Just met Warrent Jabbar and his family just now around my block. He said he'd come to visit SWO Francis Ng, who was sick. I don't know Francis, but Jabbar was my former APC CSM, quite a friendly nice and reasonable guy. We smiled and exchanged pleasantries.
The funny thing is that I met him just whilst I was musing to myself about my own prejudices about people. I don't think I'm racist, in fact I like the Malays and Indians in my own country (in general, there're always unpleasant people from every race): I feel they add spice and colour and commitment to the country. And I like WO Jabbar, and other Singaporeans from other races - they are pleasant, committed, and very good friends. I consider them my brothers.
It's the immigrants that I feel a sense of aversion towards. Well, particularly from a particular C-country. The darker-skinned foreign workers have been known to disturb Singaporean girls, but I'm even quite fine with them. It's the C-people that somehow disturb me, partially because they're all over ... extremely ubiquitous. Partially because ... they are a part of me, yet so different. Culturally, even linguistically. I find myself speaking a lot in Cantonese to distinguish myself from them.
But I have good Chinese friends, from NUS. I helped out in the PRC Camp and I loved my group members - a lot. And they are fine, nice, decent, fun-loving. It's just this feeling that they're different, that they haven't assimilated into what is effectively a Singaporean-Malaysian culture (yes, we're all culturally Singaporean-Malaysian more than Chinese. We are all so NOT Chinese in terms of culture). And the fact that there are so damn MANY MANY of them. It's a fear that they'll outnumber us eventually - it's not a misplaced fear, considering the government's policy of importing Chinese people from China in droves. And there's the feeling that they are not committed to this country. (Not that many locals are committed too, considering emigration rates. But that's another story for another day). It's this feeling that these MANY foreigners are here to take our country for a ride, and our government is letting them do so.
It's Xenophobia, prejudice all over again. And the best way is to make friends from the race/people group that you are afraid of, to give them human faces.
To find out that at the end of the day, they are humans like us.
True, there are materialistic, scheming, evil, downright manipulative Chinese people who treat our country like a stepping stone. But there're evil, manipulative people from every race and country - even from Singapore - and we must recognise this.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Random Thoughts
1) I'm really blessed to be educated in Economics. I hear laymen talking about inflation, and I'm really blessed to have intimate insight into the means, reasons and solutions for inflation. Economics is really useful. I'm trying to remember the historical incident in which Mahathir Mohammad proved the world's economists wrong by trying to fix and control too many policy instruments in his country. I think the policy instruments are the interest rate, exchange rate, and capital mobility, and normal countries can only fix 2 of them and leave one floating, subject to market forces, but he fixed all 3. And apparently it worked for Malaysia.
I've forgotten all the details, but we learnt it in Macro 2 under Prof. Dixon How. Anyone care to fill in the details for me?
2) The recent court case against Novena Church for aggrivated assault and forcing the lady to go through the exorcism confuses me. Firstly, the court realises it is a spiritual case - involving prayer, God, exorcism, spirits. Yet it is a civil court, trying to resolve what is commonly seen as a religious dispute, between Christians. How can it be expected to rule? It is extremely confusing.
Also very interestingly, the language used in court and in the newspapers regarding this case shows that Singapore's society and government recognises the power, reality and role of the spiritual - such that the court will even entertain a dispute because of very spiritual matters. It seems that the court recognises the role and power of God, angels, and demons.
Which of course, fits in with what I understand Singapore's Secularism to be (haha thanks be to the Inter-Civilisational and Inter-Religious Study Trip for opening my eyes to these issues). For Singapore's Secularism is an Anglo-Saxon Secularism, which recognises the separation of church and state, while recognising the validity and truths of religion. Under this school of thought, religious ideas are to be respected, even accepted in society; they are just not to interfere with the political process.
This, of course, stands in contrast with French-Turkish Secularism, propogated most famously by the late Mr. Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Turkish Republic. Under this school, religion is to be subjugated to the state, having no role in public life and expression, and basically to be forced to take a back seat in society. From the outside, such a society can look somewhat religious, yet very atheist.
Of course, Singapore is hardly atheist. It's so religious, and the court case shows it: even the courts get religious sometimes.
Again I'm thankful for the exposure my education offers me. It is very exciting to see classroom concepts actually applicable in the real world.
I've forgotten all the details, but we learnt it in Macro 2 under Prof. Dixon How. Anyone care to fill in the details for me?
2) The recent court case against Novena Church for aggrivated assault and forcing the lady to go through the exorcism confuses me. Firstly, the court realises it is a spiritual case - involving prayer, God, exorcism, spirits. Yet it is a civil court, trying to resolve what is commonly seen as a religious dispute, between Christians. How can it be expected to rule? It is extremely confusing.
Also very interestingly, the language used in court and in the newspapers regarding this case shows that Singapore's society and government recognises the power, reality and role of the spiritual - such that the court will even entertain a dispute because of very spiritual matters. It seems that the court recognises the role and power of God, angels, and demons.
Which of course, fits in with what I understand Singapore's Secularism to be (haha thanks be to the Inter-Civilisational and Inter-Religious Study Trip for opening my eyes to these issues). For Singapore's Secularism is an Anglo-Saxon Secularism, which recognises the separation of church and state, while recognising the validity and truths of religion. Under this school of thought, religious ideas are to be respected, even accepted in society; they are just not to interfere with the political process.
This, of course, stands in contrast with French-Turkish Secularism, propogated most famously by the late Mr. Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Turkish Republic. Under this school, religion is to be subjugated to the state, having no role in public life and expression, and basically to be forced to take a back seat in society. From the outside, such a society can look somewhat religious, yet very atheist.
Of course, Singapore is hardly atheist. It's so religious, and the court case shows it: even the courts get religious sometimes.
Again I'm thankful for the exposure my education offers me. It is very exciting to see classroom concepts actually applicable in the real world.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
maybe i think way too highly of myself, but it seems that it may not be easy to classify me. who am i, what do i appear like to people?
i can be amazingly singaporean heartlanderish, but also amazingly foreign, american.
today at the debrief for group work for the conflict resolution module glynson called me the most "conscientious and meticulous slob" around. whatever that means.
and allen said with some humour that i could be amazingly superficial, and amazingly deep.
and a long time ago kash called me "rojak".
not that it really matters. to know who i am, what i stand for in this world of 6 billion people. to know my place in this world, to know my actual identity, and not be a mere product of circumstance. that, to me, is so much more vital than people's perceptions of oneself.
perhaps people's perceptions of me are as confused as my perceptions of myself.
i can be amazingly singaporean heartlanderish, but also amazingly foreign, american.
today at the debrief for group work for the conflict resolution module glynson called me the most "conscientious and meticulous slob" around. whatever that means.
and allen said with some humour that i could be amazingly superficial, and amazingly deep.
and a long time ago kash called me "rojak".
not that it really matters. to know who i am, what i stand for in this world of 6 billion people. to know my place in this world, to know my actual identity, and not be a mere product of circumstance. that, to me, is so much more vital than people's perceptions of oneself.
perhaps people's perceptions of me are as confused as my perceptions of myself.
Why I took Malay
Cik Siew emailed us today for some feedback for a paper he is doing research on, and I revealed my reasons for taking Malay. Some excerpts from my email to him:
"Personally I took malay because I feel that it is a form of respect to the region that I am born in. I feel that the Singapore government kicked out the compulsary education of Malay in schools because Malay is "not economically viable", which is an insult to the indigenous people of the region. Simply put, we Chinese came to the Malay lands, took over all the wealth and top postions, and even colonised the region with Chinese (which is the unofficial second language of Singapore - i think most malays find it hard to live life without rudimentary command of chinese).... i just feel that taking malay is my form of returning respect to the malays, and saying "sorry for taking over your lands, and colonising you all with the chinese language"... kind of apologising for my people..."
Singapore is aflush with English and Chinese, people often forget that we are in the middle of the Malay Archipalego.... and not in some province in China. As a native of the Malay Archipalego, it seems my duty to learn at least rudimentary Malay, the language of the land. In part it is to show respect to the locals (the true locals), to apologise for my people taking over the top positions and basically marginalising the native culture. It is the least I can do, to say "thanks for accepting us into your land, as a sign of respect I will learn your language". After all, I was born here, and I am a son of the land as much as you are.
A very humble Chinaman,
Jonathan
Actually am I a Chinaman, or a son of the Malay Archipalego? It is a connundrum, and I would like to call myself a Citizen of the world, but as long as I live in Singapore I am living on Malay land, and as a sign of respect I should call myself a "son of the land".
"Personally I took malay because I feel that it is a form of respect to the region that I am born in. I feel that the Singapore government kicked out the compulsary education of Malay in schools because Malay is "not economically viable", which is an insult to the indigenous people of the region. Simply put, we Chinese came to the Malay lands, took over all the wealth and top postions, and even colonised the region with Chinese (which is the unofficial second language of Singapore - i think most malays find it hard to live life without rudimentary command of chinese).... i just feel that taking malay is my form of returning respect to the malays, and saying "sorry for taking over your lands, and colonising you all with the chinese language"... kind of apologising for my people..."
Singapore is aflush with English and Chinese, people often forget that we are in the middle of the Malay Archipalego.... and not in some province in China. As a native of the Malay Archipalego, it seems my duty to learn at least rudimentary Malay, the language of the land. In part it is to show respect to the locals (the true locals), to apologise for my people taking over the top positions and basically marginalising the native culture. It is the least I can do, to say "thanks for accepting us into your land, as a sign of respect I will learn your language". After all, I was born here, and I am a son of the land as much as you are.
A very humble Chinaman,
Jonathan
Actually am I a Chinaman, or a son of the Malay Archipalego? It is a connundrum, and I would like to call myself a Citizen of the world, but as long as I live in Singapore I am living on Malay land, and as a sign of respect I should call myself a "son of the land".
Friday, May 9, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
why are people so averse towards thinking and questioning the core beliefs and assumptions in their lives, even the fact and meaning of their very existence?
could it be because they are scared to encounter what they might find?
or are they lazy to spend the time?
or is there a mood of extreme pessimism, the feeling that satisfactory answers can never be found?
or do they procrastinate, deciding to do the thinking and analysing only tomorrow after today's concerns are dealt with? do they not realise that everyday brings with it its own demands and troubles?
or do they hate their lives so much that they do not deem it a worthwhile exercise to determine a purpose, a reason and a validation for their existence?
maybe they are very comfortable, so they just live lives in a daily routine, until something real bad shakes them up, after which they start to think.
comfort may not be a bad thing. it is nice, assuring, relaxing, non-taxing to mind and emotions. it is in fact natural to want to settle into a comfort zone, otherwise one's mind and emotions work overtime, and it gets exhausting.
which is a better way to live life? to be a pained soul searching for answers, or to be one blissfully ignorant in a comfort zone? there is no absolute answer to this. possibly someone should strive for a balance, to seek for truth beyond one's natural scope, to question one's assumptions, even the validity of one's existence, without going mad in the process.
could it be because they are scared to encounter what they might find?
or are they lazy to spend the time?
or is there a mood of extreme pessimism, the feeling that satisfactory answers can never be found?
or do they procrastinate, deciding to do the thinking and analysing only tomorrow after today's concerns are dealt with? do they not realise that everyday brings with it its own demands and troubles?
or do they hate their lives so much that they do not deem it a worthwhile exercise to determine a purpose, a reason and a validation for their existence?
maybe they are very comfortable, so they just live lives in a daily routine, until something real bad shakes them up, after which they start to think.
comfort may not be a bad thing. it is nice, assuring, relaxing, non-taxing to mind and emotions. it is in fact natural to want to settle into a comfort zone, otherwise one's mind and emotions work overtime, and it gets exhausting.
which is a better way to live life? to be a pained soul searching for answers, or to be one blissfully ignorant in a comfort zone? there is no absolute answer to this. possibly someone should strive for a balance, to seek for truth beyond one's natural scope, to question one's assumptions, even the validity of one's existence, without going mad in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)