Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for May 15th, 2012

The Neo Cartesian Epistemology of Peter Petra Kamarudin

Truth is subjective. I believe, therefore I am. I am, therefore I think. I think, therefore I might be. I might be, therefore the truth. The truth, therefore it depends.

Peter, O Petra…  you poor piece of Kongsamkok konvoluted sod. What did they teach you in the UK?

Here is a dime for your thought troubles and MT registration.

*****

The first thing that strikes you listening to the Chee Soon Juan speech (clip above) is how remarkably similar he is to Lee Kuan Yew, although they hate each other. Yet, they are near identical in their persuasive use of the English language, in their small, imitation English tones, down even to their little Cambridge inflections. Over a microphone, and if you didn’t know who they are, you would think they are Englishmen or they had been raised in one of those London boarding schools.

But, on one thing called ‘democracy’ the two imitation gweilos differ. They don’t just differ, they are also deadly combatants.

Chee says Lee is authoritarian, virtually a barbarian, and is anti-freedom. From a white, Christian platform (supplied by Norwegians), he repeatedly denounces Lee on Anglophile moral terms, callous to the welfare of the poor and exploitative, having sequestered the instruments of the state to serve an elite clique. Those who went against him paid a heavy price, heavier than even Nelson Mandela had to suffer. Chia Thye Poh, 32 years in the slammer, is cited as such a victim of Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee would probably answer Chee to say that he, having broken the law, has no respect for it. And without this respect, he violates a fundamental principle in democracy: the rule of law. In other words, Chee is anti-democratic. Such a man preaches chastity. But, like Victorian parishers in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novels (The Scarlet Letter) warning on Sunday mornings against the temptations of the flesh, they are by night in bed with the maid.

So, in their small English imitation tongues, these two men would lunge at each other’s throats, yelling about their mutual, Christian moral deficiency and yet insufficiently democratic by western standards.

To get around this incongruity, Chee convinces himself and then tells the world the apologia bandied about by such persons as Anwar Ibrahim. While Anwar has said democracy is not a ‘western monopoly’, Chee instead says it is neither western nor Asian. This contradiction is an invariable result: when Angophile minds try to fit square pegs (western political philosophy) into round holes (Asian politics), what they get is more convolution.

Other than to exploit the Christian morality that serves to tug at the white man’s heart, there are other, perhaps fundamental, reasons why Chee talks the way he does: he has no other way to think; he endears himself to European multiculturalists. Why? What does he hope to gain?

For those answers, one has to return to the clip. Essentially it says this: Chee Soon Juan is a demolished man (done in by Lee Kuan Yew et al, sued repeatedly, a bankrupt, politically castrated, unable to leave the country). The only thing left for him to hit back at Lee is with the route that runs outside in. This route passes white territory and uses Chrsitian morality so, in Chee’s speech, there is not an unremarkable resemblancing to a pentecostal pastor preaching to the Sunday flock.

(Peter Petra Pan, naive man that he is, had very quickly bought into Chee’s gweilo morality. But that’s inevitable. Like Chee, Petra Kamarudin is himself an Anglophile beneath a Muslim-Malay mask because of the Malaysian constitution. Notice, too, how the main themes in Chee – neglect of the poor, rich getting richer, and especially political morality – are identical to the campaign issues endlessly streaming out of Pakatan and out of Lim Guan Eng and Anwar Ibrahim. This western political morality says the poor, the weak, the minority, the suburban, the Christians and the religious, hence DAP, PKR, PAS , are all righteous; everybody else, Umno and MCA in particular, are evil.)

Because morality, especially political morality, is such a big draw to a western, Christian audience, Chee’s entire speech is rife with its image depictions – photos of old, sick, poor people – then backed up by economic rationale but selectively presented.

Chee must know he was lying. Either that or he was deliberately misrepresenting the data, like the way PY Wong of (PKR?) attempted to paint a greatly indebted Malaysian economy on the verge of collapse.

The huge gap between the poor and the rich in Singapore couldn’t have been the result of democracy nor from the lack of it. There is simply no conclusive cause-effect empirical evidence one way or the other. (Chee uses the Gini coefficient measure in which the closer the number it is to zero, the greater is the equality. Singapore has 4.7 at present, Malaysia thereabouts.) Chee omits to say that the world’s most egalitarian societies, at around 3.2 in the Gini ratio – China, India, Sri Lanka in the 1960s and 1970s, Cuba and Burma today – tended to be either socialists or communists but rarely the greedy capitalism that Chee says constitute the pivot in Singapore’s macroeconomic policies. Today, egalitarianism is by-word for poverty: everybody are equally poor.

But, what if Singapore had been the other way around, ruled by Chee Soon Juan in the beginning instead of Lee Kuan Yew?

There will be barely any noticeable difference. He would have also favoured American capital and finance and European corporates; he would have stuffed the Treasury with dollars, hosted American warships, and he would have used the same instruments of democracy (law, for example) and the same institutions (judiciary and police) so as to win the favour of the electorate and beat up on his opponents. Why? Because those are invariably the products of democratic politics to which Chee would have to turn to, the same methods, if he’s to stay on top.

In his present straitened circumstances, however, Chee is but a victim of the democracy he extols as virtuous. That is, if Chee wants to play by white man rules then he has to accept its consequences instead of pontificating before a white audience in Oslo, Norway, about human dignity.

Democracy is least concern with human dignity. It is about power ascendancy, rulership and the road towards those things. That is, democracy is politics and a very vicious one at it.

Chee’s painting of democracy as a ‘universal’ value is old baggage. But what he does worse is to place democracy as the spring well of the ‘human spirit’, yet another lie borrowed from Christianity (which talks of the Spirit as the third component in the God-triad).

This sort of a Christian morality comes so readily to Anglophiles like Chee because it never occurs to them to think outside the western framework and so to pose a fundamental question: what on earth is this human spirit?

Chee relies on its ambiguity to veil his own dilemma: how to defeat Lee Kuan Yew or, if not possible, at least get even.

Chee using this kind of Anglophile spin is both notorious and necessary. It is necessary because Christianity, that is, the root of western culture and civilization, has the human welfare and concerns last.

Like Islam is to Arabs, its primary concern, since there has been a Jesus Christ, is life after death and fulfilling god’s dictatorship on earth so that, if there is any humanism in democracy or in freedom, the western world is the last place on earth to look.

Chee, like Lee Kuan Yew, looked up the wrong place to build a society. Or, worse, they didn’t bother to look. They assume western civilization has all the answers to managing a country.

Chee deserves what he gets, and Lee deserves the Singapore he has built after the gweilo – mostly unethical, completely materialistic and always greedy. That is, Singaporeans today have no soul, no humanity, just automatons, numbers in an electoral game called democracy feted by idiot savants like Chee Soon Juan.

How did all this start?

It started when Lee Kuan Yew went to a La Salle then to Cambridge where, in all these places, he learned how to be racist like his English masters. He had spit on his grandfather and his heritage. He had thought of being Chinese as inferior and now Chee Soon Juan, another Anglophile, like Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore home-grown, no less, polished in Cambridge, and cultivated by an Anglophile ethnic, education and social policies, is Lee’s punishment. Long live Lee Kuan Yew. Long Live Singapore! 万岁 万岁.

Singapore is today the mirror image warning into the future for Malaysia should the DAP/PKR Anglophiles take over.

To Harry Lee Kuan Yew: May ten thousand curses descend on your next ten generations. You see, Harry, Chee Soon Juan is only the beginning of your punishment. The Chinese Daoists call this punishment by the Buddhist word karma, but you don’t have to believe it. The equivalent as you would say it in the English is, what goes around comes around.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »