Announcement:
TOC will be migrating to a new server in the coming day or two. If you experience any accessibility problems, please do be patient. The new server will allow for faster access speed on this website.
Tng Ying Hui
I love this phrase of the pledge, for all the virtues it embodies. Peace, understanding, tolerance and love. Wars and riots caused by issues of race, language and religion are replete throughout history.
For multiracial Singapore, these are important lessons to learn from. More importantly, to achieve and maintain the peace we now enjoy would be more than an ineffable ideal; it is a process of which, despite being long and arduous, the end would be long lasting and peaceful.
We are on our way there, we have to be. When we are there, our nation will flourish. As a nation we are not there yet, as Lee Kuan Yew reminded us recently.
A nation accepting and tolerant, which integrates seamlessly, is one impervious to disintegration within. In South East Asia, we have seen too many countries ripped apart by internal conflicts. The ethnic Karens are in constant battle with the Burmese in Burma; in Thailand, the Muslim south never sees eye to eye with the Buddhist Thais. Singapore too had once been susceptible to riots. The government has since constantly reminded us of our fragility and of going against the laws they have set in place to govern this peace.
But we are not there yet. Our peace sometimes feels like it could shatter anytime. What is the basis of our peace?
The shadowy presence of the Internal Security Act (ISA) is not forgotten by Singaporeans. Memories of Operation Cold Store and Operation Spectrum remind us of a government which will not hesitate to throw dissenters into jail – without trial. Then, there is also the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA). Implicit in the MRHA is the understanding that it is the role of the state to police ‘religion’ so as to maintain “religious harmony”. While the application of this law has not been as brutal compared to the ISA, the law in itself prevents any honest and open discussions of religions.
Our laws should not be used to forcefully bring about peace. Instead, they should foster the blossoming of each culture and religion. But have they done so?
In 2002, when four 6–year-old girls wore the tudung to school, the government stuck by its principle that schools represent a precious common space, where all young Singaporeans wear school uniform, as a daily reminder of the need to stand together as citizens, regardless of race, religion and social status. As the parents of the children persisted in their belief that faith is as important as education, the girls continued to wear their headscarves. The authorities had to ask them to leave. So instead of students learning about the importance of headscarves to the Muslims, they instead learn that wearing the ‘tudung is wrong’. Ironically, the Sikh boys are allowed to wear turban to schools.
Besides the laws, the government all too often preaches that our highly acclaimed economic progress could be destroyed by inter-racial conflict. This is something deeply embedded in our minds. It is definitely true, but the question is: Is our peace so fragile that we have to view race and religion as OB markers? Academics, social and religious activists all tread carefully when broaching the topic. I see a ‘nation’ of peace built on sand.
Religious activists alike have a pertinent role to play in our secular society. Stoking unsound religious fervour should be avoided at all costs and to point fingers and blame the different religions/ races for anything is repulsive. The basis for inter-religious peace is understanding.
When the Aware saga unfolded, the government took a hands-off approach but it made its point clear – Singapore remains a secular society. Mr Wong Kan Seng, Minister for Home Affairs, said, “Keeping religion and politics separate is a key rule of political engagement.” (ST: 15 May 2009) I believe, this is a way forward until the edifice of our peace has anchored.
I have to agree that we are increasingly colour blind, but not completely. It saddens me to still hear some Chinese parents threatening to give away their misbehaving young children to the ‘Ah nehs’, a derogatory term used to describe Indian Singaporeans here. It is also sad to hear the Prime Minister say, in November 2008, that he feels Singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister. ““Who votes for whom, and what makes him identify with that person… these are sentiments which will not disappear completely for a long time,” he said, “even if people do not talk about it, even if people wish they did not feel it.” (China Post)
This is an echo of what then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in the 80s: “’It is make-believe to pretend that race and language do not affect voter preference.” (Asiaone)
Does this not show the that ideology of multiracialism (and meritocracy, by the way) which we hold dear to be nothing but a façade – even after 44 years of “nation building”?
Open and honest discussions of contradictory topics of religion and culture are often shunned. I would agree that these topics are undeniably and potentially volatile and are possible causes for conflict. This however, should never be the reason to avoid talking about them. There have been inter-religious dialogues in Singapore and a recent participant of such a dialogue mentioned the need for ‘constructive disharmony’.
Despite all religions propounding the same moral rules, what we must achieve is to first understand the differences and second, to accept fellow Singaporeans in spite of their beliefs.
That is why racial and religious harmony is not just built upon tough laws and strict OB markers, but also on the active desire to engage people of other races and faiths.
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I think that we are still far away from having a homogenous body of people thinking as one nation here.
We are simply too divergent in race, language and religion to do so.
Moreover, our govt way of treating them also means selected segregation.
With the influx of foreigners becoming citizens, this national programme to unite the different races together is also under threat.
Now, we have to think of programmes to integrate foreign born citizens with locally bred ones.
I guess that so long as we have mutual respect for one another without rioting or open protest, we are doing fine. Anything else is a bonus.
I disagree with Gilbert Goh about open protest. Open protest are legitimate means to express disagreement and anger as long as it is carried out in a civil and legal fashion. With regards to religious harmony, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong mentioned that ” in Singapore, rising religiosity … must result in a push-back by the rest” during the recent Marine Parade National Day Dinner. I hope some religiously motivated activists must understand this.
Dear People,
You have to be very careful with the Tudung Issue. If you allow the Tudung – then the fundamentalists will go one step further and demand the Syariah Law to be implemented here.
Fact is – you’ve got to draw the line somewhere.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
This article also begs the question whether the GRC system is poltical tool using minority race as facade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_representation_constituency
“Critics have noted that Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam won the 1981 Anson by-election in a Chinese-majority constituency, and that since the GRC system was implemented, minority representation in Parliament has actually declined.
Goh Chok Tong admitted in 2006 that the GRC system is a method to enable new PAP candidates to win election easily”
#1) i agreew with you. we are simply too divded, especially along religious lines. we have made peace with race long ago but not religion yet. militant religion is spilling into secular space in singapore
Learn from the USA about handling racial and religious differences. They have 300 years of experience about it. Keeping everything under wrap and waiting for it to explode is really not the path to go. I’m a Muslim and like most Muslims in Singapore, we do no want to be segregated from the rest. Make me feel at home here in my own country and i will treat you with the utmost respect.
Unfortunately it is the PAP and its policies that keep us from being integrated as a united people-
CDAC
Sinda
Mendaki –
They should dismantle all these wastage and duplication and have a comprehensive social help board.
Another pet peeve – CIMO race on our IC – does it mean anything now
And of course, the GRC system which serves to remind us that our PAP will forever entrench our racial differences instead of us finding common spaces.
Racially divisive forces, propagated by our PAP.
Syed Alwi: Syariah Law is already being implemented here, governing Muslims. Furthermore, it is a Syariah Law that has accommodated many features of a secular state, such as no law against apostasy or murtad (since freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution) and also very little moral policing (such as anti-adultery or zina laws). So please, as much as I am aware of your stand against Islamic fundamentalism, I don’t think that scenario you’re suggesting–that Syariah Law will be implemented to govern *all* Singaporeans–is at all realistic.
That said, I don’t agree either with your slippery slope argument that allowing the tudung in our schools will result in Islamic fundamentalists clamouring for more rights. The argument against the tudung in schools is such that we can ‘preserve’ a common space, but this isn’t ‘common space’ at all, it’s hegemonic space. It’s a space that is defined by the majority in school. What kind of ‘common space’ are we talking about anyway when we’re dealing with monoethnic SAP schools or madrasahs? And on that note, if we take the MOE itself as this superstructural ‘common space’, why then the discrepances in funding for SAP schools and the madrasahs?
Dear Alfian,
First of all – where were you during the Madrasah Issue debate, the Tudung Issue debate and during the hey-day of Fateha ?
In those days – I supported the wearing of the Tudung at school. But not anymore. After witnessing the rise of PAS since March 8th, I no longer believe that the tudung be allowed in Singapore schools. I have changed my views since then.
There are enough fundamentalists and PAS supporters in Singapore – who if given the chance – would push for greater Islamisation.
You must always remember the regional picture. Singapore does not define Islam. Islam is defined by the Muslim world. The Syariah which you speak about might not be acceptable to the larger Muslim world.
There is no more doubt in my mind – the tudung should not be worn to schools because it will embolden certain quarters within the Muslim community here – to clamour for greater Islamisation.
I think that you are not looking at the situation from a regional viewpoint. The rising tide of Political Islam in neighbouring countries is cause for concern.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
#14) Syed Alwi Dr
The rise of ‘Political Islam’ in SEA is altogether a complex historical-political matter. You speak of PAS as Dr Mahathir Mohamad would ‘to exploit non-Muslim fears of conservative Islam & ethnic violence’ (Robert Hefner 2001:33). Moreover PAS is not a monolithic bloc like you may have misunderstood it to be for there are deep internal ideological divisions within the party itself.
I think Robert W. Hefner’s “The politics of multiculturalism : pluralism and citizenship in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia” (ed. 2001) has a good introductory socio-political analysis on the stuff you’re talking about. For your further education please.
Dear walau,
Politics is not an academic discourse. The creeping Islamisation that is taking place in Malaysia is definitely real and worrying. And this is not an attempt to frighten Non-Muslims.
Even the DAP – partner of PAS within PR – has problems with the kind of Islamisation that PAS brings.
In any case – we in Singapore certainly do not want to encourage our own fundamentalists – to clamour for a greater Islamic presence.
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
If Islam fundamentalists were to become more active, I think I may just go and get myself converted as a Muslim. In this way, there will be less of a problem.
The saying goes: “Cannot beat them, join them” lah.
Or age.
It is sad that in Singapore, when you reach 50, your CPF will be cut by the Singapore Government.
Ageism – celebrated by the Singapore PAP government.
Unless you are a politician/ cabinet minister, you get a monthly pension, on top of your regular annual million dollar salary.
Regardless of Race language or religion?
PAP – why like that??
#12) Syed Alwi Dr
Thank you. Politics is certainly not mere academic discouse but with proper understanding and study, it will hopefully lead to more thoughtful insights and better-informed, responsible actions.
Funny thing abut the gahmen…….they like to preach what ever that comes to their fancy and then flip flop abt it……eg the meritocracy of having a Malay General but keeping the HDB policy of racial quotas…..somehow the gahmen feels the time is right for a Malay General but a group of Malays in HDB blocks is a threat.
10) You must always remember the regional picture. Singapore does not define Islam. Islam is defined by the Muslim world.
Singapore also never define other religion. What are trying to proof here?
Dear Jumbo,
Sure – but our immediate neighbours are Muslim countries – which makes the situation different for Islam. Especially since the recent rise of Political Islam in neighbouring countries.
Our neighbours are not Hindu or Buddhist or Christian states. They are not even secular. They are Muslim countries.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Talking about Poltical Islam, there is an interesting discourse here on Political Islam and Kafir Culture.
Is divide-and-conquer considered equality among races ?
After quite some thinking and discussion with my father, my personal opinion is that there is perhaps some truth in PM Lee’s statement that Singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese PM.
For the younger generation like me, we are probably blinder to racial distinctions, but I think it is still ingrained in the older generations. The example raised in the articles regarding “Ah-neh” highlights this. They may still get along with people of other races, but it will never be on a very close and personal level.
It may be lamentable that PM Lee said that, but it may be, after all, a statement of fact, however harsh it is against the ideal backdrop of racial equality.
Hello Everyone
Race and religion has long time been a sensitive issue in Singapore. We had our own experience of racial tensions in the past hence our government has put in multi racial policies ease tensions and for us to work towards a “multi-racial and religious society.
I just want to explain why the government doesn’t want race and religion to be openly discussed. All you need is one person to ruin a good discussion, and this one person might have supporters rallying behind him. Even if you manage to get the person to settle down, the tensions are already ensuing. Singapore loves to play safe, to prevent rather than cure, to mitigate rather than directly hit.
Also, the content of religion and the borders of race go a long way back. Even if it has changed over centuries, one thing remains the same. They are all different. It is difficult to scrutinise the data and try to come to a consensus. The discussions might be long and fruitless(correct me if I am wrong here) due to the nature of the content as well as the cultural aspects of different races.
Thank you
#22 Ivando
I can appreciate the fact that there’s a gap between idealism and reality. But what I question is, what are the efforts and measures taken so that we don’t remain status quo FOREVER. I can buy the argument that we must not allow race and religions to be discussed freely 20 years ago. I can also buy that Singaporeans were not ready for true democracy 20 years ago. But 20 years from now, under the current policies how much progress do you think we will make?
take away “race” and “religion” from our NRIC first
Hi Equality #20,
If no religious or ethnic groups compete along the line of religion or race, then nobody will subscribe to “divide and conquer” methods to segregate or isolate certain race or religion.
Lop
But 20 years from now, under the current policies how much progress do you think we will make?
Thank you for pointing out this important point that I missed. I would have to agree with you that change is needed, however, the status quo will most likely be the same unless a certain someone has passed on.
Our education system has segregated us into different races because of the language that the schools offer. My old secondary school only offers the Chinese Language for the Mother Tongue. The start of racism and elitism is here. And it is difficult to correct the behavior now, for most of the students’ parents were the alumni, and actually exude that behavior. But the Singapore government doesn’t allow racism, so what do they do? They make racist jokes, they play racist games like guess the color of the turban. Hence, it takes time for them to correct racist attitude.
It all boils down to the question of how harmonious do you want to races to be. With the cultural and language differences, it takes a lot of time to fully understand and assimilate into the cultures. Further more, the government uses the public holidays to mark the various races and religions more distinctly.
Those are just some thoughts I have.
Donaldson (#2),
I think SM Goh’s statement can be taken the other way too: to remind others not to push back too forcefully.
Ivando (#26),
1) I think we need a change of government to get better and more progressive policies.
3) it is a Chicken-and-Egg thing. Different Mother Tongues are introduced to cater to different races (and to act as vehicles for vernacular propaganda), and in turn reinforce the separate identity of these races. Although the government also threw in English to act as the “Bridging Language”.
4) It takes time, but it can be done. The question is if there is someone persevering enough to see such a policy all the way through. Which sadly doesn’t exist in our current government.
Hi Arix #27,
Religious activism must be pushed back in the civil space and lot more forcefully in the political space. Please don’t twist SM Goh’s words.
MT (#28),
Errr … you are the one who is twisting SM Goh’s words. His phrasing implies that he is cautioning both sides not to get too virulent.
Your #28 post would be … an example of a virulent post, as I see it.
Race and Language are Nature endowed or Traits of Origins, the same cannot be said of Religions which are not inborn.
To find a country where all different races of different faiths that could forge a common culture is downright impossible, even in the US of A.
Racial and religious conflicts exist in all parts of the World, even within UK where the Protestants have problems with the Catholic(Pronouncely Ireland) though both are Christians. As for Muslims, there are widespread ideological difference in their Islamic Faith and wars amongst them are happening since the early days of Islam.
There is absolutely no reason for any Race anywhere in the World to abandon their Origins of Race and Language to avoid or prevent conflicts. There is a fallacious understanding here that mankind of different Race and Language is destined to have conflicts due to origins. Dare I assert that the causes of conflicts are Religion, Ego, Greed and Fame. Does anyone or had anyone know any country in the World, homogeneous or not, that (was) is not mired in internal conflicts in history ?
To live in peace requires the human race to abandon negative trait(s) in ones’ ownself and tribe. Though this sounds easy, it is sadly absolutely impossible to behave so saintly and to expect others to behave in the same wholesome manner. Then calls for tolerance and accommodation come into play and evryone starts to be mindful of such desirable traits.
We all can have happy existences, all one must works towards to is to be less egoistic, that’s about it.
patriot
patriot (#30),
Religion is not an issue when there is no ego, greed and fame.
To Arix #Post 31
patriot agrees with You.
Thank You !
patriot
Hi Arix #31,
Wonderful wording. Thank you for highlighting that there is ego, greed and fame in the modern practise of religion.
[continuation of #33]
But there are also practitioners of religion who are not blinded by ego, greed and fame. So how? Pretend the negativities don’t exist? Positivism promotes the good side of religion, but does not reject the bad side – it tells us to consider the bad side of religion with a pinch of salt too.
Oxford Dude (#33) and Patriot (#32),
I am glad that I finally find some other people who agree with me. The problem is that there is a problem on both sides – both the religious and the non-religious are infected by ego, greed and fame. Christopher Hitchens certainly is one fellow totally infected by Ego, as is Iran’s Ayatollah.
Oxford Dude (#34),
the point is to realize that the core of all religious formulations is spirituality, and spirituality is always positive. What is negative is how people set up the road to achieve spirituality. Some set it too wide; some set it too narrow. Those who set it too wide are the doctrinal liberals and the Atheists; those who set it too narrow are the Religious Fundamentalists. To use another analogy, each religion has a wonderful skeletal structure, but on top of that beautiful structure, religious leaders have constructed lots and lots of crap, thinking that the crap makes the inner structure look more beautiful. So we need to demolish all that crap.
Even as a Christian, I find it somewhat ridiculous that Christians and Muslims have been fighting each other for so long over “my god is better than your god”, which ironically endorses polytheism. Either Abraham had one god, or two gods, one of whom was worshipped by Isaac and Jacob/Israel, and the other worshipped by Ishmael/Ismail. Which is anyway illogical. So the Christian concept of Islam seems to be warped into “We worship the same God, but not quite.” Some Fundamentalists will go to the extent of saying that Allah is not Yahweh. In fact, this is senseless because both names are derived from the same root-word in Sumerian “Yah”, which coincidentally is also the root for the Egyptian “Ra” and the Greek “Zeus”.
The solution to such longstanding conflicts would be to bring all religions back to the same epistemological ground and trace the history of Religion in general. But yes, we need to convince both the Monotheistic and Polytheistic faiths to give up their tremendous Egos. That is not an easy task assuredly.
patriot (#30),
I would like to offer a slightly different additional point: Organized Religion with its rituals are not in-born, but there is a religious/spiritual/moral yearning in each of us that *is* inborn. So in that sense, Religion is in-born like Race.
In contrast, Language is not in-born. A baby can learn 1000 languages at birth. Language is made up of symbols created by a specific society to describe its environment.
Hi Arix #35,
I am not concerned with what religion is at the personal and spiritual level. I am actually concerned about the influence of organised religions on society and state.
Oxford Dude (#37),
The purpose of the Organised Religion is to bring out the Religion at the Spiritual Level. And the Personal and Spiritual also affects Society and State, because the latter two are built on the former two.
hi Arix,
how much influence should religion wield in regard to societal & state matters? no doubt there is influence on a personal level (eg, personal judgement) that affects society & the state, as any conflict of interest can arise, how far should that itself be restrainted in respect to other religions & free thinkers? ;)
Good Morning Arix and All:
Permit me to say that I do not believe in god and will not discuss why me is so.
Like to disagree withYou that religion is ininborn and would like to stress a point made numerous time by our very enlightened Dr Syed Alwi who had asked many time what are the chances of one born in Iran to be a Bhuddist or one born in China to embrace Judaism or the like of them ? When a child is born or even before birth, the parents to be and the foetus are already subjected to religious rituals which are practised in cycle since the Race embraced the Faith. The newborn have no choice and incapable of avoiding the religious fortifications by their tribes. There were cases of infants brought up by other species and we read that such infants developed traits of the species that cared for them. Clearly, the evidences have shown that the mannerisms, characteristics and BELIEFS of infants are dictated by external influences.
On the other hand, all species have their own individual ‘languages’, the very moment kittens are born(me had witnessed the birth many times) they start to ‘mew’, to me it is a specific language for cats. Now, the cats in my family were living with the dogs, they(cats) did not learn to bark, neither my dogs ever learnt to ‘mew’. I had neighbours who kept parrots and mynahs(bird) and one of the joy of their owners was to train them(birds) to mimic some words, most of the owners were able to get their birds to ‘perform’ very limited imitations of words and languages of other species such as the birds barking for example, but they were never ever able to communicate meaninfully. Hence, I believe language is an innate nature of species unless proven otherwise.
As I had commented in another thread, I accept both creation and evolution and personally I link evolution to nurture as well, however as this is my personal (self-held) view, I will have to search to confirm the truth of it, it is likely that the (my) view will disappear(die) together with me. I do not think I am capable of leaving a thesis for posterity, except this paragraph here.
Wish to say that be it creation or evolution, much grey area remains to be understood and the search for ultimate truth will be for eternity. I am of the opinion that before mankind can get the Answer, it would have totally destroyed itself. Just another personal view, do forgive should my comment runs counter to other views.
patriot
interesting read in today’s paper.
http://www.todayonline.com/Business/Succeed/EDC090810-0000022/Religion,-at-the-heart-of-business
John Bittleston nailed it.
as a christian, he understood the cryptic book(bible) than most who are part of institutionalize christianity.
in particular i like to highlight the below quote:
Gandhi was right: “The only devils in the world are those running around in our hearts”. We cherish them, encourage them, feed them and then blame them for all the ills we suffer. In business, as in life, we create or condone these devils. We fail to see the ones that matter, devoting time to irrelevant misdemeanours and errors, leaving serious problems to multiply and take over.
unquote.
whilst the church is busy battling and blaming the DEVIL( too hem, he was once a heavenly entity) without, the irony is, Ghandi got it right.
if the church can’t even get that right one , one should caution to swallow the rest of her garbage.
that said, his take on corporation and religion was spot on too.
“Today’s imbalance in religion has been created by faulty definition of standards, leading to false measures of adherence and behaviour. This applies as much in our personal lives as it does in business.”
patriot (#40),
1) I respect your privacy.
2) Religion is not defined by religious rituals alone. I agree with you that religious rituals are socially-constructed or at least constructed within the context of societies, but my view as in #36 is that these are constructed around a Religious/Moral Yearning (for lack of a better word) present in people. Even Atheists cannot deny that that exists, although they attempt to dismiss it as a delusion. Every human society has had a religion; even during the Ice Age. Animals I can’t say, because we don’t fully understand them.
Note: this is a YEARNING, not a BELIEF. The Beliefs are accepted because they fulfill the YEARNING.
3) I remember that Discovery Channel once showed a documentary about a real-life human child who lived with monkeys. The child actually adopted the language conventions of monkeys. I suppose that this is an example that Language is socially-conditioned?
4) Nurture too? That is interesting. Please elaborate.
5) Indeed.
pointer (#41),
Well hmm, actually the correct Theology in Christian Orthodoxy is that the Devil tempts but that people can choose if they wish to avoid the temptation or not. So it doesn’t really contradict Ghandi’s conclusion.
Deat Arix #Post 42;
Thank You very much indeed for the interactions.
As regard my linking nurture to evolution, it is just my personal interpretation, however, as I had iterated, I do have to learn and search for much more knowledge to understand the meanings of living and all things pertaining to it.
Some knowledge are not consequential to normal everyday living though knowing them is certainly a plus and as I am having the time and in twilight zone, me is here to learn as well as to enjoy the companies of learned men. Mankind has an inborn inquisitiveness and a yearning to understand his /her own sanity and sensibility and here is a good place to test myself. I am also keen to know what is life all about and come here to seek material and knowledge. Sometimes, I make certain queries, ask questions and make assertions. Hope I have not been participating irrelevantly.
patriot
Deat Arix #Post 42;
Thank You very much indeed for the interactions.
As regard my linking nurture to evolution, it is just my personal interpretation, however, as I had iterated, I do have to learn and search for much more knowledge to understand the meanings of living and all things pertaining to it.
Some knowledge are not consequential to normal everyday living though knowing them is certainly a plus and as I am having the time and in twilight zone, me is here to learn as well as to enjoy the companies of learned men. Mankind has an inborn inquisitiveness and a yearning to understand his /her own sanity and sensibility and here is a good place to test myself. I am also keen to know what is life all about and come here to seek material and knowledge. Sometimes, I make certain queries, ask questions and make assertions. Hope I have not been participating irrelevantly.
patriot
patriot,
There is no need to post the same post twice.
Hi Arix:
noted your mention of a documentary in Discovery Channel where it was shown a human child who grew up with monkeys was found to have adopted the language convention of monkey.
Honestly, I would expect that child to do so, as, as the most intelligent being that we know, mankind has the ability to learn, understand and mimic(imitate) more than any other species. No other species has all the ability of man and the best of them has yet to go a little beyond what they are destined to do what we observe them to do.
patriot
Arix #Post 46:
Hi Arix, the comment was posted twice unitended, the set had a little malfunction or rather I operated it to malfunction, I think.
My apology and would like to suggest to TOC that in such a situation and if they detect the double postings, TOC should have the right to delete one of them.
patriot
patriot (#47 and #48),
Hmm … but if the language is an innate capability, then the human being should have been speaking English or German or Hungarian instead of Monkey… don’t you agree?
I guess the TOC editors are not free to notice all duplicate posts. Good advice would be to wait 15 seconds between posts, and to refresh your page first before posting consecutive posts.
Arix #Post 49:
Indeed, the human child will learn the human language once he return to his human community. But, none of all those monkeys he lived with will never be able to speak the human language.
Appreciate your advice.
Good Night !
patriot
Dear Frens:
My apology; ‘But, none of all those monkeys he lived with will never be able to speak the human language.’ should read as ‘But, none of all those monkeys he/she lived with will EVER be able to speak the human language.’
patriot