TR EMERITUS

According to a set of leaked Chinese Communist Party documents called the Xinjiang Papers, top politburo leaders reacted very strongly to the terrorist attacks in the spring of 2014. Previously, the stance against the populations of Xinjiang — Uighurs, Kazakhs, and other predominantly Turkic-speaking minorities — was primarily focused on the assumption that sustainable growth and better living conditions would defuse any dissent. However, after the 2014 attacks, the CCP abandoned this idea, concluding that materialism alone was inadequate to quell separatist sentiment in Xinjiang. That prompted a mass indoctrination campaign against what the CCP referred to as the "virus" of "social bigotry." It also called for enhanced surveillance by high-tech networks. Up to 1.5 million people, mostly from Muslim Turkic minorities — Uighurs, Kazakhs, and Kyrgyz — have been supposedly illegally imprisoned in political re-education camps, with the aim of convincing them to abandon their religious values. At times, Chinese officials have described this mass incarceration campaign as a “strict preventative measure” against radical militant ideologies. Others have pointed to it as a benign “vocational training” initiative, relating prisoners to “boarding school students.” Xingjiang is a different problem from Tibet, for China. Aside from the Uighurs, there are many other ethnic groups in Xinjiang. However, they are the only ones calling for independence, and they have formed a separatist movement under the command of an organisation called “East Turkistan Islamic Movement,” which has close ties with Al Qaeda and is located in the chaotic state of Waziristan, Pakistan. While the Uighurs resent China's 'occupation' of their ancestral territory, the Han-majority Chinese government felt frustrated that their good-intentioned favoritism strategy towards Uighurs was not appreciated while outside Muslim movements continue to agitate some of the more unruly representatives of Uighur communities for subversions and uprisings. Anyone who spends time in China knows that ethnic minorities are, in general, treated well. I have heard Han Chinese complain about the affirmative action program for college admissions that favors ethnic minorities. Muslims are given preference for jobs in the tourist industry on Hainan Island. Hainan is also home to one of the largest Buddhist temples anywhere in the world. It is sort of a Buddhist Disneyland. “Reverse discrimination” in college admissions and population policies are other areas of Han complaints. While Han Chinese can have only one child, Uighurs receive honorary and monetary rewards for stopping at three, along with yearly bonuses. Whether legitimate or not, such complaints make it difficult for Han Chinese to appreciate Uighur grievances. Without any need to repeat government accounts to me, my confrère mostly see “outside forces” as the main reason for the latest as well as other attacks in Xinjiang in recent years. Citing long-term good friendship with local Muslims, they are hard-pressed to think of divisions serious enough to cause deadly riots. Rather, they claim to have seen outside influences at work from their own experience, e.g., money for underground mosques where mullahs engage in inciting rhetoric, for “terrorist groups” that make explosives and bombs, or for restless Muslim youths who stage trouble on the streets. They also see a pattern of Uighur separatist forces imitating the tactics of Tibetan exiles, namely, phrasing issues in terms that appeal to Western sensibilities, such as religious freedom, cultural and linguistic preservation, ethnic equality or territorial autonomy. What about widened income gaps between Han Chinese and Uighur Muslims in the market economy? My confrère cite different attitudes toward education, achievement and life. This is where some “racist” assessments may be found, if they may be so-called: nomadic traditions do not value sending kids to schools, but rather roaming around or bathing in the sun; nor do they prioritize professional and material pursuits like the Han Chinese, or hard work or long-term planning for this world, but rather satisfaction in the spiritual world, etc. Ethnic problems are complicated, and the facts, like most stories, can lie somewhere in the middle. Although each event is unique, references to this occurrence can be seen in other inter-ethnic disputes around the world (Chinese – Malay), Fiji (Fijian – Indian), Indonesia (Chinese-Indonesian), the United States (Black-White), Spain (Basque-Spanish), and so on. Many of these events are regrettable, because they are the result of differences (real or perceived), past rivalries, or unexplained racial animosity. Indeed, it may highlight the fact that the Maori in New Zealand (Maori were sometimes caned at school for speaking their language before the 1970s), Aboriginal in Australia (Tasmanian aboriginals were wiped out by the middle of the twentieth century), North American Indian or Black people in the United States, or indigenous and black people in Brazil have been so disenfranchised as a result of genocide against their culture and language. These are the contrasts I have learned in Western social sciences — conflicts between pre-modern and modern values, religious and secular cultures, or an achievement and non-achievement ethic. So it is hard for me to pass judgment here as well except to urge Han Chinese to loosen up and enjoy life a little as their ethnic brothers do.   Sojourne Shen      Read More →

I am ambivalent about taking the vaccine. As it is, community cases of Covid-19 infection is zero or one to two cases for the last few months. The number of people who have died from the virus since the pandemic began is only 30, with only one death the whole of this year. So what is the probability of getting infected and dying? About 0.0005% (Multiply the probability of catching the virus with the probability of dying if you have caught it : 60,000/5.75m x 30/60,000 x 100%, where 60,000 is the approximate number who have caught the virus, 5.75m is the population and 30 is the number of people who have died from the virus as provided by the government, though suspiciously low). Yes, the probability of dying from Covid-19 is negligible in Singapore. On the other hand, there have been numerous cases of people who, having recently taken the vaccine, suffered blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, brain hemorrhage and other severe reactions. Some have unfortunately, died as a result of it. Of course, till today, it has not been proven that these incidents are directly or even indirectly, caused by the vaccines, but would it be a surprise? But these are not side effects like soreness on the arm, tiredness, fever and body aches that one can recover from completely, in a matter of days. These are serious injuries that can leave one paralyzed or even dead. These incidents have been reported overseas. Locally, I recall the Straits Times reporting one elderly man dying of heart attack shortly after taking the vaccine but no causal link has been established to the vaccine. However, there has been quite a few posts on social media, but not in the mainstream media, of people suffering blood clots, heart attacks, strokes and other severe reactions resulting in deaths and paralysis shortly after taking the vaccine. If these cases weren’t true, one would have expected the government to prosecute the perpetrators, or at least slap a POFMA on them, yet it has not happened. I have only read of one refutation which is from the hospital where one doctor was working at, who was rumored to have suffered a brain hemorrhage. If the government has not refuted such posts, does it mean they are true? I don’t know, but I can’t help feeling that pertinent information is being suppressed. This makes me even more worried, and ambivalent about taking the vaccine. Another reason that makes me worried is that mRNA technology, which is used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, is relatively new. Basically, a synthetic substance is injected into our bloodstream which then enters our cells and instructs the DNA in the nucleus of our cells to produce proteins similar to that of the Covid-19 virus, tricking our immune system into thinking that the virus has invaded and thus produce antibodies to protect us. If you are not sick, would you allow anyone to inject a synthetic substance into your cells? It is the first time mRNA technology is being used to produce a large scale commercial vaccine. Only time will tell if there will be long term side effects and we are the guinea pigs. In case we have all overlooked, the vaccines have only been granted “emergency approval” which means Pfizer and Moderna are not liable if anything untoward happens to us. Let’s say I take the plunge, and let’s say Iike the vast majority of the population, I suffer just soreness on the arm and perhaps a fever. But does it mean I am fully protected? I am afraid not. There has been more than 12,000 people in Israel alone, who having been fully inoculated with the Pfizer vaccine, suffers a Covid-19 infection. It is also a known fact that despite being inoculated, one can still transmit the virus to others, although presumably the probability is much lower. “Experts” keep saying that the benefits far outweigh the risks. I honestly can’t see how this is so, if anything, I think the reverse is true. So, I told friends that given the almost zilch probability of dying from the virus on the one hand, and that people have died after taking the vaccine on the other, including possibly in Singapore, it makes no sense to take the vaccine. Immediately, I am accused of being selfish, that I should not think only of myself, but my loved ones as well, because if I fall, they fall. My getting vaccinated is to protect everyone around me. And yet, what if I, in an attempt to “protect” my loved ones and the people around me, takes the vaccine and unfortunately, suffers a stroke and can’t work? Who is going to put food on the table for my family? Is it fair to apply such social pressure on me, supposedly for the common good? Yes, social pressure is being used by the government to get people to be inoculated to achieve herd immunity, which in my mind, is below the belt. They could have said, “for your own health”, or if more forthright, “so that we can open the economy” but no, they have to say to “protect your loved ones and the people around you, it is a social responsibility.” Although the government says vaccination is voluntary, many folks do not know enough about the virus and the vaccine to make an informed decision. They are just bombarded by the government, newspapers, television, employers, friends and relatives that taking the vaccine is the absolutely right thing to do, unless they have pre-existing conditions. And so, nudged on by the not inconsiderable social pressure, and presumably shielded from disastrous reactions to the vaccine, they join the queue for inoculation. Can such a process be construed as voluntary? So, given the above, I hope my ambivalence about the vaccine makes sense and that I will not be accused of being selfish.   Foong Swee Fong      Read More →

I know it’s not a nice thing to admit but I love the idea of getting laid and getting laid regularly with a variety of women. While I am past the age where getting laid on a daily basis with multiple partners is no longer a priority, I like looking at beautiful women. The only reason why daily commutes to the Central Business District are tolerable is the view of the numerous good-looking women who inhabit the place. My only defense for confessing to all these things in the public space is that I’m probably no different from just about every normal heterosexual man around. Having confessed to having a sex drive, I have to admit something rather uncool. I don’t get laid as often as people have imagined me to. Part of it is due to the fact that I’m a married man with a young daughter. As such, my priorities have changed from my 20s. It’s as simple as this, if I have a $100 extra in my pocket, I save it for next week’s groceries rather than spending it on dinner with someone in the hope of an hour of fun. The second reason why I don’t put my fantasies into action when it comes to sex is because the risk-reward ratio for being a rascal looks increasingly lop-sided. Biology has made the male and female sexual strategies different. For men, we are biologically inclined to “sow” our seed. For women, they’re rather more selective. The reason is simple, they are the ones who carry the child for nine months. In that period, their physical strength is compromised. After that, the child has to raised for nearly 20-years. It is in a woman’s interest to ensure that a man sticks around to help her with the kid or kids. Biologically speaking, when a woman enters a sexual relationship, she is going to expect exclusivity. Modern birth control has to an extent “liberated” women and the “rules” about women being confined to exclusive sexual relations, while men sow their oats has been loosened. It’s less of a taboo for a woman to have more than one sexual partner than it used to be. Things like “friends with benefits” where men and women have “sex-only” relationships are also becoming more acceptable. However, while social norms on sexual exclusivity are loosening, biological instincts do make their presence felt. This is particularly true when “wondering” men get punished for breaking the concept of exclusivity by the women who felt that the men had promised exclusivity to them. One of the most prominent examples in Singapore’s social circle involves a Dr. Julian Ong and a Ms. Serene Tiong. Details of the story can be found in my previous posting “HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE A WOMAN SCORNED,” published on 1 December 2020. This was a case of a woman who went against a man because she felt that the man in question was, for want of a better term, leading her man astray. Ms. Tiong made a complaint against Dr. Ong and Dr. Chan, who was her lover at the material time to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), alleging that the doctors were swopping notes on female patients whom they could take advantage of and have sex with. Ms. Tiong claimed that she had screen shots of text messages of the two doctors colluding. Dr. Ong sued for defamation and won. [LINK] Dr. Ong and Ms. Tiong – Photo: Channel NewsAsia One might have assumed that this was the end of the matter. Ms. Tiong failed to prove her case about the "bad" behavior of the two doctors and in addition to her legal cost, she had to pay damages to Dr. Ong. While Dr. Ong had the legal victory, he was also placed under extreme stress of having to fight her legal challenges. One might have argued that while Ms. Tiong failed to ruin Dr. Ong, she did the make life difficult and would have been content with that after having legal damages awarded against her. However, this didn't happen. Ms. Tiong has shown that even though her allegations against the Dr. Ong had been proven to be defamatory in a court, she's willing to attack him though other means. The first is to ensure that the world sees her as a victim. Her performance in the video is a clear illustration of her efforts to get herself portrayed as a "Second Parti Liyani," and Dr. Ong as another version of Liew Mun Leong. While Ms. Tiong was stressing that she lacked the resources to fight any legal battle against Dr. Ong, she neglected to mention that she had opened up another legal pitfall for Dr. Ong. This time, instead of targeting Dr. Ong directly, she tried to take action against HC Surgical Specialist (HCSS), the listed company that had an interest in acquiring Dr. Ong’s Endoscopy Surgery. Ms. Ong bought enough shares in HCSS to attend the AGM and tried to take legal action against both HCSS and its Chief Executive (CEO), Dr. Heah Sieu Mien. Ms. Tiong’s legal actions have been dismissed by the court as lacking no merit. Reports can be found at: [LINK] and [LINK] It’s clear that Ms. Tiong’s attempts to take action against HCSS and Dr. Heah did not have legal merits. Neither Dr. Heah or HCSS had any role in the "love affair gone wrong," which at the heart of Ms. Tiong's complaint against the two doctors. It doesn't take a law degree to realise that the suite against Dr. Heah and HCSS had no merits and she would lose and damages would be awarded against her. Given that Ms. Tiong is a reasonably successful professional in her own right (she was a Business Development Manager at Thomson Medical), it's hard to imagine that Ms. Tiong would be unaware of her chances of success in pursuing the matter. So, why did she do it, other than to make life uncomfortable for Dr. Ong by attacking his potential business partners. This was summed in the judgement in the case against Dr. Heah and HCSS. A copy of the judgement can be found at: [LINK] The best part about this event is that Dr. Ong was not even her lover in the first place. There is no evidence which suggests that Dr. Ong was either her lover or doctor. What we do know is that he was a friend of Dr. Chan, who was involved with Ms. Tiong. If Ms. Tiong feels "cheated" in a love affair, her issues should be with Dr. Chan and not Dr. Ong. So one has to question Ms. Tiong's issues with Dr. Ong. Why has she gone through such extremes to punish Dr. Ong and continues to pursue Dr. Ong despite losing two court matters and being forced to pay hefty legal fees and fines. Ms. Tiong seems to be more than just a woman scorned.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →