My National Conversation Thread

I seriously want to engage seriously in the National Conversation, either here or wherever that is fitting for such a conversation. I have only one caveat. Would anyone want to pay me for doing so? Time is money, effort cost money, and one cannot really do justice in a National Conversation without putting in serious time and serious effort which don’t come free.

It would really be nice, very nice, to engage in a National Conversation, for a month or two, I could dedicate the whole blog to it, if I am paid to conduct the conversation. I will really enjoy conversing with anyone on anything national, with pay of course.

They say talk is cheap. But National Conversation cannot be cheap right. How nice, being paid just to conduct a conversation here.

The new transparency game rule

After all the cry father and cry mother about not being transparent, there are positive signs that transparency is the new game in town. And some elite of the society have started the ball rolling, starting with the public airing of medical reports and diagnosis of client’s condition.

We have a case of a client’s mental condition being read out in the media. And as the nature of the condition was so life threatening, I presume, that the recommendation to put the client behind the doors of a mental institution also became public knowledge, with a public warning to act against the client/patient. I am not sure if I am comfortable with this kind of transparency, but transparency it is. And the public now are deserving to know the details of client’s medical condition if deemed fit by the doctors. At what point would a doctor openly make his findings public is not specified in details yet. But patients must now be prepared for laundry washing at the prerogative of the professionals they are seeking help.

Then we have this old man telling his MP how racist he was, his thinking and attitude. Of course it is always good for the public to know that such racist odd balls are living among us and to be guarded of their twisted views. People with such tendencies are bad and should be sent to the psychiatrist for an assessment and tested for suitability to become permanent residents in Woodbridge. It is not just quipping about their idiosyncrasies and thinks nothing of it. Follow up measures must be taken to keep the problem under the lid. I just hope that this guy did not have bipolar sickness or other psychiatric problems. If he does, better to put him away for good.

Then there was a couple who wanted their MP to tell lies. How thoughtless and unreasonable people can be and demanding an MP to tell lies. Got shadow or not? 有影别？There seems to be a new level of transparency in the profession of MPs as long as no names are mentioned. No one will know who the party was and no one will be wiser. 

This kind of transparency practice is good. It is a good start. The people can now expect to see more and more transparency in all fields of activities. The bloggers also must discard their anonymity, those anti establishment and those insurgents planted to discredit bloggers as well. It must be both ways right? Cannot be transparent for some and not transparent for some.

There must also be some caveats to this road to more openness. Conversations that would be otherwise confidential and could now be divulged would need cautionary notes pasted at the door so that people understand the new rule before entering to confide with another party. Me thinks of confession to the fatherly figure and whether it is also applicable to this new transparent norm. And there are certain things that no matter how, cannot be transparent. Things like construction cost of public flats as these could fall under the category of national secrets. The people should understand what can be transparent and what cannot be transparent, particularly things relating to money matters.

Other than these exceptions, let’s all be more transparent, like wearing transparent clothes.

Asean farting nonsense

Asean lately is preoccupied with its quarrel with China, and the main issues stated are freedom of sea navigation, territorial dispute and Asean’s unity. Let me just deal with the strawman within Asean, its unity as a regional bloc of countries trying to present a single view or position to other blocs or big countries.

The differences within the Asean bloc of countries need no further clarification, from social, political, economic and religious angles, Asean countries are like oil and water. For Asean countries to come together, the glue is at best the lowest common denominator. The only area that Asean could ever think of gelling together as one in a lose way is economic cooperation. Politically, with the entry of Vietnam, another ambitious regional power, the level of complexities increases by leaps and bounds.

Vietnam and the Philippines have territorial claims with China and their willingness to drag in the Americans will only raise the temperature and tension in the region. It is increasing daily with the Americans fanning the fire and waiting to make the most out of this regional dispute. Asean unity is now in the frying pan. Can Asean countries afford to take sides as a united bloc on such national and territorial issues? Fat hope. But some Asean countries seem to differ and wanted Asean to be united as one in its negotiation and claims against Chinese territories. Only foolish govt will think that the Chinese will allow their territories to be taken from them because some jokers decided to make a claim for it. The Filipino mentality of claims did not fade away with the Marcos. And they really think that with the American gunboats behind them they could succeed. The same kind of thinking applies to Vietnam. China will go to war with the US if its territorial sovereignty is challenged. They are tolerating the Japanese to maintain good relations, but some Japanese are seeing this as a weakness to be exploited. Think of the eventualities if there is a war between China and Japan today?

The most silly issue Asean is farting around is freedom of navigation. This is an issue that has never been an issue until the Philippines and Vietnamese started to harass and arrest Chinese ships. Funny isn’t it? The trouble makers are pointing the fingers at the Chinese. But when the real devil has its fingers in the region, tension will rise and non existence conflict will simply flare up.

The real threat to freedom of navigation at one time was the Malacca and Sunda Straits. But with regime changed, pragmatism and common sense prevail and the two waterways are now free for ships to cross as international highways.

What about east Africa? Is there a problem that threatens freedom of navigation? Why is there a problem and the Empire with all its resources is unable to quell it? Why are the 6th or 7th Fleets of the world’s most powerful navy not there to clear the waterway to ensure freedom of navigation? Where is Hillary? Still cooking her soup in the kitchen?

There is a clear and present danger, and threats to freedom of navigation in the east African sea. Instead of defending the freedom of navigation there, the Americans are harping up a threat in South China Sea when there was none except when the Vietnamese and the Filipinos start to behave like pirates. And Asean, as usual, have to act on someone else’s agenda, acting on an imaginery threat that is non existence before. And they are blowing hot and cold, from Manila, Jakarta, Singapore, Hanoi to Beijing. The ill wind actually came from across the Pacific Ocean in the guise of peace and stability, and the hegemonic umbrella of the Empire. So Asean now has a monster to fight and the Asean countries are having sleepless nights, sharing the same bed and the same nightmare. The threat of freedom to navigation is as real as they make it and want to believe it in, or as spun by the Empire.

