yesterday. At least three men are pictured with their faces painted black, presumably because the event was Indian-themed and Indians have darker skin.

...…A Chinese reader, who e-mailed the pictures to The Sunday Times, said she found them extremely offensive. ‘It’s one thing to wear a traditional costume to a Bollywood- themed dinner, but another thing altogether to paint your face black,’ said the reader, who wished to remain anonymous. She said the pictures were offensive because they were ‘appropriating someone else’s ethnicity and treating it like entertainment‘.
And she was shocked at the captions and comments on the pictures, in which friends of the men said their get-up was ‘hilarious’.

Jennani Durai, Sunday Times. blog source”

Personally, i don't find the above insulting. But i suppose it is because i'm inclined to think 'black' as beautiful, more passionate, and more richly toned....and the 'whites' here in the UK tend to think that dark brown, and black skin, amongst others, is more beautiful than 'pale white'. After all, if you think about it, chocolate cake wouldn’t be as tempting if it was white.

However, if there are any problems with the above portrayal, it is that the chinese tend to think indians 'black' which is not accurate most of the time. I wonder, sometimes, if the chinese have 'brown' in their vocabulary. But to consider all indians as 'black' when they are not, whilst presenting themselves as contrastingly 'fair' - which is a word with relatively greater positive associated connotation in less perspectivally-vibrant climates - is racist. It is in this contrasting context that we can begin to view the above portrayal as insulting. Black, in itself, is not an insulting term or undesirable skin condition - except for the perspectivally-retarded out there (including people of all races in singapore who deem ‘fair‘ skin as superior to, say, a richly-toned brown/black colour).

The malays, indians and chinese - excluding ed - have their negative perceptions of black. That is a fact. The chinese view themselves as ‘fair‘ - as opposed to a more accurate ‘yellow‘, or an even more accurate, ‘pale yellow’, and which, i suppose, jaundices their appreciation of other non-fair colours - and all others as ‘black‘ even when they are not.

If you think about it, to call oneself ‘fair‘ and another, ‘black', is to imbue the latter with negative connotation because the contrasting ‘fair‘ term has more positive connotations associated with it.If you think about it, to call oneself ‘fair‘ and another, ‘black;, is to imbue the latter with negative connotation because the contrasting ‘fair‘ term has more positive connotations associated with it. One cannot justify that ‘yellow‘ is superior to ‘black‘ just by saying one is ‘yellow‘ and the other is ‘black’. But given the positive associations with the word ‘fair’, as in ‘fair and just’, ‘fair weather’, ‘fair person’, etc, etc, to vilify ‘black‘, one has to first cast one’s own ‘yellow‘ colour as ‘fair‘ as ‘fair‘ is imbued with more positive value than a simple ‘yellow‘ colour which as no intrinsic value attached to it.

The indians also sport similar notions in their usage of the words ‘white‘ and ‘black‘ in describing the relatively greater ‘beauty‘ of the latter, and it is the same in India as it is in Singapore. I personally had to tell of a 25 year old Indian boy a few weeks ago in a coffeeshop in Toa Payoh when he was describing an incident where he was attracted to the ‘white and fair’ skin of an Indian air stewardess on an Indian Airlines flight some years earlier - where he had said that he preferred his whiskey in a glass instead of ‘on the rocks’ when she asked him if he wanted the latter....and it wasn’t an attempt to be funny, which made it funny. I’d say that the silly biases of every indian i’ve encountered in singapore over the decades just serves to compromise their position relative to the ‘majority’ whom are generally averse to difference of many sorts. The indians ought to wake up and smell the chocolate. And i can’t really blame the 25 year old much either since he was reared within a climate that is staunchly monocultural/confucian and does much to put down difference of all sorts.

The malays have the term, ‘hitam manis’(black beauty) which is used more as ‘black but beautiful‘ which basically implies that though one is termed as ‘black‘, even when one is dark brown, (i wonder if the malays and indians have ‘brown‘ in their vocabulary as well), one can still be beautiful, though not as beautiful as those whom are both ‘fair‘ and ‘not black’. If black does not have negative connotations amongst the Malays, then there would be no reason to use ‘hitam’ as a prefix to ‘manis’ would there. They don’t have a phrase that says ‘putih (white) manis’ do they? That is unnecessary as ‘manis’ in itself means both ‘white’ and ‘beautiful’. So to say ‘hitam manis’ is nothing but an attempt to maintain the notion that what is generally ‘black’ is ugly, but there are exceptions, and hence, when one encounters it, one acknowledges that the person is ‘black’ but still ‘beautiful’. The Malays ought to go give this a think, because the racism they themselves encounter is due to the same irrational perspectives as that which founds the term, ‘hitam manis’.

some might say that there was nothing malicious about the ‘blackface’ event at all. But proving that there is an absence of malice in the act isn’t proof that it is not of racist originsSo, when we look at the ‘blackfaces’ in the UOB event within this context, and appreciate that the ‘blackface’ guise is presented as ‘hilarious’, it goes well with the general all-race and chinese-controlled-media-reinforced perception that all that is ‘white is wonderful’. And given that Indian culture is generally marginalised, their language laughed at by quite a few, and quite a few Indians of prominence changing their names to sound more ‘white’ so that the chinese tongue can get around it, or so that they can distance themselves from the Indian heritage, the case put forth here that the ‘blackface’ event is racist moves from plausible to probable.

And one point that has skipped the attention of just about everyone, and which shows the event to be racist is the fact that it is a ‘Bollywood Themed’ party. Excuse me mate, but singapore is largely south Indian. Hence, choosing Bollywood instead of Kollywood itself ‘looks down’ on the south Indians in singapore, and their culture - which is not represented by ‘Bollywood’. I personally dislike ‘Bollywood’s’ north Indian productions as i find them superficial, relatively witless, not philosophical, and they tend to make too much effort to monkey the west. I prefer south Indian productions which are more Indian than any other part of India.

To choose ‘Bollywood’ instead of ‘Kollywood’ (frankly, i don’t like such terms that are derivatives of Hollywood, which, generally produces superficial rubbish designed for children) is a slap in the face of the local Indians, whom are generally of south Indian origin. It’s not unlike the chinese preferring to be taught English by white ‘native speakers’ than Indians. They just cannot acknowledge the fact that intellectually and creatively, they aren’t the ‘centre of civilisation’. If one was to think about it, it is those whom acknowledge that they aren’t the ‘centre of civilisation’ whom are most likely to outdo everyone because they will spend more time learning from different others than celebrating the sinical Chingay - it should be ‘Singay’, not ‘Chingay’ mate. But you need to not have a ‘central land’ mentality to realise that. But, i’d excuse the organisers. Perhaps they didn’t know the difference between ‘Bollywood’ and ‘Kollywood’. However, even that is telling as it shows that the chinese know none other but themselves. Very inward-looking don’t you think.

If some Indians and Chinese are offended by it, that might actually be racist itself in that the Indians and Chinese whom are offended by it both think that ‘black’ is uglySome might say that there was nothing malicious about the ‘blackface’ event at all. But proving that there is an absence of malice in the act isn’t proof that it is not of racist origins mate. I’m sure that those calling blacks, ‘niggers’, in the past, or chinese calling Indians in singapore, ‘mamas’, ‘Or lang’, ‘Gandhi’, ‘Kunta Kintei’ would similarly state that there was no malicious intent. (i was called the latter two by chinese in the 70s and 80s, and ‘Gandhi’ by a malay bloke in his 20s a couple of years outside a pub. I told him ‘thanks for the compliment.’, and he didn’t know what to say after that. Those malays whom are narrow-minded ought to keep in mind the degree to which the south Indians contributed to their civilisation in the historical past. i.e. their marriage customs, dance, etc.) However, it is a diminutive statement all the same.

The way i see it. The above just shows the chinese in the picture to be stupid, and isn’t really a slur on the non-pale yellow communities in singapore. If some Indians and Chinese are offended by it, that might actually be racist itself in that the Indians and Chinese whom are offended by it both think that ‘black’ is ugly, and the indians don’t want this ‘undesirable’ fact rubbed in, be it with Kiwi shoe polish or otherwise. It’s like, ‘i don’t like my black colour, and i don’t want others rubbing in this fact’. In that, many of those whom are offended are offended by their own negative perceptions of the colour. Being offended by it is not evidence of your not being racist. Being offended by it for the right reasons, as stipulated in the above, is. So everyone, regardless of race, should sit down somewhere and do some soul-searching about this.

Be like the ed. Know that your ‘black’ colour is beautiful, and all whom think it otherwise to be morons - hell, i personally get lots of attention from ‘white’ girls of all ages for being ‘black’, and its funny that the chinese and other asians look up to the ‘white’ girls here for not being ‘black’, whilst they are busy ogling at ‘black’ ed.

In essence, the ability to appreciate the difference between extremes, i.e. black vs white, is evidence of superior intelligence. To want to pigeon-hole difference and variation into a single category shows that the person wants to make sense of things quickly, and at the expense of detail -in singapore, a typically chinese trait. That is frequently, and most pronounced in cultures where traditionalism and conformity is lauded. Doesn’t bode well creative and intellectual vibrancy.

Whilst the chinese exhibit this deficiency at most times in this respect, given their being reared within a confucian/china state of affairs, the indians and malays should also be watchful of their own tendency to follow suit by their abiding by age-old biases originating from their own cultural climes or risk compromising their progressive development in other respects as well - which is already greatly compromised by their suffering the discrimination and underdevelopment that they do. As i’ve said time and again to those whom are acquainted with myself, ‘you are going to be f*&%#$ enough by circumstances in singapore, so don’t make it worse by f&*#$@& yourself as well.’

As for the clowns in the above picture, i’d rather they integrate perspective-wise, instead of colour-wise. I like difference, and hence, wouldn’t want everyone to be yellow, black, brown, or white. If i do like people to be identical, it is confined to their integrative and multicultural outlook, as opposed to their looks.

Pleasing the small racially-self absorbed mind

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:40:00 +0000

The following is an article by a bloke by the name of Chua Chin Leng, aka, redbean. In it he deems, in typical confucian style of thoughtlessness, that it is those whom cry foul of racism whom are the real racists. He, again in typical confucian style, doesn't supply any plausible reasoning as to why, but just takes the statement as proof. Anyway, i've reposted a significant part of his silly statement and addressed it thereafter so as to warn the more reasonable and egalitarian minds out there of the dangers of confusing the identifier of a problem as the 'inciter of hatred'. Hmmm....i really wonder which tree such people tumble out of sometimes.

“Pleasing the Small Racist Mind http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/2012/02/pleasing-small-racist-mind.html

We had our D&D last night and we all had great fun. The MC was great with his mimicry and acting to bring live and laughters to an otherwise staid occasion. He used the four major racial groups as the background of his games, the Malays, the Chinese, the Indians and the Others, which is synonymous with Eurasians or the English Language. One of his main acts was to play 4 different pop songs and let the participants lip sync their roles. He was great in his introduction of how to play the game and the staff was equally great to play on as guided. And he kept apologising just in case someone thought it was insensitive.

....Why is the UOB theme seen as being offensive and be pronounced as racism? It is all in the minds of the little racists. In many cases, the real racists are the attackers who rapped others as racists for the slightest remarks. Such people see everything in the racist line and are out watching for such violations and infringements.

Racism and respect of other race and religion are constantly on the headlines to remind people to be aware and sensitive to other people’s sensitivities. No decent or proper organisation would skirt near such tabooed stuff. Attacking them for being insensitive and racist is uncalled for and harbours a hidden agenda.

The society must be more careful of the real racists living in our midst and going around attacking other people as racists. And we are going to face more of such rubbish as we open our door to more foreigners. Europe is starting to face the problems of immigrants wanting their way of life, to live separately, to impose their lifestyle and demanding their own private space.

While we happily and naively go about bringing in the hordes from around the world, and thinking nothing but economic growth numbers, we are intentionally bringing along all the problems associated with the different people, culture, race and religion that they bring. The silliness in this policy must be raised before it hits us real hard in the future. I think it is already too late and the tension is brewing.

There is no place for racism here. And people hiding under the guise of attacking anyone or things which they perceived as racists must be taken to task before they grow in numbers and exploded into our face. There must be no appeasement to the racist living in our midst, the kind of people that see everything in terms of racism and trying to light the fire of hatred and intolerance and trouble. The media has an important role to tell them off instead of encouraging them to go on to paint others in all kinds of unpleasant colours. - source”

ed’s comments at the aforementioned site

comment 1

One can afford to be magnanimous and 'understanding' about such things especially if one has profitted from the institutional, social, and economic racism that is part of 'singaporean' culture. When one is in the lead, one wouldn't mind laughing at oneself as much as opposed to one has been deprived of fair play. Even after having the mick taken out of one's race, one still knows that they rule, or don't have to suffer the discrimination that others have to.

In that, whilst we all sit and laugh at each other and ourselves, it is the relatively disadvantaged whom are thus further depressed. Even if everything is equal on the stage, it is its absence in socio-political arena that makes it unequal on stage. Go think....further.

comment 2

The 'tension', or at least, the consequences, have been brewing and spilling over ever since the country turned confucian and pro-chinese without the old 'hordes' and bloggers saying little about it. Now you're just facing the consequences of being self-absorbed. If you can't take 'foreign' cultures and peoples, that is because you have become adept in ignoring the difference around you for quite a bit of time.

As for the 'small racist minds' amongst us, it takes a small mind to not appreciate that we ought to go by evidence as opposed to assuming everyone who shouts 'racism!' is a racist. That is a self-serving and basically illogical approach.

_____end comment_____

Basically, this idiot, Chua Chin Leng, is implying that there isn’t any real or significant racism to be talked about, and hence, anyone alleging racism should be taken ‘to task’ and have ‘small racist minds’. Very nice ‘logic’ that. Hardly. Says this bloke who also goes by the pseudonym, ‘redbean’ (*sigh* food again),

“Such people see everything in the racist line and are out watching for such violations and infringements.”

Whom are ‘such people’ supposed to be? Since the only definition given to ‘such people’ are those who ‘see everything in the racist line and are out watching for such violations and infringements.”, it would refer to anyone who talks about the existence of racism. One really has to believe that racism doesn’t exist, or is alright because it happens everywhere, or that it isn’t significant enough to be talked about, in order to deem anyone who talks about it as a racist. That is ridiculous. Looks like this particular ‘redbean’ has outlived its ‘eat by’ date. Now it is the one who alleges racism who is the racist? And why? No reason is given for it.

But, in typical confucian approach, his focus is solely on the quintessential confucian ideal of ‘harmony’ whatever the cost or basis - which makes him a great student of every confucian proselytiser from Confucius to Lee Kuan Yew - as is evident in,

“There must be no appeasement to the racist living in our midst, the kind of people that see everything in terms of racism and trying to light the fire of hatred and intolerance and trouble.”

It is the ‘fire of hatred and intolerance’ that leads to people seeing things in terms of racism. This silly git has placed the cart before the horse in his reasoning. It is only the self-absorbed fool who profits from injudicious circumstance who views all critique of the status quo as an ‘attempt to light the fire of hatred and intolerance and trouble’. I’m sure the white slavers in the historical past saw the black emancipation movement and the work of the suffragettes in a similar light.

But it’s alright. This Chua is too obviously a xenophobic, sinocentric, and self-absorbed piece of shit as is evident in,

“Europe is starting to face the problems of immigrants wanting their way of life, to live separately, to impose their lifestyle and demanding their own private space.

While we happily and naively go about bringing in the hordes from around the world, and thinking nothing but economic growth numbers, we are intentionally bringing along all the problems associated with the different people, culture, race and religion that they bring.”

if you express your humanity in a wicked way, you’re going to fear the humanity of others as well.This idiot has obviously not realised that the above statement could just as easily apply to the local chinese and indians whom were the ‘hordes’ of yesteryear. And with regards to the chinese, these ‘hordes’ kicked out true multiculturalism out in favour of the chinese and confucianism. The chinese, including my friends and family, in general didn’t actively do this, but they certainly kept quiet about it as they didn’t think they had anything to lose by it. Hence, being culturally and racially self-absorbed, it is no surprise that he perceives ‘different people, culture, race and religion’ as ‘problems’.

Perhaps this Chua subconsciously fears that these new ‘hordes’ might be as troublesome as his ancestors with their triads, cultural self-absorption, racism, and might eventually do to the local chinese what the local chinese did to other locals in the past and present - though not all of them of course.

Hell, there might even be a quota system in place one day that stipulates that each block of flats can only have 20% of local chinese so as to fragment and render impotent their sense of themselves as a people. Of course exceptions can be made when a mainland chinese marries a local chinese. Or we can have ‘Mandarin speakers with a China accent’ ad. Or maybe the government in future might say, ‘we need to maintain a racial balance in favour of the mainland Chinese’. As the ed's saying goes, if you express your humanity in a wicked way, you’re going to fear the humanity of others as well. Perhaps that is why there are little 'Chinatowns' all over the world. In that sense, i’d recommend that Chua ‘be Indian/multicultural’, and hence realise that his former confucian self is the foundation for much of his current concerns, gripes, and oversights. Silly git.

I personally view the influx of the new foreigners with excitement as it might promise engagement with new perspectives, and peoples - so long as they don’t conform to ‘the confucian/chinese’ way of seeing and thinking about things. Strangely enough, the bloke, Ong Ming Wee, (the one arrested and incarcerated for rape in Toa Payoh), at least once had the sense to tell me, whilst i was buying something over the counter at his shop, and in response to me asking him what he thought about the new foreigners, “I like all these foreigners coming in....new cultures...can learn a lot”. Not bad. Not bad at all. Very likable and quite humble character. Hence, when he was arrested for rape, i took it as a severe lapse in judgement and self-control and not that he was devoid of it.

Anyway, the point here is not just to take on this Chua bloke - small racially self-absorbed gits like him aren’t worth the effort - but rather to address the tendency amongst anyone to desire harmony at the expense of equality. To those whom profit from the inequitable status quo in singapore, or those whom are accustomed to it, whatever their ethnicity, to deem everyone who alleges ‘racism!’ as the one who is causing trouble, is nothing but an attempt to protect what they are used to. They are either used to profiting from it, or have established their ways of coping with it, or have degenerated to the point that they can see no problem with it as their aspirations, personality, and character have been dumbed and numbed down enough to fit such circumstance well.

Chillingly, Chua's 'logic' of demonising those who take issue with racism was certainly used to coerce the silence of the nationally fragmented non-Chinese in the past so that the Chinese-supremacist policy could be pursued by the government with impunity - the chinese populace are not to be blamed for this, but in the spirit of engendering mutual love amongst people of all races, it would behove them to do something about it. Now, the likes of Chua are attempting to bring it back again so as to renew the people's vow of racial and cultural self-absorption by way of ignoring and even vilifying all critique purposed for bringing about true egalitarian multiculturalism. If one was to think further about this than a redbean is capable of, one would realise that this logic was also used to justify a one-party state.

if you think that it is alright to make fun of all races on stage because ‘all’ are being made fun off - though i personally think that the event Chua spoke about at his ‘Dinner and Dance’ is alright in itself - that depends on whether such equality is true offstage.Finally, if you think that it is alright to make fun of all races on stage because ‘all’ are being made fun off - though i personally think that the event Chua spoke about at his ‘Dinner and Dance’ is alright in itself - that depends on whether such equality is true offstage. As i stated in my first comment at this Chua’s site, when things are unequal offstage, to laugh at every race on stage basically serves to further put down those whom are disadvantaged off stage. It is no wonder that people might take issue with the ‘blackface UOB’ event - which i have written about, but which is yet to be published here. It is not that this event is in itself racist, but when people have had enough in real life, they’re going to be less tolerant of such events. So the reaction to the ‘blackface UOB’ event is basically an indicator of feelings outside.

But given singapore’s grossly racist and xenophobic status quo, it is certainly not an indicator of how watchful people are of racial transgressions, but also of how they might only be attentive to such obvious instances as opposed to those that are really significant - as has been highlighted from time to time on this site unlike any other singaporean site. You could say that people who fuss over such issues and not the really significant ones are those who can't see the big for the small, or think that since everyone is used to the big problems, we might just fuss over the small or consequential ones - which is basically confucian/chinese pragmatism in a nutshell.

But, i suppose, if the likes of Chua are allowed to have their way, this site would have to shut down, or just talk about food, shopping, and whatever affects the interests of the majority and has knock-on effects on the minorities, in favour of pleasing the racially self-absorbed mind. I suppose that would expedite an alliance or union with China in the future. Perhaps that’s what he has in mind, given that the perspectival union has already been achieved.

SG Chief Justice: 'Judges do Justice, not Politics.' ed says...

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:00:00 +0000

source

How the Worker’s Party sacking of MP plays into the hands of the PAP

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:00:00 +0000

I really wonder about these people sometimes. Very silly people. I'm talking about the Worker's Party here.

They sacked this bloke, Yaw Shin Leong, he loses his seat in Parliament, and now there’s a call for a by-election. And all because of his extramarital affair. What’s that got to do with how well he does his job as a member of parliament? Or do they think that he’s going to turn his ‘walkabout’ in his constituency into a f&*$about’?

I’ll get to the point given that the confucianised singaporean of today have very limited attention span when it comes to contradictory ideas or long sentences.

By sacking this fellow, they are basically saying that the perceived virtue of parliament must be maintained. They are presenting parliamentarians, MPs, etc, as sort of divine creatures like some ‘Son of Heaven’ of Chinese history whom have no sin to be absolved. It doesn’t matter if you’re great at your job in ensuring that your constituents have their needs met; it doesn’t matter if you’re a true egalitarian and democrat (not that i’m saying that this Yaw bloke is all of that) You also have to ensure that you reserve your dick for your wife as and when she doesn’t have a headache, or as and when she decides to uncross them because you have been assiduous in doing her bidding - as seems to be the case in all the relationships i’ve personally encountered in singapore. By sacking this bloke for what he did, basically implies that parliament is a place for those with impeccable virtue, and which implies that other oppositional fellas and the PAP blokes as well, are already of impeccable virtue, and thus occupy their respective positions.

When we take away sinners of the sort like Yaw, we are basically implying that the ‘sin’ of ministers who overpay themselves, amongst other sins, aren’t sins, but just something they choose to do, and we choose to disagree with.I’d say, let the sinners in....and let him who has not sinned cast the first stone at them. When we keep sinners about, it might make us wonder after the virtue of those we consider to not be sinful. It might also reveal us for the hypocrites we are. All of which, bodes well, for discovering the greatest of evils passed off as normal because we ourselves aren't that different. In this, the vilification of Yaw can be nothing other than an effort to maintain a greater sin from which we are all beneficiaries.

To be honest, It will be nice to have this ‘extramarital Yaw’ around and start the debate about if he is less virtuous than ministers who earn as much as they do but keep their netherregions to themselves and their wives. When we take away sinners of the sort like Yaw, we are basically implying that the ‘sin’ of ministers who overpay themselves, amongst other sins, aren’t sins, but just something they choose to do, and we choose to disagree with. I’d also like the focus to be on proving that the extramarital sin of Yaw interferes with his work as opposed to assuming that it does.

If you think about it, there is a greater case for assuming that overpaying ministers interferes with their being concerned about the people who employ them. So who is the greater sinner here mate? You could say that the WP sacked this bloke, as opposed to letting him resign, in an effort to present themselves as virtuous, like the PAP. In the UK, amongst others, what might generally happen is that such ministers would resign in an acknowledgement that what they did might not be right as opposed to it being seen as an opportunity by the party to present itself as always right. It goes well with the Chinese political ethos, practiced for a couple of thousand years of 'scapegoating' so as to present the party in power as beyond reproach and divinely mandated. That is why, given this event, amongst a host of others, i've said for a while that these so-called 'opposition' fellas are nothing but a product of that which they purport to oppose. Typical. So typical.

Sometimes i wish i can take these fellas who run the SDP, WP, etc, by the ear, sit them down, cross my legs, and with a rotan in one hand, and a chalk in other, teach them some of my sensibilities given that they ought to already possess them if they didn’t already think themselves so smart enough to lead other know-nothing girls and boys playing at being ‘opposition’ as did the proverbial piper. Being arrested umpteenth times for the ‘oppositional cause’ means nothing. All that matters is ensuring that you aren’t a product of the party you oppose, and do your best not to play into their hands despite your best intentions.

(news: WP expels Yaw Shin Leong)

Brief thoughts on why Scotland should opt for Independence

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:49:00 +0000

Said Cameron,

“Speaking before a trip to Edinburgh, the prime minister talked in passionate language about his desire to keep the union and insisted he wanted to make a positive case for keeping Scotland in the UK. However, his list of issues raised – including Scotland losing its seat (as part of the UK) on the United Nations security council – could be seen by opponents as an attempt to threaten voters into shunning independence in the planned referendum.

He said: "We're stronger, because together we count for more in the world, with a permanent seat on the UN security council, real clout in Nato and Europe, and unique influence with allies all over the world.” - the guardian

Scotland only needs the UK because the UK still includes the rest of non-England. Something like a skinny scrawny lad being only as strong as the toughies he is supported by. What i was wondering, when i came across this statement by Cameron is, is it that Scotland is stronger because, with Scotland being a part of the UK, it is represented in the UN Security Council, or is England stronger because the UK includes Scotland. What clout is the UK going to have if n.Ireland, Wales, and Scotland were to vote for independence mate.

It seems to me that when you take this into consideration, Scotland only needs the UK because it still includes the rest of non-England. Something like a skinny scrawny lad being only as strong as the toughies he is supported by. And anyway, how much clout does Scotland have on the Security Council. Or is Scotland to just be happy that it is being represented without its views being truly influential. Something like fans of soccer teams getting a kick out ‘their club’ winning this or that match without actually having even touched the ball.

If Cameron wants Scotland to stay in the union, then do what Gandhi did, offer the prime ministership to a Scot, preferably from the party that wants independence. If not, i’d go with ‘partition’.

As long as the capitalist and fascist status quo, continues reinforced by the Liberal-Con coalition’s efforts to re-Christianise the EU, amongst others, i’d say that Scotland stands to be sucked into this growing evil.

And as for not having the support of the British Armed Forces. That’s silly. Do you actually think that the rest of the UK is going to stand by and watch other powers take over Scotland? Of course not. The Brits won’t want another power at their border would they. So, out of self-interest, the Brits would certainly not allow that to be the case. So you don’t need to be in the UK to enjoy the protection of the British Armed Forces because they would want to protect British interests by not allowing other powers to take over Scotland. So Cameron is just talking through his arse on this one.

Rather than have Scotland’s development be dictated by the English, i’d rather Scotland have its independence, consider alternative courses of self development, make the most of its cultural attributes, and then maybe later, consider a union with England along the lines of the EU. A British Union or something like that.

In a nutshell, i’d rather have Scotland leave the union and join it again at some future date independently as opposed to staying in because they were forced to be in it a long while back, and then got used to it over time to the present. That just justifies any power to annex any state because they can always rely on the state to eventually get used to it because of the ‘shared heritage’ they’ve had ever since, and the people of the annexed state being underdeveloped enough, and having developed enough coping and compensatory strategies to find it more palatable. Basically, i'd rather Scotland join the union independently rather than staying in it after having been forced into it, and having gotten used to it. That might be a small step for Scotland, but it is quite the major one for humankind given the message it will be sending out by doing so....for the right reasons.

Go! Go! Scotland! FCUK!

The True Intent behind the Lib-Con drive to re-Christianise w.Europe

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:29:00 +0000

It’s funny isn’t it. Religion, or rather, Christianity, was once used to turn w.Europe into a sort of superstate during the reign of the papacy in the historical past.

Then, religion was used to separate the state from the papacy so that the local elite could keep it’s ill-gotten wealth to itself. That is when we saw, for instance, the so-called British royalty, by way of the philandering ‘King’ Henry the 8th, with the Act of Supremacy in 1534, giving the overprivileged gits who ascended the British throne the right to be the temporal heads of their so-called church - so as to enable this Henry fellow to fornicate and divorce as he pleased, and keep the proceeds and spoils of war and exploitation of people to themselves....what kind of ‘church’ is that? Of course, the Catholic church at that time wasn’t that much better as they were exploitative themselves, but i’d choose reforming the Catholic church over replicating its excesses through local national franchises.

Anyway, looks like the call for religion is out again, with this so-called ‘baroness’ Sayeeda Warsi caling for Britain to renew its appreciation of its so-called ‘Christian’ heritage - if they really want to promote the appreciation of its Christian heritage, shouldn’t they return control to the Pope? If not, they should just talk about renewing their appreciation of a ‘part of’ their ‘Christian heritage’ shouldn’t they.

In a sense, I do support her call for the re-religionising of Britain insofar as her critique that it is not right that “signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings”, criticises states in the EU that “won’t fund faith schools”. I do not think that religion, i.e., Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and others of a similar ilk, should be excluded from the public imagination via its replacement with pro-capitalist and allegedly ‘secular’ philosophies. You could say that religion tempers or counterbalances the negative self-absorption, opportunistic, mutually-alienating, impact of capitalism and nationalism. Religion can also serves as the reformative force within capitalism to question its excesses as the former is more of a collective, equality, and mutual love force as opposed to the capitalist ‘I, me, mine, is all that matters’.

Religion also reinstates an alternative idea of Good and Evil and an appreciation and independent critique of the right and wrong of an act in itself despite it being alright within the capitalist state of perception, i.e. is it alright to pay singers and actors so much whilst relying on ourselves to address poverty; is nationalism a good thing given that it makes us love our own ‘compatriots’ more than people holding another passport, and makes us term people as terrorists when they do unto us that which we have done unto them in the past to the present?; is capitalism right given that it is based on the principle of the exploitation of people by people for self gain?; etc, etc, etc. Without traditional religion, we’re just going to have the religion of the state and self.

However, where i stop short of giving Warsi the full ed-wardian support is when we take the whole story behind this appeal on board.

on the 5th of February, 2011, Cameron, at the Munich Security Conference, and on the same day that the neo-Nazi ‘English Defence League’ held a protest in his constituency, stated that multiculturalism had failed, linked Islam with terrorism as opposed to western oppression of middle-easterners. He of course tried to distinguish between ‘Islam’ and ‘Islamist extremism’ by linking the latter with terrorism and which he claimed, ‘attracted people who feel rootless within their own countries’. This is a very significant statement.

What Cameron is doing here is not appreciating the definition of Islam, but seeking to redefine it along nationalist lines. Islam does not ‘attract people who feel rootless within their own countries’ mate. It encourages people to uproot their national sense of identity an plant it in the soil of a common humanity despite illusory and divisive national borders. This would not bode well with the Liberal-Con nationalist approach toward things. You could even say that the so-called ‘war on terror’, as I stated a few years ago, is nothing but a clash between the nationalist vs. the universalist sense of community. In that, Islam is more in sync with Christianity that the national state. I don’t think the Christ meant, ‘Love thy neighbour as you love yourself so long as s/he is carrying the same passport.’

on the 11th of April, 2011, he toured the country encouraging people to celebrate the so-called, ‘royal’ wedding between two privileged gits, aka, Kate and William. Cameron said,

"The truth is that this is a great chance for communities to come together and celebrate.

"So go on - bring out the bunting and let's make this a day to remember. For everyone."

Whilst putting forth non-British cultures and multiculturalism as divisive on the one hand, here, Cameron promotes traditional white, protestant culture as the one to bring everyone together. Yup. Bring everyone together at the foot of those privileged plonkers occupying Buckingham palace. Bollocks to that.

on the 16th of December, 2011, Cameron, at a speech in Oxford to the future elite of Britain, commemorating the so-called King James Bible, he states that the UK is a Christian Country.

Cameron said that it was “easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain has confidence in its Christian identity”.

and he continued,

"Why? Because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths too.

"And because many of the values of a Christian country are shared by people of all faiths and indeed by people of no faith at all."

It cannot be a good thing if Britain was to reaffirm its 'Christian heritage', because, to do so would require the Brits to reject the latest faiths that are coming in as a part of the future 'British heritage'.When the devil claims that hell is heaven, it is by his dictates that angels live and earn their wings - ed.

Just because Britain started out as a pagan region doesn’t mean that it should not redefine itself as Christian in the face of the entry of Christianity. Similarly, just because Britain became Christian after its pagan era doesn’t mean that it should not redefine itself as multi-religious in the face of the entry of other faiths. So why is Cameron choosing to stop Britain’s evolution after its allegedly Christian era? Why choose that point in history to stop its personality development by calling the UK ‘a Christian Country’?

His brand of nationalist, capitalist, royalty-worshipping, class-divided Britain is being associated with Britain’s ‘Christian’ heritage. He does not see these as conflicting approaches. He’s turning it into an identity with all associated identities (capitalist, nationalist, etc) intact. And it is within this overarching identity that all other identities are to take their cue when it comes to which aspect of their faith is acceptable and which is not. It cannot be a good thing if Britain was to reaffirm its 'Christian heritage', because, to do so would require the Brits to reject the latest faiths that are coming in as a part of the future 'British heritage'. That would be a practice in cultural self-absorption, and wouldn't bode well for their future appreciation of difference.

Finally, on the 14th of February, 2012, Warsi, Britain’s first Muslim cabinet minister, writing in an article for the Daily Telegraph, entitled, ‘Militant Secularisation threat to religion’, states that not just Britain, but Europe as well, needed to become,

“more confident and more comfortable in its Christianity.”, which, “in practice this means individuals not diluting their faiths and nations not denying their religious heritages.” And she continues, “You cannot and should not extract these Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes.”

So when we take 1-4 on board, this hankering for religion and call for the re-Christianising of Britain, begins to take on a pretty far-right turn. In the historical past, the nation-states in w.Europe came up with its own brand of Christianity in an effort to wrest control from the papacy. Now, it is attempting to restore that same spirit in its attempt to counteract non-traditional faiths’ influence. Hence, it is not surprising that Warsi is now making a similar speech at the Vatican in an attempt to not only reawaken Britain’s ‘Christian’ heritage, but that on the whole of w.Europe as well so as to solidify and fortify the entire w.Europe as a ‘Christian’ stronghold in the face of the Saracen within and without. A Grand Inquisitor in Islamic veil, is this Warsi.

They want to restore faith in a traditional culture built up over the centuries that enabled people to accept and cope with top-down evils and taking refuge in faith and the next model of ipad and iphone and bother about nothing else besides.In the face of economic crises, public disaffection, and as a run-up to the so-called Queen’s Jubilee, what these Lib-Cons are trying to do is to restore religion as an opiate amongst the w.European masses. They know that they are not alone in this venture as they can secretly rely on other right-wingers and fascists throughout w.Europe to push forth their cause. And if these other neo-Nazis push it too much, the Lib-Cons, and others of their more ‘moderate’ ilk can step forward with their more moderate brand of fascism and present it as not fascist in contrast to the white extremists.

Now i’m not saying that Christianity should be extracted ‘from the evolution of’ w.Europe. What i’m saying is that it should not be used to determine its evolution all by its lonesome. Not too long ago, that dumb git David Starkey attributed the London Riots of last August to ‘black culture’. Warsi and gang are not too different in their approach here. They want to insulate the UK, and w.Europe from foreign ideas, as does the EU by its very existence, insulates itself from the influx of people and cultures of non-pale origins.

A similar event occurred in the confucian fascist state of singapore when the government religiously brought back chinese culture and imported chinese from China to keep up the Chinese population. They didn’t like how multiculturalism was breaking down old chinese modes of putting up with shit and making them think further than they were forcibly accustomed to. It worked. Top-down exploitation continues; the country celebrates its allegedly chinese heritage (it was originally a Malay state, and then a multicultural one); and people have had their millennia-old methods of coping with shit instead of shoveling it back to its source restored; and ignore all perspectives, cultures, and people to the contrary unless it addresses their nurtured racially and culturally biased interests. Britain ought to study other climes in order to fully appreciate what’s happening here, since other climes have successfully instituted that which which they think they addressed with the invasion of Normandy.

In sum, all this talk about the importance of faith is basically purposed to restore to the people their age-old methods of coping with top-down exploitation, insulating them from ‘non-British’ ideas so as to keep intact the former, prune ‘non-British’ faiths and perspectives to sit well in a wholly ‘Christian’ orchard, and, as Marx state, have it serve as an opiate to numb and dumb the people. That just gives religion a bad name, and the state, a good one.

Non-chinese-preferred job ads in singapore is 'affirmative action' mate

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:48:00 +0000

I don't know what the issue is here, and why Temasek Review, and their so-called 'netizens', think it an issue worth pursuing.

Oh, wait a minute, Temasek Review (which has, for some strange reason, given itself the title of 'Emeritus' - which actually is a term of reference to a former holder of an office, especially a professor.....how is TR relating themselves to that? Perhaps they're using a dictionary purchased in their motherland) is a neo-nazi/confucian pro-singaporean chinese s(h)ite, and hence, it is no wonder that this is an issue to them, and their horde of loyal readers, whilst they do not similarly take equally vociferous and consistent issue with the ‘mandarin speakers/chinese preferred’ ads in singapore. That is more of an issue given that the chinese are a majority, and this affects the non-chinese to a greater degree when it comes to job applications, promotions, and understanding what their chinese colleagues are talking about when they choose to speak in Mandarin as opposed to English over their lunches, brunches and what nots.

‘Filipino Preferred’ job ads is not discrimination, but ‘affirmative action’ that helps to alleviate the opportunity cost of life within a racist and discriminatory status quo in the singapore of today.In a nutshell, given the reality of the above situation, amongst a host of others, that basically casts all non-chinese as ‘2nd class citizens’, ‘Filipino Preferred’ job ads is not discrimination, but ‘affirmative action’ that helps to alleviate the opportunity cost of life within a racist and discriminatory status quo in the singapore of today. To be fair and remove the ‘Filipino preferred’ criteria, in this instance, in an already pro-chinese and unequal state of affairs basically promotes inequality by ensuring that the chinese have access to everything, whilst everyone else has to wait for non-mandarin-speaking opportunities.

I do practice, in recent years, such ‘affirmative action’ myself. For instance, i refuse to purchase gold from Chinese-run shops in Little India, i purchase expensive items outside of the country so as to not make chinese-run businesses richer, and favour purchase of food from non-Chinese-run food stalls over generally overpriced chinese food stalls. I don’t like doing this, but if i don’t, i’m just going to be enriching the ‘chinese-preferred’ sector of singapore, and expedite the further degeneration of the non-chinese in singapore. However, I've yet to become objective enough to not help my chinese family and friends whenever they need it.

So, what i’m saying here is, till chinese supremacism and favouritism is addressed by these myopic, and sinocentric so-called ‘oppositional’ gits in singapore, whom, in their sinocentrism, are certainly corollaries of the government they purport to oppose, reverse discrimination is nothing but affirmative action designed to make life under chinese supremacism more palatable for those whom aren’t chinese.

From a more pragmatic approach, it would make sense for myself to ‘prefer’ Filipinos, which i certainly do, over the chinese. The reason is simple. A people whom are reared to ignore difference; whose only method of countering top-down oppression is by taking advantage of each other; aren’t really going to become very intelligent, receptive to differences, empathetic, develop the ability to compare and contrast phenomena with any great degree of sharpness; and won’t posses the ability to think out of the box as quickly or creatively as can those whom are products of more multicultural and democratic circumstance. So, since the chinese are so allegedly into ‘being pragmatic’, it would make more business sense to employ people from other climes.

You could say that more 'Filipino/etc preferred Job Ads could actually be a damn good thing as it would force singaporeans, all of whom have been severely affected intellectually and creatively, to again contend with difference, and become smarter for it. The silly girls and boys playing at being ‘opposition‘ in singapore ought to wonder why the government is bringing in all these new foreigners. The answer is simple mate. In an effort to secure political longevity for themselves in the past, and set singapore on the path toward some sort of union with China (i made this prediction back in 1993 in conversation with some friends of mine) they had to make you dumb via monoculturalism, confucianism, and racial supremacism and racism. Thereafter, they’ll need to bring in foreigners, or buy up foreign intellectual capital, to compensate for local stupour. Think about it.

police harassment of difference in singapore - in conversation

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:28:00 +0000

The following is ed’s reply to a comment by Mark (pseudonym. a singaporean chinese of exceptional empathetic stature) on police ‘spot-checks’ on minorities and those whom are different. A more extensive and unabridged version may be found in the comments section beneath the article, ed racially harassed by police at changi airport.

Hey Ed,

“Haha well. The police claim that this is to be done to look out for criminals in the wanted list so as to arrest them back for charges. However, they always seem to target those "xiao pai kia" and those who look different. If they really wanted to arrest those people, they would conduct an operation or something along the line to search for those people. So the police claim doesn't explain why there is such a quota scheme at all. So it's plausible that this scheme is carried out to induce general socio-political resignation, fear and apathy. And I don't think there are significant number of fugitives or escaped convicts here. And you're right that even those well-dressed people could very well be a drug-dealer and consumer. So in fact almost everyone could be the potential to be one. Why not check on those who look very innocent? Very misguided of the police to continue doing this sort of things. What about those big boss involved in drug trade? So to make it short, if we don't commit any crime, then they should be seen, not heard! - source”

Yeah man. Do the police actually think that wanted criminals are going to be sporting styles that are going to attract attention to them? Common sense would dictate that said ‘wanted criminals’ are most likely going to be dressed like ‘the majority’. Well, it’s a good thing that the major oppositional sites, blog aggregators, ignored this issue. So the police can continue serving as fashion police or harassing those deemed to be different.

we must also be aware that police checks can border on or be motivated by racial/difference animosity because those whom are unleashed on the public aren’t usually well-educated, young, and hence, more likely to carry with them the biases learnt in secondary school and in society, which in turn goes into determining whom they ‘spot-checked’.There was, and to some extent, still is, the same issue going on in the u.s. There was some fuss over perceptions that blacks commit the most crimes because of media portrayal, and police too ‘spot checked’ blacks most of the time. But, statistically, it was proven that this was not the case. The police only have to look at their stats to know whom they ought to target. If they did, they might realise that gangsters and criminals do not dress like myself, and most aren’t malays and indians. And if they are, they do dress in a particular way, especially gangsters. For goodness sakes, even gangsters, from the 80s to the present, know that people like myself aren’t. Perhaps the police ought to employ some gangsters to conduct seminars on this issue for their benefit.

But we must also be aware that police checks can border on or be motivated by racial/difference animosity because those whom are unleashed on the public aren’t usually well-educated, are young, and hence, more likely to carry with them the biases learnt in secondary school and in society, and which in turn goes into determining whom they ‘spot-check’. And this is further reinforced by the fact that people are pretty much racially segregated in this country, not integrative, and there is general racism, taken as normal because 'the chinese are the majority what!', and xenophobia as well. It is within such a climate that we can begin to understand the motivation behind police, public, perceptions of difference, and how the old chinese saying, ‘if a nail sticks out, hammer it down’, contributes to it. In a nutshell, the police may be multiracially-comprised, but the enforced monoculturalism and discriminatory conditions without would significantly dictate their perceptions of difference.

for people to immediately assume that a person who is dressed differently is a ‘trouble-maker’ actually indicates that the populace is devoid of the individuality, creativity, and intelligence, to produce differently-dressed people whom aren’t gangsters and criminals. The ‘general socio-political resignation’ that is contributed to by what can thus, in the light of all the perspectives in this article and comment section, be construed as police harassment of difference, can be linked to the chinese ‘culture’ of frowning on difference. In a country devoid of significant individuality, creativity, and intelligence, it can then be quite logically thought that those who dress differently are most likely to be ‘trouble-makers’ since, as stated, there isn’t much individuality, creativity, and intelligence, to produce difference of any other sort.

For instance, in the UK, people who dress differently are thought to be individualistic, artistes, thinkers, musicians, etc - as i most certainly am here, and which also explains why i’m never stopped here at customs or in the public. Nobody is going to immediately assume that s/he is a ‘trouble-maker’. So, for people to immediately assume that a person who is dressed differently is a ‘trouble-maker’ actually indicates that the populace is devoid of the individuality, creativity, and intelligence, to produce differently-dressed people whom aren’t gangsters and criminals. Even when there are people whom are dressed differently, it is usually and obviously in respect of some contemporary and personality-less fashion.

In a nutshell, the police may be multiracially-comprised, but the enforced monoculturalism and discriminatory conditions without would significantly dictate their perceptions of difference.Hence, in such a climate, you could say that true individuality, creativity, and intelligence is curtailed to the traditional and local sense of the word. You can say that the opposition also promotes this notion in the way those whom i met in the past reacted to me. They, in contrast to myself, dressed as if they just got out of bed, or were dressed for some formal occasion. It didn’t matter to them that i was more highly and relevantly educated than themselves.

Given this, we can began to appreciate parallels between public, oppositional, and police perceptions of right and wrong when it comes to personal presentation. We are far from having an social experience in singapore that can plausibly explain it in a more positive light. As V said in the comments section beneath the aforelinked article, "Even my mum also said ‘maybe they don’t like Ed being too different from other people and he is also Indian’. That might be a more accurate summation of the perception of difference in the allegedly 'modern' and 'first world' state of singapore.

BS Royale

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:39:00 +0000

You sure you have a 'culture'?

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:52:00 +0000

"It is the same with any other society had they been in the majority. For instance if Singapore was predominantly English then English would be preferred, so with German, French or any other racial group for that matter. It is natural for people of a race to be comfortable with others who are like them, especially a Chinese society which has an illustrious history. - gopalan nair: singapore, the final days for indians and malays. "

ed’s comment at the aforelinked site,

“It is also natural for humans to go beyond being comfortable with similar others and appreciate the fact that they can become greater in appreciation of difference than in ignoring it. To so is a sign of maturity. The inverse is nothing short of retardation. Yourself being in the US, should be appreciative of this point.

As for the 'illustrious'-ness of Chinese history, i don't see anything 'illustrious' about a history where the masses just do as they are told. In that, we can only talk about the history of the chinese elite. People under such oppressive and suppressive conditions have no history. They just exist as raw materials as do sticks and stones. It is when people, and the chinese, realise this, it is then that they might become the determiners of their history instead of its victims, whom, as a result, will inevitably go about victimising others as a consequence.”

You sure you have a culture?

I do not like the term ‘culture’ being bandied about and used to justify respect for ‘our way of doing things’ just because we, or our ancestors, hadn’t the sense or circumstance to appreciate any other way of doing things. Being able to 2nd guess our cultural way of doing things is, despite our penchant for the familiar, is one of the quintessential qualifications for our humanity (another one of ‘ed’s laws’.) Just because you do what you do whilst on your hind legs, whilst adorned with contemporary finery, and armed with the latest iphone to carry on meaningless chatter with other equally-endowed primates doesn’t mean that it out to be accorded the term, culture.

Culture goes beyond the means by which we cope with things.Culture goes beyond the means by which we cope with things. Animals do that. They cope. Hence, over millennia, they develop instincts and reflexes suited to enable them to eat, reproduce, and drop dead. Culture, in a nutshell, is a term that is best, and more accurately, applied to that part of the human experience that extends beyond necessity, coping, and consumption and reproduction.

Culture also excludes all those ‘cultural’ practices that arise because the main focus of our ‘culture’ is coping, consumption, and reproduction. For instance, gambling, is a consequence of our being focused on coping, consumption, and reproduction, and not philosophical-socio-political matters from a non-self-absorbed vantage. In other words, gambling, for instance, is a consequence of people living like animals (not being well-versed or interested in philosophical-socio-political matters from an empathetic vantage....all of which comprises true pragmatism and qualifies a culture as a culture, and a human being as a human being). It is a by-product of living like an animal. You could say that whilst these by-product results of primitive focus looks and smells like culture, it is more an indication of a failure of it, and the degeneration of a people.

image by ed

You could say that a ‘culture’ of eating, shopping and gambling, is the creative result of the degeneration of a people’s humanity. In other words, it is the last vestige, and manifestation of a people’s creative and human impulses of a people whom have been so reduced in their humanity that this is the best that they can think up and appreciate.

I’ve been inclined to think in recent years, that the bulk of contemporary american films and music, for instance, also qualifies as the best that a degenerating human being can produce. You can’t get rid of a human being’s creative impulse, but you can reduce a human being to an animal state with creative impulses and then produce what the americans of today produce. In other words, give an animal the creative faculty, and they become americans.

Each developmental stage has it’s own ceiling on intellectual, empathetic, and creative produce. But the best that one can produce in each stage isn’t indicative of the best that human beings can produce. Ascending to higher stages will open new developmental curves. But if we don’t, then people will just end up being the proverbial frog in the well and confusing the circular sky for the sky in its entirety.

So how do we determine if we have culture or not?

Very briefly, a true culture is that which has an inbuilt tendency to overthrow itself. This does not include external attempts to overthrow it like colonisation and assimilation. I’m referring to internal mechanisms that constantly lead people to question after the value of their culture, and the ability of the culture to take on board new and changing circumstances without attempting to assimilate everyone so that they can carry on thinking and doing things as did their ancestors a 1000 years ago.

So you sure you have a culture?

ed racially harassed by police at Changi Airport

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:34:00 +0000

Well, V (singaporean chinese girl working in the UK....and now back for the holidays) kept bugging the crap out of me to write about this experience....so here goes.

I arrived in singapore on the 15th of Jan in the evening via SQ with V. I got to the baggage retrieval belt first and quite immediately got the attention of the customs police standing at the checkpoint near the entrance to the arrival hall. Well, never mind.

The Story

I loaded up both V’s and my hand-luggage onto one trolly, and our larger luggage onto another trolley. V arrives. She takes the trolley with the hand-luggage, and i, the trolley with the larger ones. As i approach the customs point, a Malay police officer - a young bloke - rushes over and quite curtly, asks me, whilst ignoring V, ‘Sir, do you have anything to declare’. ed says, ‘No’. ‘Put your luggage through!’, says the police bloke, curtly, and with a frown. ed gets pissed. I stop right beside the police officer, point at him with my thumb, and call to V who has walked ahead a couple of steps, saying, ‘See what i said earlier.’ The police officer, or more like ‘boy in blue’, looks at me with surprise at my reaction, and then looks away, probably realising that he picked on the wrong Indian to screw around with. V comes up, and he asks her to proceed out of the transit area without checking her. The other two Malay officers look as if they feel bad about my being stopped by their colleague (credit to them), and one of them, a bloke, smiles at me attempting to calm me down, but it doesn’t work.....as i have a healthy sense of self-respect and don’t put up with racial harassment whatever the state.

Ed says to them both, ‘For 20 bloody years in my travels to and from the UK, every single time i come through this airport, i get stopped! Every single time i go through the UK airport, i NEVER get stopped. I lived in HK for more than year, and i see others getting stopped at the airport or outside, but i never get stopped. Can you tell me why i get stopped here?!”....as my luggage goes through the scanner. The officer (not the boy who stopped me) smiles again in an embarrassed way....he obviously feels kind of bad. The female officer then questions me after the contents of my luggage asking if i have some kind of machine in there. I said, ‘keyboard’ (referring to my smaller-sized midi keyboard). ‘Do you have another machine in there?’ I say, ‘no, i don’t think so’ (it’s only later that i realised that she was probably referring to my WDTV box which enables me to play digital files on the telly). ‘Oh, it’s ok, never mind. Thank you’. Very polite girl....probably trying to make up for her colleague’s stopping me.

I walk off with my luggage, and the other officer smiles at me again in an apologetic way, and i just shake my head. The officer who stopped me looks steadily away.

The Conclusion

Is this racial harassment? Throughout the time i was waiting for my luggage, i saw this police bloke stopping only one other person. A white bloke. All chinese were let through. But as i attempt to walk through with V, i get stopped, and she doesn’t. And the most incriminating part of it all is that if he really wanted to check my luggage, he would have had to stop her as well as she was carrying half my luggage. After all, they saw me loading up both our luggage onto both trolleys. And given that there were two hand-luggage on her trolley and two-larger ones on mine, wouldn’t it stand to reason that if he wanted to check my luggage, he would have to check the luggage of V's trolley as well? Hence, the allegation that this stop was racially motivated becomes all the more plausible.

Furthermore,

When V recounted this story to her mother, even she, in Hokkien, got angry and said, ‘how can they do this to him? How come they stop him but never stop you?’. My mum, a usually passive person, got pissed off as well. ‘How come they go around bullying Indians?!”, said she.

if there are parallels to this behaviour in the social arena, then, whilst the police might stop the chinese or ‘normal’ people every now and then, when it comes to minorities, and especially those who stand out, they get stopped ALL the time.I said to V, “not only have I had to put up with discrimination that has led to my economic prospects being severely compromised - despite my upper second honours degree - now i have to put up with racial harassment as well?! No bloody way. The next time any so-called police officer stops me, he better have a damn good reason for doing so. I had to put up with this from juvenile gangsters when i was younger, and now from equally young juvenile police officers. What is it? They giving uniforms to gangsters these days? Why is it that these o-level boys are given the power to use their uniforms to harass people whom are different, ethnic minorities, or just as an effort to show the public ‘who’s boss’?”

The point is this, if there are parallels to this behaviour in the social arena, then, whilst the police might stop the chinese or ‘normal’ people every now and then, when it comes to minorities, and especially those who stand out, they get stopped ALL the time. This, in effect, makes their normal checks a cover for their prejudicial ones. That is nothing short of racial harassment. By parallels in the social arena, i refer to similar aversion to difference, and favouring the conventional - from race to fashion. This is already evident in the media, job advertisements, government policies, the socio-economic arena, and so on and so forth. Amongst the juveniles, we see people ‘finding trouble’ with the outstanding. So when we see the police behaving in a similar fashion, it stands to reason that this social approach to difference would be evident in their checks on the people as well.

And this becomes all the more the case when it comes to lesser educated junior police officers - objectivity, unfortunately, is a skill that generally comes with higher education, and through particular subjects. It is not gained by youthful experience in a state where coffeeshops play chinese programmes all the time, where mandarin-speakers are preferred, and where the government clearly state that the state should have a racial balance in favour of one race over all others. In such a state, people become consequences of such a state of affairs with minorities doing unto each other that which is done unto them from up high.

Police officers should abide by the principles used to dictate the behaviour of children in the past..they should be seen, not heard.Police officers should abide by the principles used to dictate the behaviour of children in the past - they should be seen, not heard. Their presence itself, which is a good thing, should be enough to deter criminal behaviour. Stopping members of the public serves absolutely no purpose other than, as stated, to show them who’s boss, or to effect their own prejudices. Asking people where they are going is another instance of harassment as the police officers are certainly not going to be going with the bloke they’re ‘spot-checking’ to see if he’s going where he says he’s going. And if they were to do so, he would probably go where he stated he’s going just to prove he isn’t lying. They also shouldn’t be stopping people who look different....unless they are being paid an allowance for serving as fashion police as well. Having been a senior probation officer myself, i can certainly see the parallels between the juvenile delinquents under my care and police officers who stop me or my other friends.

Like I said to V, me and some of my other Indian friends whom have been stopped do dress differently. But you won’t find any Indian gangster dressed like us. Even they look at us and don’t seem too thrilled that we are as outstanding as we are and hence, seem to be in competition with them for public prominence. So when the police stop us, they know this as well. I’d put it down to a situation not dissimilar to that of the Afro-Americans and Latinos in their ‘Zoot suits’ back in the 60s and before that. As so-called 2nd class citizens, they are expected to be keep in their less prominent place, and not stand out, or risk harassment by the police. Even members of their own race might harass them to make up for their own feelings of inferiority relative to the dominant race. The same thing is going on here in singapore, with harassment of minorities by the police of other and their own races. It is corollary of racism-cum-aversion to difference culture of the state.

Any ‘spot-check’ can be subject to allegations of racist intent, or a gangster-like aversion amongst police officers to other’s being confident and individualistically-attired. After all, even in the working and social arena, such people are deemed to be ‘arrogant’. And the chinese do have a saying that goes, ‘if a nail sticks out, bang it in’. It is, hence, not surprising that it an ultra-conformist orwellian-like confucian state, difference if going to be battered down, cast aside, ignored, passed over for job opportunities and promotions, and harassed at all levels of society. In the absence of any valid reason, the claim that it is, ‘just a routine check sir’, can serve as carte blanche to all police officers to effect their own prejudicial agenda. In a racially self-absorbed, xenophobic, state like singapore, that allegation becomes all the more plausible. And given the host of stories i’ve heard from my other indians friends, it becomes plausible to the point of certainty.

When i asked V why she wouldn’t mind relocating back to singapore and asia for work, she said,

“I can have opportunities which you can’t have, i don’t have to be checked by the police because i’m not different and i’m not Indian......so i understand why you hate this country and want to stay in the UK....because you are respected there for what you are, but harassed here by these people for not being chinese....”

ed

Hong Kongers getting stupidly xenophobic about Mainlanders

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:25:00 +0000

“A group of Hong Kong residents have placed an advertisement in a popular tabloid calling people from mainland China ''locusts''.

The full-page advertisement in Apple Daily was funded by donations from a web-based group.
The term is an insult commonly used on the web by some of the city's residents to refer to mainlanders.

It comes as tensions escalate in Hong Kong over China's increasing influence and the influx of mainland visitors.

The advert, which warned of possible social conflict, contained lines such as "Hong Kongers have had enough!" and "This city is dying, you know?".

The donors, who raised more than HK$100,000 ($13,000, £8,200) for the advertisement in less than a week, also called for the government to stop the ''unlimited infiltration'' of mainlanders.

"Why are mainland mothers flooding in to take up resources in public hospitals, getting our benefits and social welfare?'' one of the organisers of the campaign told the South China Morning Post newspaper.

''Why do mainlanders... refuse to follow our rules and order? We can't accept that," said the man, who used the alias ''Yung Jhon......

The ''locusts'' advertisement follows recent controversial remarks made by Peking University professor Kong Qingdong.

He called Hong Kongers "bastards" and "running dogs of the British government" when commenting on an earlier incident in which a mainland Chinese girl was reportedly told off by locals for eating on a Hong Kong train." - bbc

Hmm...the above news is reminiscent of so-called ‘native-born’ singaporean approach toward foreigners isn’t it.

Poor, poor Chinese mainlanders. They, seeking a better life, go on to Hong Kong to give birth or work, and get treated like 2nd class citizens. I didn’t see the Hong Kongers distancing themselves from the glories of the China-held olympics not too long ago, so why this ‘us vs. them’ approach toward their brethren across the border? When the mainland plate is full, the Hong Kongers indulge. When it is the inverse, the mainlanders are called ‘locusts’. For goodness sakes.

Resources can’t be considered ‘scarce’ until there is an equal division of the fruits of everyone’s labour Those Hong Kongers whom are part of this 'anti-locust' movement should shut up, sit down, and ask if there are truly any significant differences between them and their mainland brethren. Don’t they realise that being xenophobic is one of the key factors that unites them - given China’s relatively sheltered history and their being trained to shun difference in favour of traditonal looks/cultures/cuisine/language/etc.

As for the poor Chinese girl who was told off for eating in the train, Hong Kongers should realise that the reason why there is a proscription on conspicuous consumption on trains is not because it is a bad thing in itself, but because Hong Kongers can’t be relied on to keep the trains clean if they are allowed to do so. Why assume the worst in people without attempting to bring out the best in people? Not surprisingly, singapore, another unfortunately multicultural-turned-confucian state, shares the same perspective. Think we need more multiculturalism in this region, and with a healthy influx of anglo-indians (culturally speaking, not racially) as well.

Finally,

When you look at the picture of the woman with the poster in the picture - look closely - you’ll see, ‘Safeguard Scarce Public Resources ≠ (is not equal to) Discrimination. In other words, they are saying that they are just focused on keeping scarce public resources for the Hong Kongers, and not necessarily because they don’t like Chinese mainlanders. It is supposed to be a ‘pragmatic’ thing, not a xenophobic one.

We can’t afford to feed you because we need to feed our rich”, is what they are basically saying.In essence, what these silly people are attempting to do is to maintain their upper classes, and hence, aren’t able to afford the influx of Chinese mainlanders. Resources can’t be considered ‘scarce’ until there is an equal division of the fruits of everyone’s labour (take that as another one of ‘ed’s laws’). Till this is true, all fuss created over the influx of mainlanders, or ‘foreigners’ in singapore, is nothing but an attempt, albeit unwitting, to maintain the inequitable status quo which have become accustomed to and developed ways of coping with - and which is hidden behind the sacrosanct term of ‘culture’. So you could say, as far as the scarcity of resources go, that these Hong Kongers whom are against the influx of Chinese mainlanders, are against their because they’d rather reserve their resources for Jackie Chan, other silly ‘celebs’, their capitalists, and leaders. “We can’t afford to feed you because we need to feed our rich”, is what they are basically saying. Silly people.

Sg PM Lee Hsien Loong: Being poor in singapore is better than being poor elsewhere

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:14:00 +0000

The exact statement being,

‘If you’re poor in Singapore, it’s no fun, but i think you’re less badly off than in any other country in the world.’ - todayonline

Well, well, well. Before kicking up a fuss about such statements, i would direct the people to think about how they’ve exhibited enough stupidity for their leaders to not shy from making such statements.

It’s not like their leaders, from PM Lee Kuan Yew (Lee Hsien Loong’s father) to PM Goh Chok Tong (the interim PM before the former’s son ascended the throne, haven’t been coming out with such priceless gems of wisdom through the decades. As the old adage goes, ‘every people deserve the government they get’. You can be sure that Cameron, however much of a git i think he is, would never dare come up with such statements given the intelligence of the British public.

But then, if one was astute enough (implying that the ed is;), one would realise that what LHL is saying is true. Yes mate. True, Truey, True, True. Haven’t you forgotten the oft-heard Chinese statement, stated in the face of socio-political-economic evils, ‘It’s like that one lah’, or, ‘everywhere in the world also like that one lah’. (i’m not trying to ‘arrow’ the chinese here, but in my decades-old experience, it is a statement i’ve heard many chinese make often enough....though lately, i’m beginning to hear the non-chinese make it as well. But we have to respect the origins of such statements so that we might give credit where it is due in respect of Intellectual Property and all that.) If one was to trace the lineage of such a perspective, you would find it’s origins in the 2 millennia-old Legalist-Confucian ideology (that has unfortunately ruled, oppressed, and underdeveloped the Chinese people) that basically discourages the people from counterfactual thinking in the face of governmental pronouncements, traditions, culture, the weather, etc.

ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of your ignorance. But if you can attribute said consequences to factors other than ignorance or socio-political injustice, you can be blissful despite being as hungry as your counterparts in foreign climes. You cannot underestimate the value of the aforementioned statements. It enables one to move from thought to action very quickly. And by ‘action’, i mean, not fussing about things you can’t change and just working hard (that’s another thing i’ve often heard quite a few chinese say). That is why, i have to say that the Chinese certainly deserve the credit of coming up with highly innovative ways to make shit more palatable. I’m not being sarcastic here. If we were to apply this Chinese ‘pragmatism’ in situations where things truly can’t be changed despite all human efforts, we would be able to make life as easy as possible and the best of it within such immutable circumstances. In that sense, Chinese ‘pragmatism’ isn’t a bad thing at all. It is a great thing actually. And i can’t give that credit to any other culture to as great a degree as i can to the Chinese.

However, when you apply that approach in circumstances that can be changed, then, it just leads to governments/corporations laughing their way to the bank with your money - and making statements that imply, ‘it’s better to be poor in singapore than elsewhere’ - whilst the people, faced with increasing pressures, will have little choice but to become opportunistic toward each other, and become exceedingly self-absorbed and self-centred - as is the case in the singapore of today (and which might explain why the coffeeshop television at my coffeeshop is locked in to the chinese-language channel 8). That is the result of an upside-down logic that goes, ‘why fight that which you can’t change’, without making an effort to change it in the first place (i’ve heard quite a few chinese of all educational levels up to graduates making such statements. I wonder why they don’t make such statements when it comes to exams and say, ‘why study today if you can’t pass your exams in the future?’)

Over time, that sort of circumstances causes desperation to turn to greed. And Marx’s ‘social alienation’ becomes a reality. The problem with this ‘moving from thought to action quickly’ tendency, and stating, 'it's like that one lah' in the face of overarching evils is that overtime, it can breed in one a tendency to not think about solving overarching things and just focusing on coping with its consequences.

And it is exactly than tendency that adds truth to LHL’s statement that implies, ‘Being poor in singapore is better than being poor elsewhere’. Basically, with enough coping strategies, the cessation of counterfactual thinking, self-blame, and social apathy, the poor can have a better time despite being impoverished. That is how the poor are 'luckier' in singapore than elsewhere because they can blame their plight on an absence of luck and little besides.

Being Rich in Singapore is like having lots of Hell Money but no Life. Being Poor in singapore is like having little money, but still having as much life as the rich. I suppose that makes poverty more palatable in singapore than in other climes. If the poor can be forced to accept overarching evils as immutable, then they will be spending more time thinking about how to get themselves out of their poverty than demonstrating, striking, etc. They will even blame themselves for their poverty when their horse of choice and pick of numbers, doesn’t come in. They will tend to take pleasures in the exceedingly simple ‘pleasures’ of life, feeling extremely validated when some minister goes on a ‘walkabout’ and hands them ‘red packets’ once a year and a plastic bag of oranges. They are going to feel happier as well, and not feel constantly pissed off because they’ve yet to view injustice as ‘it’s like that one lorrr’, ‘it’s like that one lahhh’, and not forgetting, ‘it’s like that one leiiii’. Give them a cup of ‘teh siew tai’, a pack of ciggies, and 24hours of chinese programming at the local coffeeshop, and they’re in mind-numbing bliss.

That, dear people, is the (confucianised) singapore of today. And that is why, in a nutshell, oh, sorry, in a cockleshell, it certainly is better to be poor in singapore than elsewhere. If you think about it, the more one tries to get oneself out of poverty, the more one will also tend to blame oneself for one’s poverty. Some may succeed in doing so, but it will simply cause others whom don’t succeed to blame themselves. (you can take that as another one of ‘ed’s laws’) Singapore, as is the case in Confucian and Advanced Capitalist states (like the ‘greatest nation on earth’, the U.S. of A), have cultures that are well-designed to promote not only self-reliance, but self-blame as well.

But, says ed,

...as i’ve stated quite a few times to those whom have had the sense to listen and consider, ‘ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of your ignorance.’ But if you can attribute said consequences to factors other than ignorance or socio-political injustice, you can be blissful despite being equally hungry as your counterparts in foreign climes.

..returning to what dear LHL said, for the sake of accuracy, he ought to have just said, ‘Being poor in singapore is better for the rich than elsewhere.’
Being Rich in Singapore is like having lots of Hell Money but no Life. Just as, being in Poor in singapore is like having little money, but still having as much life as the rich.

....is basically what i said to V (chinese girl from singapore working in the UK, and with whom i’m living), when she told me about an offer she had in Asia which would amount to about close to 3 times the salary she draws in the UK. In the UK, we might be relatively ‘poor’, but it reeks of empathy, curiosity in the face of difference, creativity, wit, and intelligence - which is what makes a human a human. But in singapore, it’s like living in the land of the dead whom have coins over their eyes and mouths as is the practice in funeral rituals in some cultures. You can have lots of money in singapore, but, you can only shop, eat, and gamble with it. Perhaps that’s why chinese funerals, when the family can afford it (like my late Chinese father-in-law) is so elaborate. They are hoping that they’d finally be able to give their loved ones the pleasures they deserve by burning them helicopters, branded handbags, and mansions......which, in this life, is reserved for their exploiters. Strange isn’t it. But that's what enables them, i suppose, to put with that which the poor and empathetic elsewhere might kick up a fuss over.

But returning to what LHL said, for the sake of accuracy, he ought to have just said, ‘Being poor in singapore is better for the rich than elsewhere.’

[updated] Bicycle Light: The edScope...in pictures

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:00:00 +0000

Edison 6w LED MR16 bulb (neutral white - 5000kelvin). Comprises 3 2W LEDs...just arrived by post this morning

using a velcro adjustable bicycle handlebar mount made for conventional hand-held torches

My aim was to come up with the simplest, cheapest, DIY design that required no soldering, no drilling, and takes about 5 minutes to assemble by anyone, and requiring just about no electrical knowledge. I also wanted it to be easily taken apart and put in another housing if one just felt like a change in housing colour to match one's mood;), or if the housing got damaged in anyway. The housing-change takes less time as it is just a matter of unscrewing the cap, pulling everything out as one piece, and sticking it in another housing.

One of the reasons why i opted for this open-ended (the other end of the housing is open) curved design was for ventilation purposes as bulb-life can be compromised by all-round enclosure. Additionally, the bottom-side being open enabled me to stick a switch just inside the enclosure, thus taking away the need to drill a hole for it, and it shelters the switch from downpours as well.

As for ventilation of the bulb, the bulb has holes in it in the front, so the airflow through the bulb whilst cycling will mean that the cold air will rush in from the front, and the heat will be pushed out the bottom end.

The downside of this design is that if it rains, the water can get in through these holes as well. This, however, can easily be addressed to a significant extent by cutting out a transparent transparency and sticking it on the front over the bulb before screwing the cap on. When you choose a bulb, try to get those whose holes do now allow water to get in directly into the bulb itself. I'm currently using a bulb which has holes on the outer edge of the bulb for the purpose of cooling the bulb's exterior. To increase its water resistance, all i have to do is to seal off the upper half of the bulb. If water gets in through the lower half of the bulb, it will just flow down the pipe and out the other end.

The total cost, excluding the bulb and batteries amounts to £8.50, which includes 20% VAT (tax). You might be able to get the parts cheaper elsewhere.

With the 'edscope', amongst other homemade bike lights out there, it is no more about the torch. It's about the bulb. It's not going to be a case of losing the whole torch if the bulb blows, or buying another torch because it is brighter than the one you have. When you think about it, and do research on LED light bulbs and parts, you're going to realise that when you fork out a few hundred bucks or quid for a 'wow! so bright!' bike light, you're actually paying about a tenner for the light, and $290 for the housing. Ripoff ain't it. Ignorance maketh the fool. People are going to get the impression that you have to pay more for quality without realising that the false association between 'quality' and 'high price' just means that you're playing into the hands of the profit-greedy out there. That just make the high-priced brands that you proudly sport, not only a free advertisement for the company, but of your own ignorance.

With these DIY bike lights, as stated, it is all about the bulb. Find a better bulb, just do a switch. All this, 'my torch is better than yours' only serves to enrich those profit-greedy 'branded' bike light manufacturers out there, and pits us against each other. I'm into collaboration. Not competition - hence my socialist/communist approach toward life. I could easily make this light more complex so that i can sell it. But i chose to simplify it to the point that people can say, 'why would i want to buy it from ed when i can make it myself?' Exactly.

That's it. The 'edScope' is done. Just need to stick the battery pack into a 'tri bag' on the top frame. I'll do a pictorial and video tutorial on the construction of it soon.

ed

eds Backalley Band: REM

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:30:00 +0000

Malcolm X and other stuff

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 04:07:00 +0000

Wikipedia’s ‘pro-piracy’ 24hr shutdown. Good or Bad.

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:07:00 +0000

Wikipedia has taken its English-language site offline as part of protests against proposed anti-piracy laws in the US.

Users attempting to access the site see a black screen and a political statement: "Imagine a world without free knowledge."

The site's founder, Jimmy Wales, told the BBC: "Proponents of Sopa have characterised the opposition as being people who want to enable piracy or defend piracy".

"But that's not really the point. The point is the bill is so over broad and so badly written that it's going to impact all kinds of things that, you know, don't have anything to do with stopping piracy." - bbc

"But that's not really the point. The point is the bill is so over broad and so badly written that it's going to impact all kinds of things that, you know, don't have anything to do with stopping piracy."

Yes, but Wikipedia et al’s move, if it works, is still going to leave the door open to piracy isn’t it. Their approach basically lets off 10 guilty for the sake of 90 innocents. Well, not bad. I’d go for that.

But let’s think about it a little further.

the existence of non-corporate piracy serves to supply the global populace the stimulus to question the terms and conditions of piracy lest its absence only serve to enable a few to monopolise it and render it virtuous.Imagine if the u.s. - the champion of capitalism and ‘democracy’, aka, global exploitation and the freedom to do unto others what they wouldn’t want others to do unto them - was to have its way. What then. Piracy sites would be blocked. Good thing. Certainly. For those who want their profits uncompromised, and their greed unquestioned.

For instance, think about ‘wave’ music files being made available by pirates out there for free, whilst Amazon provides low quality mp3 files for purchase and download. My point is, piracy out there basically keeps alive one’s incredulity in the face of corporate piracy. Without the existence of black, white can put itself across as black. Without piracy, corporate piracy will never be appreciated for what it is.

For instance, i’ve seen, on the net, people stating, ‘hey! if piracy is affecting industries big time, then why is it that corporations can still rake in millions and billions?!’

or,

‘What the &%$#! Why the hell is a bimbo like ‘Lady Gaga, singing shit songs making millions and millions whilst people are dying worldwide from hunger and disease.’

or,

‘Should these musicians, actors, movie directors, etc, be paid so much when all they’re providing is entertainment’?

or, as the ed stated some time back....

“what’s all this bollocks about IP? When members of a ‘work improvement team’ or other staff in a company get fired, do they get paid royalties for their past efforts which is still producing wealth for the company and its elite? This basically implies that o be honest where other’s have a legal right to be unjust, basically makes honesty an abettor of the latter.”

and it goes on and on and on.....

It’s the same ole thing. ‘Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone’, said JC a couple of thousand years ago. In this context, it is tantamount to defining sin in terms of whom is doing it, and not in terms of the sin itself.

In a nutshell, the existence of non-corporate piracy, whatever the intentions and aims of the pirates out there, serves to supply the global populace the stimulus to question the terms and conditions of piracy lest its absence only serve to enable a few to monopolise it and render it virtuous.

video: 'the edScope', homemade bicycle light prototype

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:26:00 +0000

Bicycle light: the edscope;)

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:00:00 +0000

As stated in a previous article (ed’s on sabbatical), a2ed is moving on from singaporean affairs to wider vistas, and also figuring out how to construct a bicycle light as cheaply as possible, making it bright enough to rival most of the overpriced ‘Cateye’ bike lights out there, and making it as simple as possible for anyone to replicate or take apart for simple repairs or part-replacement without compromising too much on aesthetics.

Well, it’s going on quite fine so far. Did quite a bit of research on the net on bicycle lights, the electrical stuff behind it - i.e. watts, volts, switches, battery holders, wiring, etc - my background in sociology/psychology/art/music/photography isn’t really relevant in the technical sense unfortunately;) Basically, what i ended up doing was to put together ideas from various tutorials, and come up with my own in the aesthetic and functional sense after considering and taking on the best of the ideas i’ve seen - that’s ‘progressive multiculturalism’ in essence;)

Unlike all the straight-design lights i’ve seen on the net, i opted for the 90º design so as to increase its waterproof quality, and to do away with the need to drill holes for switches - the switch would be internal and at the bottom, so all one has to do is to stick your finger in and click it on. Following on from this, i opted to keep the bottom open for ventilation purposes for the bulb. Perhaps I might drill an additional couple of holes just below the bulb (in the housing) so as to enable airflow from on end through to the other.

The 12v battery pack (10 AA sized rechargeable batteries) - which DIYers usually stick in a water bottle or pouch and hang it on their handlebar - i hope to velcro onto the housing itself (with heavy duty stick-on velcro)....see how that goes.....don’t know if that’s feasible yet. But if possible, it would add additional stability to the lightweight light and housing, along with making it simple to take the whole thing off the bicycle handlebar instead of fiddling with separate pouches.

As for the handlebar holder - to attach the light to the bicycle handlebar, i’m currently thinking of using a velcro bike mount and tying a longer velcro strip around the light to attach it to said bicycle handlebar. I’ll have to see how stable that might be before considering drilling options for other handlebar mounts.

With regards to the name, ‘the edscope’, it’s just a silly play on the term, ‘periscope’.

Anyway, still a bit of work to do. Will supply updates along the way. Gonna be fun figuring this out, given that i have bugger all experience and knowledge in this sort of thing.

ed

Why do well-off people shoplift?

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:20:00 +0000

“Chef Antony Worrall Thompson has apologised for shoplifting from a supermarket. But what makes people steal things when they have enough money to pay?

Worrall Thompson has apologised for his "stupid and irresponsible actions", after being cautioned by police for leaving a branch of Tesco without paying for small value items. He had reportedly done this on five separate occasions.

The 60-year-old has spoken of the shame of letting his family and friends down. The big question, he says, is "why".” - bbc

Well, that’s the heading of a BBC article that chanced across my attention today.

Off the top of my well-shaven head.....

Perhaps they can have anything they want because they have the ‘well-offness’ to do it. That takes the thrill out of acquiring something through the end-result of a month of minimum wage, and valuing it even more because of the effort taken to acquire the funds to get it.

we should pity the rich, or 'well-off'. They just need to be deprived off their penthouses for them to get a thrill out of purchases made through honest, hard, work.So if the rich can’t get a kick out of making a purchase via hard work, then i suppose, for some of them, the only way to get a kick out of the ‘hard work’ of shoplifting. The means via which they get said ‘kick’ changes, but the end-result is not too dissimilar is it. So, we should pity the rich, or 'well-off'. They just need to be deprived off their penthouses for them to get a thrill out of purchases made through honest, hard, work.

Of course, another take on it would be that given that the rich are used to making money off the backs of the minimum-wagers out there, they are just carrying on this tendency via shoplifting. The arena wherein this tendency is expressed daily changes, but the habit is not too dissimilar is it;)

The solution, get them to work for the money to get what they want, and then they might get enough thrill out of it and leave the shoplifting to the truly deprived.

As for the rest of the shoplifters out there, given that humanity is currently interned within a capitalist system where unrighteous acquisition is rendered righteous by it being lawful, generically, what this does is to hone the thieving instinct in most of humanity. As the (ed’s) saying goes, if you don’t take issue with evil, it can only mean that you aren’t that different.

music: The (truly) Golden Voice of Demis Roussos

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:36:00 +0000

(ed's comment, as posted and published in amazon.co.uk, The Golden Voice of Demis Roussos)

Considering my style and age (i'm an 80s bloke...and still am), people might wonder why i listen to Demis. To them, i'd say, "i don't listen to Demis, i feel with him. If it's good, it's good".

I'd describe Demis' voice, and fluctuating and passionate style of singing as nothing short of 'Heavenly'. The selection in this album is fantastic, or 'passionately soulful' to be more accurate. Every song take you on a journey to various and profound aspects of passion, love, and joy, and in effect brings you to greater heights with each song.

If i was a priest in the confessional, i'd recommend this over other traditional forms of penance;)The fantastic thing about the 70s is that music wasn't american-centred, and hence, the world got to enjoy musical perspectives and passion from a variety of climes. Hence, that makes it one of the best of times, and Demis, one of the best musicians/singers of a pretty much celestial category. I actually have the record/vinyl which is a few decades old, but not having access to a turntable, yet, i was thrilled to find the identical album in CD form - and which all the more makes me want to get a turntable soon (nothing beats the vinyl, scratchs, pops, clicks, and all)

If i was a priest in the confessional, i'd recommend this over other traditional forms of penance;)

ed's on 'Sabbatical'

noreply@blogger.com (ed) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:36:00 +0000

I'm on a sort of 'sabbatical' at present. Leaving behind singaporean affairs and moving on to other matters.

I've always thought that focusing on the aforementioned affairs tends to dumb one down after a bit as it does not provide enough problems and perspectives which can enable the maximal development of one's perspectival potential. Well, if you focus your intelligence and potentials on to fixing children’s rattles, you’re never going to explore greater realms of inquiry are you.

Well, from hereon, it’s on to that which strains the brain beyond the fetters of the familiar and relatively superficial. This site will still continue to bang on about British affairs though, as it’s problems are of a more spectral variety, whilst focusing on general socio-cultural-philosophical affairs that has dogged the interest of the greatest minds in human history....along with continuing my interest in art, photography, music composition, and most recently, building a homemade high-lumens bicycle light;)

It's a 'calling' i suppose. If you feel inclined to go beyond the familiar and popular, it's your destiny to do so.