a2ed.com

SG: I’m Indian and my 'mother tongue' is English

2010-07-09T13:01:00.003+01:00

I’m sure many in singapore would say, ‘but you Indian what! How can your mother tongue be English?’

To some of the Indians whom said that to me in the past, I would retort, ‘*Dei Baderwa, a ‘mother tongue’ is that which enables you to get to know and appreciate all that falls within the space where you interact. In Singapore, that’s English, since it enables us to get to know and be known by those of other cultures/races. In other words, the language is a ‘mother’ that nurtures us to become truly singaporean - which is an amalgam of the best of all culture found therein. Get it?’

other: Yah, but your ancestors spoke what? Tamil right?!

ed: Dei, let’s be accurate about it alright. My RECENT ancestors spoke Tamil. Those that came before them, i’m not sure, maybe some earlier form of African language, or perhaps some Indo-European language after that. And before that, they grunted, walked with a slouch, lived in caves, and their greatest technological innovation was the club. So which ancestor’s language you want me to pick?

other: Recent lah! Why go so far back?

ed: So you mean ‘recent history’?

other: Yes.

ed: Ok, so my recent history begins in 1969 in Singapore. And as I said, the language that became my ‘mother tongue’ is dependent on that which enables me to adapt to the best of my environment. That is singapore. Multicultural singapore. With the Malays, Chinese and Indians, amongst others. Do you think a villager in India or China is going to teach her kid Swahili or Hebrew respectively? No right! How are those languages going to help the kid extract the best of all the cultures or perspectives present there? So how the f**k is Tamil or Mandarin going to be of use to do the same in singapore. All this does is to bond the people with their respective points of recent ancestral origins. That turns singapore into Little India or Qingapore if one or the other dominates by numbers.

other: But English is the mother tongue of the English what! How can that be your mother tongue.

ed: Dei, language is not just words, grammar and other stuff. It’s also the medium through which you express ideas that is a result of the blending of the various singaporean cultural perspectives. In other words, through English, I get to know other cultures in Singapore, and that gives me various ways to see things. That is expressed in English.

So in other words, the reserve of the British leads them to use English in a very different way than the way we use it. The perspectival, emotional, etc, content is very different. That’s what makes the language ours. You try going to England and speaking the way we do to each other here. You are going to shock quite a few people there man. The Singaporean in me feels quite constipated over there. My communal/feminine spirit cannot just get out and go walkabout as and when i feel like it. Well, to be honest, i feel the same way in the Qingapore of today as the general rule is, ‘it’s either the chinese way or no way.’ The Chinese of the 70s and 80s were different.
other: So you’re not proud of your culture is it? You’re not proud of being Indian?

ed: Well, I’m not just Indian dei. I’m also British, Filipino, Malay, African, Japanese, Arabic, amongst others. I’m talking culturally. I’ve been influenced by their cultures or find similarities between the way I view things and the way they do. And besides, how can I be Indian when I’m a product of different civilisations? You know what globalisation is? You see a product with various parts made in various countries? You are making the ‘made in china’ mistake man. That may be the locale where a product is put together. But the some of the raw materials, labour, ideas, etc, come from all over the place. You are not honouring ‘intellectual property’ by giving credit to the various sources that chipped in to create the product. Same goes for me and you.

Hey, even my mother stopped me and my siblings from speaking Tamil, and for myself, from the age of 4 or 5. And she did it because she wanted me to focus on a language that enabled me to get along with all in Singapore. Of course, if we were living in Tamil Nadu, then she probably would have gotten me to learn both Tamil and English. But this is, or at least was, Singapore, as opposed to the Qingapore it is today. So in answer to your question, no, i’m not going to be ‘proud’ of ‘being Indian’ if that’s going to pose even a 1% danger of me discounting the perspectives of other cultures because they aren’t ‘my culture’. You know the chinese of today are fond of saying, ‘the west is the west, we have our own way and culture’. That just amounts to you not being all that you can be, but being the best that you can be after throwing aside the positive nutrients of other cultures. In a sense, that is how quite a few Chinese that I knew in the 70s and 80s thought. Not any more.

other: Ok, ok. So are you at least Singaporean or not?

ed: Yes, but a ‘Singaporean’ of the past. After this country turned Qin (with reference to the Qin dynasty in China that gave birth to the origin of the persona of its people of today), I became a singaporean of the past. In other words, a product of a country where there right way was that which we discovered after learning how to view things from various angles. And that we learnt from appreciating all cultures in Singapore. That is why the Chinese I knew in church were far more witty and smart than any chinese i’ve met the past couple of decades. Well, when you go ‘one way’ and ignore all others, you are going to become stupid enough to think that ‘singaporean’ today refers to all races and completely miss the fact that the ‘singapore’ of today is a product of ignoring and marginalising all non-chinese cultures and perspectives. You are going to forget that the government remade the chinese here in the image of the chinese of China. The Chinese had a valuable opportunity to break out of their top-imposed 'one way' system when they came to singapore. Unfortunately, the government just reinforced it. And now they are truly 'chinese', and singapore, because they are the thus-defined 'the majority', has ceased to be 'singapore'.

They lost out. And now we all lose out. They ended up not being more than they are, and the rest are less than they are as a result. The problem with 'Chinese' culture, as it has been a product of a one-way system since 221 b.c., is that those who practice it never fare as well in the face of something new as those from less 'one-way' cultures like that of the Brits or the Indians. They are also pretty bad when it comes to criticising themselves as a culture and people. That is why, for instance, they keep banging on about problems whilst their own 'one way' perspectives practiced in every arena in life maintains it.

I say, shove the 'mother tongue' and 'be proud of your race' bullshit where you have the opportunity to be the best of all that is found in your homeground, and then go on to use the more vibrant mind that results to get the best of all cultures from all corners of the planet. That, dei, produces, at the end of day, the best of all cultures. Part of my personality is a tiny fragment of that potential. If only the rest of the singaporeans practiced it, I would be smarter. After all, there's not much input you can get from those who think otherwise. Thus, i'm not as smart as I could be. But then again, that doesn't stop me from learning from those of other climes, just as i'd learnt from the more true Singaporean chinese, malays, peranakans, indians, amongst others in Singapore-past.

[*‘Oi idiot’. Though no Indian to-date, from Singapore or India, has been able to confirm the meaning of ‘baderwa’ with myself, i take it as ‘idiot’ since it is generally used in such a context)

The above is a compilation of conversations i’ve had with Singaporeans since the late 80s, and with especially the Indians. It would generally go this far when speaking with the Indians of the past, but generally stops one-third of the way when its with the chinese who tend to just drop the topic.]

ed

Racist 'Singapore' Blog Awards

2010-05-24T19:39:00.009+01:00

[the following is an excerpt from an article published in the year 2009, entitled, Rated-I Awards.]

The singapore blog awards presents gross deficiencies such as its reliance on ‘hits’; a panel consisting solely of Chinese persons; being presented as a Chinese event on the main website; and the standards used to judge the quality of blogs being based solely on a criteria of quality emerging post-marginalisation of difference and cultures not practiced by a majority defined on the basis of race and associated culture – all of which basically promotes the notion, ‘if you aren’t thinking it the Chinese way, you’re in the way.’ Quite culturally introverted and self-absorbed of its initiators and participants don't you think.

The validity of such an award is based on the best that can be identified after the imposition of a singular system of thought and thoughtlessness in the general socio-economic-political milieu over 3 decades. Hence, besides all the winners of, for instance, their ‘insightful’ category being fascist and non-insightful for not noticing this, albeit unwitting, it perpetuates the fallacious notion amongst the ‘majority’ that they are on the right and maximal intellectual and perspectival path. Additionally, the fact that it was simultaneously presented as a chinese event under the guise of bilingualism, and a 'singaporean' event as illustrated by 'Singapore Blog Awards'. In this, we can recognise yet another effort to associate 'singaporean' with 'chinese' and exclude all difference in typically fascist fashion. Of course, given the fascist nature of most singaporean 'democrats' and bloggers, it is not surprising that none of the winners of the said awards, amongst almost all other singaporean political observers, appreciated this point.

Hence, it can very plausibly be argued that the 'SgBlogAwards' are little more than an effort to identify 'insight' in a successfully post-fascist state that simultaneously sets these diminutive standards as the one worthy of conformity for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. In that, these 'winners' can be likened to the Hitler, or more accurately, 'Confucian', jugend whom are there to set the perspectival standards of the nation as the cream of the fascist crop.

I would call upon all bloggers to display the blog button above as a show of support for an egalitarian version of a truly 'Singaporean' blog awards, and till then, to boycott the current exclusionist version. This is not a favour for those whom are not represented through the presentation and approach by 'S'pore Blog Awards', but your duty.

I've often stated that the people in singapore are grossly racist, or most accustomed to 1st/2nd class citizenship, not necessarily by what they say or do, but what they fail to say or do when it ought to be said and done. I sincerely hope that this initiative garners enough support so that it would go some way in enabling such an assumption to be deemed nothing but a discountable stereotype - well, that's the way they'd do it in the UK anyway.

Perhaps some might choose to hide behind the defence that singapore isn't the UK, but right is right whatever point it is located on the compass. In support, we would be indicating that we aren't 'Chinese', 'Malay', 'Indian', 'Others', 'Klingons', but SINGAPOREAN. And that without equal representation, we can claim to be anything but 'singaporean'.

according2,

ed

Move over JBJ, it's time for 'ed'

2010-01-05T17:10:00.004Z

There is only one thing that I learnt from JBJ, who will always have my respect, and that is, the significance of the individual in attempting to see beyond what is being promoted via the prominent, powerful, and popular. Even where many ignored him, and I couldn’t help noticing that the Chinese attending a Chinese martial arts performance at a well-lit stage a placard’s throw away significantly outnumbered those attending a memorial candlelight vigil for JBJ at a hardly-lit ‘Speakers Corner’, he still plodded on.

Unfortunately, the people, on both sides of the illusory divide between the proposition and 'opposition', well-practiced in following the prominent or/and powerful, never appreciated this point,

...and to this day, they still abide by the Confucian notion of, ‘if you aren’t someone, then your ideas are not worthy of discussion or consideration.’. That is the problem with many activists, be they Chee or JBJ or their bevy of sheep. They fail to realise that whilst they are occupying the limelight amongst those whom are inclined to be mesmerised by the visual pitter patter of fairy lights, they are simultaneously devaluing the significance of the individual whom they hope to fight for. That is a paradoxical situation that generally arises within societies used to leaving politics in the hands of the politicians.

Hence, when you look at the ‘activists’ of today in singapore, they are most inclined to only discuss the ideas of the prominent, be they Obama, their own oppositional leaders, and those of the party they purport to oppose. But there is little equitable appreciation of each other. It seems that the formula by which one’s ideas might be given serious and popular consideration requires little more than the propensity to be burdened with government-initiated lawsuits, be seen to oppose, and be arrested for it. Originality of ideas, or true insight seems to have little to do with it as, I have to admit, none of the ideas of JBJ or Chee can be accused of it. They were just aping western methods and approaches for the realisation of democracy without appreciating how local conditions and culturally-induced biases had to be taken into account, and added steps taken to counter these. Not appreciating this led to them being undone by these oversights. It is all too easy to blame the authoritarianism of a government than to consider the impotence of one’s methods. Hence, people are still inclined to hero-worship Chee or JBJ as an unwitting and subconscious effort to relieve themselves from doubt-inducing introspection whilst absolving them and their respective cultures and perspectives from complicity.

In Chee’s reverential homage to JBJ, he presents him as one who constantly fought against apathy and indifference. Unfortunately, as JBJ and Chee, rarely, if ever, touched on cultural factors, all that one can say is that both put up the 'good' fight whilst indifferent to the cultural foundations and means upon and through which apathy and indifference is based and reinforced. The party in power, however, and unfortunately, did not make this mistake.

Hence, today, thanks to their oversights, activists are inclined to simply follow their leaders; not give as much consideration for each others’ ideas; view critique of the opposition as indicative of one’s support of the party in power; discuss ideas of the prominent; whilst embodying in practice and oversights, their ethnically and hierarchically ordered depreciation of reality which is nothing short of culturally and racially fascist. A wholly Confucian/Legalist paradigm seems to encapsulate and insulate the populace and singaporean ‘activists’ from that degree of empathy and appreciation of each other’s significance that is required to enhance their understanding of the essence of democracy. How does one attempt to promote that which one has little understanding of?

That is why the ‘opposition’ is, today, not truly a product of the insights of the past, but of its oversights. The significance of ‘ed’, in the context of the title and this observation, is not about the author, but of the significance of the individual which Confucian/Legalist cultures is by definition incapable of grasping. Whether people are on the side of the proposition or ‘opposition’, they always seem to engage from within the overarching paradigm instituted by Confucian governments. In that is their undoing, or in the best case, slows down democratic progress immensely whilst the redefinition of the idea of ‘progress’ is itself redefined via the socialisation of subsequent generations. The significance of ‘ed’ lies in the significance of every individual to see beyond the perspectival fashions of the day. That is, to question their leaders, to deem oneself worthy of going past these leaders in perspective, to appreciate revered icons not only in terms of their achievements, but also in terms of their oversights. In other words, not to live within the shadows of the giants of the past, but to realise that the ‘giants’ of the past and present appear as such on the basis of our ignorance as opposed to their aptitude. (Hence, my being able to produce perspectives appreciating the phenomena of democracy, indifference and apathy in consideration of local/foreign cultural factors that verifiably cuts deeper than the perspectives of Chee and JBJ put together.)

To ask JBJ to move over for ‘ed’ is to direct the local populace to appreciate the value of their own significance in building upon and past the giants of the past and present, and to focus on both their achievements and oversights so as to present the best challenge to the Confucian/Legalist/Orwellian milieu that can be afforded it by way of horizontal valuation – that is, the popular appreciation of each other and oneself as opposed to the reverence of leaders and those whom are more known for a resume of arrests as opposed to insight. That is the essential and only valuable message that is the stance and approach of JBJ. And it is only in replication of it that we honour his memory.

a2,

ed

Channel 4’s 'Race and Intelligence' feature – why 0.1% amounts to 101%

2009-10-15T10:00:00.006+01:00

In the run up to the impending appearance of the ultra-right honourable Nick Griffin on BBC’s ‘Question Time’, Channel 4 is getting in on the act with their John the Baptist by way of featuring two professors who believe that Black people are less intelligent than their pigmentationally-challenged sisters and brothers.

Read the full article from The Guardian without leaving this page by clicking here Show

Alright, let’s assume that one race is genetically endowed with greater intelligence than another. Now before we get into this debate, let me close it at this plane so that we can move on to the next with – if the firing pin is inferior to the rest of the gun by being less in number, does that mean that it cannot add significant value to the rest of the implement, and without which, the said implement can never attain maximal value?

So should we care if one race possesses 99.9% of human intelligence? Should not our focus be on what we are losing without the contribution of s/he who possesses that 0.1%. The value of intelligence cannot be reduced to the IQ aggregate of one population, but to the value that a singular cornerstone of foreign origins can add to an entire structure.

So now that that is settled, let’s move on to determining the conditions that we’ll have to bring about to eke out that 0.1% shall we? But, in the course of this, let’s also not forget that the most significant solution to that might lie amongst those whom possess that 0.1%, or in the very act of appreciating the significance of this point and living our lives accordingly.

according2,

ed