Class struggle in all its forms.
I shared the full talk here a while back.
It’s interesting to note that even Singapore has started to drift from the West. (Which explains the WSJ article that was published a few days back.)
Of course George Yeo is not Foreign Afffairs Minister anymore, but this view is also advocated by Singapore’s current minister of foreign affairs.
Yup - I also did a quick double check with the stats, its more like hundreds of thousands (400k) per day.
Apparently it is literally the busiest or one of the busiest land borders on Earth.
and the forum might be interested in you making a post on this topic at some point
I have a lot of ideas on this topic regarding Southeast Asian history in general - but I always seemingly want to cover a certain book before I start it, and never get round to actually drafting/creating a post.
Igauan Malam - Insomniacks right now but honourable mention to When The Moon Shines Red by Powerwolf, I listen to it regularly ever since I first found out about it a while back.
I tried to keep it short and I began to write an entire monograph lmao.
TLDR: It just isn’t as materially important.
People can easily travel between the two states, there’s iirc hundreds of thousands that pass through the immigration bridge weekly.
Families are not separated and both states maintain cordial relations.
Personally I would obviously like to see it happening, but when it isn’t necessary, you get limited by political bureaucracy than anything else.
Yup they are seperate entities/states.
Is the popular thought for them to rejoin?
I would say it fits into the overal popular imagination of the “shared cultural realm” or nation I talked about but in terms of politically, as in a political union of some kind, I would say that it is not feasible or expected in the short and medium term.
The steps are being laid down though, through ASEAN and infrastructural initiatives. Economically, and culturally we are very much intertwined.
And Singapore and Malaysia are really new states, less than 75 years old, so things may change quickly.
Also, Brunei could be absorbed into Malaysia if the Sultan ever decides to in the future as that’s also part of both countries’ constitution.
Honestly I didn’t care much about your use of the term “city-state”, I don’t know why I put it in quotes in the first place.
My main contention was you called it “in” Malaysia, when the whole point was Singapore was excluded from Malaysia purposefully. I apologise for my brash response - I was really annoyed at that, especially after reading the original article shared here.
However I can say that nation and state are not synonymous. Nation-state is specifically a European concept in which was then retroactively applied to non-European cultures. It still has it’s uses especially in International Relations but we must be cognizant of the fact that what it entails isn’t universal.
Nation is more ambiguous and more culturally specific, it could be on the basis of a shared linguistic, economic, religious, cultural, or ideological history. It could be all at once or just one.
In the context of Southeast Asia, what it means to be part of the same nation is typically evoked to be those who practice the similar cultural norms, had similar shared histories, spoken certain dialects and languages. So it may be more useful to think nation as “ethnicity” but even then I wouldn’t say is entirely accurate. I will have to say that this understanding doesn’t include any sort of “blood quantum” rules or anything to do with biological lineage. That was and will always be a specifically Euro-Amerikan tradition.
Many countries are not nation-states, which would include countries like Bolivia, Indonesia, Laos, Viet Nam, China, India and South Africa. Studying them would be a good choice in understanding the nuances of nation, state and nation-state. Concepts like Plurinational State and Civilizational State is of key importance.
Even technically the United Kingdom is not a nation-state, although that is contested.
They key thing that binds them all is that a multitude of different cultures and ethnicities are practiced within the same territory and doesn’t rely on a dominant identity (race, ethnic group, religion) for “nation-building”.
Others in this site may be able to provide a better response than I.
Somewhat.
I think the key point you need to know is that most of the political parties in Singapore, and all the left-wing ones in Malaysia before independence and even after, wanted a unified country, and many in Malaysia even sought for a “Pan-Indonesianism” which would fit into the historical cultural realm of the Malay archipelago (the spoken lingua franca of the entire region prior to European influence).
It just goes into how the Chinese ethnic population in Singapore, which is a city state in Malaysia, are aligning more with the Chinese Communist party.
Malaysia has and will continue to be more Pro-China than Singapore ever will be you dumbass.
You don’t even know what you are talking about LMAO.
In the arena of SEA politics, the most Western friendly countries are: Phillipines (neocolonial comprador puppet state of the US), Singapore (glorified tax haven for which International Capital uses as a node for value transfer, and to better control the geopolitically important Strait of Malacca) and Papua New Guinea (neocolonized by Australian companies).
Singapore isn’t a “city-state” in Malaysia, it was booted out of Malaysia to fulfill the comprador Malay feudal classes interests here in Malaysia, that the British acquiesed because containing Communism was more important.
This division can still be seen as a modern-day example of a colonial scar, remaining unresolved because of past and present Western influence.
But surely and steadily this will be removed and our countries will be reunited. That is the logical conclusion of indigenous economic integration, as history has shown.
As someone from this part of the world I feel like I am inclined to breakdown this hilarious article.
Promoting these communities as a vehicle for China’s geopolitical ambitions has become something of a mantra in Beijing, often wrapped in bland rhetoric like building a “shared future.” But in seeking to incorporate citizens of other countries into its vision, critics say, Beijing is stoking divided loyalties, and their potentially destabilizing consequences, across Southeast Asia — home to more than 80 percent of the ethnic-Chinese people outside China and Taiwan, researchers say.
This is often said but China is acting very restrictedly, dare I say completely non-antagonistic compared to the West if we look at history.
Compare how foreign European settlers were utilized by European geopolitical goals in Southern Africa. Nothing remotely close ever happened in Southeast Asia, in which, like the article itself mentions, is where an overwhelmingly majority of the Chinese diaspora lives.
“If too many Chinese Singaporeans are foolish enough to subscribe to Xi’s version of the ‘China Dream,’ the multiracial social cohesion that is the foundation of Singapore’s success will be destroyed,” said Bilahari Kausikan, a former permanent secretary of Singapore’s Foreign Ministry. “Once destroyed, it cannot be put together again.”
I don’t think someone who authored a book called “China is Messing with Your Mind” is a neutral actor, but sure.
according to an examination of more than 700 Lianhe Zaobao articles through 2022 and early 2023 by The Washington Post and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
lol.
Additionally, the paper has been running regular opinion columns since 2016 from at least two CCP officials without noting their party affiliation, referring to them simply as China affairs commentators.
Super based. There’s too many anglophone Western worshippers in this damn region (anything more than 0 is too much).
(I am different, I am an anglophone who hates the West 
)
Beijing sees Southeast Asia as a key sphere of influence, and it has been increasing its public diplomacy and media presence there as part of a multibillion-dollar campaign under Xi, with ethnic-Chinese communities a significant target, according to researchers.
Yes because we are neighbours with a population of almost 700million - same as the Latin American population and how the Yankees treat them as their backyard (to kill everyone they disagree with).
It’s only you white-washed Western worhsippers who believe in Eurocentric understandings of International politics, including the “rational” nation-state, liberal democracy and the “end of history”. It is not a “sphere of influence”, it is a logical conclusion of Southeast Asia’s millenia long interactions with China. India should also try to learn from it’s roots and engage in peaceful diplomacy - but we all know why they can’t.
Chinese state television in both Chinese and English is ubiquitous in Southeast Asia, as is China Radio International, which broadcasts in most Southeast Asian languages as well as Chinese. Beijing is also promoting its official news agency, Xinhua, to media organizations in the region, creating content-sharing agreements. Chinese companies or businesspeople with strong commercial interests in China have bought up local Chinese-language newspapers in Malaysia.
American state television is also ubiquitous in Southeast Asia - what is their point?
Should I even mention the utterly cursed Filipino News Ecosystem?
Apart from these direct efforts, the sheer weight of China’s economic power has become an incentive to heed Beijing’s wishes, undermining traditional constraints in Singapore on taking sides.
The West would never do what China does!
The paper is one of three main vernacular newspapers in Singapore, each serving a predominant ethnic group — Chinese, Malay or Indian. The majority of Singapore’s 5.4 million people are bilingual, proficient in English and one other language: Mandarin, Malay or Tamil.
To the dismay of European colonizers who destroyed their own linguistic diversity for “nation building”.
Zaobao also partners with a Chinese company that has been pinpointed as complicit in rights abuses. In late 2022, Zaobao started working on digitization efforts with an artificial intelligence firm called SenseTime, which has been placed under sanction by the U.S. government for the use of facial recognition technology against the Uyghur ethnic minority.
lol.
Propagating a pro-China line that “doesn’t distinguish between the Chinese Communist Party state, Chinese culture, Chinese ethnicity” creates “confusion over self-identification and where loyalties should lie, especially at a time where friction between the PRC, the U.S. and other U.S. friends and allies in the region are increasing,” said Chong, of the National University of Singapore.
It can only be miscontrued as “pro-China” if you fall into the West’s centuries long struggle against us practicing our own cultures and perspectives.
Only in the West and anglo-brained liberals think that we can’t celebrate diversity and be proud of our cultural heritage. As we all know here, the large aspect of the Amerikan cultural appartus is assimilating those who are different, so even if people are phenotypically different, they are all part of the same individualistic devil spawn (Amerika) and can’t even talk positively about their culture without self-hatred.
Friendship “associations are designed to build emotional links to China on the one hand, and allow the United Front department to use those emotional and other connections as levers to serve the goals of the Communist Party, whether economic, political or social.”
Elderly Chinese, who were Mandarin-educated and feel as if they’ve lost their place in a Singapore that is largely Anglophone, are the most easily swayed by Beijing’s messaging, analysts and residents said. One person who describes her parents, in their 70s and 80s, as having “extreme” pro-China views said the CCP has become like a “fictional hero.”
Based.
Overall, I say 2/10 for effort. For the West to act like they celebrate cultural diversity, they seem really intent at perptuating myths of “divided loyalties” that got many (working class and Communist) Chinese people killed in 20th century Southeast Asia.
Maybe they do not actually care? Just a thought.
You are set on target, you can see the point when talking about the Quran, that then it’s ok to speak up, even if the country in which it happened, allows for the burning to happen. But then, when it comes to LGBT, the country’s law must be respected and you can’t talk about it.
No. I am historicizing both LGBT people and Islam. I am saying that queerphobia and Islamaphobia are not the same. They have interactions of course, like all social phenomena does, but they are qualitatively different and have different responses.
The nature of the countries in question also affect the situation at hand.
It is you who thinks that being Queer and being Muslim is like collecting trading cards or are just mere identities rather than historically situated phenomena. This is why I treat them differently - because they are.
How is Turkish citizens expressing discontent on another country’s policy in Turkey remotely the same as a British performer entering Malaysia for a concert then VIOLATING the social norms and practices?
It is insane that you are making a false equivalence between these two things.
Over here:
Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.
I explicitly mention that not all issues are to be resolved internally - there are valid avenues for internationalism.
But it seems like there is no point in continuing this conversation because I realise now we operate in totally different frameworks.
You say that Malaysia and Singapore share similar cultures, and I agree.
You say that because of this similarity, Malaysia should share the same “progress” of Singapore.
I say that it can’t and it hasn’t because they are not the same. They have different material conditions.
But then you come back and say
I’m saying that is Singapore can do it, Malaysia should be able to do it within a comparable period of time.
I don’t know how to continue. It seems like we are talking past eachother.
If let’s say you were living in a country where Islam was a minority and burning the Quran was legal, wouldn’t you want to have a conversation started and hope that there was some progress for your situation as well? What would you think if others in that country were to say that Türkiye protesting on your behalf would be comparable to supporting jihadist and that should not be allowed?
The reaction against the unprovoked burning of the Quran is objectively correct because Islam is globally oppressed, through wars of destabilization and occupation in West Asia, through funding of Wahhabist and Salafist groups, through neocolonial control of the Persian Gulf states, through Orientalism and Racism. So when these oppressed countries reject this imposition of Western cultural values - it is only reactionary if you are on the side of the Imperialists.
The “conversation” that happens is just further policing of LGBT communities here in Malaysia - what “progress” is that?
When the government introduces guidelines for performers, which include not talking about sensitive topics as well as behaving appropriately, and it was violated by foreigners, shouldn’t the government act? What would it look like if they don’t act?
It would delegitimize their rule causing further destabilization, and wreck our economy. What use would that brief conversation on LGBT rights be for people in my country, geopolitically and materially? We don’t need the colonizers and the imperialists themselves protesting on “our behalf” because it causes more problems than solutions.
Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.
Also, Singapore’s “progress” is encumbered with problems too. Pink Dot SG, the foremost NGO advocating for LGBT rights in Singapore, had large Amerikan corporate sponsors like Facebook, Google and Apple until the government stopped it. We must question why these NGOs can easily associate themselves with Western Capital without an ounce of reflection. There are no easy answers.
Culturally, Malaysia and Singapore are sister countries, in historical times, they were only recently separated (not even 100 years yet). Not comparable with Hong Kong because Malaysia and Singapore where not given to another country that had different cultural values. They both became independent on their own. If Singapore can talk and make progress for the LGBT community, so could Malaysia.
Singapore is different from Malaysia, precisely because they were controlled differently. Singapore was part of the Straits Settlements, same as Penang, Melaka and Dinding. The strait settlements were crown colonies, versus the indirect rule found in the Federated and Unfederated Malay States.
Are we to ignore that the original reason for Singapore’s expulsion was because of it’s Chinese-majority that would have counterracted the power given to the Malay sultans?
progress for the LGBT community
Again - that word is used. “Progress”? Gender and sexual diversity was more progressive in 1600s Southeast Asia than 1900s Europe. What is “progress”?
Singapore can afford to be much more generous in terms of civil rights because of it’s role as a tax haven for ASEAN economies. The material conditions could be anything but different.
Singapore can “progress” on civil rights while supporting imperialism in other SEA states. Until this contradiction is removed, LGBT people can’t “progress” nor can they achieve liberation.
Also you seem to think that I believe that it’s culturally impossible for Malays to accept LGBT people. That isn’t my point. My point is that for acceptance to occur it means 0 meddling from the Global North of Global South affairs.
Until the contradictions within Malaysian society is resolved and managed, LGBT acceptance will never be reality with Imperialism being the primary contradiction.
Malays live in Singapore, same race as the Malays that live in Malaysia different citizenship only.
I agree, up to a certain point, although I would avoid using the word “race” for it’s tainted colonial history. Malaysia-Singapore has never moved past their idiotic use of the word “race” precisely because they never fully decolonized.
Also this suggests that there aren’t Singaporeans with Malaysian citizenship - which isn’t the case. As we both probably know, Singaporean citizens are given til 22 to renounce any foreign citizenship.
I agree with this at face-value but it is one contradiction of many within a postcolonial or Third World country.
If we agree that the primary contradiction is imperialism, than all other contradictions are subsumed under it. They become secondary contradictions affected by the primary.
If we agree that it is Imperialism vs Decolonization, or in other words, the freedom to exploit versus the self-determination of the Third World, then all attempts at rejecting this imperialist-capitalist system is progressive in nature and anything but reactionary.
Reactionary has a very specific meaning in Marxism, and is not just when it goes against Western values. Is it reactionary for countries to assert their own self-determination which will objectively lead to the uplifting of the lives of the people?
Reaction is primarily done by the comprador classes within a (post)colonial society, as it is in their interest to maintain the current or past capitalist status quo. The national bourgeoisie may not necessarily have to be comprador - and that is the view I hold about my current government.
Singapore’s Mufti seems to be more understanding of the situation. Why can’t Malaysia try a more sensible approach?
Sensible to whom? Western observers? Or the people that live here?
Singapore and Malaysia has a shared history for millenia, and already got seperated due to colonization. I agree with that. However, because of that, the situation is a bit more complicated and the material conditions between the 2 countries can’t ever be more different.
