This article is an attempt to answer Simsplace.vox.com's question, "How can a booklet promoting inter-racial harmony claim to do so when it only illustrates 2 of the 4 local languages." which he put to me last night over a cup of cheap tea before we headed down to the pub.

It comes across as a Chinese state that is being magnanimous enough to include others.  In that, it does not contradict their promotion of ‘racial harmony’ but rather enhances it....if one was to take the present as the starting point of history that is.

 

But,

 

Let’s put it this way.  If I was to migrate, for instance, to Hong Kong, which has historically been a Chinese state, I am not going to take offence at not being represented in media broadcasts, in parliament, in various media, amongst a host of others.  I would try my best to survive given whatever opportunities that come my way or which is not perceived to a 'Chinese industry'.  And if I am given additional rights, I would be thankful whilst not seeking to have full equality in all forms of representation though I would still expect basic rights of citizenship.  So, for instance, if I don’t see members of ‘my’ ‘racial’ group being represented in ads, the television, etc, I wouldn’t really mind.  But this would not be my approach if I perceive this country as mine, or myself as equal to all in all respects, or where I equate 'majority' with 'nationality' and nothing besides. 

That is the essential difference between being perceived and perceiving oneself as a ‘minority of foreign origins’ even though one might have shared nationality, and the perception that you are a part of the majority by virtue of nationality despite origins.  If one perceives oneself in the former light, than most non-legal rights become ‘privilege’ and an illustration of the ‘magnanimity’ of the majority.  However, the inverse is true if you perceive yourself in the latter light.  In the case of the UK, the Asians moved from the first to the second and now may even, at times, be overrepresented in various parts of the social experience.  However, given that a significant number of the British population perceive themselves and each other as ‘British’, ‘race’ becomes less a formula for distinguishing one from another.  In this, the United Kingdom may be perceived as truly culturally magnanimous as they were originally a ‘white’ country which has included ‘others’ to the point that the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is generally perceived to refer to British nationals and foreigners.

In the local situation, one is detracted from the fact that Singapore moved from a Malay country; then to a multiracial one; and then to a Chinese one with the government stating that Singapore must always have a Chinese majority.  More than 3 decades have passed since this approach was taken and many non-Chinese locals have moved from seeing this as ‘Multiracial Singapore’, to ‘a country with a Chinese majority’, and then to ‘a Chinese country’ - as indicated in my personal conversations in the course of 30 years.

Moving 30 or so years into the present, when people are accustomed to this and view it as 'a Chinese country', the 'Chinese' can then move to 'include' the thus created 'others' or what I would term, 'citizens of foreign origin', and then come across as being magnanimous. In this, the 'others' are disabled from seeking those rights that people who deem the country to be theirs would - as, for instance, an Indian might in India. Anything that is given to them is hence perceived as a 'gift' as opposed to a 'right'.  I do recall my taking to task the now-defunct site, 'Singaporeans for Democracy'(sfd) for making their site available only in Mandarin and English.  Their response was, 'we cannot please everyone', and 'why do you think you deserve special  treatment', or something to that effect.  In that, we can detect the notion that I am elucidating upon here. 

When the country is perceived in such a manner, opposition by those who view themselves as 'others' is reduced and Singapore as a 'Chinese state’ is perpetuated as people who don't view this as their state, given a hierarchical definition of a nation along racial lines, will generally tend to make do with what they are given as opposed to seeking equality in non-legal rights - not unlike the varying expectations of a member of the family as opposed to a tenant. Cultural magnanimity under such conditions turns 'rights' into a 'privilege' or something 'minorities' ought to be 'grateful for' or wait a few decades for.

Whether it is intentional or not, the consequences are as I have stated. It is in this light that a Malay finally becoming a general, or the Indians finally getting their own channel, can be seen as a gift from a people whose country they are inhabiting.

It is a paradox whereby a Chinese state, by including 'others' in a 'secondary' way after the 'others' have been taught to see themselves as a 'minority', and moved from seeing Singapore as a country with 'a Chinese majority' to 'a Chinese country', can hence maintain itself as a Chinese state in perpetuity wherein 'minorities' will not seek for more than 2nd place in everything as do minorities in, for instance, China or Hong Kong.  This, of course, gives a whole other meaning to the term, 'meritocracy'.

A final point supporting this perspective is that in the past, Malay was given primacy in symbolic form given that Singapore was once largely inhabited by Malays and can be perceived as, originally, a Malay country. Now, in these examples, we are seeing Chinese characters being placed even above English. And we see such tendencies in manifesting itself in various forms online as evidenced in the 'sgblogawards.omy.sg' site, in singaporedaily.net's 'daily chiobu', in the Social Democratic Party placing options for viewing their site in different languages in respect of racial numerousness, or the Worker’s Party doing similarly on their banner.  It is a pervasive phenomenon indicating Singapore in transition.  

Amongst a host of other examples, the booklet above is the most significant example of this transition as it simultaneously does indeed promote racial harmony, whilst impressing upon all that it is to take place within the auspices of one predominant culture and with one predominant race.   In this, less will be expected by 'minorities' who perceive this as a 'Chinese country' and, as a result, as 'citizens of foreign origin'.  Hence, we can plausibly state, in the light of these phenomena, that one is being included, not as an equal, but as a 'minority'.  And given this, they will take their 'rightful place' as do minorities in countries whose histories they were not a part of.

I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. It's just a simple sociological analysis which I’m quite certain nobody in this country will appreciate to this degree, or care about enough to afford it any appreciation.

 

 

Ed

postscript:  This article, amongst all others, is not constructed to 'incite racial hatred', but for the purpose of undermining the conditions for its emergence, or those conditions that might negatively affect any group's sense of self-efficacy.  That is what ought to be expected of anyone who cares for the whole as opposed to the part.  That, in essence, is that which underlies the Confucian, ren (jen), or 'human-heartedness'.

 

 

 

I think Singapore’s opposition would do better if they were to hire a few celebrities to front their cause.  When I attended the candlelight vigil upon the demise of a prominent member of the opposition – Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam – some months ago, I couldn’t help noticing that only about 50 or so people were attendance – whilst there was about a couple of hundred people attending a martial arts show a placard’s throw away  in a well-built entertainment structure.  I thought then, that placing a ‘Speaker’s Corner’ at such close proximity to an ‘entertainment centre’ said much about what the authorities might transmitting to the public about the place at a subconscious level – what I term, ‘the manipulation of the perspectival infrastructure’.

 

Perhaps, that is one of the reasons why the opposition tends to choose their leaders according to prominence as opposed to insight - A sort of ‘compromise’ as they aren’t able to get any more prominent celebrities in on the act.  And in some sense, their penchant for prominence was complemented by the vigil for Michael Jackson in Singapore's 'Speaker's Corner' - as I've been saying for sometime, and being ignored whilst at it, if you laud prominence over insight, the generic idea of prominence is reinforced in the collective subconscious, and it can serve to undermine you in your worthy causes as people become attracted to the most prominent despite its significance. 

 

And prominence wins the day again with the demise of the ‘King of Pop’ with a few hundred people attending the vigil for him at Singapore’s ‘Speaker’s Corner’.  It seems that such events being held there fundamentally, by association, turns any other event held there into just one amongst an ‘entertaining’ itinerary.  Sort of like slotting in Mickey Mouse ads in the commercial breaks between movies like Gandhi or Malcolm X.  In that, Singapore’s ‘Speaker’s Corner’ is turned into a site wherein people can gather in large numbers for events instead of void decks and party halls.  I suppose, given the publicity accorded the Speaker’s Corner in the past with regards to its political events, as opposed to void decks, the site is imbued with a greater ‘celebrity status’ than the said void deck or function halls which take its status from the event as opposed to the site itself being celebrated. 

 

Hence, the Speaker’s Corner was, I believe, supposed to endow the entire ‘Kiss MJ’s ass goodbye’ event, even greater significance.  We can see this as the relatively trivial appropriating the significance of the site for its own use, and thus compromising the sanctity of the environment as the last corner wherein people might organize oppositional events, or the last space, albeit minuscule, that stands against the government of the day.  In this, the entire Speaker’s Corner, that night, was metaphorically ‘burnt in effigy’ (as are houses, cars, LV handbags, etc, in Chinese funerals) for MJ to take a stroll through in the afterlife.  Quite appropriate, given that celebrities have generally contributed much to the depoliticisation of the citizenry in this ‘modern age’ by detracting them from the significance of responsible citizenship by serving as a means through which the masses might live their significance vicariously.  With regards to the vigil for MJ in Speaker’s Corner, think, not imagine, along the lines of an orgy in Church and consider how the former compromises the sanctity of the latter by association and you’ll know what I mean.  And when you put this together with the fact that the people who attend cause-related events are usually those whom are part of the cause as opposed to other members of the public or other interest groups, the meaning that the site is imbued with becomes clearer. 

 

Given this event, I think the vigil for MJ was, unwittingly, one for the melting away of the final oppositional space in Singapore.

 

With the holding of the vigil for the demise of the ‘King of Pop’, I dare say, that the apt descriptor of Singapore’s ‘Speakers Corner’ ceases to be the ‘last site in Singapore wherein free speech may be practiced’. 

Rather, Singapore’s ‘Speaker’s Corner’ can now be most accurately described as, ‘the place where everyone goes to mind their own business’, as do everyone without.

 

 

Ed

 

 

 

“it acted as a counterweight to the mainstream media's "mawkish" coverage of the story…..In the eyes of most comics, their role is to push the boundaries of what the public will accept.”

“

If the content of the counterweight is determined by the value of the weight it attempts to counter, then, in that, these 'comedians' are as much a product of ‘Jacko’, than they would like to think.  Idiocy counterweighted with idiocy reinforces it.

~ ed

What is the west thinking about?  They produce the ubiquitous and idiotic ‘fan’ on a global scale, and as a ‘counterweight’, overpaid jesters who joke about the demise of celebrities.

 

These idiots calling themselves ‘comedians’, do not, as they like to think, provide a ‘counterweight’ to the ‘mawkish’ media coverage of a celebrity’s death.  Rather, they complement idiocy with idiocy.  What is gained at the end of it all?  Greater insight?  Understanding?  No.  Rather, the whole event simply serves to further and generically reinforce the idiocy it takes to produce the ‘fan’, just as it reinforces the gross stupidity and inhumanity it takes to lunge like laughing hyenas over the corpse of their deities.  Is this the best the west is capable of?  Countering stupidity with inhumanity?  Ever heard of an intelligent ‘counterweight’?  If the content of the counterweight is determined by the value of the weight it attempts to counter, then, in that, you are as much a product of ‘Jacko’, than you like to think.

 

And, additionally, to ‘push the boundaries of what the public will accept’ must be done intelligently.  Given that what the public generally appreciates is founded on a superficial appreciation of reality, laughing at their sensitivities does little to undermine the basis upon which their superficial perspectives are produced.  Rather, what it does is not to increase the collective intelligence, but push the boundaries wherein superficial perspectives are utilised.  And when all is profaned, and all love of the potentials of the self is labelled as ‘narcissism’, all that remains and which is taken seriously is your role as cogs and wheels of an elite orchestrated system of which you would have played a crucial role in delivering.  

 

Now, I dare say, this brief article does more as a true counterweight to the weight of the west’s stupidity in this matter than the contribution of all their celebrities, jesters and their global harem of ‘fans’ put together.

 

 

Ed

 

 

"The attitude to the space programme in China is a little bit like the attitude towards space exploration in the western world in the 1960s," says Kevin Fong, an expert in space medicine at University College London. "There's a deep fervour among their university kids for space technology. The main difference between China and America now is that China can just do something - they don't need to ask permission or go through a democratic process and get the budget approved."

Why the next man on the moon will be Chinese – the Guardian

 

“

Well, I suppose it is easy to institute a Nike-ian (Just Do It) culture of 'just do as you're told', as it is in Asian 'democracies', when the intellectual aid of the masses has already been garnered through 'chaotic' western democracies.  In that, the non-chaotic vicarious experience of the west enables a shortcut past thought in the east.

~ ed

 

I have no doubt that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.  Just as the collapse of the Roman Empire saw the Church attempting to usurp its stature, the nation-state thereafter, and Hitler thereafter – with Roman, Catholic, Citizen and Aryan serving as synonyms embodying efforts to be ‘the chosen ones’- the rise of the Asian Democracy will require one amongst its aspirants to show the west that they can match them in their own game.  And with this, they will be able to say, ‘we may have a different kind of democracy and version of ‘humanity’, but since we can do as much as you, we are as good as you.’  The ‘Asian Democracy’ is waiting for just such an opportunity to complete its argument for a dual universe of two different species of humanity.  And with that, China and the Chinese Diaspora can finally relieve itself of the abject feeling of inferiority and cultural doubt they have felt ever since the west carved up China in their colonial ‘scramble for concessions’.   They will again be reunited with the age-old conception of themselves as ‘the middle kingdom’ (which is a translation of the Chinese word for ‘China’) bringing about mass cultural and racial identification for the purpose of the instantly gratifying ‘feel good’ high it delivers.  Just as the Roman empire was later split into two with ‘2 Romes’ in the form of the western ‘Rome’ and the eastern ‘Byzantium’, we will again see this split with ‘2 Romes’ in the form of Washington and Beijing. (Hmm..and some monkeys still believe that we are living in ‘modern’ times’.)  And America will cease to be ‘the greatest nation on earth’ to being ‘the greatest nation amongst western or western style democracies’ whilst China takes on the rubric of ‘the greatest nation of ‘Asian’ or ‘Asian’-style democracies.’

 

But whilst China will be able to deliver the superficial result of western civilisation, by bypassing democratic procedures and excluding the people in idea-generation and decision-making, it will further reinforce the basis upon which its population will remain as perspectivally stifled as it has been since 221 B.C., and which saw them playing merely the role of brawn, opportunists despite human welfare, copy cats, and the appropriators of foreign intellectual capital, when they opened up to the global economy.  That’s what the ‘don’t question and do as you’re told’ mentality always produces.  If it produces intellectual ineptitude within the parent-child relationship, there is no reason why this won’t be replicated on a national scale.  But, no matter, as the virtue of evil lies in its innovative ability to circumvent the consequences of itself.  Hence, for instance, whilst the west, with its ‘chaotic’ democracy produced great minds, the Asian democracy will simply appropriate the companies wherein capitalism condemns it to be interned under threat of oblivion and starvation.  And if it is able to deliver the same economic ‘affluence’ despite mass intellectual ineptitude, it will be perceived as equal in value – whilst reinforcing the notion that ‘affluence’ means nothing other than economic affluence as opposed to an intellectual one.

 

Whilst many would certainly compare China to India, and further reinforce the basis upon which Indians, with their acutely honed critical faculty, a faculty which is discounted in Asian democracies as ‘talking/questioning/complaining to much’, are marginalised, what is missed by fixation on the end result is that which it takes to widen the intellectual horizon far more than the narrow mind can deliver.  India, like the west, tends to include the masses in idea and decision-generation.  Whilst, in the short-term, it can lead to a stuttered move forward, it serves as the breeding ground for minds that can add on greater value to a project in the course of its realisation that can deliver far more than can otherwise be conceptualised.  Through the inclusion of the masses, the collective self-worth is validated. 

 

Like I said in a lecture (I call it a ‘lecture’ because people here generally have nothing to add to my perspectives by way of ideas or questions) to an acquaintance in conversation over my usual cheap cup of tea, the value of India lies in the intellectual propensities that are honed in the course of a stuttered development.  India was never a singular state, never had one ‘universal emperor’, no one single source of enlightenment, no one culture, no one religion, no one language, and no one God.  It takes a mind that is trained to believe that all that one sees is all that exists to produce the perspectival ineptitude it takes to mistake this for ‘chaos’.  Rather, it serves as the valuable ‘stutter’ that elongates thought prior to speech and action.  And in this, the self-worth of many is validated to the point that the collective intellectual produce supersedes that of just one ‘universal emperor’ flanked by yes-persons in the Land of Nod. 

