On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:58:34 PM UTC, dosai prata wrote:
On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 1:53:24 PM UTC, dosai prata wrote:
On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7:36:54 AM UTC, dosai prata wrote:
On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 9:15:50 AM UTC, gera...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 8:35:39 AM UTC, dosai prata wrote:
On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 3:44:41 AM UTC, dosai prata wrote:
On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 1:40:07 PM UTC, gera...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:34:47 AM UTC, gerard jud wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 3:10:15 PM UTC, gerard jud wrote:
On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 8:05:00 AM UTC, gerard jud wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 11:30:52 PM UTC, rst9 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 8:57:53 PM UTC-8, wakal...@yahoo.com.sg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10:50:15 AM UTC+8, gera...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 3:49:14 AM UTC, wogw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 5:16:25 AM UTC, gerard jud wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2020 at 1:13:12 PM UTC, wogw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 9:51:16 AM UTC, gera...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 2:25:15 AM UTC, tregurn wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 2:53:55 PM UTC, rowcorp wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 2:06:04 AM UTC, rowcorp wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 7:37:16 AM UTC, indoopoorah wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:18:12 AM UTC, sinapurasamy wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 9:46:28 AM UTC, thiaw...@gmail.com wrote:
Singapore is a small island nation in South East Asia. About 700 sq. kms. in size with a multiracial population of about 75% Chinese and racial minorities of Malays, Indians and Others.
Before 1963, Singapore was a British colony. In 1963, under British arangement, Singapore and other British colonial territories of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak were joined together to form Malaysia. Singapore
left Malaysia, under mutual agreement, to become an independent nation in 1965.
Singapore will celebrate the 53rd anniversary of its Independence on the coming 9th Aug. What kind of a nation is Singapore today? This has evolved according to its basic strategy for survival. It has survied
by standing on the shoulders of giants. First, that of its colonial master the British. As the power and influence of Britain ebbed and those of the Americans rose, Singapore switched giant, from Britain to US. The switch was made easy by both the US and
Britain being English-speaking Western nations. After decades of standing on the shoulders of Britain and the US, despite being located in South East Asia with an Asian population, Singapore is thoroughly Westernised, more so than when it was a British
colony. The US has been increasing its power and influence in Singapore. Economically and militarily, Singapore is heavily dependent on the US. Its foreign relationship is conducted as an ally of the US. Its society has become Westernised in general,
Americanised in particular.
What about the substantial Chinese majority in Singapore? Do they not have any influence on their nation ? They have been marginalised due to two reasons.
1. Racial equality is espoused in the Constitution. The phrase "regardless of race, language or religion" is recited in the National Pledge and brandished about in official statements.
2. Singapore's run an English language-based meritocracy.
This means that it does not matter what your race is nor how good your command of your own mother tongue. Its your mastery of the English language that will determine how well you will do in life in Singapore.
As a result, most Singaporean Chinese have gone bananas, i.e., they have become yellow outside, white inside.
Another effect of the above racial policies is that the racial minorities have no respect for the Chinese majority. The Indians, especially, challenge the rule of the Chinese majority. They can excel in
Singapore without having anything to do with anything Chinese. They publicly proclaim that they would rather a White- than a Yellow-man slave be.
As China rises, will the influence of Chinese culture in Singapore increase? It depends on whether Singapore policy makers will switch giant from US to China. As India rises, it too would want to exert its
power on Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew, founder of modern Singapore and its first PM, had once mentioned that in future China and India would both compete for dominant influence over Singapore. Has that future arrived?
It started off with an ad.
https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=singapore+brown+face+ad&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiaz4SMo-PjAhXFlOYKHaLyADwQ_AUICigB&biw=960&bih=465&dpr=2#imgrc=3iYgSTIUgltPIM:
Some in the racial minorities considered the ad racist. A Malay make a police report against it.
“The controversial advertisement, which has since been modified to remove the offending material, portrayed Mediacorp actor and DJ Dennis Chew as multiple “characters” of different races in Singapore,
such as a Malay woman in a headscarf and an Indian man with darkened skin, a Chinese woman in a pink jacket and a Chinese man with a moustache in the advertisement.”
The reasons for the objections to the ad are wrong.
The one in the ad with the “darkened skin” is supposed to be an Indian (he wears a name tag with the Indian name K. Muthusamy)?And the one with a moustache is supposed to be Chinese?
Absurd. The one with a moustache should be the Indian because Indians are associated with a moustache. Must also look at the plate of food being held. The one with the moustache is holding a plate with Indian
roti prata with a side dish of curry. He should be Indian.
The mix-up is not surprising because the agency responsible for the ad is run by a someone with a Caucasian name. Probably not a Singaporean.
Dennis Chew is a Chinese with a skin color darker than the average Chinese. Look at images about him.
https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=dennis+chew&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVkqvyo-PjAhU27HMBHU-IDTsQ_AUICigB&biw=960&bih=465&dpr=2
Has his skin been darkened for the ad? It has been whitened for sure, to portray as a fair-skinned woman. But This is acceptable to the racial minorities.
Following this, an Indian woman and his brother hit back against the Chinese with a video rap so racist that it was criticised by Singapore’s ethnic Indian Minister of Home Affairs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAWLAKXawi0
https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/rap-video-by-local-youtube-star-preetipls-on-brownface-ad-crosses-the-line-not-acceptable
This prompted the release of a survey on racial relationships by the Institute of Policy Studies.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/racial-religious-harmony-improving-in-spore-study
Two main recurring conclusions – 1. racial minorities facing discrimination at jobs and 2. the country should be more racially diversified.
Whenever a member of a racial minority cannot get a job he/she wants, its blamed on racial discrimination. They don't only want jobs, they are only satisfied with top jobs, including being the Prime Minister of
Singapore.
When the racial minorities talk about racial diversity, it means their proportions in the population should be increased at the expense of the Chinese. They want the majority Chinese to become the racial
minority, like it is in the US, where the majority Whites is becoming the racial minority.
All these irrational protests over ads and the results of surveys over race show that anti-Chinese racisms are on the rise in Singapore.
There is an ad. In it there’s a Chinese male. He represents four different persons. A Chinese female, a Muslim female, a well-tanned male, attired as a professional, wearing a name batch bearing an Indian name.
That identified him as an Indian. What about the one with a moustache and curly hair? Is he supposed to represent ‘Others’?
Some from the racial minorities, especially the Indians, objected. Everyone involved has to apologise, the latest being the Chinese who is featured in the ad.
https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/i-feel-terrible-dennis-chew-apologises-e-pay-brownface-advertisement
What are the Indians objections about? A Chinese passing off as an Indian. They object to his ‘brown face’. Isn’t the objection racist? What about Chinese attired as Indians? Chinese women MPs have been
photographed together in Indian saris. During Deepavali, there are huge signboards showing Chinese MPs in Indian attires. Why no Indian objections to these?
What if the person in the ad has been a White? Would there be any objection? No, the Indians would feel honored.
The ad is not racist. The objection to the ad is. This is not a case of Chinese racism. It is a case of Indian anti-Chinese racism. The rap video by that pair of Indian siblings tells it all. This is becoming
more an issue in multi-racial Singapore as the proportion of Indians in the population increases. It is also a political fallout from the world situation. India is more now more favored by the US than China. Indian economy is on the rise.
Indians are racists. https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inothernews/indian-racism/.
Take a look at that onepeople.sg. Its supposed to work towards racial harmony and diversity. Its management committee is top heavy with Indians. Of the top 4 positions, three Indians, one Malay. No Chinese.
Blatantly racist.
https://www.india.com/business/air-india-announces-additional-flights-to-germany-toronto-singapore-booking-opens-on-july-13-4082174/
Is that right? The COVID-19 is exploding in India and Indians are flying into Singapore? Is this fair to Singaporeans who have to live with rigid mitigating measures against the disease?
Election Day is over, National Day is coming. Decorations for National Day are replacing election banners and posters.
Aug 9, 2020, will be another grand annual day when Singapore will celebrate its Independence. Reflecting the national trend over the past years, the island’s National Day celebration is becoming more Westernised.
Its past colonial master's language, English, will be used mostly throughout the celebration. The annual theme song will be in English, the language of which will also be most used in the National Day Parade. The
ethnic languages of its main racial groups in the population will hardly be heard. The nation will be reminded of the "founding" of Singapore by Brit colonialist Stamford Raffles, by depictions through various acts and plays.
The person who led Singapore to Independence, who was its first Prime Minister, who led the nation to modernisation and put Singapore on the world map, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), will not be mentioned. This is the fifth
year of his passing away. Hardly any reminder from the media. Hardly any Singaporean is aware of this. He is being forgotten while Stamford Raffles and lesser known people far, far back in history like Sang Nila Utama are being remembered. Statues have
been built for them on the bank of the Singapore River. None for LKY.
Singapore’s National Day is becoming more a reminder of its colonisation than its Independence.
Post-election analyses of the 2020 General Election.
There are numerous post-election analyses of the recently concluded 2020 General Election in Singapore. Two results of the election are popular topics. The PAP's drop of about 9% of votes from the last election and its
lost in Sengkang. The factors commonly taken into considerations are age, race, younger and more educated voters, government policies, incumbent treatment of the Opposition during the election campaign, etc..
About the 9% swing up and down between 2011, 2015 and 2020 elections. There are those who believe that the 2015 result was an aberration produced by nationalists sentiments of the 50th year of Independence and show of
compassion for the passing away of LKY. The credibility of this claim will be proved or disproved by the result of the next election.
What caused the lost of Sengkang? Its Dr. Balakrishnan. How is that possible? When he praised the WP candidate he was supposed to debate with, on TV. Many voters would take this as a stamp of quality and approval from
the PAP for the WP team. This, in a way, is a compliment to the PAP. It shows that PAP influence on the voters is still strong. It can easily sway voters either way, for or against it(unintentionally).
Western reporters blame the recent election result on elitism, exclusion and illiberal values of Singapore.
On the contrary, the characteristic change of Singapore over the years is its Westernisation marked by the growing influence and prevalence of Western values. Under the influence of Western values, Singaporeans,
especially the young, desire a liberal political system similar to those in the West; multi-party, with strong oppositions. Singapore adopted the British Parliamentary democratic system from its pass colonial master, Britain. Many former British colonies,
from Asia to Africa, do likewise. The same system has not worked well for many of them. How many young Singaporeans know about that? They have not suffered from the aberrations of the system. They have not experienced frequent changes of government,
short-lived government, nation in political gridlock, ugly fights in Parliament, military takeover of government, etc.. They do not realise that Singapore, due to its small size, is too fragile to experience such political disorder, even once.
For liberal democracy to work in Singapore, voters must have the intelligence to assess how capable a candidate is about running a multi-racial, multi-religious country the size of Singapore with its geography location
in the world. Handling local issues well is not sufficient.
https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/race-new-views-and-conversations-on-an-age-old-societal-divide
Singapore's vision of a multiracial society is enshrined in its national pledge: "One united people regardless of race, language, or religion."
A grand vision but unrealistic. Does not work in practice. In a Singapore food center, where people of all races and religions can mix and eat together, their used utensils and cutlery have to be collected separately, so
that those used by Muslims and non-Muslims are not mixed together. Doesn't that make a mockery of "One People"?
A forewarning for non-Muslims foreigners who are not familiar with Singapore. If you have food with pork, don't sit near a Malay-Muslim food-stall. If the stall owner is a male, he would approach you with a cleaver on
hand to chase you away.
The National Pledge has to change. Its more realistic to make Singaporeans pledge themselves as "A multi-racial people united as one nationality".
"Younger voters also signalled greater openness towards discussing race issues, in a way that generations before them would have considered taboo or polarising."
If that is the case, the election results should be analysed on a racial basis. For example, show the votes distributions based on race. There's not a single post-election analysis based on race. A good one would be how
votes for the four major races are distributed among the two main contenders PAP and WP. Then compare the distribution of this election with the one in 2015. They may tell a lot about how race affects votes, if at all.
”WP candidate and now Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan came under investigation after two police reports were made against her for Facebook posts in which she suggested that the authorities discriminated against minorities.
“
She is not being fair. In Singapore, non-Muslim majority faces worse discrimination. All Western fast food have become Muslim halal food. More and more food centers are going the way of halal.
"Her case drew the ire of younger voters who felt she was unfairly targeted."
Young voters of which race? I bet they are mostly from the racial minorities, especially Malay-Muslims.
"Meanwhile, in Jurong GRC, Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam's team won a thumping 75 per cent of the vote - the highest GRC vote share for the PAP this year - leading some to ask why the popular politician had not
been considered as a potential prime minister."
Jurong GRC is a PAP stronghold since its beginning. A best performance there is not a good basis to grade him for premiership. Would he have done well if he were to contest in Hougang, Sengkang or Aljunied? Maybe
something to find out in the next election.
"The issue of race in this GE even led to a police report being filed against Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat for remarks he made last year, that Singapore was not yet ready for a non-Chinese prime minister."
This show the DPM is not being held in high regard by some people. This incident will snowball. From an individual it will become a group action, like having an online petition. The pressure is mounting.
The interest for this issue is not only local but also international. One example. A quote from Bridget Welsh writing from Malaysia: “Entrenched political inequalities are ethnicised too as PAP leaders state openly
that Singapore is ‘not ready’ for a ‘non-Chinese’ leader."
Being in Malaysia, she should be more excited by the issue of the next PM of Malaysia, which is now an issue of great political intrigue. Whoever it may finally be, it will definitely not be a non-Malay. She should find
out why. It may help her understand more about the issue of having a non-Chinese leader in Singapore.
In Malaysia, even having a Chinese as Finance Minister is unacceptable to many Malays.
""But the notion of a hyphenated-Singaporean is increasingly seen as outmoded, especially for younger voters," he explains, referring to the country's longstanding Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others framework, which officially
classifies people according to their ethnicity."
Who says its outmoded? Its very much alive in the US.
"Singapore could aspire towards a "post-racialised" - rather than post-racial - society, says Dr Nazry."
"It means that we should not make race our primary identity marker that dictates the way policies and laws are made. It also means we must tackle racial discrimination."
In that case, why is he not objecting to what is happening to the food center and to Western fast food in Singapore?
"As PM Lee had said in his online rally, it would not be realistic to treat one another in a completely colour-blind way - what some Western academics term a "post-racial" society."
Race-blind, post-racial? The Americans have another name for it - melting pot. Is it working in the US?
After almost 250 years as an independent nation, the US still grapples with racial issues, which occasionally turn violent across the whole nation. This is a nation which prides itself in its ideal of a 'melting pot',
where people of all races would mix and melt into one identity. In reality, frictions from only the two major races of Black and White are generating so much heat that the pot itself is melting. Singapore has something to learn from this.
The news carried in SG national newspaper quite often carry a racial bias. Example this latest news about a crime.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/big-drama-in-little-india-as-four-men-bundle-ferrari-driver-into-another-car
Four men kidnapped a man from his car in full public view. It happen in the ethnic Indian-enclave of Singapore called little India.
The victim and his kidnappers have all been arrested. The race of the kidnapped man is indirectly revealed through his name. What about the race of the kidnappers? Why not release their names too?
The emphasis of the news article is on the kidnapped who is alleged to have cheated a woman of $350 through online scam. This is a small crime compared to ganging up to kidnap someone in full public view. Yet little is
said about the kidnappers. Why? Isn’t this a racial bias?
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/tangs-allows-all-frontliners-including-contractors-to-wear-religious-headgear-from-today
A work place is not for one to flaunt one’s religious belief. What if Christians wear their crosses prominently at work and insist on reciting their prayers before they would start work? And Hindus go to work in their
saffrons and puttus? And Buddhists go to work beating their wooden block and chanting their mantras?
Why pick on Tang? Go check on the foreign MNCs. Tell me how many of the Muslims females are wearing their headdresses there?
Its only in Singapore that these minorities insist on their religious ways and rights. There are many who, when they go to the West on long term, example for years of studies, would discard them. Muslim females will shed
their headdresses, Hindus will be without their dotted foreheads, Sikhs will have their hair cut and faces clean shaven. They will tell you it is in order to “fit it” with the society there. Why not in their Singapore too?
Singapore’s President Halimah should realise this. She is not the President for Muslim Singaporeans only. She is the President for all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. Why is she only dressed up as a
Muslim, regardless of the occasion? With the addition of a mask, she looks like a Japanese Ninja or worse, an Islamist terrorist.
In neighboring Malaysia, which has declared itself an Islamic nation, there are Muslim female officials who carry out their official duties in public without their Muslim headdresses. Why can’t President Halimah do it?
There are many other areas where it is more necessary to insist on the Islamic ways than the workplace. Take the case of sports. Muslim females have been ruled out of competitive sports because the sports wears would be
against Islamic rules. Even group activity like cheerleading would be out too, again because of the costumes. Why is there no Muslims concern about the lack of religious equality or about the ideals of diversity and inclusiveness in these areas? Its
because Muslim males are not ruled out in these areas. While the modesty of the Muslim females are preserved, their males can still get physically close to non-Muslims females who come immodestly dressed.
The Muslims in Singapore should learn to give and take. They cannot have it all their way. Already, Western fastfood in Singapore is Islamised which is very unfair to the Non-Muslims majority.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the economy is in bad shape and jobs are hard to come by. It is not surprising that Singaporeans are sensitive about the employment of foreigners in their country. This is happening in every
country, not only SG. While Singaporeans should have priority over foreigners over jobs, it should continue to remain open to talents from all over the world.
I agree with the PM that Singapore should always be open to the world. The trouble is that it is not seen to be fair and equal in this strategy. Under this broad strategy, it has signed an agreement like CECA with India. This
enables Indians to come to seek employment easily in SG. With how many other countries has it signed an agreement like CECA?
https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/viral-wefie-an-attempt-to-stir-up-issue-of-foreign-staff-in-banks
That picture may be fake but it does not mean that there is no validity in Singaporeans complain. What about showing the statistics on the racial profile of DBS foreign employees? Or display the group pictures of foreign
staffs in DBS branches? Let Singaporeans see how different they are from the one in India.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)