It’s like arguing that Taiwan Province or Hong Kong has LGBT rights so why can’t mainland China have it.
The questions we must ask: is there majority will for further LGBT protection and “rights”? Is this event where a White Guy trashes the government and then subsequently leaves for his next tour beneficial for LGBT people on the ground? What are the local and international conditions in which this “outrage” took place?
Why should we be mad at a government in which we already knows is forced to do this, which everyone here knows is homophobic, when this was clearly initiated by those outside the country that can’t even respect our normal cultural practices, and then tries to shoehorn a politically sensitive issue like homosexuality?
Is this for the benefit of our people? Or is it a very self-evident case of liberal virtue signalling?
This then just places the members of these marginalized communities at even greater risk, but of course the West doesn’t care about this.
I personally believe that this is intentional - it was never ever about rights. Making lives worst in Third World countries allows continuous migrant flows into the metropole, in addition to the other effects of destabilization you mention.
I thought I replied to this but I didn’t
I only included LG in the title because the event only included them, although it was mb that I forgot to include the B.
Later on I did use LGBT but it was for convenience, in an ideal world there would have been alternative terminology for LGBT people.
Gender and sexual minority is one of them but I personally don’t like it.
And why I left out transgender people isn’t some transphobic plot - it’s because transgender people is treated differently in Islamic societies. They are their own special case and I don’t necessarily see why we should force the umbrella “LGBT” onto Third World constructs that don’t perfectly map onto it.
To those downvoting, take a look at this thread. Then come back here and tell me if you have objections to the analysis.
Thread is copy-pasted down below.
Let me teach you Marxist 101 wrt this whole Matty Healy thing. The force that drives social change is primarily the internal contradictions of a society, which of course reacts to external influences. The primary contradiction internationally is imperialism at the moment. (1/9)
In a postcolonial world, formerly colonised nations are in the process of healing from colonial trauma. A component of decolonisation is the reclamation of one’s own culture as this affirms and empowers the identity of the colonised. (2/9)
But the colonialists themselves were responsible for epistemicide and cultural genocide. They imposed their norms, including the gender binary which is rooted in capitalism, onto our ancestors who had their own differing attitudes toward gender and sexual diversity. (3/9)
Anti-queer attitudes (in the capitalist sense) among Malays is learned. The knowledge of their previous attitude is repressed. This is not to say that their attitudes were perfect but change happens and the Malays would’ve made their own progress on this issue. (4/9)
The West has a track record of continuing the White Man’s burden, screaming human rights as an excuse to criticise our practice and lecture us on what to do. They’ve also weaponised social issues to incite colour revolutions in parts of the Third World. (5/9)
Matty Healy’s act of “protest” against our government is one that will backfire against us. A white Brit kissing a man to challenge the authority of Malaysia is a microattack on our right to decide for ourselves the values we follow. (6/9)
He also presents the act of two men kissing as a Western imposition onto our people. This adds ammo for a people who are ignorant of their ancestors’ nuanced attitude towards this stuff to label the LGBT people as a threat to national sovereignty. (7/9)
This is why what he did was reactionary. It was a reaction and it will incite reactions that inhibit the progress of our revolutionary efforts. It sabotages our attempt to improve the conditions of gender and sexual diverse people in Malaysia. (8/9)
The government will point to this and can use it as an excuse to enact further restrictions on the practice of the local LGBT community. We will have to face the reaction of the government which they see as necessary to maintain the status quo. So, fuck Matty Healy. (9/9)
The Anglo-Saxon world, with all due respect to the British people, has a very good idea of how to hammer in liberal ideology into the heads of the people. They are exceedingly good at it.
No lies detected whatsoever.
I have no skin in the game regarding this current debate so I’ll keep my own opinions to myself for now.
However, you mentioning Brazil’s multi-party system did pique my interest because something similar happens here.
It didn’t occur to me that for most USians having more than 2 relevant parties really is an abnormality.