 

Thus, when one finally gets in her/is word in after a long drawn and seemingly tedious stutter, it is usually of enlightening proportions as opposed to the reflexive ejaculation of one who says the first thing that comes to mind.   If we apply the phrase, ‘think before you speak’ within a social context, the ‘think’ component is an analogous reference to ‘including the people in the thinking and decision-making process’.  The act will be more refined thereafter.  But when we abide by a, ‘don’t talk so much and just do it’, approach, it means, ‘let us think and the rest of you just do as we say’.  In this, the potential result of many minds is discounted for the immediate actions of the few, or forces one to simply imitate those from more inclusive or ‘chaotic’ milieux.  And in this, the people will be underdeveloped enough to confuse that which is delivered by the few minds as the best that can be delivered simply because they are no better to know better.  Given the context within which such ‘laudable’ achievement is produced, it wouldn’t be far from the truth. 

 

So whilst China, as opposed to India or many other western states, will probably be the first to put a person on the moon after the other ‘Rome’, and whilst many will see this as the anointment and reinstatement of the ‘Holy Eastern Roman Emperor’ with Beijing taking the place of Byzantium, they will thus be detracted from the fact that it is an imitation brought about as a consequence of not stuttering their progress by popular inclusion, and through that, perhaps going where no westerner has ever laid a footprint before. 

 

However, it is not that the west won’t be undone by this either.  In the competition that will ensue between the 2 Romes, the west, and the rest of the world, will be fixated on how the Chinese were able to deliver the affluence that took the west a few thousand years of ‘stuttered’ development to deliver.  In that, they will unwittingly fixate the masses on economic affluence as opposed to the intellectual affluence that founded western intellectual progress.  And as this is already underway through the professionalisation of the populace in the west that renders the people quite capable in their economic and reproductive functions, but intellectually decrepit, it won’t be too long before the west and all who still mindlessly adopt their pop culture and economic ethos, become little more than Asian democracies themselves.  The Asian democracy will serve as the personification of ‘fast-track meritocracy’.  This, upon scrutiny, will mean, making your persona as little as possible so that little can be appreciated as much.  And all the great philosophers of the west and India will be reincarnated as mere milestones along a ‘progressive’ route 66 which they never intended.

 

Hence, in this small step for wo/mankind that China will undoubtedly make in the not too distant future, humankind will take a monumental leap backward.

 

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

 

“In a final, desperate push to lobby for an ASEAN Human Rights Body (AHRB) with teeth, over 200 civil society organisations, activists and academics have dispatched a letter to the high-profile committee drafting the terms of reference (ToR) of the rights body to make it an "effective" mechanism.”

IPSnews

 

“ 

When we seek to integrate the good, the bad and the ugly, as it is in the ‘Asian’ context, compromise becomes the greater good that in effect evicts good and leads to the rule of the compromise that is ‘bad’.  This is the dark side of inclusivity.

~ ed

 

“

On the one hand, ‘in respect of the differences in culture’, one might think it reasonable to say to the west, this is our culture, so we’ll handle it with our own human rights body.  Once this rationale is accepted, one could then say to the west and their own, that ‘in respect of differences in culture’, we have our own version of human rights to complement our version of the human being, so we’ll handle it our way. 

In the acceptance of the former, the latter is validated.

~ ed

 

“

Differences in culture have as much to do with human rights as the attempt by a culture to train the people to forgo it with a ‘different’ conception of themselves.

~ ed

 

.

 

The idea of an ‘Asian Human Rights body’ is a remarkable move indeed!  I cannot but admire its initiators for thinking up, albeit unwitting, one of these final and decisive steps toward the initiation of the phenomenon of the ‘Asian Democracy’ that has been a few decades in the making.  Whilst some activists are quite thrilled about this and are seeking to critique and improve it, I’d say that this step, instead of being one toward democracy, is yet another decisive step away from it.

 

I’ll explain.

 

As I have already stated in previous articles on the phenomenon of the ‘Asian democracy’, it is a movement that,

 

Firstly, seeks to distinguish itself from the western idea of a democracy and the kind of human, and human development, that it takes to appreciate it - for the purpose of protecting the interests of the elite which are always under scrutiny in the west due to the populace’s understanding of their humanity and ensuing human rights. 

 

Secondly, it seeks to protect itself from western critique by way of having it viewed on both sides of the divide as a critique of their culture and hence, nothing less than a cultural imposition.  In other words, the basic thesis is, ‘you have your brand of human nature, and we have ours, so don’t get colonial on me and bugger off’.

 

Thirdly, to indicate that an ‘Asian democracy’ is not antipathetic to human rights - as this will certainly stir up empathetic concern and ire in the west - in the course of redefining what it means to ‘be an asian human’ amongst its populace, it will have to put in place an ‘Asian human rights body’ to protect the rights of the ‘Asian democratic’ version of the human – just as we might have the SPCA for non-human animals. (one could say that whilst the SPCA was formed to protect animals, it was also based on, and served to perpetuate, the notion that we are ‘different’ from them and thus left alone the basis upon which arose problems that environmentalists are now attempting to resolve.)  In this, they are saying, ‘your version of humanity has its version of rights, and our version has its own. So don’t talk to me about your western brand of ‘concern’ and bugger off.’

 

Regionalising Disaffection

 

“According to the draft document, the long-standing tradition of non-interference will stand. Some of the stated principles in the document called for "non-interference in the internal affairs of Asean member states", as well as respecting "the right of every member state to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion and coercion".” – The Nation

 

This situation is not unlike the attempt to represent the workers via a ‘union’ that is more in union with the government than with the workers, and to develop the workers to think and feel that it is union enough given their culturally unique persona.  I suspect that it as an attempt to redirect local disaffection from ‘western’ human rights bodies to localised ones, whilst hoping to keep the west silent on these issues as ‘we Asians’ are already doing something to address the concerns of ‘our brand of humanity’.  To enable local disaffection to flow to the west would surely keep alive the notion that there is no difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ and thus lead to the demands for conformity to their standards of human rights.  Hence, localization would be a significant step toward regionalising human rights and the type of human it takes to confuse little for much.  If this isn’t the case, then there should be no plausible reason for a localised body – unless the intent is to localise human nature given the ‘us vs. them’ discourse that has been quite pervasive the past two decades.

 

Additionally, the existence of nations such as Myanmar, amongst others, within this scheme of things is most opportune as it will enable the ASEAN ministers to seek a ‘compromise’ in its human rights constitution that will further weaken the standing of the regional body and strengthen their own positions.  When we seek to integrate the good, the bad and the ugly, as it is in the ‘Asian’ context, compromise becomes the greater good that in effect evicts good and leads to the rule of the compromise that is ‘bad’.  This is the dark side of inclusivity.  This will only serve to further the distinction between the ‘Asian’ and the ‘western’ because in the latter, the trend is generally in terms of assimilating ‘the bad’ and ‘the ugly’ as opposed to seeking a compromise between them. And unlike the west, in much of s.e.Asia, we are not mediating between extremely human rights conscious states and those that aren't, or extremely empathetic people and apathetic ones.  Rather, the inverse is true as people and governments generally mirror each other in their self-absorption and racialised view of reality.  Hence, what we're going to get can be something that is essentially very different from what was produced in the west. But as western critique in this matter might again be alleged to be a cultural imposition of colonial proportions, the different character of the AHRB that is thus created will further found the ‘we are we and the west is the west’ argument.   

 

This will serve to further strengthen the s.e.Asian stance against the west in their calls to ‘not interfere in internal affairs’.  We thus have two levels of internal protection here – the local and regional, aka, the pill and the diaphragm.  So we have a whole barrage of arguments against western ‘interference’ such as, ‘it is our internal affair’(the pill), and now, ‘it is our internal regional affair’ (the diaphragm), complemented by, ‘your critique of us is cultural imposition’, ‘we Asians are different’, ‘we need to be inclusive and therefore need to compromise between the Good, the Bad and the Ugly in our region which leads to the difference in our human rights constitutions’, etc, etc.  All these different perspectives are mutually supportive and seeks to cover various loopholes that might be used by the west to ‘impose their culture’.  I would really be interested to see how the west is going to counter this given their desire to appear culturally magnanimous as a compensation for their cultural fascism in the colonial era.

 

Asianspeak

 

We must keep in mind that the west is quite cowed by the argument of s.e.Asian ‘intellectuals’ that their views are a cultural and racist imposition.  With the addition of a localised human rights body, they will also be able to reinforce the former by implying that there is a difference, not only between the western idea of the human and ensuing human rights, but due to this difference, an ensuing difference when it comes to the idea of ‘concern’, ‘compassion’ and ‘empathy’.  A whole vocabulary is being redefined to fit this new brand of humanity that is emerging in this part of the world.  And in this, it is most probably going to serve to found similar exclusive sentiments in other parts of the world.  If language is an aid to imagination, then in this, it can serve to incorporate it.  This, by the way, is not the first of the attempts to split the human atom but a latter attempt to find one half of it a new host.  The issue is close to conclusion.

 

Globalising Empathy

 

For myself, instead of seeking to improve-via-critique the ‘Asian human rights body’, I would be completely against its formation.  When you localise a human rights body, it can be because the local culture needs consideration of its cultural milieu in the implementation of a singular universal perspective.  However, when it is set up within an overarching milieu wherein the divisive ‘Asian democratic’ discourse and perspective is becoming increasingly pervasive in the polity and popular, it can be perceived as nothing more than an attempt to contradistinguish the ‘Asian’ persona from the ‘west’ and then bring about an ‘appropriate’ rule.  In this, the ‘Asian’ persona will generally include the Chinese and Muslim personas – both, traditionally, have been quite exclusive – and it must be noted that the inclusive Indian mindset has been left out in both cultural milieux as it would be generally difficult to contend with or integrate the product of an antithetical 2000 year old democratic culture. (i.e. Indians ‘talk to much’, ‘question too much’, ‘complain too much’, ‘argue too much’ with ‘too much’ being determined by it being valued against a subservient or traditionalist status quo.)  Thus, this exclusive tendency could be exploited by anyone in this region to push forth the ‘Asian democratic’ project.  However, it must be stated that the Muslim persona is not, in its most essential form, exclusive, as their faith embodies a universalism that is not as pronounced in other faiths.  However, given the siege mentality that has been brought about amongst the global Muslim population, thanks to the agenda of the western elite, division would not be too far from the thus created Muslim imagination – though I personally believe that the purpose of Islam is to teach humanity the virtue of global unity…but that is another topic.

 

In activists’ attempts to improve this body, what will happen is that whilst they are at it over the years to come, much will be done to continue the redefinition of the ‘Asian’ persona to the point that these ‘activists’ popular support will wane in tandem with the ‘Asianising’ of their own views – especially since it is already the case with many ‘activists’ being verifiably monocultural populists themselves.  In this, we can say that the incorporation of the Asian oppositional movements into this mindset is that which now sees the founding of an Asian Human Rights body.  There are no significant movements of thought that contradict this mindset in this region.  We must not forget that many of these ‘activists’ are strongly acculturalised to identify with ‘their own race’ and ‘their own culture’ and would naturally fall for this ploy as it is founded on the selfsame perspectival basis which they themselves are products of.  (India is one of the few states in this region that is relatively further from cultural fascism than most.)  And with economic success, its value is attached to the culture and race thus further grounding such notions.

 

Hence, we could plausibly argue that all the ‘activists’ whom are attempting to improve this body are illustrating their own subconscious appreciation of the illusory difference between the west and themselves when it comes to human rights even whilst attempting to make it similar to that of the west.  What a remarkable paradox that, in its root, has the acute potential of undoing the best of intentions.  With this foundational perspectival flaw in place, all other victories will be enjoyed in the shadow of their own gradually and graduated underdeveloped ignorance and ‘difference’.  If not, like myself, they would be unequivocally against its formation as this is a significant milestone in the general effort to distinguish between ‘them’ and ‘us’ when it comes to the fundamentals of human identity, potentials, self-perceptions and rights.  These ‘activists’ are thus a part of an attempt to create two universes when it comes to human identity, and all that it takes to make the most out of the human being for the interests of the few as opposed to the interests of all.  I’m not saying that we should simply follow the west, we could, for instance, have Asian representatives in western human rights bodies so firstly, we can recognise and impart the recognition that we are one when it comes to our humanity and ensuing rights.  Secondly, in such a union, we would be able to impart our culturally learnt perspectives to the west for the improvement of human rights bodies located in the west.  If we take a divisive course, this will further the ‘Asian democratic’ project whose consequences ‘activists’ here are fond of bemoaning on the one hand, but constantly and ignorantly reinforce on the other.

 

If racialism recognises that though we are equal, we must be separate because of differences, than this ‘culturalism’ implies as much.  Amongst others, this is founded on the fascist undertones of just about all anti-colonial movements in the past century or so.  When the west fell for that, they set the stage for the emergence of, amongst others, the ‘Asian democratic’ phenomenon.  But that is another, albeit related, topic.

 

 

Ed

 

 

“

Every oversight is diagnosis and prognosis.

- ed

The following picture fronts, or tops, Singaporedaily.net’s, ‘Weekly Roundup : Week 26’.

 

See a problem with it?  No?  Take another look.  No? 

 

Then my oft-quoted phrase applies – ‘it’s easier to suggest a solution than to not be a part of the problem’.  It applies to all of us.  But in our efforts to be a part of the movement of progressive change, we must keep this in mind lest we contemporaneously serve as its ball-and-chain.

 

The problem with the picture, or the Freudian-slip that it illustrates, is the picture of MJ being given greater prominence than that of Anthony Yeo (3^rd from the left), the recently deceased contributor to the oppositional cause.  The worship of prominence, has, as its bedfellows, susceptibility to the salient, the fetishisation of tradition, the penchant for conformity, reflexive discounting of detail, racialisation of politics, amongst a host of others.  In this, is yet again evidenced, the opposition being an unwitting product and part of the proposition.  And the above picture speaks very loud to the subconscious, thus reinforcing that which it takes to produce the above picture, not appreciate its significance, and perpetrate the host of problems that will inevitably issue forth from being thus 'rounded up' and penned in through the psychological warfare the opposition frequently, albeit unwittingly, engages with itself.  I don't know what the editors of Singaporedaily.net are thinking about, but they obviously aren't doing enough of it.  This is not the first time either.

I suppose, as the editors of singaporedaily.net are quite sexist, racist and monoculturally populist, as are most of the opposition, such oversights as indicated in these pictures, would come quite naturally to them.  It is in this populist stance that they are inspired to give visual predominance to MJ as opposed to Anthony Yeo.  And it is also in this self-absorbed stance that they can arrogantly provide links to my arguments against their sexism-cum-racism on their site whilst relying on the selfsame sexism and racism on the part of the other 'oppositional' elements, whom are themselves appealed to by the popular, to not take them to task with regards to my critique.   It's alright if you are guilty of an oversight, so long as it is rectified, failing which, the perspectival foundation for the production and emergence of such oversights is inevitably strengthened  As this is not the case with the said editors, thus my assertion that they are as I have stated.  Besides being a slap in the face of true empathetic representativeness, it incontrovertibly serves to reinforce existing biases.

And if you're inclined to retort with a, 'Hey, you're right, but it's just Singaporedaily and not the rest of us'.  Then I'll say, 'if you didn't realise it at first glance, then you're an incorporated part of the problem.   I use a more unforgiving standard to detect my own deficiencies - in the past, the present and so will it be in the future.  That is one of the reasons I moved from simply 'looking up' to, for instance, JBJ, to studying him for his relevant flaws. - something which precious few, if any, amongst the 'opposition' have done to date but which is sorely needed to move the calibre of the 'opposition' up more than a notch.  It seems that they mirror the proposition in defending their own.  Silly people.

Remember...

Every oversight does not come without a horde of oversights in its wake.  Every oversight is diagnosis and prognosis.  Believe that, and you've got a chance to move from childishly 'playing at being opposition', to becoming its embodiment.' 

All it takes for evil to triumph is for a few good wo/men to think they are good.

The above article will serve as an introduction to the following articles.

50 Years of PAP : The Worship of Prominence and the Degeneration of the 'Opposition'

50 Years of PAP : Rule by Replication

50 Years of PAP : What makes Opposition Poli-ticks

50 Years of PAP : Can Singaporedaily.net be more representative?

50 Years of PAP : Abolish ISA Event.  It wasn't 'Gay' enough

Ed

 

“

Senior prosecutors are calling for the laws on race hate crimes to be strengthened to counter the threat posed by the British National party.

The threshold for securing a conviction is so high that far-right activists are able to evade prosecution for material that many people would consider to be threatening and racist, according to sources at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Prosecutors blame the lack of convictions on the strict legal test, which requires showing an intention to "stir up racial hatred" or a likelihood that racial tension would be stirred up.”  - The Guardian

 

 

The question that has to be asked in the UK, and the rest of the world, is what is lacking in society that requires proscriptions on ‘racist materials’ that might ‘stir up racial hatred’, ‘or a likelihood that racial tension would be stirred up.’

 

The existence of Laws, might at times serve to maintain the conditions upon which such laws may be flouted, and which hence requires the promulgation and enforcement of such laws. 

 

In other words, there seems to be a symbiotic union between thoughtfulness and a preceding thoughtlessness that sees the production of a rabid dog and, thereafter, a leash of a particular length. Whilst focusing on strengthening the latter, I think it is about time that humanity look into the conditions that produces the former.  It is in this sense that ‘thoughtfulness’ might very well be complicit in the evil it seeks to counter.  As I’ve been saying for some years now, evil cannot exist without the symbiotic collusion of that which is perceived to be ‘good’.  The devil, sir, reigns via paradox.

 

With regards to the BNP’s racist materials, such phenomena would cease to exist when the conditions that bring about the impressionable demand for it, and the violence that might thus be incited by it, is snipped at its source.  Is it the idea that is evil or the conditions that produces susceptibility to it? 

 

And whilst you’re at it, try to consider how the empathy compromising national fragmentation of humanity continues to feed the thus localised tendency to blame on the basis of ‘race’.  Perhaps it is this crime that serves as a significant component of the basis upon which a global problem is localised?

 

I cannot help but wonder.

 

 

Ed

The Cosmopolitan Manifesto

 

 

 

I find much of what is being said in the British media about Michael Jackson to be, generally, analytically superficial and shallow at best, and which tends to feed the pervasive culture of ignorance, and celebrity-worship cum self-diminution.  I was expecting more from them given their 'professional' status, but I suppose having a queen would tend to compromise their ability to appreciate the thorns founding the crown. 

This article is a response to their celebrity-worshipping nonsense.

 

“Michael Jackson's art was astonishingly innovative. No one could dance like him, until he showed them how, and then they were never as good as he was. His concept of the dance was utterly 20th century, extravagantly multi-dimensional, and not in the least middle class.” – Germaine Greer, Guardian

“

If ‘Genius’ is 10 percent talent and 90 percent hard work, we could say that the masses ought to be credited for the latter in the production of the phenomenon of Michael Jackson. - ed

(one of the reasons why the concept of Intellectual Property strikes me as an Intellectual Impropriety)

I have said quite a bit on MJ’s dance style in a previous article, and which is excerpted here for its relevance.

 

“

His dance and music was of the genre of ‘juvenile self-assertion’.  The quick definite movements, the angularity of it, short spurts of multidirectional movements, and complemented by a style of singing with it's yells, 'hooos', sharp in/exhalation, self-confident and semi-aggressive facial contortions, says as much and little besides.  You could say that, in this, the masses' self-assertive propensities were directed away from anti-establishmentism and intellectual inclinations by way of self-assertion being presented without any intellectual or confrontational qualities.  And with him, amongst others, serving as cultural icons, the juvenile masses didn't have much of a reason to seek beyond them for something more.  And whatever energy that was diffused amongst the multitudes found articulation through the socio-economic system since it didn't have an ideology or a direction to begin with - unlike in the 'hippie' 60s.   You could say that MJ, amongst others, served as the element within the spirit of the 80s that enabled the overthrow of any  semblance of anti-establishmentism that was inherited from the 60s and 70s. - Why MJ was not the ‘greatest entertainer of his age’, ed.

 

Just a bit more on this...

 

Now you think, amongst other writers in various global newspapers, MJ’s dance style was invented or afforded much innovation by him don’t you.  Well, that’s not entirely true.

 

Michael’s dance style has, amongst others, three significant sources. 

 

The first, and most obvious source, is from the street culture in California and New York City in the 60s and early 70s which includes, amongst others, Breakdance styles such as ‘popping’, ‘locking’, ‘wave’ and the more aggressive, ‘uprock’.  Other assertive street styles were also integrated or incorporated into what one of the pioneers of the Universal Zulu Nation, Africa Bambaataa, termed, ‘hip hop’.  And the famed ‘moonwalk’ itself can be traced back to James Brown and Bill Bailey, the latter of whom, by the way, was one of the first documented artistes to do the ‘moonwalk’ in 1955.  

The main reason why MJ became famous for ‘his’ dance was that fame was already coming his way with his stint in the Jackson 5 and his later solo career.  This served as the stage wherein he could expose 'his' other talents such as dancing.  You could say that MJ used his relatively prominent position to be one of the first to bring in street dance, as opposed to inventing it.  Hence, as he was already becoming popular, the global mass of fans were at the ready to credit him with everything that was of non-MJ origins or state that he was, amongst others, ‘astonishingly innovative’ where appropriative might be more apt – just like ideas not being appreciated unless it issues forth from a renown figure even though it has existed for quite some time or in more insightful form amongst unknowns.  He was prominent, so all he had to be was ‘good’ at, for instance, dance, for it to be construed as ‘great’.  The prominence of the artiste, hence, served as the Midas touch as opposed to Michael simply ‘being the best’.  But,on the downside, once a celebrity appropriates the culture of the masses of unknowns and exhibits what s/he has a preference for, it has the effect of reducing the masses to mere reproducers and innovators.  In this, the 'celebrity' does much in regimenting the vibrancy upon which s/he emerges.

 

The 2^nd source of MJ’s dance style was founded on the increasing burst of juvenile predominance in culture, and with pop culture being weeded off its ideological content as it was in the mid-60s up to the mid-70s.  Self-assertion without ideology or what I would term, intellectual individualism and depth, would then be well prepared to descend and manifest itself in more abstract forms such as breakdancing amongst other ‘hip hop’ styles that can be crudely perceived as ‘self-assertion and vibrancy without a brain’.  I’m not saying that these cultures are problematic.  But, when subconscious vibrancy is not articulated through the mind, its next refuge would naturally be through dance, amongst others.  It is then that it becomes a problem as it serves as a ‘compensatory mechanism’ that is activated to allay the discomfort ensuing from the human persona not being able to express itself in more deeper forms.  One could say that when popular intellectual individualism or/and depth is at a relatively higher level, dance forms usually take on deeper forms.  In that, such dance forms complement intellectual individualism and depth as opposed to serving as compensation for not having it.  Hence, with the decline of intellectual individualism and depth, or the masses perceiving it as beyond their sphere of rightful interest through socialization in the ‘modern’ understanding of ‘youth’, or as economic units, the stage will be set for the emergence of the likes of Michael Jackson as a ‘star’ and the ‘fans’ necessary to serve as its stage and spotlight. 

 

(I don’t actually feel entirely comfortable with this statement as I too was a ‘breakdancer’ back in the 80s with my own ‘crew’.  It really made me feel alive as it still does now.  But I do know that if I had not been underdeveloped by my social and class experience and location, I may have engaged in activities of greater intellectual individualistic depth.  But if intellectual individualism and depth could be achieved, that does not mean that this dance form would melt away.  Rather, this dance form could then serve as primitive fuel for greater ventures.  But where intellectual individualism and depth is not achieved or derisively perceived as the ‘obsession’ of ‘psychobabblers’ or ‘know-it-all academics’, such a culture would serve as ‘compensation and distraction’ and work toward depoliticising the citizenry.)

 

The 3^rd reason for Michael’s evolving dance style is the adoration paid him by the global congregation of ‘fans’.  Michael’s self-doubt will be decreased along with an increase in his sense of self-efficacy.  And with the sense of self-importance amplified within him by swooning ‘fans’, the self-assertive qualities of the dance style of the streets would become more pronounced by his own increasing sense of self-worth.  That is why we can see that MJ’s dance style became increasingly self-assertive from the 70s through to the present.  From the dance complementing the song in the 70s, it mutated into the song and dance complementing him, the ‘King of Pop’.  The posturing became nothing less than megalomaniacal in proportions along with the titling of his albums that moved ‘off the wall’ to ‘bad’ and to a grossly narcissistic, ‘History’.  He began to cease to ‘second guess’ or doubt himself and just developed this megalomaniacal dance style to the extreme as seen by the increasingly self-assertive posturing that became the dance.  And the masses, already living vicariously off his transfigured grandeur, whilst they lived as mere ‘fans’ and cogs and wheels within a socio-economic system over which they had no control, fell hook, line, sinker, and titanic for the increasingly potent opiate that was MJ, and which served well, and correlated with, their increasing diminution as truly individualistic and cogitating modern citizens. 

 

‘Youth’ was given a new identity.  You weren’t here to make a change.  You were just here to make a megalomaniacal stand – and the system stepped in to appropriate this valuable mindless resource.  That is when what was 'cool' moved from creating your own style to following it.  MJ, amongst a host of other factors, along with the socio-economic system, paved the way for the mutation of the masses to the grossly self-absorbed, ignorant, incorporated and arrogant people that they are today.  He distracted the attention of the global mass of youth from the foundations of civilisation and ushered them into the superstructure.  One could quite plausibly state that MJ was the final and decisive push against the intellectually individualistic ‘hippie’ definition of youth.  These ‘stars’ finally became the Gods of the masses, keeping them supple and compliant for the use of the elite.  And thereafter, even saw some of these 'stars' taking on roles within the UN, amongst other organisations, and forwarding initiatives for the resolution of problems they, in no insignificant way, helped in creating and perpetuating. 

The popular stage shared between singers and philosophers in the ‘hippie’ era, and was itself one of the reasons why it was undermined, was predictably evicted of the latter in the 80s as self-gratification was more immediate when singers were turned into deities as opposed to the relatively lengthy and less-‘entertaining’ observations of philosophers.  Hence, as one of the most significant deathblows, MJ, amongst others, and all that he stood for, delivered to the establishment youthful vibrancy without a mind.  And insofar as they became fodder, thus they now render fodder of all.

 

The Devil’s a genius.

 

 

Ed