Asean can go on farting and act important. It is as good as NATO in credibility in forming a united front against any super power. Its agenda in the annual Asean Summit Meeting has been hijacked unceremoniously without it knowing what has happened.

What constitutes a racist word

Lately the word keleng has appeared more often than usual and quoted as a racist term used by the non Indians on the Indians. The Indians have also often been called mama or mamak, also seen as racist by some Indians. Are these words really racist in intent? What were their origins? Actually I don’t know. Some relate the word keleng to Kling, a battery of Indian soldiers during the colonial days. Today I heard it was from the word Kilinga or Kaligina, an Indian warrior tribe, which cannot be derogatory. I could still remember a long long time ago when I heard my mother referred to the Indians as kelengna. And when she used the word, there was not the faintest trace of racism or dismissal. It was just a word to call the Indians by the illiterate.

Many tend to forget that the early immigrants here were mainly from the uneducated peasant class who knew of very few things and words. They just adopted and made use of whatever words in their limited vocabulary to get by their daily lives. And in those days, people were simply hungry and had no time for anything but just to work and sleep. Racism was not in the mind of hungry migrants. It is not a luxury of the pseudo affluence or nouveau riche.

Just like the word mama or mamak. It was just picked up in the pasar by the non Indians without even knowing what it meant, a convenience of ignorance. Fortunately when I later found out, it was meant to be uncle in Indian. But the illiterate and unschooled would not know and would not know if it is intended to be racist. And it is unbelieveable that some Indians took offence for being called mama or mamak. I hope some can enlighten on this perception.

I used to call the Hongkongers Hongkie for convenience. But Hongkie was used by many with a tinge of insult. I used it for convenience just like I substitute Singaporeans, a tongue twister to Sinkie, sometimes with full innocence, sometimes with a tinge of mischief.

You are so cheena. Now that word is used in the right sense, not very friendly. The word China was traced to all kinds of origins by apologetic scholars not to offend the Chinese, linking to Chin Dynasty and some other craps. But it was used by the Brits to insult the Chinese as a people as breakable as clay. And since they wrote the maps, they conveniently used it, China for a country that the Chinese used to call Zhongquo or by dynastic names, never China. China was never a Chinese word except used by the Brits to describe a kind of porcelain. Likewise India was likely to be a British creation like they called the American natives Red Indians. Some said the word Indian is derogatory too. Of course the same apologetic scholars will link it to something like the Indus River or something like that.

Many words were created or used by users without knowing what they originally meant. But to the receivers, depending on how sensitive or highly sensitive they are, they can be offended and think that it is an insult or racism. Hongkie is in a way less naughty than chinky or chink. Chink or chinky will definitely fall clearly to the derogatory category and more so than Keleng or mama or mamak.

How many Chinese are called PRC chink or Sinkie chink and just ignored it without screaming racism? Many a time, such words were uttered by an individual against another, and yes, sometimes with racist bias. A laundry tag is racist mind you, if one understands its origin and the context when it is used. The Brits have a lot of racist terms incorporated into their dictionary as acceptable usage but really racist in origin and intent. Yellow culture, yellow press and turning yellow are their racist terms for anything Chinese. But many banana Chinese are using these terms happily without knowing why.

So, what is a racist word will depend partly on how racist a person is, the user and the target. Sensible people would not relate every word said to racism. Often it may be due to ignorance or density.

The enlightenment of Tharman

Front page ST material. Tharman says, ‘Inclusive growth needs govt hand…Market forces will only widen S’pore’s wealth gap.’ Many of his colleagues could not see this. And it is refreshing and promising to see Tharman finally came to this realization, that market forces can not be counted on to take care of the people across the board. I hope this light of wisdom will spread to his equally brilliant and well meaning peers so that they can now find the answers to serving the people at the lower end of the economic strata, to tilt in favour of those with less.

‘Singapore’s social compact cannot be left to market forces because these will only widen disparities in wealth and income.’ Tharman added. Obviously they could not see anything like this in Lim Chong Yah’s shock therapy which is exactly about tilting in favour of those with less. Maybe Tharman could impress among them that what Lim Chong Yah said made sense. Let the light of his enlightenment embraces those that are a bit duller or a bit dense, and viola, the govt will bless the people with more people centric policies.

Tharman is now convinced of goodness of a more equitable society when wide income gap is not meant to be a necessary evil. Govt intervention can close the gap and there are four components to make it happened. ‘First, an activist govt focused on social mobility and on guarding against extremes of wealth and income.’ For Tharman to raise this point means that he has some misgivings about this, that there were lapses in this area. His second point about childhood education when some had a head start is valid only partially. The head start can only get them up to O level. Pass that the intellect embedded in the child will take over and no amount of head start can do much subsequently. But it is good that every child should have an equal footing to start with. His third point is individual effort and responsibility. Today wealth is gained by many by not working but sitting on inheritance in property. The rage of property prices is killing not only enterprise but draining the resources of the ordinary Sinkies through high cost of living. The fourth point about community initiative and activism is a bit wishy washy and is like those youthful idealism.

The crux of the matter is still his enlightenment, to finally realize that market forces have to be curbed and not be the master of the people’s economic well being. It is so difficult to understand this perplexed idea but good that he now knows. Please enlighten your dull and dense colleagues and Sinkieland could be a better place for the lower half of the population.

PS. Shit, I deleted this article at the same time.