There were a few articles in the Sunday Times last week discussing the sensitive issue of Chinese identity in Singapore and in the region in general. One feature stands out glaringly from reading the comments in those articles and the comments by prominent Chinese, including intellectuals, is the lack of confidence and pride in being Chinese. They are afraid to express their views, particularly views that are pro China or Chinese Civilisation, they want to be known as Singaporeans not Chinese. They fear being seen as a Chinese. They fear they would not be accepted by other races for being Chinese as if being Chinese is a disease, maybe even killed like in some parts of SE Asia in the recent past.
It is understandable that after nearly two centuries of living under the western world order, reading anti Chinese literature and distorted news, when China and Chinese were demonised, smeared and bad mouthed as bad, poor, untrustworthy and everything negative, that even the Chinese, including supposingly thinking Chinese, highly educated and highly regarded Chinese, are still living under this western evil spell that Chinese are lesser and undesirable beans. To be Chinese is bad and inferior and better not to be identified, or to stand out as a loser Chinese. Just bend your head and go about your life, not as a Chinese, never call yourself a Chinese.
The instinctive negative bias against China and Chinese can be read in the article by Tee Zhou actually should read Zhou Tee, but he chose to write his name dismissively under the western structure though he is Chinese, titled 'Chinese influence : A political business'. I am quite sure his family name is Zhou and not Tee. I stand corrected. Zhou is a common Chinese surname. Tee is rare.
The article started with these few paragraphs, "Concerns over Chinese influence in Singapore have surfaced from time to time, most recently in a report published in July by United States think tank The Jamestown Foundation.
The report, written by Global Taiwan Institute executive director Russell Hsiao, asserted that the Chinese Communist Party was using Chinese associations here to influence Chinese Singaporeans.
In June last year, retired Singapore diplomat Bilahari Kausikan had also warned of China's covert 'influence operations', and asked Singaporeans to be wary of being manipulated."
The underwritten mindset in the above comments is that China and Chinese are bad, their influence is bad, they are the ones that are conducting covert influence, the rest of the big powers are good and are not conducting covert influence in Singapore, not on the people, not on the govt. The starting point is so bias and one sided, China and Chinese are the bad guys doing the bad things. And Chinese of other nationalities should hide their Chineseness, don't talk about it, pretend to be different, better speak up against China and Chinese like you are non Chinese.
Not all Chinese leaders and intellectuals with some dignity left in them are going to accept this kind of nonsense in silence especially those in the Chinese media and those in the Chinese clans and associations. Lim Jim Koon, former editor of Lianhe Zaobao was quoted saying this, "We cannot stop others from viewing us through tinted lenses or a distorted mirror, deliberately manipulating public perception and causing misunderstandings about the Chinese community in Singapore, especially to those less familiar,"
The article went on to quote some ethnic overseas Chinese academics and with one describing that raising the Chinese identity to a higher profile is unfortunate. Why is this unfortunate? Why is being proud of one's civilisation and success seen as unfortunate while glorifying and adoring the success of other civilisations as second nature, as a good thing? Inferiority complex?
The 100 years of humiliation and oppression of the Chinese Civilisation is over. China and the Chinese Civilisation have regained their positions as respectable country and people of the world. There is no more the need to feel ashame of being Chinese and of China as a poor and downtrodden country. This is the time to stand up, whether you are a China Chinese or the Chinese diaspora in other parts of the world, to walk proudly as equals of the rest of the world. The days of bending your heads low, talked softly and go about meekly as a defeated and bankrupt Civilisation is passe.
There is no need to apologise for being a Chinese and the growing influence of China and the Chinese Civilisation in Singapore and across the world. It is a natural thing that great and successful powers would have influence over other countries. And the influence of China and the Chinese Civilisation is not necessarily bad and in many cases are good, very good indeed. Look at what is happening in Central Asia and Africa and even Latin America? Compare to what happened to them when they were colonised by the evil West that the unthinking bananas chose to admire blindly.
If China and Chinese influence are bad, Singapore and the rest of the world should not be doing business with China. Why are the rest of the world rushing into China? Why is the Singapore govt gloating about good relations with China and wanting to do more business with China if China is a devil?
On the contrary, look at the behaviour of Australia, a white regime that stole a continent in Asia. They would not disguise where their sentiments and loyalty are. They are whites and would side with the white countries and would consistently choose to regard China as their enemy for the simple reason that it is China and not white. They did not have to be ashamed of themselves for identifying themselves as whites. Why should the Chinese diaspora be so ashamed of themselves as Chinese, afraid to be known as Chinese even in a Chinese majority Singapore? Where is the pride and dignity of being what you are as a people?
Do not be an apologist to say that Singapore is in a dilemma because it has a majority Chinese population and cannot choose to be friendly with China and less friendly to the Americans. It is about national interest. What is good to our national interest?
One professor Leo Suryadinata commented in the article, "...PM Lee is "fully aware" of recent developments on the issue of Chinese influence. In order to resist foreign influence, Singaporeans have to strengthen our own national identity. If we are weak or have no national identity, it is impossible for us to defend our national interest," he says, adding that this could be the "underlying message" behind PM Lee's remarks at the Rally."
Reading between the lines, the so called 'foreign influence' is bad and who is the country behind this foreign influence? I take issues with this kind of banana thinking, China and Chinese bad, western influence good, coming from an ethnic Chinese. It is disgraceful.
By the way, what is our identity? At best it is a chap cheng identity and getting worse with more third world wildlife becoming citizens to dilute our already 'no identity' identity. Our present identity is that of a rootless people with no culture and history but accepting and apeing the West as our root and culture. The only thing that these rootless people are proud of is the colonial heritage and their colonial masters. We do not know who we are, refuse to know who we are, especially the bananas who think their ancestors are white and Chinese are bad. Obviously they did not have a mirror in their homes. Sad isn't it?
There is no shame to be Chinese. There is no fear to be Chinese be it overseas Chinese, born out of China and taken different nationalities. A Chinese is just a tribe, an ethnic identity, a Civilisation, not necessary a national identity for the Chinese diaspora. A Chinese is a Chinese wherever you are. Be proud being a Chinese.
PS. Is Singapore's anti China mindset prevalent in the govt? If so, is this due to American pressure and influence or is it second nature to those in govt, to be anti China? Are those in Singapore govt inherently anti China and the gloating of good relations with China just hypocritical?
Did Trump ask our leaders for quid pro quo or else, or like George Bush Jr said, you are with us or against us, no pressure, no interference on our govt? Or is it that we quai quai say, just tell us what to do, if you want us to be enemy of China we will?
10/19/2019
One sided biased western views of things
Global condemnation of mounting threats in the South China Sea by Kazi Mahmood. Below are a few paragraphs from this mischievous one sided anti China article written by a pro western reporter. Notice how biased and slanted the words were chosen and used to discredit China?
It first claimed that Chinese ship entered into Vietnamese territory. Then in the same mouthful it said it was disputed territory. And the distance from Vietnamese shore was 56 miles. So this is fuelling tension and risking conflict.
What about American and western warships, not a civilian giant crane ship, entering Chinese waters with the Americans entering the 12 nautical miles territorial waters? Not provocative, not fuelling tension, not risking wars and no condemnation from the European warmongers? Look at the similarities and difference in the Chinese crane ship and those of American and European warships in Chinese EEZ and territorial waters. Why only condemn China and not the Americans and their cronies?
The Haiyang Dizhi 8 vessel first entered Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) early July, where it began a week-long seismic survey, says the South China Morning Post.
This triggered a tense stand-off between military and coastguard vessels from Vietnam and China.
The Lan Jing which came 90km (56 miles) from the Vietnamese coastline further fuelled the risk of a maritime confrontation between Vietnam and China.
In a repeat of the July stand-off, regional and international leaders and observers were quick to respond to the presence of the Chinese vessels in Vietnamese waters.
From Brussels, the European Union condemned China’s actions. A spokesperson says, “Unilateral actions during the past weeks in the South China Sea have resulted in mounting tensions and a deterioration of the maritime security environment which represents a serious threat to the peaceful economic development of the region.' Yahoo News
10/18/2019
Descendants of convicts spreading lies about China
Sky News host Andrew Bolt says “the war has already started” with China,
while Australia has “politicians who seem stunningly blind to the
danger.”
In his talk show, this descendant of convicts claimed that China has stolen the South China Sea. Stolen the South China Sea from who? His twisted logic is understandable given his bad DNAs. You can’t expect descendants of convicts to tell the truth, to know the difference between truth and lies. They will lie even through the skin of their teeth. The islands in South China Sea were uninhabited islands and the Chinese have founded them many centuries ago under the principle of finders keepers. China did not steal the islands from anyone. Every littoral states of the South China Seas are claiming islands as their own.
What this son of convicts has conveniently forgotten is that their forefathers have stolen the continent of Australia from the original natives of Australia whom they called aborigines and ill treated them, abused them and treated them as sub human species. They were not the original people of Australia. Australia has its original people. But they came and they stole and they refused to talk about it, refused to admit it, refused to look at the mirror to see the real thieves.
The white Australians, like the white Americans, the white New Zealanders, stole the land of the natives of the respective countries and claimed them as their own. And they got the cheek to accuse China of stealing the islands in the South China Sea. This is the white lie they are spreading to the English speaking world, with many ignorant of history and unthinkingly accepting this twisted and distorted truth. And this Andrew Bolt spoke about it with eyes wide and unblinking believing that he was telling the truth.
Please go and ask your ancestors who stole Australia from the aborigines! As for the unthinking white bananas, please check your history and don’t accept this white lie blindly.
In his talk show, this descendant of convicts claimed that China has stolen the South China Sea. Stolen the South China Sea from who? His twisted logic is understandable given his bad DNAs. You can’t expect descendants of convicts to tell the truth, to know the difference between truth and lies. They will lie even through the skin of their teeth. The islands in South China Sea were uninhabited islands and the Chinese have founded them many centuries ago under the principle of finders keepers. China did not steal the islands from anyone. Every littoral states of the South China Seas are claiming islands as their own.
What this son of convicts has conveniently forgotten is that their forefathers have stolen the continent of Australia from the original natives of Australia whom they called aborigines and ill treated them, abused them and treated them as sub human species. They were not the original people of Australia. Australia has its original people. But they came and they stole and they refused to talk about it, refused to admit it, refused to look at the mirror to see the real thieves.
The white Australians, like the white Americans, the white New Zealanders, stole the land of the natives of the respective countries and claimed them as their own. And they got the cheek to accuse China of stealing the islands in the South China Sea. This is the white lie they are spreading to the English speaking world, with many ignorant of history and unthinkingly accepting this twisted and distorted truth. And this Andrew Bolt spoke about it with eyes wide and unblinking believing that he was telling the truth.
Please go and ask your ancestors who stole Australia from the aborigines! As for the unthinking white bananas, please check your history and don’t accept this white lie blindly.
10/17/2019
The perfect time proven strategies for raising transport fare
Yes there is going to be another transport fare hike, a maximum allowable under the official formula and all the brilliant reasons to support this hike. To me, all the hikes experienced so far are textbook formulas that are applicable only in this island. I have done many years of research on this matter and have crystallised the thinking and methodology behind transport fare hikes. The strategies are also applicable to other industries and services with a bit to tweaks and twits here and there.
There are several basic formulas to use to justify and raise transport fare.
1. Tell the commuters that if they want good service they must be expected to pay more. This formula is useful during normal times when the system is running normally and there is no good reason to raise fare except to 'improve services', better service. Add a few tv monitors in the train cabins, add a few monitors to tell the arrival or departure times of trains or something like these, would be improving services that the commuters can see. Hurray, train services improving and deserving of fare hikes. Got free in train movies or actually ads and also can tell when train is coming or going though in a small town when there is hardly any difference between a 2 min or 3 min wait. Nobody dies waiting for a train that is late by a minute or two.
2. Another formula during normal time is to tell the commuters how many long years no pay hike so it is time for another hike. No other good reasons needed.
3. Another formula is to use operation cost, like higher pay or higher oil prices. Never mind if the fares are not reduced when oil prices hit rock bottom. Just explained that oil prices have little effect on operating cost, or say the electricity is generated from using gas. But when oil price is up, just use it as a reason for higher operating cost, maybe tell the commuters that since oil price is up, it is good to use oil and thus affecting operating cost.
4. A more tricky formula is to hit a bad patch like daily breakdowns and disruptions, many times a day, over many places until travelling by train is affected, when train services are unreliable, when trains have to travel below the recommended or normal speed. Let the people experienced what is bad service.
Then put in furious work, buy more new equipment to return train to normal operation, travelling at normal speed and claim that it is an improvement, big improvement in service, nevermind if everything is just back to normal. This back to normal operation can be touted as improvement and thus justify transport fare hikes. Brilliant isn't it?
5. One more formula is to tell the commuters that you are hiring the best talents and paying them top dollars, in the millions to provide good services. So there is an obvious reason to raise transport fares or else unable to attract top talents for the jobs, even if the job is basically system maintenance not rocket science.
Caveat, apply these strategies and formulas in other countries at your own risk. These are uniquely Singaporean strategies that only work in our special environment and conditions.
There are several basic formulas to use to justify and raise transport fare.
1. Tell the commuters that if they want good service they must be expected to pay more. This formula is useful during normal times when the system is running normally and there is no good reason to raise fare except to 'improve services', better service. Add a few tv monitors in the train cabins, add a few monitors to tell the arrival or departure times of trains or something like these, would be improving services that the commuters can see. Hurray, train services improving and deserving of fare hikes. Got free in train movies or actually ads and also can tell when train is coming or going though in a small town when there is hardly any difference between a 2 min or 3 min wait. Nobody dies waiting for a train that is late by a minute or two.
2. Another formula during normal time is to tell the commuters how many long years no pay hike so it is time for another hike. No other good reasons needed.
3. Another formula is to use operation cost, like higher pay or higher oil prices. Never mind if the fares are not reduced when oil prices hit rock bottom. Just explained that oil prices have little effect on operating cost, or say the electricity is generated from using gas. But when oil price is up, just use it as a reason for higher operating cost, maybe tell the commuters that since oil price is up, it is good to use oil and thus affecting operating cost.
4. A more tricky formula is to hit a bad patch like daily breakdowns and disruptions, many times a day, over many places until travelling by train is affected, when train services are unreliable, when trains have to travel below the recommended or normal speed. Let the people experienced what is bad service.
Then put in furious work, buy more new equipment to return train to normal operation, travelling at normal speed and claim that it is an improvement, big improvement in service, nevermind if everything is just back to normal. This back to normal operation can be touted as improvement and thus justify transport fare hikes. Brilliant isn't it?
5. One more formula is to tell the commuters that you are hiring the best talents and paying them top dollars, in the millions to provide good services. So there is an obvious reason to raise transport fares or else unable to attract top talents for the jobs, even if the job is basically system maintenance not rocket science.
Caveat, apply these strategies and formulas in other countries at your own risk. These are uniquely Singaporean strategies that only work in our special environment and conditions.
10/16/2019
The real Chua Mui Hoong
Opinion editor of ST, Chua Mui Hoong, has for many years been on the
receiving ends of brickbats defending the PAP in her opinion pieces in
the ST. Many unkind words were used against her and her tribes in the
organization with scant reservation.
Han Fook Kwang too was not spared though in the last few years he has taken a bolder front in criticizing and sharing contrarian views against govt policies and positions. In his retiring years, the restraints placed on him when he was the chief editor have seemed to be loosening and it is time to say what he really wanted to say for so long.
Chua Mui Hoong, though much younger and still far away from retiring, has finally taken a stand and stood up in defence of Alfian Sa’at, our local poet when the latter was attacked by Ong Ye Kung. This was what Chua Mui Hoong wrote in the Sunday Times, ‘I was disturbed by the way Education Minister Ong Ye Kung cited a few lines from Alfian Sa’at’s poetry to pain him as someone who might be disloyal to Singapore.’ She went on further to say this, ‘the 4G is a chip off the old block. Inheriting the same political DNA as the first three generations of PAP leaders, it is now merely showing its true colours. Online, some commenters drew this conclusion, citing the use of tactics of name-calling, character assassination and adhominem attacks to label critics negatively. The 4G in this view is just new wine in old bottles, and Singapore’s political development is as stymied as today as in the 1980s and 1990s.’
This is about the strongest statement someone from the establishment could say in print against a minister. This is the true Chua Mui Hoong, sharing the same feeling as Han Fook Kwang, Leslie Fong etc etc, that after so many years of being bottled up, it is time to let it go, establishment or not establishment.
The use of character assassination has been very effective in the past and many opposition candidates fell and suffered lifelong stigma with their life totally destroyed. Chee Soon Juan is one of the victims and till today, many unthinking still harboured this anti Chee Soon Juan trait and attacking him, hating him is second nature. The young of today and the bottled up old of yesterday could not and would not stomach such personal attacks any more.
New wine in old bottle is still new wine and those who have seen the history of Singapore’s politics, grew up with such abuses, have very little tolerance and deference to new wine to do the same. Time has changed and the personalities have changed. To be stymied and trying to live and behave like in the 1980s and 1990s by young upstart is very uncomfortable and difficult to bear.
A young shoot of revolution is sprouting not in the young but in the not so young, that the old, harsh and uncivil ways to deal with political opponents, all Singaporeans, all wanting to do good for Singapore, to smear them and call them names, is not only out of fashion but also out of context, out of time and character. For an opinion Editor like Chua Mui Hoong, still very young in life, to openly saying it out in defiance of the old ways is very telling. The revolt is coming from within. The new wine does not have the same hold on the old stalwarts of the establishment and the seniors at large. They don’t hold them in awe and in fear. They just don’t have it to be acting and behaving like the old guards, with nothing achieved and no authority to swagger around like untouchables.
There is a silent revolution in the making, led by the old wise of yesteryears that do not see much in the 4G that have nothing to show but acting as if they have arrived just by being put up there. Remember the tortoise sitting on top of a 20 foot pole? How did it got up there?
Would there be more Chua Mui Hoongs, more Tommy Kohs to rattle the status quo?
Han Fook Kwang too was not spared though in the last few years he has taken a bolder front in criticizing and sharing contrarian views against govt policies and positions. In his retiring years, the restraints placed on him when he was the chief editor have seemed to be loosening and it is time to say what he really wanted to say for so long.
Chua Mui Hoong, though much younger and still far away from retiring, has finally taken a stand and stood up in defence of Alfian Sa’at, our local poet when the latter was attacked by Ong Ye Kung. This was what Chua Mui Hoong wrote in the Sunday Times, ‘I was disturbed by the way Education Minister Ong Ye Kung cited a few lines from Alfian Sa’at’s poetry to pain him as someone who might be disloyal to Singapore.’ She went on further to say this, ‘the 4G is a chip off the old block. Inheriting the same political DNA as the first three generations of PAP leaders, it is now merely showing its true colours. Online, some commenters drew this conclusion, citing the use of tactics of name-calling, character assassination and adhominem attacks to label critics negatively. The 4G in this view is just new wine in old bottles, and Singapore’s political development is as stymied as today as in the 1980s and 1990s.’
This is about the strongest statement someone from the establishment could say in print against a minister. This is the true Chua Mui Hoong, sharing the same feeling as Han Fook Kwang, Leslie Fong etc etc, that after so many years of being bottled up, it is time to let it go, establishment or not establishment.
The use of character assassination has been very effective in the past and many opposition candidates fell and suffered lifelong stigma with their life totally destroyed. Chee Soon Juan is one of the victims and till today, many unthinking still harboured this anti Chee Soon Juan trait and attacking him, hating him is second nature. The young of today and the bottled up old of yesterday could not and would not stomach such personal attacks any more.
New wine in old bottle is still new wine and those who have seen the history of Singapore’s politics, grew up with such abuses, have very little tolerance and deference to new wine to do the same. Time has changed and the personalities have changed. To be stymied and trying to live and behave like in the 1980s and 1990s by young upstart is very uncomfortable and difficult to bear.
A young shoot of revolution is sprouting not in the young but in the not so young, that the old, harsh and uncivil ways to deal with political opponents, all Singaporeans, all wanting to do good for Singapore, to smear them and call them names, is not only out of fashion but also out of context, out of time and character. For an opinion Editor like Chua Mui Hoong, still very young in life, to openly saying it out in defiance of the old ways is very telling. The revolt is coming from within. The new wine does not have the same hold on the old stalwarts of the establishment and the seniors at large. They don’t hold them in awe and in fear. They just don’t have it to be acting and behaving like the old guards, with nothing achieved and no authority to swagger around like untouchables.
There is a silent revolution in the making, led by the old wise of yesteryears that do not see much in the 4G that have nothing to show but acting as if they have arrived just by being put up there. Remember the tortoise sitting on top of a 20 foot pole? How did it got up there?
Would there be more Chua Mui Hoongs, more Tommy Kohs to rattle the status quo?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)