Elitists in Singapore
-
http://theladymelissa.blogspot.com/2008/08/of-peasants-and-peasants.html
Alright everybody. Education time. I have been accused of being rude and offensive by calling people peasants. I would like to clarify the difference between a peasant and a Peasant in this post.
A peasant to me is a member of the mass of people in any society that are the average joes or janes that form the main working community of that society. There are no classless societies; even in communist societies of yesteryear, some were more equal to others. It is my opinion that all societies are still feudal to one extent or another.
In Singapore, we live the lie that there are no classes. Wake up, smell the roses - it is actually lalang grass. It is a myth propagated by the ruling class to subjugate the masses. The HDB dwellers to me, are the peasants of Singapore. Many have no interest in their lives except to keep the roof over their heads, get a mode of transport, and look after their young. That the roof is now an HDB flat rather than a mud hut doesn't make a difference. That the mode of transport is now a Nissan Sunny rather than a water buffalo also doesnt change anything. The life of the HDB peasant isn't SUBSTANTIALLY SPEAKING, any different from the peasant in feudal china. As long as the powers-that-be keep the economy rolling, the country safe, the sun shall shine, hay shall be made and oxen shall grow fat. They do not care for disorder, nor will they rise up in revolt as long as this status quo is maintained. They will do as they told as long as there are goods to be sold. Freedom of speech, democracy, human rights, and all that jazz are for the bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie, or the intelligentsia, or the chattering champagne socialists. The peasants don't care, nor do they want to care.
There is nothing wrong with being a peasant. Many peasants work hard and do well. They get a bigger mud hut, maybe upgrade to an attap hut, get a bigger water buffalo albeit with a 10 year loan. Some do even better and their children become bourgeoisie or intelligentsia. Some even become faux aristocrats - their children become bona fide ones.
But there is a problem with being a Peasant. I hate Peasants.
Peasants have a certain mentality. They think in herds. They follow tabloid news. They worship celebs and call them idols. They believe everything they read and go all ape-shit. They spend hours scouring the internet for proof that a certain individual they do not know, nor is a threat to national security, lied. They hate with a vengeance people they do not know. They love with a passion the same people. They make personal attacks on people on their blogs. Most of all they do not think.
Peasanthood is a state of being - you can emancipate yourself through a hard work, education and a dash of luck.
PEASANTHOOD is a state of mind. It is an illness. Most of the time, it is terminal. -
Originally posted by Genie99a:
The life of the HDB peasant isn't SUBSTANTIALLY SPEAKING, any different from the peasant in feudal china. As long as the powers-that-be keep the economy rolling, the country safe, the sun shall shine, hay shall be made and oxen shall grow fat. They do not care for disorder, nor will they rise up in revolt as long as this status quo is maintained. They will do as they told as long as there are goods to be sold. Freedom of speech, democracy, human rights, and all that jazz are for the bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie, or the intelligentsia, or the chattering champagne socialists. The peasants don't care, nor do they want to care.
Dear Singaporeans,
The view of a Singaporean elitist of you
Meritocracy at its finest. It breeds not good social behaviour but repugnant aristocratic idiocy.
-
And we have the ruling party to thank for it I guess.....who now thinks that the tax rates for the high wage earners should be increased? and those of peasants reduced?
-
genie99a, just a question, were you born before 1980 ?
-
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
genie99a, just a question, were you born before 1980 ?
Yes -
I love my peasants, they are like children.
A society is pretty much like a huge family.
The government plays the role of parents in a society (cos they are unreachable for you at the moment),
your bosses/anyone that is highest than you at your work/study environment (cos you can reach/overtake them eventually) at work plays the role of a husband in a society,
your colleagues/friends (your peers/rivals/anyone at your level) plays the role of your cousins in the society,
those strangers or people that are below you plays the role of the children in the society.
Like in a family, I can love my husband, but I'll love my children more. And I of course respect my parents.
-
Peasants, a pleasant a word as Despot...
Personally, I prefer the word minions, it sounds cooler
-
Originally posted by Genie99a:
Yes
ah, ok thats goodbecause i wanted to say. that this problem, is much worse than most Singaporeans realise. Elitism hasn't really revealed itself in our society.
The post-85 generation, trapped in an incredibly meritocratic education system, exarcebated by foreign media, will show this country what elitism means.
-
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
ah, ok thats goodbecause i wanted to say. that this problem, is much worse than most Singaporeans realise. Elitism hasn't really revealed itself in our society.
The post-85 generation, trapped in an incredibly meritocratic education system, exarcebated by foreign media, will show this country what elitism means.
yup, the problem with Singapore is that education determines all...
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
yup, the problem with Singapore is that education determines all...
My opinion differs from yours.Education gives you a fighting chance to be an elite but in no way is it an easy road nonetheless.
I have a very reliable source that makes quite abit of money *peasant* terms with properties alone cause Singapore is a good place to invest for the rich.
They would rather invest in Singapore than in Australia because every investment property requires you to pay stamp duty 20-50k AUD (each time you buy a property u pay stamp duty). Also your income for the year scales with your tax rate as the more rental income you gain the higher your tax rate. Of course you can go negative gearing to help reduce that but you still have the stamp duty.
In Singapore I don't think you have that stamp duty and if so it pales in comparison. My source is going rampant with District 9,10,11,12 properties and with lucky enbloc sales they make even more.
End of the day I think the wage gap in Singapore is going to widen and it'll breed more "elitist princesses".
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
yup, the problem with Singapore is that education determines all...
definitely. the education itself is very very clearly divided into classes. which will affect the next generation, not so much the current one.The 1% raffles "royalty", next 9% of top school "aristocracy/nobility", next 20% of average "lower gentry", 50% of neighbourhood school "peasants", last 20% of the "hopeless cases".
very exciting eh?
-
They spend hours scouring the internet for proof that a certain individual they do not know, nor is a threat to national security, lied. They hate with a vengeance people they do not know
Hmm...
Speaker's Corner
-
peasants are the heroes of the nation. No country can survive without the peasants, Farmers, herders and manaul labourers. Don tu all realise that the leitist are the ones who benefitted from the peasants? Without them they cant be elitist in the first place.
peasants made what singapore is now today. And lelitist profit from the fruit of that labour.
-
Originally posted by Genie99a:
Peasants have a certain mentality. They think in herds. They follow tabloid news. They worship celebs and call them idols. They believe everything they read and go all ape-shit. They spend hours scouring the internet for proof that a certain individual they do not know, nor is a threat to national security, lied. They hate with a vengeance people they do not know. They love with a passion the same people. They make personal attacks on people on their blogs. Most of all they do not think.
very immature stereotypic view. perhaps just another elite wannabe.these people just don't realise who are the ones on the ground doing the jobs and keeping all the credits to themselves.
-
Originally posted by parn:
I love my peasants, they are like children.
A society is pretty much like a huge family.
The government plays the role of parents in a society (cos they are unreachable for you at the moment),
your bosses/anyone that is highest than you at your work/study environment (cos you can reach/overtake them eventually) at work plays the role of a husband in a society,
your colleagues/friends (your peers/rivals/anyone at your level) plays the role of your cousins in the society,
those strangers or people that are below you plays the role of the children in the society.
Like in a family, I can love my husband, but I'll love my children more. And I of course respect my parents.
Beg to differ really. The govt plays the role of the parent in Singapore. But its supposed to a govt "by the people, for the people". The people put them there to do a job. It is the parternal approach that rubs many fellow forumers here the wrong way.
-
Originally posted by Jontst78:
Beg to differ really. The govt plays the role of the parent in Singapore. But its supposed to a govt "by the people, for the people". The people put them there to do a job. It is the parternal approach that rubs many fellow forumers here the wrong way.
Government are representatives chosen by the people to govern the country. Thus there is a need for election every few years and people get to choose their representatives the want to represent them.Government "by the people, for the people" was probably started by some immature idealist, and it's does sounds pretty catchy and right at the same time. But unfortunately, that is only smart enough to fool common people who couldn't bother to use their brains to understand the true meaning of a government.
Government is not a bunch of "People's Nannies" and neither it is servants of the people. It's really a bunch of selected people chosen to represent and govern the country that's all.
You can always choose to vote for your own representatives. But if the majority voted against your choice of representatives, then do you have what it takes to convince the majority?
Govern is to rule, maintain, control, grow. Are you really naive to believe the people put the government there to govern the people who chose them?
You can think again, government is to govern a country or people? If the country is happy and doing well in the world, maybe the people are just plain retarded not to realise it.
-
Originally posted by parn:
Government are representatives chosen by the people to govern the country. Thus there is a need for election every few years and people get to choose their representatives the want to represent them.Government "by the people, for the people" was probably started by some immature idealist, and it's does sounds pretty catchy and right at the same time. But unfortunately, that is only smart enough to fool common people who couldn't bother to use their brains to understand the true meaning of a government.
Government is not a bunch of "People's Nannies" and neither it is servants of the people. It's really a bunch of selected people chosen to represent and govern the country that's all.
You can always choose to vote for your own representatives. But if the majority voted against your choice of representatives, then do you have what it takes to convince the majority?
Govern is to rule, maintain, control, grow. Are you really naive to believe the people put the government there to govern the people who chose them?
You can think again, government is to govern a country or people? If the country is happy and doing well in the world, maybe the people are just plain retarded not to realise it.
You must be pretty powerful to call Abraham Lincoln immature when he said that
Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people
Govern is to rule, maintain, control, grow. True. But that's still for the people, isn't it?
To govern a country, you help it grow, etc etc. That's still for the people right?
Representing the people.... that's still for the people right?The term "for the people" just encompasses too many things :(
-
Originally posted by eagle:
You must be pretty powerful to call Abraham Lincoln immature when he said that
Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people
Govern is to rule, maintain, control, grow. True. But that's still for the people, isn't it?
To govern a country, you help it grow, etc etc. That's still for the people right?
Representing the people.... that's still for the people right?The term "for the people" just encompasses too many things :(
Since you want to chu Abraham Lincoln, then you must at least be able to give your understanding of what he said and know what he meant.He gave the meaning of democracy, and we're talking about the meaning of government.
Democracy is an ideal, like Communism. Government is a Role.
So is the people unhappy with the democracy or the government?
-
People are unhappy that the way democracy is in the Singapore government context
At least for some of those in this forum.
Anyway, to me, some other forms of governments should be for the people as well.
Eg. Communism, Monarchy (in ancient China).
But maybe not dictatorship.....
Btw, that's cute to suddenly use the hanyu pinyin 'chu'
-
Originally posted by parn:
Since you want to chu Abraham Lincoln, then you must at least be able to give your understanding of what he said and know what he meant.He gave the meaning of democracy, and we're talking about the meaning of government.
Democracy is an ideal, like Communism. Government is a Role.
So is the people unhappy with the democracy or the government?
in this context, there is no reason to pull a distinction between democracy and government.
Singapore's government operates as a method of "asian democracy" which denotes a democracy with a unique level of authoritarinism, characteristic of post-independence regional political regimes. You are not fully wrong to differentiate Singapore's de facto ruling system from a pure 'manifest destiny' style democratic system. But you fail to contextualise the issue at hand.
when we refer to popular dissent (at least from the middle class) towards the government, we are looking at the implications of a politicized critical mass, given that Singapore in a predominantly middle class society. Such political awakening sees to it that modern day Singaporeans compare our socialist democracy with purer examples overseas. This is where issues of freedom and the like arise. As such, the problem arises from the issue of democratic values, not governmental values.
-
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
in this context, there is no reason to pull a distinction between democracy and government.
Singapore's government operates as a method of "asian democracy" which denotes a democracy with a unique level of authoritarinism, characteristic of post-independence regional political regimes. You are not fully wrong to differentiate Singapore's de facto ruling system from a pure 'manifest destiny' style democratic system. But you fail to contextualise the issue at hand.
when we refer to popular dissent (at least from the middle class) towards the government, we are looking at the implications of a politicized critical mass, given that Singapore in a predominantly middle class society. Such political awakening sees to it that modern day Singaporeans compare our socialist democracy with purer examples overseas. This is where issues of freedom and the like arise. As such, the problem arises from the issue of democratic values, not governmental values.
You need to revert to my previous quote to understand the reason for making a distinction between democracy and government.
You still FAILED to correctly identify and highlight the "issues" you mentioned in your post. It's not even a popular dissent as you have mentioned, only a few "rebels" here in sgforums and all their clones are not sufficient to pass off as "popular dissent".
And what makes you think there are purer examples overseas? Again this is another vague comments of yours without any names of any countries overseas to back up your claim. If you are unable to back up your claims with any purer examples, you are just arguing for the sake of doing so.
Is this another one of your arguing for the sake of doing it?
One more mistake that you've made, governmental values are based on democratic values. If not, convince us the difference between your governmental values and democratic values.
By the way, I won't be surprised if you launch another personal attack because you are unable to prove your point. I rather take that than have people like you to confuse others with your headless argument.
-
Originally posted by Genie99a:
My opinion differs from yours.Education gives you a fighting chance to be an elite but in no way is it an easy road nonetheless.
I have a very reliable source that makes quite abit of money *peasant* terms with properties alone cause Singapore is a good place to invest for the rich.
They would rather invest in Singapore than in Australia because every investment property requires you to pay stamp duty 20-50k AUD (each time you buy a property u pay stamp duty). Also your income for the year scales with your tax rate as the more rental income you gain the higher your tax rate. Of course you can go negative gearing to help reduce that but you still have the stamp duty.
In Singapore I don't think you have that stamp duty and if so it pales in comparison. My source is going rampant with District 9,10,11,12 properties and with lucky enbloc sales they make even more.
End of the day I think the wage gap in Singapore is going to widen and it'll breed more "elitist princesses".
Abhorent as she may seem to me at first to me we share similar viewpoints on certain things....
http://theladymelissa.blogspot.com/2008/08/ignoble-nobles.html
Singapore's income disparity has been widening in recent years; this is the inexorable consequence of a meritocratic capitalist society. However, unlike in many Western countries, this is happening without the safety net of a welfare state. Even the United States, the paragon of capitalism, has some sort of welfarism, however flawed it may be
Will be reading her blog in my spare time out of curiousity
-
Why you reply to your own quote????
-
Originally posted by parn:
Why you reply to your own quote????
because he has new insights and and to add to it.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
because he has new insights and and to add to it.
Like that also can.......