Singapore is majority ethnic CHINESE Singaporean. Probably the majority of the FT they (and also other Singaporeans of minority races) all grumble about are mostly Mainland CHINESE from PRC (but there are some FT of also other races).

So the white Hanson vs Asian and racist Hanson vs non-racist Australians analogy may not quite apply to the situation here, you know.

Here it seems to be CHINESE Singaporeans v Mainland CHINESE PRC nationals. Or multi-ethnic Singaporeans vs multi-ethnic FT.

Depends how you want to look at it, I guess.

Australia has lessons we can learn. e.g. points system for immigrants. Why can’t we have a more transparent system? More points for family reunion, more points for grads and more points for jobs that we want immigrants to fill. It sounds reasonable. Instead, the benchmarks for immigrants seem to be focused on salary levels and some educational qualification. We need a more sophisticated system like the Australian points system.

As for ‘Singaporean culture’, try talking about it and inevitably someone talks about chicken rice or chilli crab and saying ‘lah’. So this is not high culture by any means. If we want high culture, we have to have higher income levels for middle class. To do that, we likely have to have fewer FT and so allow salaries to rise to levels enjoyed by north Asian countries like HK, S. Korea and Japan. If we keep allowing immigrants in, companies benefit from lower costs in paying lower salaries, but employees suffer the lower salaries and have little time for high culture. Only talk about chicken rice, chilli crab and say ‘lah’ and grumble about FT.

Suppressing UK,Japan,America,Korea,Taiwan,Australia, switzerland,finland,new zealand, or any other country’s citizens into minority and import many foreigners will eventually develop a unique culture over time,too.
There is a reason why these countries didnt do so.
In singapore current situation( about half or more of the population is made up of foreigners), if such a culture ever were to develop, it will probably be third world standard sort coming from philippine or parkistan which I find it more of a disgrace than be proud of it.

This is a Unique situation.

2) Which brings me to this point, that to be a president, you also have to “qualify” for nomination. With those criteria, Barrack Obama can’t be the president of Singapore, btw.

3) Very strict and blanket libel laws that puts the burden of proof on the defendant, instead of on the prosecutor. We are prolly a rare case of more developed economies with archaic libel/slander laws, and of course, the prosecutor stands a very high chance of winning. I won’t even talk about who gets the post of being a judge or Chief of Justice. I vaguely remember that a Queen’s Counsel was rejected to represent the defendant….that’s quite duh.

4) People are deemed stupid, lazy and inferior to the ruling elites. We are not drilled to believe that we are unable to make sound and good decisions, hence we need to pay exorbitant amounts of money to ensure that life goes on for us. That’s the exact justification that the Fortune 500 CEO uses. Do you think Goldman Sachs will bankrupt if they paid their CEO less? Or BoA for that matter? The truth is, no. But you are made to believe that without them, everything will collapse and burn in hell. The truth is, they are threatening you and making you pay a ransom, for something that they dun even have as collateral.

US is already being held at ransom by Corporate America, but Singapore is being held at ransom by their own politicans, who are also Corporate Singapore too, btw. In US, at least Corporate has to waste money to lobby and bribe the politicians; Singapore on the other hand, has an express way to achieve the same outcome.

5) People are too afraid to talk about politics, or have no time for that matter. With the costs of living so high, with hours at work topping the world, nobody has the time nor energy to talk about politics and stuff. Let’s just pay the bills and get some sleep ok? Don’t talk about things that we have no way to get involved. How many Singaporeans who are still alive now got to vote? If so, how many times in their lifetimes, and when?

And if the eventual winners are the bigots and the xenophobs, it just showed the state of that society.

By “regulating” the outcome, aren’t you planting a time bomb 

The purpose of studying history is to learn from its mistakes and hopefully not make the same ones. I certainly disagree with you, that we should allow “history to take its course,” for that will be disastrous. Like what RW said, the question would be, how to regulate the process such that a “happy outcome” would ensue. However, i do recognize that such manipulation would deem it rather contrary to the proposed process itself, but i argue that it would be a good start. Scholars of democracy recognize that an essential component of a liberal democracy is an educated middle class. My argument here is that govt policies are stifling such a development. The concentration on maths and the sciences are reducing the talent out there for the social sciences, which is important insofar as the development of a liberal democracy is to be successful. Only with proper education would the “voice of the moderates and conservatives” be louder than bigots and xenophobs.

Open discourse has its obvious draws, but without an educated public, wouldnt it be like the blind leading the blind?

Most interesting piece. Refreshing in it POV and genuine that I find myself nodding to this excellent article.  

However, I do suspect the media plays a major role here in determining our levels of perception concerning racial divide.

It’s very hard to say whether the tail wags the dog or whether its the other way round i.e if the media did not blow it up will we even be worked up by it - if one takes the trouble to look at the curious case of Pauline Hanson could she possibly have gain such notoriety without the assistance of the hype and spin the media offered her in terms of air time, bandwidth etc -the same holds true for stereotypical depictions that he often harbor about black people, muslims and even some one who may not share the same cultural back ground and values as us.

The cure for this to try to understand there may be other ways of seeing the world, as the saying goes, ”if everyone reads the same books, then don’t be surprise, if they end up thinking the same way” - this I admit based on personal experience may even be easier said than done – seeing other worlds within worlds requires patience, intelligence and a certain level of curiosity.

To me the question is can we even afford not to see the otherside?

The cost of not seeing beyonds one’s world may IMHO be a very high one, we may even just end up being so parochial, narrow minded and blinkered that we don’t even realize that there is a whole wide world out there beyond the traditional black and white distinction.

A good illustration of how things can go so wrong is when values, beliefs and philosophies are not aligned is IMHO very well documented in this article that the brotherhood press has written.

http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/why-the-chinese-are-scared-shit-of-the-dalai-lama/

Do have a very productive week ahead

SD (The Internet Liaison officer of the Brotherhood – sponsored by the Interspacing Mercantile Guild)

If your “bad endings” means the racial majority had its ways after all public discourse, than what’s next?

I say, if that’s what happen, let history takes its course. Let Australia go back to become the South Africa of the 60′s and 70s. Go back 30-50 years. And they will get it right the next time!

If you had not gone thru this process, you are just sweeping your dirt under the carpet.

Look at how the PRC chinese reacted to the dalai lama’s visit. Isn’t that a form of racism as well?

http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/why-the-chinese-are-scared-shit-of-the-dalai-lama/

Or maybe there is something cheemer at work. You decide for yourself.

If we place process over outcome, we should accept whatever open discourse leads us to- be it a more mature society or a more oppressive society. The French president called for national dialogue on french identity and started a maelstorm of anti-immigrant rhetoric. The Swiss voted to ban minarets on mosques. What open dialogue led to in these cases is the tyranny of the majority and a smaller space for minorities.
 
Now, my main point is not to mimic the govt’s position that it will always lead to a bad ending. Instead, my main point (in relation to this article) is I disagree with the liberal, idealistic assumption that dialogue and open discourse will always lead to a good ending. Process and outcomes are two separate things. Just like democracy can give you good & bad govt, so can open discourse lead to harmony and disharmony.