For China -bashers...
-
My friend once commented that Singaporeans are generally narrow-minded and ignorant, which I quickly dismissed as a gross generalization. She had a theory though: the temperament and character of a people is determined by the land where they are raised. In this regard, she makes a link between the limited geography of Singapore and the small-mindedness and pettiness of Singaporeans. I was skeptical of this “theory” for some time until I decided to venture into a Singapore on-line community. Here it seems that her theory has found some proof.
Hardly a single day goes by without somebody here making an effort to slight and sneer at China and Chinese nationals. Many comments are full of sheer prejudice and animosity towards my country. I need to remind some Singaporeans that bigotry and prejudice is a reflection of oneÂ’s social standing and upbringing. Studies have repeatedly proved that it is people from the lowest stratum of society in educational background and economic viability that are prone to harbor discrimination and prejudice. The hostile comments here therefore say a lot about the social standing of their posters.
I believe that some issues related to Chinese nationals are real to some extent, for example the manners of some Chinese persons, but not anywhere close to magnitude implied in some of the twisted accounts being offered here. I hardly see any of my fellow countrymen spit nowadays in major cities. On the contrary, I have witnessesed middle-aged Singaporean men spit on the street. Most of my friends are soft-spoken. On the contrary, those loud talkers on MRT trains are mainly Singaporean students, as my own observation attested. Another twisted argument I have encountered here is that we canÂ’t tolerate our own people such that we have to kill other Chinese nationals in Singapore, based on a few homicidal cases. Those who pursue this line of reasoning please first have your brains checked, as the level of retardedness they exhibit is appalling. Second, be reminded of the murder incident committed by your own people against your own countrymen in Australia and elsewhere.
The logic that prevails in some individuals here generally, is that whenever a Chinese national is seen spitting or talking loud, or committing murder, the same trait must also exist in the rest of the Chinese nationals. The same unpalatable behaviour, when witnessed in a Singaporean, is only seen as individual problem. Exactly the same incident is interpreted in different ways. Why is it so? The answer is simply that some of you are not capable of objective thinking. It seems to be a general problem amongst some of your people. It if persists, it bodes ill for your future. After all, what can we expect from a people with a lop-sided and biased mind-set?
In any case, enthusiastic China-bashers here need to examine their own behaviour before pointing fingers at us. Remember that members from a truly civilized society do not sneer at another society. Bear in mind the basic axiom that one disgraces oneself by talking ill of others. If anything counts as bad behavior in the 21st century, it is the alarming level of ignorance, xenophobia and retardedness displayed by some of the posters here.
But that is not the only reason why I am posting this. I am also interested in exploring why some Singaporeans are fond of bashing China. I think it may have to do with a pathological sense of inferiority as a citizen of a small country. Singaporeans know very well that their country has little chance of wielding substantial influence in the world stage. On the other hand, China is making huge progress on all fronts and looks set to becoming a major player in the world. The rapid metamorphoses China is undergoing and the rise of country as a whole has struck fear and bitterness among some Singaporeans who are too tiny-brained to comprehend world dynamics. In an eagerness to assert their own presence and for fear of being overshadowed by China, these people have resorted to China bashing to achieve a delusional sense of psychological balance. This is essentially reflective of the Napoleon syndrome that afflicts many of your people.
In this era defined by inter-dependence of countries, one really cannot afford to be close-minded and xenophobic. For a country like Singapore, the toxic attitude some of your countrymen displays towards foreigners is not healthy to your own development. It is very dangerous indeed for people of small countries to have tinier hearts. -
It actually reaches an extreme absurdity when the locals feel so superior that they actually think that their own local chinese accent is standard and the Chinese Nationals have to copy ours.
But this kind of China bashing is not restricted to the locals. I recommend a visit to the exhibition, "Chinese more or less", at the NTU Chinese Heritage Centre to get an idea how Overseas Chinese have been treated in the past. It speaks of their resilience. I hope Singaporeans today do not fall into the same mindset as the Westerners in the past. Otherwise, it's history repeating itself on a Singapore stage, very ironic. -
You take the bad eggs and multiply them through the consciousness that is growing everyday with the increasing presence of a PRC diaspora, and you can understand why most less-educated Singaporeans will choose to bash and slight any PRC national they see.
It's the curse of the numbers.
There are always black sheep amongst all of us. And if those who aren't , don't bother to speak up or correct them, it's hard to see how they can avoid being labelled as the same.
TS, not everyone like you or me are able to see beyond the immediacy of the inital impression of a people. That's the challenge.
The situation is more intricate than you know, it involves the consequence of socialisation policies of the Singapore government, their dominance in the growth narrative of the past 30 years. It's not merely about displaying disdain towards PRC nationals.
Before this, I would like to remind the threadstarter that the moral high ground that he or she takes is not teneable, and I do not agree with the assumption that people of a lower social stratum are more prone to such acts of discrimination. This is based on an assumption that the society in which these people are located in, is theoretically fair.
So kindly desist from using broad terms like "your people" when you direct your fire back at us because you are committing the same cardinal sin as the very targets of your ire. It casts a pall on your argument, and is highly offensive, to me especially.
Perhaps the maxim of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" should be applied when in doubt. Undoubtedly, the world is shrinking, but glocalisation is the way to go, and one should not forget that each pocket of the world is culturally distinct. I take offence at arguments that claim that ethnic ancestry is the passkey for immediate acceptance and expected kinship.
Total bollocks I'd say. Total bollocks.
That said, I've known some great chaps from China, and also a lot of idiots from Singapore. So it all balances out I guess. -
Care to illustrate the first statement? That sounds like a broad sweep of the brush as well.Originally posted by chiabaliao:It actually reaches an extreme absurdity when the locals feel so superior that they actually think that their own local chinese accent is standard and the Chinese Nationals have to copy ours.
But this kind of China bashing is not restricted to the locals. I recommend a visit to the exhibition, "Chinese more or less", at the NTU Chinese Heritage Centre to get an idea how Overseas Chinese have been treated in the past. It speaks of their resilience. I hope Singaporeans today do not fall into the same mindset as the Westerners in the past. Otherwise, it's history repeating itself on a Singapore stage, very ironic.
I believe most people want a responsible China that is able to fit into the norms of the civilised world, but only an educated and cultured fraction are able to do so. Can you honestly say the majority of Chinese nationals are able to plug seamlessly into a global culture on any given day right now? -
I want to clarify something : Most of us are actually not china-bashers , its a travesty
We just hate the fact that there are so many PRCs in our country ... -
It's the bad eggs that are causing the problems. For me, I've not met such PRCs, so my impression of them isn't bad.
They are hardworking, they have the knowledge, they have the culture. In the Chit Chat thread, I did say they are my motivation. Not the competition for better marks, it's the drive to know more and to preserve my own culture.
With globalization, it only serves to make the situation worse.
Also bear in mind that those PRCs who came here mingle with commoners like us. We have a set of cultures, the PRCs have another set. What is totally acceptable to us may not apply the PRCs, making us seem rude or the PRCs seem rude.
All people are subjected to discrimination of some sort, not just the lower rungs of the society. To say so, it's pretty much like any of the Singaporeans here.I am also interested in exploring why some Singaporeans are fond of bashing China. I think it may have to do with a pathological sense of inferiority as a citizen of a small country. Singaporeans know very well that their country has little chance of wielding substantial influence in the world stage. On the other hand, China is making huge progress on all fronts and looks set to becoming a major player in the world. The rapid metamorphoses China is undergoing and the rise of country as a whole has struck fear and bitterness among some Singaporeans who are too tiny-brained to comprehend world dynamics. In an eagerness to assert their own presence and for fear of being overshadowed by China, these people have resorted to China bashing to achieve a delusional sense of psychological balance. This is essentially reflective of the Napoleon syndrome that afflicts many of your people.
The rapid development of China doesn't just struck fear in Singaporeans, but also other countries. Singapore has never wield influence in the world stage, and the rise of China wouldn't make much difference.
What causes the bitterness is the way things are done here. As Singapore has no minimum wages policy, this can push the workers' salaries down to an unacceptable stage. Even if these workers are willing to accept the lower wages, the longer working hours, the effort they put in have gone to waste because the company decides to relocate due to cheaper wages.
Although business is about maximizing the use of resources, I don't support using such methods. Each and every human has feelings, you can do anything to them, but if you take their efforts and throw it away, you are going to annoy them. -
So how did the natives think when your ancestors and her/his fellows come to their country ? (Fuck so many fucking Chinese infesting our land, we have to kick them out , 1998 and 1964)Originally posted by Trump_Card:I want to clarify something : Most of us are actually not china-bashers , its a travesty
We just hate the fact that there are so many PRCs in our country ... -
Originally posted by 02tonyl:So how did the natives think when your ancestors and her/his fellows come to their country ? (Fuck so many fucking Chinese infesting our land, we have to kick them out , 1998 and 1964)
you are another dumb prick that doesn't know what you are saying
nobody welcomes the CHINA MAN IN THIS COUNTRY
and lastly, bloody hell, it is sir stamford raffles who came to this little island, and then, sign an agreement with the natives. then the chinese came along,
you dumb f u c k, STFU, and go back to your PRC, and stay there for good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_singapore
you stupid piece of s h i t, why not, you just go back to your PRC AND rot there for the rest of your life -
(this is how the country called Singapore was formed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Race_Riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_immigration_to_the_United_States
http://www.answers.com/topic/jakarta-riots-of-may-1998-1 -
again a dumb f u c k, wants to teach us about our historyOriginally posted by 02tonyl:(this is how the country called Singapore was formed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Race_Riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_immigration_to_the_United_States
http://www.answers.com/topic/jakarta-riots-of-may-1998-1
how about, i wiki anything about china
all the shameful things about CHINA, how they abuse human rights?
this will do the trick, you dumb f u c k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
your dumb f u c k COUNTRY, CHINA has massacre 2,600 people were killed and 30,000 were injured -
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 were a series of demonstrations led by students, intellectuals, and labour activists in the People's Republic of China (PRC) between April 15, 1989 and June 4, 1989. While the protests lacked a unified cause or leadership, participants were generally critical of the ruling Chinese Communist Party and voiced complaints ranging from minor criticisms to calls for full-fledged democracy and the establishment of broader freedoms. The demonstrations centred on Tiananmen Square in Beijing, but large-scale protests also occurred in cities throughout China, including Shanghai, which stayed peaceful throughout the protests. In Beijing, the resulting military crackdown on the protesters by the PRC government left many civilians dead or injured. The toll ranges from 200–300 (PRC government figures), to 2,000–3,000 (Chinese student associations and Chinese Red Cross), although the PRC government asserts and most independent observers agree that the majority of these deaths were not in the square itself but rather in the streets leading to the square.
Following the violence, the government conducted widespread arrests to suppress protestors and their supporters, cracked down on other protests around China, banned the foreign press from the country and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the PRC press. Members of the Party who had publicly sympathized with the protesters were purged, with several high-ranking members placed under house arrest, such as General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. The violent suppression of the Tiananmen Square protest caused widespread international condemnation of the PRC government.
Naming of incident
Outside of China, the incident is often named after the location of the movement: Tiananmen Square, Beijing. It has also been called the Tiananmen Square Massacre and The Beijing Massacre.
In the Chinese language, the incident is most commonly known as the June Fourth Movement . The nomenclature of the former is consistent with the customary names of the other two great protest actions that occurred in Tiananmen Square: the May Fourth Movement of 1919, and the April Fifth Movement of 1976. In some contexts, "June Fourth Movement" refers more generally to all the student and civil unrest which occurred throughout China, in addition to the events in Beijing and specifically Tiananmen Square. The government of the People's Republic of China has referred to the event as the Political Turmoil between Spring and Summer of 1989.
Background
Since 1978, Deng Xiaoping had led a series of economic and political reforms which had led to the gradual implementation of a market economy and some political liberalization that relaxed the system set up by Mao Zedong. By early 1989, these economic and political reforms had led two groups of people to become dissatisfied with the government.
The first group included students and intellectuals, who believed that the reforms had not gone far enough and that China needed to reform its political systems, since the economic reforms had only affected farmers and factory workers; the incomes of intellectuals lagged far behind those who had benefited from reform policies. They were concerned about the social and political controls that the Communist Party of China still had. In addition, this group saw the political liberalization that had been undertaken in the name of glasnost by Mikhail Gorbachev. The second group were those, including urban industrial workers, who believed that the social and political reforms had gone too far. The loosening of economic control had begun to cause inflation and unemployment, which threatened their livelihood.
The Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 were in large measure sparked by the death of former Secretary General Hu Yaobang. Hu Yaobang's "resignation" from the position of Secretary General of the CPC had been announced on January 16, 1987. His forthright calls for "rapid reform and his almost open contempt of Maoist excesses" had made him a suitable scapegoat in the eyes of Deng Xiaoping and others, after the pro-democracy student protests of 1986–1987 (Spence 1999, 685). Included in his resignation was also a "humiliating self-criticism", which he was forced to issue by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Hu Yaobang's sudden death, due to heart attack, on April 15, 1989 provided a perfect opportunity for the students to gather once again, not only to mourn the deceased Secretary General, but also to have their voices heard in "demanding a reversal of the verdict against him" and bringing renewed attention to the important issues of the 1986–1987 pro-democracy protests and possibly also to those of the Democracy Wall protests in 1978–1979 (Spence 1999, 697). -
Protests begin
Protests started out on a small scale, in the form of mourning for Hu Yaobang and demands that the party revise their official view of him. The protests gained momentum after news of confrontation between students and police spread; the belief by students that the Chinese media was distorting the nature of their activities also led to increased support. At Hu's funeral, a large group of students gathered at Tiananmen Square and requested, but failed, to meet premier Li Peng, widely regarded to be Hu's political rival. Thus students called for a strike in universities in Beijing. Alarm bells rung at the government, well aware of the political storm caused by the now-legitimized 1976 Tiananmen Incident.
On April 26, following an internal speech made by Deng Xiaoping, the CPC's official newspaper People's Daily issued a front-page editorial titled Uphold the flag to clearly oppose any turmoil, attempting to rally the public behind the government, and accused "extremely small segments of opportunists" for plotting civil unrest. The statement enraged the students, and on April 29 about 50,000 students assembled on the streets of Beijing, disregarding the warning of a crackdown made by authorities and demanded that the government revoke the statement.
In Beijing, a majority of students from the city's numerous colleges and universities participated with support of their instructors and other intellectuals. The students rejected official Communist Party-controlled student associations and set up their own autonomous associations. The students viewed themselves as Chinese patriots, as the heirs of the May Fourth Movement for "science and democracy" of 1919.
The protests also evoked memories of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1976 which had eventually led to the ousting of the Gang of Four. From its origins as a memorial to Hu Yaobang, who was seen by the students as an advocate of democracy, the students' activity gradually developed over the course of their demonstration from protests against corruption into demands for freedom of the press and an end to, or the reform of the rule of the PRC by the Communist Party of China and Deng Xiaoping, the de facto paramount Chinese leader. Partially successful attempts were made to reach out and network with students in other cities and with workers.
Although the initial protests were made by students and intellectuals who believed that the Deng Xiaoping reforms had not gone far enough and China needed to reform its political systems, they soon attracted the support of urban workers who believed that the reforms had gone too far. This occurred because the leaders of the protests focused on the issue of corruption, which united both groups, and because the students were able to invoke Chinese archetypes of the selfless intellectual who spoke truth to power.
Unlike the Tiananmen protests of 1987, which consisted mainly of students and intellectuals, the protests in 1989 commanded widespread support from the urban workers who were alarmed by growing inflation and corruption. In Beijing, they were supported by a large number of people. Similar numbers were found in major cities throughout mainland China such as Urumqi, Shanghai and Chongqing; and later in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Chinese communities in North America and Europe.
Protests escalate
On May 4, approximately 100,000 students and workers marched in Beijing making demands for free media reform and a formal dialogue between the authorities and student-elected representatives. The government rejected the proposed dialogue, only agreeing to talk to members of appointed student organizations. On May 13, two days prior to the highly-publicized state visit by the reform-minded Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, huge groups of students occupied Tiananmen Square and started a hunger strike, insisting the government withdraw the accusation made in the People's Daily editorial and begin talks with the designated student representatives. Hundreds of students went on hunger strikes and were supported by hundreds of thousands of protesting students and part of the population of Beijing, for one week.
Protests and strikes began at many colleges in other cities, with many students traveling to Beijing to join the demonstration. Generally, the demonstration at Tiananmen Square was well-ordered, with daily marches of students from various Beijing area colleges displaying their solidarity with the boycott of college classes and with the developing demands of the protest. The students sang "The Internationale," the world socialist anthem, on their way to and within the square. The students even showed a surprising gesture of respect to the government by helping police arrest three men from Hunan Province, including Yu Dongyue, who had thrown ink on the large portrait of Mao that hangs from Tiananmen, just north of the square.
The students ultimately decided that in order to sustain their movement and impede any loss of momentum a hunger strike would need to be enacted. The students' decision to undertake the hunger strike was a defining moment in their movement. The hunger strike began in May 1989 and grew to include "more than one thousand persons" (Liu 1994, 315). The hunger strike brought widespread support for the students and "the ordinary people of Beijing rallied to protect the hunger strikers...because the act of refusing sustenance and courting government reprisals convinced onlookers that the students were not just seeking personal gains but (were) sacrificing themselves for the Chinese people as a whole" (Calhoun 1994, 113). -
Government crackdown on the protests
The Unknown Rebel - This famous photo, taken on 5 June 1989 by photographer Jeff Widener, depicts a lone protester who tried to stop four advancing tanks until he was pulled into the crowd by several onlookers.
The Unknown Rebel - This famous photo, taken on 5 June 1989 by photographer Jeff Widener, depicts a lone protester who tried to stop four advancing tanks until he was pulled into the crowd by several onlookers.
Although the government declared martial law on May 20, the military's entry into Beijing was blocked by throngs of protesters, and the army was eventually ordered to withdraw. Meanwhile, the demonstrations continued. The hunger strike was approaching the end of the third week, and the government resolved to end the matter before deaths occurred. After deliberation among Communist party leaders, the use of military force to resolve the crisis was ordered, and a deep divide in the politburo resulted. General Secretary Zhao Ziyang was ousted from political leadership as a result of his support for the student demonstrators. The military also lacked unity on the issue, and purportedly did not indicate immediate support for a crackdown, leaving the central leadership scrambling to search for individual divisions willing to comply with their orders.
Soldiers and tanks from the 27th and 28th Armies of the People's Liberation Army were sent to take control of the city. The 27th Army was led by a commander related to Yang Shangkun. In a press conference, US President Bush announced sanctions on the People's Republic of China (following calls to action from members of congress such as US Senator Jesse Helms). The President suggested that intelligence he had received indicated some disunity in China's military ranks, and even the possibility of clashes within the military during those days. Intelligence reports also indicated that 27th and 28th units were brought in from outside provinces because the local PLA were considered to be sympathetic to the protest and the people of the city. Reporters described elements of the 27th as having been most responsible for civilian deaths. After the attack on the square, the 27th reportedly established defensive positions in Beijing - not of the sort designed to counter a civilian uprising, but as if to defend against attacks by other military units. The locally-stationed 38th Army, on the other hand, was reportedly sympathetic to the uprising. They were supplied no ammunition, and were said to be torching their own vehicles as they abandoned them to join the protests.[citation needed]
Entry of the troops into the city was actively opposed by many citizens of Beijing. Protesters burned public buses and used them as roadblocks to stop the military's progress. The battle continued on the streets surrounding the Square, with protesters repeatedly advancing toward the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and constructing barricades with vehicles, while the PLA attempted to clear the streets using tear gas, rifles, and tanks. Many injured citizens were saved by rickshaw drivers who ventured into the no-man's-land between the soldiers and crowds and carried the wounded off to hospitals. After the attack on the square, live television coverage showed many people wearing black armbands in protest of the government's action, crowding various boulevards or congregating by burnt out and smoking barricades. Meanwhile, the PLA systematically established checkpoints around the city, chasing after protesters and blocking off the university district.
Within the Square itself, there was apparently a debate between those who wished to withdraw peacefully (including Han Dongfang), and those who wished to stand within the square (such as Chai Ling). The assault on the square began at 10:30PM on June 3, as armored personnel carriers (APCs) and armed troops with fixed bayonets approached from various positions. These APCs rolled on up the roads, firing ahead and off to the sides, perhaps killing or wounding their own soldiers in the process. BBC reporter Kate Adie spoke of "indiscriminate fire" within the square. Students who sought refuge in buses were pulled out by groups of soldiers and beaten with heavy sticks. Even students attempting to leave the square were beset by soldiers and beaten. Leaders of the protest inside the square, where some had attempted to erect flimsy barricades ahead of the APCs, were said to have "implored" the students not to use weapons (such as Molotov cocktails) against the oncoming soldiers. Meanwhile, many students apparently were shouting, "Why are you killing us?" By 5:40AM the following morning, the Square had been cleared.
The suppression of the protest was immortalized in Western media by the famous video footage and photographs of a lone man in a white shirt standing in front of a column of tanks which were attempting to drive out of Tiananmen Square. Taken on June 5 as the column approached an intersection on the Avenue of Eternal Peace, the footage depicted the unarmed man standing in the center of the street, halting the tanks' progress. He reportedly said, "Why are you here? You have caused nothing but misery." As the tank driver attempted to go around him, the "tank man" moved into the tank's path. He continued to stand defiantly in front of the tanks for some time, then climbed up onto the turret of the lead tank to speak to the soldiers inside.
After returning to his position blocking the tanks, the man was pulled aside by onlookers who perhaps feared he would be shot or run over. Time Magazine dubbed him The Unknown Rebel and later named him one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century. British tabloid the Sunday Express reported that the man was 19-year-old student Wang Weilin, however the veracity of this claim is dubious. What happened to the 'tank man' following the demonstration is not known.
In a speech to the President's Club in 1999, Bruce Herschensohn — former deputy special assistant to President Richard Nixon — reported that he was executed 14 days later. In Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now, Jan Wong writes that the man is still alive and hiding in mainland China. In Forbidden City, Canadian children's author William Bell, claims the man was named Wang Ai-min and was killed on June 9 after being taken into custody. The last official statement from the PRC government about the tank man came from Jiang Zemin in a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters, when asked about the whereabouts of the tank man, Jiang responded that "the young man was never, never (sic) killed."
After the crackdown in Beijing on June 4, protests continued in much of mainland China for several days. There were large protests in Hong Kong, where people again wore black in protest. There were protests in Guangzhou, and large-scale protests in Shanghai with a general strike. There were also protests in other countries, many adopting the use of black arm bands as well. However, the government soon regained control. Although no large-scale loss of life was reported in ending the protests in other cities, a political purge followed in which officials responsible for organising or condoning the protests were removed, and protest leaders jailed. -
Number of deaths
The number of dead and wounded remains unclear because the Chinese government never released its data. An unnamed Chinese Red Cross official at the time reported that 2,600 people were killed and 30,000 were injured. Two days later, Yuan Mu, the speaker of the State Council, estimated that 300 soldiers and citizens died, 5,000 soldiers and 2,000 citizens injured, 400 soldiers lost contact, and that many of the soldiers were burned alive by the protesters. Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and State Council later claimed that tens of PLA soldiers died and more were injured.
The Preparatory Committee of Autonomous Associations of Tsinghua University claimed that 4,000 died and 30,000 were injured[citation needed] Chen Xitong, Beijing mayor, reported after the event that 36 students and tens of soldiers died, amounting to a total of 200 dead, with 3,000 civilians and 6,000 soldiers injured. 7 Foreign reporters that witnessed the incident have claimed that at least 3,000 people died.
Some lists of casualties were created from underground sources with numbers as high as 5,000. In contrast, before the government in Beijing had completely re-established control over the news media in China, a monitored English language broadcast from Beijing stated that at least 3,000 students died in the massacre.
At the same time, the Chinese Red Cross reported that they had counted 2,600 people dead - and they still were counting. As both sources are impossible to verify given that access to objective information was impossible under martial law, the discrepancy between the numbers of individuals killed is unresolved. Despite the discrepancy, observers outside China (as well as some inside China) generally agree that at least 400 and perhaps over 1,000 were killed, as quoted by western media such as Los Angeles Times - but do not agree on the number of people who were injured.
The Chinese government has maintained that there were no deaths within the square itself, although videos taken there at the time recorded the sound of gunshots. Professor Ding Zilin whose son was shot dead on the night of June 3, 1989, started to collect the names of those who were killed around that night. At the end of June of 2006, she claimed to be able to confirm 186 deaths, which can be found here in Chinese. -
DOES ANY PRC PRICK WANT ME TO LINK MORE SHAMEFUL ARTICLE, HOW DID CHINA ABUSE HUMAN RIGHTS
AND NOT TO FORGOTTEN, WHO WAS THE F U C K E R, WHO SPREAD THE SARS
the reason why i got annoyed is because of 02tonyl, his ignorant has cause all this.
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, I WILL STOOD TO THE LOWEST TO SHAME CHINA PRC -
I guess you are refering to Chinese Government.Originally posted by allentyb:DOES ANY PRC PRICK WANT ME TO LINK MORE SHAMEFUL ARTICLE, HOW DID CHINA ABUSE HUMAN RIGHTS
AND NOT TO FORGOTTEN, WHO WAS THE F U C K E R, WHO SPREAD THE SARS
Keep in mind there're good eggs and bad eggs in every country. -
You have articulated your case well, but it falls short as you overlook one crucial point ..
You are a guest in my country.
You chose to come at your own free will. If you do not like the way you are treated, LEAVE.
As Chinese people are proud of their many traditions, so are Singaporeans. We have our way of doing things, you have yours.
You don't see Singaporeans kicking up a big fuss about being treated unjustly in China, despite the fact that fraud and larceny is committed against the casual Singaporean tourist on a shockingly regular basis. All we do is, leave, and never come back.
Just because you're from a more populous country does not make you superior. Such backward thinking reflects the archaic traditions from an ancient civilization left behind by time.
If you're not happy. LEAVE. Don't you dare raise arguments that you are not because Singapore has better education, infrastructure, job opportunities etc. Don't forget, you're taking them away from other Singaporeans, whether rightly so or not. As such, you are a guest at your own free will, and on our good graces. If you are unhappy with the way you are treated. LEAVE.
If you choose to say that you're forced to be in Singapore .. THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM; not the 4 million Singaporeans who were born and raised here.
So .. F U C K O F F.
Yours Truly,
Proudly Singaporean,
RmyFrm -
that dumb PRICK, 02tonyl, TALKS ABOUT OUR HISTORYOriginally posted by ky13:I guess you are refering to Chinese Government.
Keep in mind there're good eggs and bad eggs in every country.
SO i GIVE HIM A REMINDER OF WHAT HIS COUNTRY IS MAKE OF!
I DON'T HATE CHINA AS A COUNTRY, BUT IT IS THOSE RUDE PRICK WHO IS MAKING THE GOOD NAME OF CHINA, IN SHAME -
Well, you've got to understand this country comprises of a xenophobic political leadership that believes in taking pre-emptive measures to ensure all threats - be they real, imagined or potential - to their existence be eradicated. The vast majority who behave in the manner you highlighted are merely further advocates of the doctrines this fascist media has indoctrinated them with...Originally posted by dreameryb:In any case, enthusiastic China-bashers here need to examine their own behaviour before pointing fingers at us. Remember that members from a truly civilized society do not sneer at another society. Bear in mind the basic axiom that one disgraces oneself by talking ill of others. If anything counts as bad behavior in the 21st century, it is the alarming level of ignorance, xenophobia and retardedness displayed by some of the posters here.
But that is not the only reason why I am posting this. I am also interested in exploring why some Singaporeans are fond of bashing China. I think it may have to do with a pathological sense of inferiority as a citizen of a small country. Singaporeans know very well that their country has little chance of wielding substantial influence in the world stage. On the other hand, China is making huge progress on all fronts and looks set to becoming a major player in the world. The rapid metamorphoses China is undergoing and the rise of country as a whole has struck fear and bitterness among some Singaporeans who are too tiny-brained to comprehend world dynamics. In an eagerness to assert their own presence and for fear of being overshadowed by China, these people have resorted to China bashing to achieve a delusional sense of psychological balance. This is essentially reflective of the Napoleon syndrome that afflicts many of your people. -
Strangely, you dont see this attitude towards the Indian/Bangaldeshi workers, and other nationals.
So that is enough to label Singaporeans as feeling themselves and superior and all that?
I dont think so. I think its because of China that hit a sore point right?
And the whole bunch who comes in together just to act pro China..certain suspicious
-
actually.. it's everywhere lah.. go ask HK people what they think about their China bro...most will tell u bad things lor...... ever think of why everyone wan to bash them? .......... like i said b4... i have yet to see any china man that is good.... even NORMAL standard is hard to find.....
-
Thats the best response to this thread...Originally posted by rmyfrm:You have articulated your case well, but it falls short as you overlook one crucial point ..
You are a guest in my country.
You chose to come at your own free will. If you do not like the way you are treated, LEAVE.
As Chinese people are proud of their many traditions, so are Singaporeans. We have our way of doing things, you have yours.
You don't see Singaporeans kicking up a big fuss about being treated unjustly in China, despite the fact that fraud and larceny is committed against the casual Singaporean tourist on a shockingly regular basis. All we do is, leave, and never come back.
Just because you're from a more populous country does not make you superior. Such backward thinking reflects the archaic traditions from an ancient civilization left behind by time.
If you're not happy. LEAVE. Don't you dare raise arguments that you are not because Singapore has better education, infrastructure, job opportunities etc. Don't forget, you're taking them away from other Singaporeans, whether rightly so or not. As such, you are a guest at your own free will, and on our good graces. If you are unhappy with the way you are treated. LEAVE.
If you choose to say that you're forced to be in Singapore .. THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM; not the 4 million Singaporeans who were born and raised here.
So .. F U C K O F F.
Yours Truly,
Proudly Singaporean,
RmyFrm
-
I think Ukrainians rank well above South Asians and PRCs. TIme to bring them in.
-
This did not happen overnight. What do you expect, really? Some years ago, the favourite stories of the local media was of the bad PRCs who cheated Singaporeans. One was followed by another, and then another. The media managed to dig up alot of dirt on some PRCs.Originally posted by dreameryb:My friend once commented that Singaporeans are generally narrow-minded and ignorant, which I quickly dismissed as a gross generalization. She had a theory though: the temperament and character of a people is determined by the land where they are raised. In this regard, she makes a link between the limited geography of Singapore and the small-mindedness and pettiness of Singaporeans. I was skeptical of this “theory” for some time until I decided to venture into a Singapore on-line community. Here it seems that her theory has found some proof.
Hardly a single day goes by without somebody here making an effort to slight and sneer at China and Chinese nationals. Many comments are full of sheer prejudice and animosity towards my country. I need to remind some Singaporeans that bigotry and prejudice is a reflection of one’s social standing and upbringing. Studies have repeatedly proved that it is people from the lowest stratum of society in educational background and economic viability that are prone to harbor discrimination and prejudice. The hostile comments here therefore say a lot about the social standing of their posters.
I believe that some issues related to Chinese nationals are real to some extent, for example the manners of some Chinese persons, but not anywhere close to magnitude implied in some of the twisted accounts being offered here. I hardly see any of my fellow countrymen spit nowadays in major cities. On the contrary, I have witnessesed middle-aged Singaporean men spit on the street. Most of my friends are soft-spoken. On the contrary, those loud talkers on MRT trains are mainly Singaporean students, as my own observation attested. Another twisted argument I have encountered here is that we can’t tolerate our own people such that we have to kill other Chinese nationals in Singapore, based on a few homicidal cases. Those who pursue this line of reasoning please first have your brains checked, as the level of retardedness they exhibit is appalling. Second, be reminded of the murder incident committed by your own people against your own countrymen in Australia and elsewhere.
The logic that prevails in some individuals here generally, is that whenever a Chinese national is seen spitting or talking loud, or committing murder, the same trait must also exist in the rest of the Chinese nationals. The same unpalatable behaviour, when witnessed in a Singaporean, is only seen as individual problem. Exactly the same incident is interpreted in different ways. Why is it so? The answer is simply that some of you are not capable of objective thinking. It seems to be a general problem amongst some of your people. It if persists, it bodes ill for your future. After all, what can we expect from a people with a lop-sided and biased mind-set?
In any case, enthusiastic China-bashers here need to examine their own behaviour before pointing fingers at us. Remember that members from a truly civilized society do not sneer at another society. Bear in mind the basic axiom that one disgraces oneself by talking ill of others. If anything counts as bad behavior in the 21st century, it is the alarming level of ignorance, xenophobia and retardedness displayed by some of the posters here.
But that is not the only reason why I am posting this. I am also interested in exploring why some Singaporeans are fond of bashing China. I think it may have to do with a pathological sense of inferiority as a citizen of a small country. Singaporeans know very well that their country has little chance of wielding substantial influence in the world stage. On the other hand, China is making huge progress on all fronts and looks set to becoming a major player in the world. The rapid metamorphoses China is undergoing and the rise of country as a whole has struck fear and bitterness among some Singaporeans who are too tiny-brained to comprehend world dynamics. In an eagerness to assert their own presence and for fear of being overshadowed by China, these people have resorted to China bashing to achieve a delusional sense of psychological balance. This is essentially reflective of the Napoleon syndrome that afflicts many of your people.
In this era defined by inter-dependence of countries, one really cannot afford to be close-minded and xenophobic. For a country like Singapore, the toxic attitude some of your countrymen displays towards foreigners is not healthy to your own development. It is very dangerous indeed for people of small countries to have tinier hearts.
So what happened was that prejudice was formed. It's easy to descend a mountain, but difficult to ascend it; the reputation of the PRCs have been ruined by those particular few, and by the media who would not stop blowing the news up. Really, who cares about the good PRCs? It's bad news that sells.
Singaporeans also can be arrogant by default, and because some of them are so ignorant on China, plus the fact that quite a number of PRCs hasn't been showing good examples, how else do you expect them to respond?
The latest fuss is of course, the influx of foreign talent. It's hard not to notice the number of PRCs increasing here.
I don't agree with the level of education thing either. Prejudice can happen to any social class. Our government is of course, made up of very highly-educated people, and I believe they themselves are prejudiced against China. Hey, no wonder some of their people are also prejudiced?
I feel bad for the PRCs who always get targetted, especially the good ones. I think those silly Singaporeans who always engage in China-bashing need to get a grip on themselves. They are a loss of face. -
How many people out there have the impression that PRCs often demand the right not to be criticised? Be it an indirect or direct demand.
For every Singaporean that loves to generalise, there's another PRC who thinks that they deserve the right to move to another country and be treated like VIPs and not have anything bad said about them.
I'm pro immigration, but I will frankly say that those who do not want to integrate, can get the hell out of Singapore. If you want to be part of the narrative, get with the program.
I don't go abroad and put on an inferiority complex, because I know I'm not a native of that land, and therefore it's natural I should not have the right to make a fuss and demand to be treated like a king.
You know who's the real losers in this whole issue, decent, hardworking and humble Singaporeans and PRCs. Because now they are both tarred and slimed too.