Uighur resentment at Beijing's rule

BBC

When a particular ethnic group from one area moves to an area predominantly resided by another ethnic group, then the former starts populating the latter's land with their own people to a large extent till the former is no longer seen as the 'minority' (in terms of ethnicity by numbers).  Now this strategy is all so familiar; examine carefully, you may realise there are quite a number of examples around the world.  I suppose with further research and study on such strategy, it could possibly provide a 'for idiot' version on how to impose your culture and take control of the land which is originally inhabited by others.

As a result, when the original inhabitant are gradually being marginalised, discriminated against and even oppressed,  they start to react, the former would then use force against any expression of resentment and justifying such act as 'restoring peace and stability', then lay blame on the oppressed and all other factors (eg. trouble makers, terrorism, former leader in exile trying to stir trouble, etc....)

Some may think that such cases/ incidents are isolated and only happen in China, think again, various degrees and forms of discrimination, marginalisation or even oppression are being experienced in almost every society.

If people are treated fairly, equitably and with dignity, there would hardly be any reason for people to show resentment and if this is not addressed adequately, it could likely turn to something like what was reported in this article.

Inter-racial harmony

As i opened my mail box, looking in, i saw some brochures and junk mail and among them, there was this newsletter titled "Inter-Racial Inter-Religious Harmony Nite 2009".  What struck me was the glaring contradiction.  Look closely, anyone spotted it?

Well, first of all, apart from the title written in English, above it was the title written in Mandarin.  What's going on here? Aren't the organisers suppose to promote Inter-Racial Harmony?  What's with the Mandarin title shown above the English ones? and in the presence of Mandarin title, where are the Malay and Tamil titles? 

Let's see, what sort of subliminal message or effect does this have on people looking or reading it?  Firstly, people, perhaps those who don't reside in this country or community, could have the perception that 'Oh, the community official language would likely be Mandarin and English. Also, maybe all the other ethnic groups (Eurasians, Indians and Malays) would also be proficient in or at least be able to read Mandarin.'  Interesting isn't it?  Looking at trends like this, perhaps, the Ministry of Education could be reviewing the languages to be taught to all the different ethnic groups in school but it would probably take another generation for such policy to take meaningful effect.  Till then, non-chinese, including government officials should not feel bewildered, the next time when a foreign chinese national from china you met in the neighbourhood coffee shop starts conversing in mandarin with you. 

If all the above are fictional, what are the other possibilities for such inclusion/ exclusion?

Isn't the promotion of Inter-Racial Harmony be based on treating all ethnic groups within the community with equal respect, importance and significance?  If that is the case, such inclusion/ exclusion of the language/s shouldn't even be seen.  Considering that there are other non-chinese associations and religious groups/ institutions who are part of the organisation of this event and still witness this conspicuous inclusion/ exclusion of language/text, one must really wonder what's their views on this or is there any at all to begin with?

Yet more disappointment as i turned to the next page of the newsletter, all the articles were written only in English and Mandarin.  Who are the audience the organisers trying to reach/ target here?  It really makes me wonder.

Inter-racial harmony1

The recent event orgainised to remember the 22 people who were detained under the ISA in May 1987 and the call to abolish ISA has led me to ponder. After reading articles from various sources and realised that the ISA though being in existence under the British rule was used for a particular political purpose (though how justifiable
such apparatus being used for political gain still remain questionable) which can be potentially detrimental to the developement of a more open and democratic society.  

The conditions and socio-political climate in the 60s and current state in singapore are quite dissimilar.  Back then, there were groups of 'underground' fighters who were fighting under the 'communist' movement had long disappeared. Also, with the fall of the former Soviet Union in early 90s and the end of the cold war saw further global decline in support for so-called 'communism'. So in the last 40 years or so, the movement has gradually died off and society has transformed to one which gears towards economic well being.  Singapore then gained her independence and the people realised that in order to survive through the difficult times, they need to work hard to take care of their families and to help build the then vulnerable nation.  The people did work hard and the result or their fruit of labour can clearly be seen; in terms of the modern infrastructures most developed city would possess.  However, the trade off/ consequences of the sole focus on economic well being has made the population relatively more socially and politically apathetic,compared to the 1st generation. Well, back then, we did see among the people or unions fighting for fairer and more equitable treatment; demonstrating in the streets with banners and placards. On the opposite spetrum, in general, the population in this generation hardly bother about other issues outside their own self interests.  Therefore, there is no wonder singapore finds herself struggling to find good and public spirited people to lead or even stand as a candidate for elections (both for the ruling party as well as the oppositions). Back then, we saw much higher level of activism among the people, political parties including the current ruling party, struggling against the colonial power for more equitable treatment and a say in the running of the state affairs.  Also, another obvious symptoms is found in the population's general attitude of over reliant on the authority to find solutions for almost any problems the community/ society faces.

Yes, there may be potential threat of 'terrorist' attack on the country which one may argue for the need for an institution like ISD. However, is it justifiable to institute it at the expense of society's freedom and it's potential growth to becoming a more matured one, where the population is able to generate solutions and solve problems themselves? Recognising human fallibility, is it a wise move to bestow ultimate powers to any institution to make ultimate decisions that has enormous impact on the society as a whole? Of course, the threat of 'terrorist' attacks cannot be
ignored. So would there be any other means which a country can protect herself from the such potential threat without loosing the benefits of developing and having a more open/ democratic society?  It's time for singaporeans to think hard and make their own judgement.

For more than 3 weeks, both the print and even til now, in the internet, there are loads of articles on the 'AWARE' saga. In proportion, it was far more than any other one social issue discussed so far for a long time.  This was probably the very few issues which has attracted so much attention among the people (more so the 'netizen'- judging from the constant flux of articles found in the net daily)

So is this a reflection of the population becoming more involved and less apathatic?  We can't really conclude actually. Firstly, as mentioned, those who spoke and/or contributed are just a tiny fraction of the whole population. The figure reported, showed 'AWARE' membership rose to 3000. So, given that figure with a tad of optimism, including those who got involved in other means in this saga, perhaps another 50% of the 3000. Still the figure isn't that significant compared to the country's population.

Well, this doesn't really come to a surprise when one considers the current and general level of involvement or apathy in social issues among the general population.

Perhaps it's an avenue for those few who are unwilling to express their views on other issues which they might think are beyond their means to control (which is quite common in the local context; where people tend to use words like 'what to do?, is like that one') and resign to fate for the situation they are facing, to make them feel good for once or the few rare occasions, to express themselves and to feel 'empowered' for that elusive moment. Question is, is this true activism or just another means for them to feel 'involved' momentarily and would enter to a non-active mode yet again after the whole saga is over?

It is easy to call oneself a citizen base on the fact that one possesses a passport or been given political suffrage. The truth is, to be a responsible one, she/he needs to be involved in not just issues revolving around oneself but also in other issues within the environment/ society one resides. That is manifested when one speaks up for, example, the less privileged, those whose voices are not heard and against injustice, discrimination and mistreatment. Then, such societies would see progress and truly become a place for all to live in harmony; else, it is just fake 'harmony'.

		In that address, Jackie Chan reportedly said of Singapore: 'A lot of people are not like those in USA and Japan who voluntarily have self-respect. When you don't have self-respect, the government will have to control you. -- PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS

Oh well, dear Jacko may be right but he probably meant that Singaporeans are not the civic minded bunch.  In his comparison among the chinese in the different countries; Taiwan, Hong Kong, China and Singapore and reading in context of what he said, he sort of implied that Taiwan and Hong Kong are 'freer' societies (i suppose he meant socially and politically) compare to China and Singapore. 

"we Chinese need to be controlled', lamenting that freedom had made Hong Kong and Taiwan societies chaotic."

Hmm...Interesting statement.  So, was he implying that Chinese should not be given 'freedom'?; given them the 'freedom', society will become 'chaotic'?

I suppose, relatively speaking, both Hong Kong and Taiwan among the 4 countries mentioned are societies which have taken an earlier start in the democratic process of making the society a 'freer' one.  'Freer' means there is no or little restriction in allowing the people/population to express themselves; organise, gather themselves and make their voices heard publicly in numbers.  In such a process, one will witness people trying to express passionately their views and some more so than others.  Some may view such phenomenon as people squabbling and deemed chaotic, like Jacko.  But they fail to see that it is through such a process that the population would be gradually trained and learnt to appreciate differing views from different groups of people and at the same time people would come to a 'negotiated' position which would be acceptable for all; and this can be a continuous process.

On the other hand, most of the time, for fear of loosing control, some society may choose to curtail that sort of freedom among the population.  It is similar to which a parent trying to discipline a child to behave in a manner in which the parent wishes, failing which the child will risk punishment.  Eventually, the child will not learn much more than what her/his parent has taught her/him.  Therefore, when the population is being treated like children, it is going to be difficult for the population to behave otherwise.  Well perhaps Jacko is quite spot on in that part of his observasion/opinion about s'porean chinese.

_45586475_kuwaitparliament226

Well, the Oxford dictionary describes 'democracy' as : a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives