TR EMERITUS

We are slowly marching into a new era — the totalitarian era. Step by step, more and more policies are surreptitiously implemented to consolidate the power of the authorities. With an increasingly lack of political influence and expression of the people, Singapore is headed into an totalitarian abyss. There need not be explanation of why an totalitarian Singapore will benefit no one but those in power. Look to the lessons taught by both history and the present time: when has the citizens of totalitarian societies ever thrived? The fundamental question here is how did we regress into an totalitarian system? To answer this question, we must understand the nature of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is an insatiable tyrant, hell-bent on forcing compliance from all that it rules. Totalitarianism does not care about its people’s well being, the truth or innocence. It will eradicate those who undermine its control, even if this person might be a child. Indeed, it is self-serving, and uncompassionate to your desires. Perhaps the best insights about totalitarianism is found in those who have lived through it. Here is what Hannah Arendt, a political philosopher who has survived the Holocaust has to say about totalitarianism. The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exist. - Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) The key to the establishment of a totalitarian rule, is lies. Totalitarianism cannot sustain if the masses are people who are fervent supporters of the dominant party but who still retain their ability to reflect and think. Rather, it is sustained through the collective ignorance and indifference of the people. Of course, to say that one have willingly succumbed to totalitarianism due to a lie or two would be an insult to one’s intelligence. The reality is that the state of totalitarianism reached thus far is a product of a big lie from which cascades smaller lies. This process towards totalitarianism is the same in North Korea where the big lie is that Kim Jong Un and his family are the epitomes of God; in Nazi Germany, where there exists a false hierarchy of the superior Aryan race and the inferior Jews; and in Soviet Union where communism is believed to lead to the decrease in inequality and the domination of the working class. Needless to say, the aftermath of the big lies in each context led to catastrophic outcomes. In Singapore, the big lie is that there is a need for the unvaccinated and the vaccinated to fight one another. The unvaccinated aren’t our enemies. It is undeniable that the unvaccinated are branded with a Scarlet Letter; “because of them, the pandemic has yet to be conquered. Because of them, we are unable to fully reopen our society. Because of them, we are unable to return to normality. They are no doubt the scourge of the society.” What if I told you that you were manipulated to think this way? Would you consider this possibility? We like to think of ourselves as moral people. And for the most parts, this is true. Yet, how can there be such a divide in ideology regarding healthcare when most of us wish for the welfare of others? To many, the unvaccinated are perceived as selfish people who do not see the bigger picture. For those of you who feel this way, please take a moment to think why you feel this way. If your response was “they are anti-vaxxers”, “they are simply uneducated”, or something along these lines, take another moment to ponder why you think so. For one, many of the unvaccinated took other vaccines. How are they then anti-vaxxers? As for education levels, it is clearly a sweeping statement that they are simply incapable thinkers. That said, what is more important is to think about what led them to think their way. There must be some variable that leads to this divergence in thinking. If you simply assumed that they reached their conclusions by looking at the same materials as you do, then you would obviously find them to be radical. The question now is, what material do they consume? If the thought of “Whatsapp university”, “conspiracy theories” or something along those lines ran across your mind, can you elaborate what misinformation exactly they are subscribing to? If you are able to, do you seriously believe that the majority of the unvaccinated community fall prey to such ridiculous theories? The point is that the unvaccinated are underrepresented and misrepresented by Mainstream Media. (MSM) The unvaccinated choose to be unvaccinated not because they are angry at the Chinese government, not because they think that the vaccine comes with a microchip and certainly not because they give people enlarged testicles. If you were to judge the unvaccinated by such ridiculous parameters, then no doubt would they seem like a crazy bunch to you. The concerns unaddressed by MSM includes the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was not isolated, the controversy surrounding PCR testing, and antibody-dependant enhancements (ADE) have never been addressed at all. Perhaps the most reasonable concern of the unvaccinated is the criminal records of the major vaccine stakeholders, mainly Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca and Johnson & Johnson. Couple this with the fact that the safety data from Pfizer, which was deemed acceptable by the FDA, requires 75 years to be released (yes, approximately in the year 2096) even though approval was granted in 108 days, it stands to reason that there is something dubious with the safety of the vaccine especially in the long-term area. Evidently, these points have not been, or are not sufficiently addressed by the MSM. The purpose of which is to portray the unvaccinated as fools who drag down society. Further examples of such a purpose of debasing the unvaccinated include the propagandistic usage of language in news articles. An illustration would be the terminology of “pandemic of the unvaccinated” “Pandemic of the unvaccinated” would only make sense if the vaccinated are completely immune to Covid-19 which they are not. This expression disproportionately shifts the blame of the pandemic on the unvaccinated even though they are not solely responsible for it or have not been proven to be. So what do you think is the purpose of such emotionally-laden and suggestive vocabulary? Additionally, another case in point would be how differentiated measures are utilised to incentivise the unvaccinated into vaccination. The point of contention here lies in the word ‘incentive’. Note that while ‘incentive’ is defined as a stimulus that motivates which can be either reward or punishment, ‘incentive’ has a greater connotation to reward than punishment. Even if this premise is disagreed upon, it is indisputable that describing differentiated measures as an ‘incentive’ is misleading due to the multiple connotations of the word when other words which are clearer can be used. Differentiated measures are restrictions and are definitely not incentives in the positive motivation sense. This should be agreed upon by all. The implications of using such terminology subtly portray the unvaccinated to be unreasonable individuals. As incentives are looked upon as additional rewards that one is privileged to, nobody is entitled to them. Hence, when the unvaccinated are unreceptive to the ‘incentive’ to vaccinate, they will be looked upon as unreasonable and self-entitled. After all, if someone goes out of their way to ‘help’ you, your refusal will be frowned upon. Another example would be how the differentiated measures are implemented and pushed with the purpose of protecting the unvaccinated. Notwithstanding the fact that this protection is unwarranted and unwanted, the utilisation of ‘protect’ portrays the unvaccinated to be individuals who are mentally incapacitated. What kinds of people are those that need protection? They are those who are inferior and weaker than you; you don’t protect someone who is more capable than you. In this case, to protect the unvaccinated from their decision to stay unvaccinated would mean that they are intellectually inferior, unable to assume responsibility for their actions and probably unaware of the risks they are exposing themselves to. They are also burdens to society because they require additional ‘protection’. Admittedly, the negative connotations of ‘protection’ mentioned above do not apply in all cases. We do not feel such disdain when we protect our loved ones. That said, it is obvious that this exception does not apply to strangers and the propagandistic effect of the word ‘protect’ is not undermined. An interesting thing to think about is how Americans of the past justified slavery of the Blacks even though most of them championed the values of equality and liberty. …the American’s expectation of a clean house and food without labour, of free labour for their financial gain etc. lead them to adopt justifications for their expectations… It is justified to expect Black slaves to prepare one’s dinner, clean the house, raise the children. and labour in the hot sun for free, because the Blacks are lazy, incapable of self-government, and a danger to civil society. The institution of slavery is good for society, and good for the Black slaves as well. - Jason Stanley, How Propaganda Works (2015) Jason Stanley very clearly illustrates the mindsets of the Americans of the past which led them to endorse slavery even though they espouse the ideals of liberty. Doesn’t there seem to be a chilling parallel to how the unvaccinated are treated today? It is justified to expect the unvaccinated to be restricted in their freedom of movement, healthcare privileges and opportunities for work because the unvaccinated are misinformed, unreceptive to reason, and a danger to the vaccinated society and themselves. The implementation of differentiated measures is good for society and good for the unvaccinated as well. On a side note, are the Blacks really lazy, incapable of self-government and a danger to civil society like how the unvaccinated are misinformed, unreceptive to reason and a danger to the vaccinated society and themselves? Or perhaps, they are just misrepresented and underrepresented like the unvaccinated? As you are reading, you may have immediately thought about rebuttals or the urge to voice your disapproval. This is perfectly understandable. However, do you also realise that you have been distracted from the injustice of differentiated measures? While debating about the issue of vaccination on a societal level is important, the more pressing issue should be about the unchecked power of the government to impose extreme restrictions on a select minority. This is something which nobody has talked about, not the MSM, not the government, not the activists and not the opposition parties. Have you ever wondered how totalitarian societies come to be? Why will any citizens be unintelligent enough to subject themselves to such a rule? We don’t jump into a totalitarian society, we waltz into it, slowly and unsuspecting. Lies upon lies are piled onto each other as policies that consolidates political power are slowly implemented for the “greater good”. The waltz ends when one realises the music is the song of the Siren. Yet the true tragedy is when one unknowingly meet their demise in the sweet embrace of the Siren. This brings us to the next big lie that blossoms from the aforementioned one, that differentiated measures are for the greater good. The myth of ‘the greater good’. To argue that differentiated measures are justifiable would mean to claim that the unvaccinated restricts society. Allegations that the unvaccinated hinder or poses a threat to society seem to make some sense. However, upon closer inspection, they are attributed far too much argumentative weight. The nature of science is that it is based on intellectual humility. While there are indeed studies that profess the greater infectivity of the unvaccinated, there are also counter-literature that says otherwise. And because there are conflicting research on the matter, it is presumptuous to immediately frame the unvaccinated as irresponsible individuals. If you were to compare the proportionality of blame attributed to the unvaccinated and the collective impact of the unvaccinated on the society, it becomes easy to see that the animosity towards the unvaccinated is not justified. Do you sincerely believe that the 4% of eligible population or 13% of the total population (9% ineligible due to young age or medical conditions) who are unvaccinated are single-handedly the cause of a prolonged restrictions and pandemic? If the key performance indicators (KPIs) of Singapore’s success in handling the Covid-19 situation are the daily number of Covid-19 cases and the Covid-19 mortality rates, then we will be living in a permanent state of lockdown. After all, vaccination does not eliminate the possibility of transmission and mortality from Covid-19. Even if all Singaporeans are vaccinated, the end outcome will be the same. Take a moment to process that. However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume the position that the unvaccinated are indeed a threat to society or at least to a greater degree than the vaccinated as the vaccinated poses some degree threat too. In this case, it is easy to see why discrimination against the unvaccinated is so appealing. Differentiated measures serves as punishment for their failure to adhere to the greater good. They deserve to be treated that way. . There seem to be nothing wrong with the ideology of “for the greater good” except that this is essentially collectivism. Collectivism is a political structure where society overrides the individual. Proponents of collectivism are of the view that: …the individual has to subordinate himself to, and conduct himself for, the benefit of society and to sacrifice his selfish private interests to the common good. - Ludwig von Mises, Epistemological Problems of Economics (1933) The flaw in the collectivist view can be easily observed in this question: Does society exist for the sake of the individual or does the individual exist for the sake of society? To contend that the individual exist for the society would place one in a precarious position. Sure, one would have no problem with differentiated measures with this premise. However, this would also mean that one is nothing more than a political property of the state. In a metaphorical sense, the state is the king, and the people, nothing more than pawns. Note that at any time, one can be deemed as a sacrificial pawn and be disposed off for the greater good as the king deems it. As Lysander Spooner puts it: …there is no difference…between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure. - Lysander Spooner, No Treason The Constitution of No Authority (1867) In other words, do not be surprised if you ever find your termination to be scheduled. If the state determines that you are not contributing enough economically, a burden on healthcare facilities, or even too vocal in voicing your opposition against them, you should be thankful that you were part of the sacrifice for the greater good. Furthermore, what is the greater good? Or more meaningfully, who determines it? The answer is simple. It is the government. How sure are you that their agenda will always align with your interests especially when they can conjure an illusion of such through manipulation? The point is to make the masses demand of the government what the government has already decided to do. If it follows this procedure, the government can no longer be called authoritarian, because the will of the people demands what is being done. - Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1962) The final lie covered will be that the this is all about your health. If you are unaware, there have been speculations that contracts between governments around the world with stakeholders like Pfizer are dubious. Refer to this article. To put it simply, a leaked contract between Albania and Pfizer featured interesting disclaimers like how the long-term efficacy and adverse effect of the vaccine is unknown and that purchasers (governments) have to assume financial responsibility for lawsuits against Pfizer. Admittedly, the leakage of such contract is difficult to verify. However, if it is true and the same applies to Singapore, it would be very worrisome. If the Singapore administration have nothing to hide, they should have no problem sharing their contractual agreement and terms with Pfizer to the public. This transparency is something that has not been exhibited. They should prove that there is no conflict of interest. Additionally, it should be noted that Singapore has invested $250 million into Pfizer. Could the prospects of partnership with a company that profited billions of dollars from the pandemic be a possible conflict of interest? Think for yourself. That said, how sure are we that there are no conflicts of interests when there is literally no mention of the criminal records of vaccine companies by local news? Why was the previously mentioned incident where the FDA required allegedly 75 years to release the safety data of Pfizer to which they deemed acceptable in 108 days not brought to attention by the local news and the government? If the safety data of Pfizer which was approved had never been released, then the pink elephant in the room would be how the decision that the vaccine was safe in the first place is made especially considering the dubious intentions of vaccine firms. The logical answer would be data from other countries. Even so, data from other countries is limited. To elaborate, Singapore initiated the vaccination programme on the 30th of December 2020. On the other hand, the United Kingdoms, was the first to start their programme on the 8th of December 2020. There is no way that 22 days of data can fulfil any reasonable standards. There is little reason to bring up the initial trials conducted by Pfizer too. After all, it is counter-intuitive to trust a company’s evaluation of itself when it committed fraud and bribery in the past. Could the truth really be that there were no plans made to safeguard the health of Singaporeans? Are we then, not simply test subjects? Why are decisions made based on a panel of local ‘experts’ whose names we do not even know? What about contrarian views brought forth by others in the scientific community? Why are professionals with said views immediately disparaged as conspiracy theorists and arbiters of lies by the MSM? Are their views really considered or have they been shoved aside because they threaten the narrative? If the presence of comorbidities increases the mortality risk of Covid-19 (by 2000%) much more than said risk can be reduced through vaccination, why are there no measures to encourage active and healthier lifestyles which helps to reduce comorbidities? Why is all the focus on vaccination? If differentiated measures were really with the purpose of protecting both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated from the unvaccinated, with what kind of mental gymnastics can one justify that those who are medically ineligible are not subject to said measures? This is the most conclusive evidence that this is not about your health. This is about compliance and control. What can you do? The most important thing is to consume information from various sources, especially from independent journalism. The journalism standards in Singapore are nothing to be proud about. Singapore ranks 160th out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom index. If you think China’s media is bad, guess what, Reporters Without Borders asserted that Singapore’s suppression of media freedom does not fall short of China’s. Our local news platforms are vehicles of propaganda. The lack of strong independent journalism in Singapore translates to atrocious journalistic standards for local news. Salma Khalik, a Straitstimes journalist was literally able to get away with propagating prejudiced rhetoric as statement of facts. As of today, there has been no formal retractions or any repercussions. This is a direct insult to your intelligence. They expect us to be unassuming enough to continue consuming the misinformation propagated. The mass State has no intention of promoting mutual understanding and the relationship of man to man; it strives…for atomization, for the psychic isolation of the individual. - Carl Jung We should also start to stand up for our fellow Singaporeans who are unvaccinated. All of us have a common goal of getting through this situation, and none of us can claim that we have the perfect solution. The last thing we need is for distractions that deter us from this. To put it simply, two heads are better than one, speak out for the unvaccinated. As citizens of the same country, we shouldn’t be advocating for any of our rights to be curtailed; such is unnecessary self-mutilation. Besides supporting independent journalists and standing up for your unvaccinated peers, subsequent actions can vary and is entirely up to you. That said, perhaps an article from Benjamin Cheah, a local independent author, can inspire action from you. The article is about The Cost of Compliance. To add on to Benjamin’s article on compliance, the Milgram experiment is more relevant than ever. Imagine yourself to be participating in an experiment. You are sitting in a room, in front of you is another volunteer. Just like you, he is simply here as a test subject. You are both separated by a glass window; you are not in contact with each other, but both of you can clearly see and hear each other. A man who is clad in a pristine white scientist robe soon approaches you and explains the objective for today. Isabelle Adam (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) via Flickr “In this experiment, you are the teacher. You will be testing the man in front of you on word pairs. If he answers correctly, we will proceed to the next question. However, if he answers incorrectly, we will require you to shock him by pressing the buttons on this machine, starting from the lowest voltage.” You look at the machine in front of you. The left most button was labelled 15 volts, with subsequent buttons labelled with voltages in increments up to 450 volts. Having understood the requirements, you decided to commence the experiment. No point delaying, you thought. So the experiment commences and the stranger in front of you is able to answer correctly. As the demands of the questions gets more and more difficult however, he begins to answer incorrectly. And thus, you pressed the first button. The man seemed to jump a little in his seat when the shock is administered, but all seems to be fine. The experiment continues and the man continues to answer incorrectly. You now notice that the shocks are labelled as “moderate shock” as opposed to “slight shock” now. The man seems to be a tad bit uncomfortable. But you continue with the experiment. As the experiment progresses, the wailing of the man gets louder and louder. You could have sworn that you’ve heard the man plead to be released. Will you still continue? Perhaps you think you would stop and so you ask the scientist if you can stop. “Please continue.” Do you continue? Maybe you will continue. The moderate shocks soon escalated into “danger: severe shocks”. At 300 volts, the man bangs on the glass and demands to be released. You also see that you are approaching the final three switches which were labelled “XXX”. Surely, this is where you stop right? You turned to the scientist. “The experiment requires that you continue.” Do you ask again? If you asked again, “It is absolutely essential that you continue.” Do you insist? If you did, you are met with, “You have no other choice; you must go on.” Of course, at any moment of time, you may have chosen to continue. If you did, know that the man stopped responding after the subsequent buttons which were above 300 volts were pressed. It is very likely that many of you would have claimed to stop long before the last shock of 450 volts was administered. But is this really how you would have reacted in actuality? Would it come as a surprise if I told you that around 65% of the participants in the actual Milgram experiment obeyed the experimenter (the scientist) till the end and administered the 450 volts shock? Of course, in the actual experiment, the learner (the man answering your questions) is an actor and no shock was actually administered. This experiment’s true motives were to determine the extent of compliance. Psychologist Stanley Milgram devised this experiment because of his fascination with how Nazi soldiers can commit genocide and justify it on the grounds of following orders. You can read more about the Milgram experiment here. How sure are you now that you are unlike these people who committed injustices due to mindless compliance and obedience? Just look at your attitude to differentiated measures to find out. Every insubordinate person, when he rises up against oppression, reaffirms thereby the solidarity of all men. - Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death (1960) This is the tipping point. What we do now shall determine if Singapore waltz in the footstep of totalitarianism. Stop the meaningless infighting and focus on the essential. Let him not brag of his progressive views, boast of his status as an academician or a recognized artist, a distinguished citizen or general. Let him say to himself plainly: I am cattle, I am a coward, I seek only warmth and to eat my fill. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Live Not By Lies (1974) For those who choose to not heed the warnings given, we wish you the best of luck. In the end, you are complicit in your own demise. This article draws much of its inspiration from the concepts covered by the Academy of Ideas. The concept of totalitarianism and the concept of the greater good are best explained by the Academy of Ideas itself.   * Article first appeared on TheAstuteArbiter.    Read More →

Actually, there are four groups of the unvaccinated people. 1. The first group comprises those who did not go for vaccination by choice. 2. The second group comprises those who have medical reasons or immune deficiency problems. They have no choice but to avoid the potential dangers to their lives. 3. The third group comprises children below 12 years old. They have not reached puberty, and therefore, their sex organs have not been fully developed. The mRNA Fake Vaccines are known to affect the reproductive system. Therefore, it is unwise to purposely inject into these young children's developing bodies any foreign substance, such as the Experimental mRNA Fake Vaccines, that are known to have a certain chance of damaging their reproductive organs or reproductive system in the short, medium or long term. Sensible and responsible parents should not carelessly, stubbornly and foolishly expose their tenderly young children to such unnecessary and irrecoverable risks. 4. The fourth group comprises of those who have been injected with the experimental new tech mRNA fake vaccines, that do not immunise but give a false sense of being immunised. They do not protect you from Covid-19 infections, yet give you a false sense of being protected. It is like having bodyguards who run away when you are being attacked. This is the largest group of unvaccinated people who think that they have been vaccinated because officially their governments said so. In fact, they are bluffing themselves and/or being deceived. Just like the innocent children being led by the pipe piper into the deep river and drowned. So, before one starts to talk about the unvaccinated, think first. Which group of people are you talking about?   Queen of Hearts.   * Article first appeared on My Singapore News.      Read More →

As parents, YOU are adults with matured and properly balanced thoughts, so you must not be easily persuaded by a 11 year-old primary 5 kid, who may have been used by someone for propaganda purposes. As parents, your kids' future depends entirely on your key and vitally important decisions. How can they even have a life, if their mental and physical health have been affected by the spiked foreign substance that has been injected into their bodies? Let alone a better and full life? Think very carefully. Take your time. Don't rush into making such critically and vitally important decision just because there is someone trying to rush off with dispensing the mRNA pseudo vaccines that have to be stored below 70 Degrees Celsius and cost a lot to to so, and has a short expiry date. Those in power think of the 300,000 children as digits to add into their statistics to make them look good. They don't take responsibility when your child falls sick or dies. They will use their famous phrase "due to underlying medical conditions" to defray themselves from blame and taking responsibility. YOU are the one who has to shoulder the responsibility throughout your life, if your child suffers after having been injected and injured for life by that experimental drug which they stupidly accepted as vaccines. There is no turning back. Moreover, young children are more resilient in responding to the COVID-19 viruses. This has been openly and publicly said by none other than the Minister for Health, when he was the Minister for Education not too long ago. So, think 10 times, or even 100 times, before you act!   A Concerned Parent.      Read More →