SINGAPORE VOTED AT UNITED NATIONS CONDONE ACTS OF TERRORISM BY HAMAS

In my previous blog "Seven hours from victory to victimhood for Hamas" I wrote “…. one side of the aisle will celebrate the attack as a victory, up till when Israel reacts, they will then play the victimhood card.” Now that Hamas is facing devastating destruction, they go running to the United Nations, tail between legs, to get Israel to agree to a ceasefire.

At the UN Security Council, US wanted a resolution on “humanitarian pauses” whilst Russia wanted “an immediate ceasefire”. Each country has a veto and not a surprise to anyone, the UNSC failed to pass a resolution.

The task then goes to the UN General Assembly with a resolution tabled by Jordan which called for “an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities.” It was a dastardly act of white-washing terrorism by leaving out mention Hamas started the conflict with their barbaric Oct 7 attack inside Israel against civilians. Canada objected and asked for an amendment to include a condemnation of Hamas. Canada’s amended resolution failed to get the 2/3 majority votes. Voting then reversed to the original Jordanian resolution. This passed with 120 in favour, 14 against and 45 abstention.

A humanitarian vote is of course a good thing. But in this Israeli-Hamas conflict, one cannot talk of humanitarian aid or ceasefire without first condemning what Hamas did. A vote for the Jordanian resolution is a vote for humanitarian cause AND a vote for terrorism. What happened at the UN is a crying shame. It means 120 countries voted that it is OK for terrorists to seek and kill unarmed civilians, rape, kidnap, torture, burn and chop off heads of old, young, kids and babies.

A look at the voting result shows an obvious bias and voting power of Muslim countries. They are all for terrorism. To add insult to injury, the assembly cheered the passing of the shameful resolution. An infuriated Czech Defense Minister Jana Černochová called on the Czech Republic to leave the United Nations following the grotesque display of anti-Semitism by the General Assembly.

Some interesting observations at how the voting went:

a) All Muslim countries refused to condemn the barbaric terrorist acts of Hamas. All except one voted AGAINST Canadian resolution and YES for the Jordanian resolution. Is anyone surprised?

b) Very surprised Tunisia ABSTAINED. Could the country that had its Arab Spring history make a difference? However, Tunisia also voted NO for the Canadian resolution.

c) Many Western countries voted for the Canadian resolution to condemn Hamas. When the Canadian resolution failed, these countries did not vote AGAINST the Jordanian resolution with US, choosing to ABSTAIN instead.

d). Many countries, including Singapore, voted for the Canadian resolution. When this failed, they then voted for the Jordanian resolution.

e). (c) and (d) above shows that many countries are afraid to vote against a humanitarian resolution. In an act of cowardice, they voted for the gallery or abstained. 

f). Tiny countries show the lion’s courage Singapore lacks. They show what was the right and decent thing to do. Fuji, Nauru, Micronesia, Marshall Island, Papua New Guinea, Tonga voted AGAINST the Jordanian resolution. Cabo Verde, Cyprus, Haiti, Kiribati, Latvia, Lithuania, Monaco, Palua, San Morino, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, all ABSTAINED.

g). Very surprised but glad Ukraine voted YES for Canada’s anti-terrorism resolution and ABSTAINED from the final Jordanian humanitarian resolution.

h). Israel and US are totally isolated. The US seems to be still very committed to the security of Israel, at least going by the Biden administration's acts recently. Obama had driven a wedge in the US-Israel relationship but Biden seems to be providing the backing Israel needs at the moment. However, this UN vote has to be framed away from geopolitical terms but as a humanitarian effort without compromising anti-terrorism policies.

Shamefully, 120 countries have shown the world it is OK to seek and kill unarmed civilians, rape, kidnap, torture, burn and chop off heads of old, young, kids and babies. After your heinous acts, if anyone comes to seek revenge and right the wrongs, we 120 countries have your back.

Shame on you Singapore. The Lion City without the heart of a lion. We show the world we are for humanitarian causes BUT we also condone the most barbaric terrorist attack in human history.

It is important we understand how the Asean countries' votes went.

a) All countries want a pro-humanitarian ceasefire. All countries will say in a heart beat they are against terrorism. It is easy-bizzy, who doesn’t want that. So here at the UN, the test is whether one should vote for ceasefire AND condemn Hamas at the same time. Here, Asean countries do not have a collective attitude towards terrorism.

b) Muslim countries have a block vote, does not surprise anyone how they voted.

c) Not a single Asean country has the courage of those small island countries to vote for ceasefire AND condemn Hamas. None did the decent and right thing. Only Philippines did the next decent thing by voting for the Canadian resolution and ABSTAIN from the Jordanian resolution.

Philippines, the country Singaporeans disdain for their high violence, did the next best thing in this day of infamy at the United Nations.

32 Thai workers have been slaughered and it is difficult to understand why Thai votes turned out the way it does. Why bother about political correctness when Muslim countries obviously don't give a damn to the sentivities of others. 

This UN resolution is not binding. It is the hope a UN resolution of this nature will convince countries to accede to the wishes of the majority and thus helps drive national policies. However, this particular resolution is purely for optics. No one expects Israel to subjugate their security objectives to the designs of states aligned with its enemy. This was purely a propaganda exercise orchestrated by unseen hands.  It's purpose was simply to damage Israel and cast the Jews as the evil one. And by jolly what success they have over the years going by the count of UN resolutions. Israel alone has garnered more UN resolutions against it than all other countries combined. People need to understand these propaganda scores has impact on lives and properties on the real world outside. Singapore and 119 countries lack the capacity to understand how their votes emboldened terrorists and anti-semitism across the ME and Western world. They have just made the world a much much more dangerous place.


Addendum:

Singapore's Permanent Representative to the UN Burhan Gafoor explained “This resolution reaffirms all parties’ obligations to respect and uphold international law, including international humanitarian law...... it makes no mention of the Hamas’ role in perpetrating the massive and coordinated terror attacks..." The question is why vote for the resolution in light of the garing omission?

A parting shout out :

Plato said:
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
If you like what you read here and feel it matters Singaporeans know stuff like this, please click and share with your social circle. This makes my effort worthwhile.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

PANDEMIC SCAM BUSTED BUT GOVERNMENT PLAYS ON (REVISED)

Note : My original post was flagged by someone (unknown) for review and blogspot admin determined a breach of community guidelines on MISLEADING CONTENT policy and took it down. Admin advised I can repost if I revise content to comply with guidelines. I have now revised to summarise what I wrote and demonstrate there was never any misleading content in the first place.

Question is who possibly could have flagged the innocuous post and why? There are 3 possibilities:
(a) The cabal that controls the vaccine narrative. But this is ridiculous as to them, my blog is so inconsequential.
(b) The Malaysian Government, but again ridiculous since Najib is no longer in control.
(c) The Singapore Government, but they do not take down posts. They simply issue a POFMA order to insert their right to have their corrective views displayed.

I am more inclined towards (c). No POFMA just serves to support my claim there was no misleading content in the first place.

1. Singapore excess mortality

I presented this chart and mentioned UK, shocked by their high excess deaths, has commenced an inquiry but Singapore still hasn’t. Is this what irked the government? But this is fact. The data came from ‘mortality.org’ and ‘ourworldindata.org’ whose input comes from national statistic datasets.

Mainstream media isn’t reporting this. On a quarterly basis, Singapore's excess death rate was above 30% making it the highest in the world for the last 4 quarters running.

Are these excess death rates something to worry about?

In Statistics lingo, the question is, are the rates significant. In this kind of analysis, statisticians have set 5% as the red flag. Anything higher than 5% is significant. Singapore's high excess death rate is very significant. In other words, something beyond the ordinary caused these high rates. There can be only two causation - Covid itself or the mRNA vaccines. From the very beginning, it was determined risk of fatality from Covid is only high in the elderly and those with comorbidity. Even then it was projected at less than 1%. That left the vaccines as the sole causation.

The government trusted in the science when it comes to the vaccine. Why do they not trust in the science of high excess death statistics now starring at them right in the face? Why is there no public discussion but instead pouring another few hundred million dollars on a fresh round of vaccine procurement and promoting new booster jabs no one wants as well as going after kids.

Is this the chart the government does not want you to see and so had the post taken down?

2. Inconvenient questions

I had asked these questions, nothing to do with misleading contents.

a) Why does the government provide Big Pharma a non-liability clause in the vaccine purchase?
b) Why continue with hundreds of millions of dollars additional purchase when people no longer want them? In US the take up for latest booster is only 2%
c) Why sign away our medical sovereignty to WHO, FDA and CDC?
d) Why deny medical practitioners to treat their own patients the way it has been for hundreds of years?

3. Failure of agencies

I made following observations. All facts. Nothing misleading.

a) The opposition for failure to file for discussion in parliament the high excess deaths.
b) The judiciary and Law Society for failure to look into the surrender of sovereignty inherent in WHO Pandemic Treaty and compensation for deaths and injuries caused by vaccine.
c) Various medical professional bodies for failure to speak up on various risks.
d) Embalmers for not speaking up on blood clots.
e) Local academia does not pick up on the vast array of new studies published regarding the vaccines and it's effects. There was no intellectual inquiry at all.

These are opinions. Is there any thing here that is misleading?

4. Trust in vaccine is gone

I made following points. All are fact.

a) Fauci and associates facing likelihood of indictment for crimes against humanity. This is fact. Senator Ted Cruz has a lot to say about this.
b) Bills Gates admitted the vaccines didn’t work. This is fact. His admission is on record.
c) Pfizer’s days of unimaginable profit is gone. This is fact. Share price is down.
d) Pfizer and Moderna are facing legal suits for vaccine deaths and injuries. This is fact. Just go Google.

5. Pascal Najadi asked for arrest of WHO, GAVI, WEF members

I referenced Pascal Najadi who has lodged a police report in Switzerland for the arrest of members of WHO, GAVI and WEF for the scam on Covid-19 vaccines. I also mentioned he was responsible for making a police report against the Swiss President Alain Berset for making a false statement about vaccine. The police report triggered an AG investigation which caused the latter to resign and quit politics. Once again, all facts. Go Google.

6. Hussain Najadi murdered in 2013

I mentioned Hussain because it provided some interesting information. Hussain was the father of Pascal and co-founder of WEF. In 1980s he exited WEF out of disdain with the organisation and left Klaus Schwab in sole control. Hussain owned Amtrak Bank in Malaysia. When he discovered politicians and top level executives of PM Najib’s administration were using his bank for various corruption activities, he disclosed this to Malaysian anti-corruption agency. He was gunned down in 2013 in Kuala Lumpur. All facts. Go Google.

In conclusion, readers can see nothing, absolutely nothing that was in my original post, that can be fairly considered misleading content.

I had opened the original blog with this Mark Twain quote :

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

This has consonance with the pandemic where 'vaccine tyranny' has seen many voices of narratives not in line with official dictates quickly extinguished. It's a career killer and lives destroyed. Timid folks all over the world simply kept quiet and rolled over. Once again, all facts. I paid tribute to Iris Koh for organising "Healing The Divide", an online group to disseminate various information regarding the vaccine. In this same patriotic spirit I took pains to repost this revision after having deleted my file copy.

I would put a caveat that if this post is also taken down, I may go for a FOIA request to determine who exactly is the party that flags it for removal.



A parting shout out :

Plato said:
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
If you like what you read here and feel it matters Singaporeans know stuff like this, please click and share with your social circle. This makes my effort worthwhile.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

SEVEN HOURS FROM VICTORY TO VICTIMHOOD FOR HAMAS

Any discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will see three sides locking horns, two with extreme views having no middle ground, and a third with some semblance of balance but always a hidden bias. One single bone of contention that stands in the way of a resolution is Palestinian statehood is mutually exclusive to many Muslims. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a battle cry that calls for the annihilation of Israel. This is repeatedly announced publicly by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Who in his right mind would expect Israel to accept a two state solution with the Sword of Damocles over their heads? Yet all those who push for two state solution at the United Nations have made no attempt to get Hamas, Hezbollah and 28 UN member countries that do not recognise the State of Israel, to do so. The two state solution seems like the only viable one, and the immovable block is not Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very complex. Some base their arguments as if history began in 1948 when it is actually a 3,000 year old story. Yet others freely throw up catchwords of Zionists and Apartheid against those with sympathies aligned with Israel but have no idea of what they are talking. Zionism simply refers to the movement to bring Jews back home in the areas that used to be called Israel, Judea and Samaria. So those who are anti-Zionists deny Jews the right to return to their homeland, but fight for Palestinians the same right. Those who brand Israel an apartheid state do not want to believe 30% of Israelis are Arabs having universal suffrage and representation in parliament. 2 million Arabs live in Israel compared to maybe 100,000 Jews living in all Muslim countries taken together.

I lock horns with Critical Spectator over many issues, but I feel his 2 recent posts on the Palestinian matter offer some good perspectives. Incidentally, Madam Ho Ching, an avid fan, never share these 2 posts. Just as well, for it’s a hot potato and from her perch, she ought to be circumspect.

The conflict is complex and reactions of many are often emotional bothering on hysteria. It behoves on any public figure making a comment to be very careful and yet coming across as fair. PM Lee Hsien Loong offered his views in a recent interview which I thought was very well articulated and unbiased. (Read here.)

Non-Muslims are perplexed why Muslims are overtly sensitive and react so passionately with over-the-top emotion whenever fellow believers somewhere in the world suffer any form of perceived injustice. To understand this, one refers to the Koran and Hadith which have several verses like this one :

"The believers, in their mutual mercy, love, and compassion, are like a single body; when any part of it suffers, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever."

Some interpret it as teaching of ‘eye-for-an-eye’, others say it’s about universal compassion for fellow Muslims. The fact is this is deep in a Muslim's psyche. I remember very well a survey in Malaysia some 50 years ago that tried to determine the priority in the Muslims’ frame of mind, what comes first. Turned out it was Islam, Family, Country, in that order.

It is impossible to argue against apathy and compassion. Unfortunately, they don’t sit well on the high moral horse of humanitarianism with the absence of Muslim indignation of ISIS atrocities against Christians in Iraq and the Yazidi genocide, or the ongoing slaughter of Christians in Armenia and Nigeria, or the recent barbaric Hamas attack on Israeli civilians on October 7. We all saw a celebration instead.

Hamas atrocity? Deny, deny, deny. I get annoyed when online commenters ask me to show proof. The barbarism perpetrated by Hamas is too gruesome to show and out of respect for the dead, I will not display any images or videos here. Deniers must understand Israel has surveillance cameras on every street. Evidence is overwhelming. Understand too that captured and killed Hamas fighters all have mobile phones. A treasure trove of self -incriminating evidence there. Israel has vowed to go after all those who carried out the Oct 7 attack ala the Munich Olympics 1972 where all the terrorists were eventually hunted down. All those mobile phones will lead to the killers ultimately.

In a Tiktok or Whatsapp connected world, the audacity of Hamas’ well-coordinated attack on Israel Oct 7 was celebrated all over the world by supporters within hours. That it was an attack on civilians, which is a war crime, and the barbarism, bothered no one in this crowd. The blog title conveys my feelings on Oct 7. I knew immediately one side of the aisle will celebrate the attack as a victory, up till when Israel reacts, they will then play the victimhood card. It played out right on cue.

Now many members of parliament have tabled questions for discussion in next parliamentary session. A strange coincidence to my preceding blog where I mentioned members of parliament are sleeping and not discussing excess death issues. There is now a sudden interest when it involves the death of foreigners. (That blog has been taken down today at the behest of certain parties for breach of community standards. I maintain there was nothing objectionable, nor was there any misinformation or disinformation in that blog. Why not POFMA but take down? Similarly you can judge for yourself about this blog which I have a feeling may suffer a similar fate. It is an opinion piece, but nothing objectionable.)

As this is a complex and sensitive matter, members who put up their questions have been as diplomatic as possible. Some wanted to understand the government’s position on the Palestinian issue, some asking for provision of humanitarian aid, some wanted condemnation for breaking international laws in warfare (apparently directed against Israel). Let’s not kid ourselves. These are pre-determined questions that the government wants to discuss. They are just farmed out to a few members to file the questions in a faux display of independence Singaporeans call wayang.

None of these members condemned the barbaric Hamas attack on civilians that precipitated the outbreak of full-fledged war. In my opinion, anyone that condemns not the Oct 7 attack forfeits the right to talk about restraining Israeli rights to obliterate Hamas in Gaza.

So is it a good thing for parliament to discuss the Isreali-Palestinian problem? I think it is good for Singapore as a sign of maturity to be able to discuss the politics in a calm and collected manner and be able to agree to disagree. This seems to be a break from long held tradition – that public discussion of politics of other countries is voodoo. However, religion should remain a no-go zone. It is of course very difficult to separate the two, after all, Islam is both an ideology and a political organisation of a way of life.

I am all for talking about humanitarian aid. But here we also need to be careful. Whether it is privately funded initiative or tax payer dollars, we must know where the money goes. Hamas is both a terrorist organisation and the government of Gaza. Where will the aid money go? To the government and the people or to terrorists? It is impossible to prevent humanitarian aid money being diverted to military use by Hamas. Notice in Lee Hsien Loong’s interview, he referred to Palestinian Authority even though that is the government of West Bank and not Gaza. LHL cannot recognise Hamas as government of Gaza. It is easy to assume a Liberal bleeding heart talk about aid, but the brutal reality is the problem is complex.

The world now says Israel has the right to defend itself (as if there are countries which do not have this right), but the IDF must observe the proportionality doctrine. It is a demand never imposed on any army in the world, what more on an army that drops leaflets or sends out notifications to its enemies to vacate buildings targeted to be bombed, or give adequate time to move out of designated fighting zones. But the world does not want to hear Hamas fired more than 5,000 rockets on Israel. The fact Israel’s Iron Dome was able to take out most of these rockets and spare the country of untold suffering, somehow also spares Hamas the criticism of carrying out a disproportionate act. Hello World, Israel is no longer reacting to unarmed youths throwing stones, but a full-fledged militia firing 5,000 rockets at them. Where is the proportionality?

Hamas rockets have a high failure rate. Israel’s missile launch tracking system says in the current conflict, about 400 Hamas rockets dropped within Gaza. When Singaporean bleeding hearts see the destruction in Gaza and the death toll, are they able to partition blame on Israeli precision bombs or Hamas faulty rockets? Including the bomb on the Orthodox Church. Of course we now know the Baptist Hospital was not bombed by Israel. An Islamic Jihad rocket misfired and fell on the carpark near the hospital. Casualty count was about 50, not the media lie of 500 that went around the world.

That is not to say Israeli bombs caused no civilian casualties. Of course in a war, casualties there always will be. The test is it must not be indiscriminate or intentional targeting of civilians.

As Western liberal media take Hamas press releases without care for authentication, it is clear Israel will win the battlefield war but not the propaganda war. Anti-semitism once again rears its ugly head all over the world. So when Singapore parliament sit to discuss, members should weigh the issues fairly. Since I suspect much of the discussion will be centered on what role Singapore can play in terms of humanitarian aid, I like to share something that has no traction with Western media.

Did you know Israel issued at one time 70,000 work visas for Palestinians from Gaza and West Bank to help improve their economic situation? Just like Malaysians working in Singapore, Palestinians treasure the Israeli work visa because the pay is substantially much higher. These Palestinians have an entirely different mind set. They care about their employment and work hard to build a life for their family, to save and build a house and invest in business back in Gaza. In other words, these are the ordinary folks that will help build the economy of Gaza. But in the propaganda world, no one hears about stuff like this. Read about the visa here.

It is important to have a proper perspective. One side has an unappreciated humanitarian streak, not all Palestinians are terrorists, and Israel is not the enemy. Hamas is.



A parting shout out :

Plato said:
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
If you like what you read here and feel it matters Singaporeans know stuff like this, please click and share with your social circle. This makes my effort worthwhile.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

JOKES FOR THE DAY

These are mostly jokes harvested from online comments. We won’t know the contributors, but it’s only right I display the credits. These one-liners require certain level of IQ. Are you quick to the punchline? Test your intelligence here. It’s better than the standard IQ test.

I have a Statistics joke but it’s not significant (Dr Michele V)

I have a Philosophy joke but I don’t understand it   (TanaBobby Campbe)

I have a Civil Engineering joke but it’s still under construction (Chike Nel Chekwas)

I have an Economics joke but it’s not in demand (Hafiz Aboki Zanwa)

I have a Geography joke but I don’ know where it is (Oli Mold)

I have a Plumbing joke but it’s shit (Jono Meikie)

I have a Calculus joke but I don’ know where it is derived from (Vincent Drum)

I have a Geology joke but it didn’t rock (Dejana Van Gestal)

I have a Solipsism joke but no one else gets it (John Bedard)

I have a Lawyer joke but it has lost it’s appeal (Adam Strauss)

I have a Chemistry joke but it never gets a reaction (Marike Louise)

I have a Food joke but it’s a bit tasteless (Andrew Heppinstall)

I have a Sodium joke but NA, people wouldn’t like it (Debra Savage)

I have a Journalism joke but it got edited (Mathew Mayer)

I have a Jazz joke but it’s blue (Andrew Jordan)

I have a Schrodinger joke ….. or do I? (Alison Blakey)

I have a Retiree joke but I don’t tell it anymore (Mark Muncie)

I have a History joke but it’s really dated (Josh Flowers)

I have a History joke but someone rewrote it (Cheryl Lynn)

I have a Records Management joke but I didn’t retain it (Helen Streck)

I have a Black Hole joke but it really sucks (Mike Salvi)

I have an Immunology joke but no one gets it (Krista Landon)

I have an Immunology joke, I heard it went viral (Teri Sterns)

I have a Freudian joke but it slipped my mind (Nadine Sturges LuluL)

I have a Musical joke but it’s flat (Selai Wainiqolo)

I have a Medicine joke and it’s so sick (Kevin John)

I have a Geometry joke and it’s kinda square (Hob Reese)

I have a Carpenter joke but I got hammered and forgotten it. I’ll nail it next time (Jason Craig)

I have a Tiling joke but it’s out of line (Colaza Tro)

I have a Time Travel joke but you guys didn’t laugh (Jim Matheson)

I have an Acupuncture joke but there’s no point telling it (Simon Sheridan)

I have a Bread joke but it’s stale (Alan Husby)

I have a Yeast joke somewhere but I’m too lazy to rise up to find it (Rene Moses)

I have an Apathy joke but I’m sure you won’t care to listen (Charles Johnson)

I have a Chicken joke but I get eggs on my face whenever I tell it (Michelle Srop)

I have an Paleontology joke but it’s gotten old and stale (Matt Graesch)

I have a Linguistic joke but I can’t find the right words for it (Kristan Overstreet)

I have a Polish joke but I need to polish it up (Bartosz Rawski)

I have a Gardening joke but it’s dirty (Scot Rockwell)

I have an Electricity joke but it’s not current (Norman Wooten)

I have an Electricity joke but it’s too shocking for you (Dave McManus)

I have a Finance joke but it doesn’t raise much interest (Patrick Lefebvre)

I have an Editing joke but when I tell it, my wife said to cut it out (Garry Hayner)

I have a Pi joke but it just goes on and on (Jacqui Macias Tiell)

I have a Media joke but I can’t broadcast it (Aimee Fitzgerald)

I have a Communism joke but it’s not funny unless everybody gets it (Michael Dowling)

I have a Current Event joke but it’s history now (Wayne Rosenwinkel)

I have an Artist joke but it got the brush-off (Anne Lane)

I have a Skydiver joke but it always falls flat (Krista Landon)

I have a Legal Issue joke but it’s really not appealing (Karyn Vampotic)

I have a Nutrition joke but it’s hard to digest (James Furnish)

I have a Physics joke but it doesn’t matter if you can't catch it   (Laura FH)

I have an Illustrator joke but it’s too graphic (Pat Taylor)

I have an Amnesia joke but I have forgotten about it (Pal Meehan)

I have a Golf joke but it’s not up to par (Josh Milligan)

I have a Chef joke but it’s half-baked (Holly Ridley)

I have a Hotel joke but there’s no room for laughter here (David Foxx)

I have a Software joke but it needs to be updated (Asma Waqar)

I have a Pizza joke but it’s too cheesy (Daniel O’Dell)

I have a Banking joke but I’m too withdrawn to tell it (Melanie Sorsdahl)

I have an Aesthetics joke but it’s in poor taste (Fores McDonald)

I have a Clintons joke but it’s not Hilarious (Chris Bott)

I have a Culture joke but it got cancelled (Asma Wager)

I have a Porn joke but it’s so hard to tell it (Ivan Myers)

I have a Reincarnation joke but it’s only funny the first time (John Bedard)

I have an Advertising joke but no one knows about it (Kalpesh Patel)

I have a Religion joke but you wouldn’t believe it (Brian Criss)

I have a Sonography joke but you can’t hear it (Bianca Docee)

I have a Surgery joke but the admin will remove the content (Arjun Athmaram)

I have a Sauna joke but it’s just too steamy to tell (Dave Bucci)

I have a Hooker joke but it sucks (Summer Jones)

I have an Undertaker joke but I don’t know if people are dying to hear it (Stephen Buckley)

I have a Satanic joke but I shouldn’t be telling it … heck, the Hell with it (John Bedard)

I have a Neurological joke but I don’t have the nerves to tell it (Shomer Halahawi)

I have a Geoetechnical Drilling joke but it’s such a boring one (Liz Buchanan)

I have a Hamas joke but it’s so explosive I may get a POFMA (Pat)

I have a Politician joke but it’s the usual lies and corruption stuff so I elected not to tell it (Pat)

I have an Ishwaran and Formula 1 Racing joke but I don't know where to start (Pat)

I have a Seamstress joke but it may leave you in stitches (Pat)

I have a Farming joke but you won’t dig it (Pat)

I have an Earthquake joke but it will be my fault if anyone dies laughing (Pat)

I have an Undertaker joke but actually it’s really dead serious and of grave concern (Pat)

I have a Pencil joke but I see no point in telling it (Pat)

I have a Proctology joke but it’s all shit (Pat)

 

TEST YOUR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE 

 

How many of the jokes did you laugh at: 

All the jokes - super intelligent 

Above 60      - very intelligent 

40 – 60         - average 

Below 40      - …… 

SORRY, I WAS ONLY JOKING, DON’T BE SO SERIOUS.

Laughing at a joke depends on more than understanding it. It also depends on your mood, disposition, and what sort of funny bone you have. 

A parting shout out :

Plato said:
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
If you like what you read here and feel it matters Singaporeans know stuff like this, please click and share with your social circle. This makes my effort worthwhile.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

BIBLE- SCIENCE ARGUMENT: BET YOU NEVER KNEW BOOK OF ISAIAH LAID FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE

In the preceding blog “Bible-Science Argument : Scientific World Does Not Share Views Of Anti-God Crowd” , I showed non-scientific world of neo-liberals and neo-atheists debase God, professing their belief on science-based reasoning, but do not realise that the scientific world has actually abandoned the conflict theory of the Bible-Science argument.

In this blog, l like to show the non-scientific world of anti-God crowd does not even realise the Bible laid the foundation for science. Take a look at Isaiah 41.21-23 and 43.9-10 and be amazed at God’s omniscience.

But first, what is it about science? Whenever someone says, “Trust the science”, what does it mean. Simply put, it is a way of seeking truth based on evidence and logical reasoning. One takes a certain position after having evidentiary discovery, not from speculation or faith.

Europe emerged out of the Dark Ages led by learned men schooled by an education system provided by early Christian churches. In other words, Science evolved out of Faith. Men learnt a new way to discern the world by inductive reasoning and evidence. At its basic core, this led to the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of sola scriptura. Men do not need churches or the clergy, we can read and interpret the Bible ourselves. Sola scriptura led to schism in the Roman Catholic Church and sprouted a thousand denominations. On a higher level, it led to the Age of Relativism prevalent today where everybody perceives their own truth. As absolutes are abandoned, Truth then becomes subjective.

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) is generally accepted as the father of empiricism, a theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Empiricism emphasizes the formation of ideas based on evidence rather than innate ideas or traditions. Bacon proposed inductive reasoning and observation as a way to gain scientific knowledge. Although it is a move away from dogma, Bacon’s scientific experimentation was primed for the objective of fulfilling scripture.

From Bacon and many other thinkers after him, the idea has evolved to present day Scientific Method as an approach to inquiry on science or other matters.

Make an observation - Ask a question.
You observe or thought of, something. Start asking questions - what, how, when, why, who.

Research
Check up on related matters, past experiences or observations, learn from past mistakes of others, etc.

Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
With the knowledge gained from research, form hypothesis or guesses as to probable answers to questions raised. Hypothesis should be testable.

Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Prediction is a speculation on the outcome of the test.

Test the prediction.
Conduct fair experiments or tests to confirm actual results to predicted outcomes. Experiments or tests can be done several times to make sure that the first results weren't just accidental. Such repeat tests can be done with a change in a variable or factor one at a time.

Analyse the data
Does the result support the hypothesis. If yes, write report. If not, do iteration, repeat.

Now let’s take a look at Isaiah 41.21-23. Here the Lord is showing how to determine the truth whether the idols are the Gods of Israel.

“Present your case,” says the Lord.
“Set forth your arguments,” says Jacob’s King.
“Tell us, you idols,
what is going to happen.
Tell us what the former things were,
so that we may consider them
and know their final outcome.
Or declare to us the things to come,
Tell us what the future holds,
so we may know that you are gods.
Do something, whether good or bad,
so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.

See how uncanny these verses relate to the Scientific Method:

Present your case (form a scientific theory)
Set forth your arguments (make a hypothesis based on evidence, some versions translate as "show us your proof")

what is going to happen (make predictions or guess outcomes of tests)
Tell us what the former things were (historical data, past observations)
so that we may consider them (do studies, analyse, tests, experiments, do validations)
and know their final outcome (whether results support hypothesis)

In verse 43.9-10 the Bible further confirmed empiricism is based on experiences, ie observations.

Let all the nations be gathered together,
And let the people be assembled.
Who among them can declare this,
And show us former things?
Let them bring out their witnesses, that they may be justified;
Or let them hear and say, “It is truth.”
“You are My witnesses,” says the Lord,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.”

…. show us former things : In the world of science, truth is not ferreted out by reason alone. It has to be supported by evidence. The Lord can show what he has done for the people of Israel : taken them out of captivity in Egypt, led them to the Promised Land, took them out of Babylon. All these past experiences, and more, are evidential proof of the truth, that He is the real God of Israel.

The non-scientific world of Bible deniers do not realise that more than 2,000 years before Francis Bacon, the Bible had laid the foundation for science. One can certainly speculate that as a devout Anglican, Bacon’s book Novum Organum which proposed the Baconian Method, was in fact inspired by the Bible.



A parting shout out :

Plato said:
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
If you like what you read here and feel it matters Singaporeans know stuff like this, please click and share with your social circle. This makes my effort worthwhile.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

BIBLE-SCIENCE ARGUMENT : SCIENTIFIC WORLD DOES NOT SHARE VIEWS OF ANTI-GOD CROWD

The Western world is living in The Age of Liberalism where man put themselves at the centre of the universe. Man by reason alone can decide on what is truth. There are no Absolutes. So a woman can be a man and vice versa, one can be non-binary and choose whatever one fancies to be. Truth becomes individualised, or relative.

Read my blog : Dictatorship Of Relativism And Difference Of The Left And Conservatives 18 Jan 2021

In this misguided ‘enlightened’ era, Religion comes under attack. More specifically, the Bible comes under attack, for Westerners generally lack courage to criticise Islam and lacks knowledge of other great religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism etc. Christian dogma and Bible is the punching bag for unfettered Liberals to justify their amoral worldview. If one wants to be a pedophile, or connoisseur of the flesh, there better be no God after one is done with this world.

What Liberals never acknowledge or have gratitude for, is the Age of Enlightenment that started in the 16th century was birthed on Christendom. From the crucible of knowledge out of the church, came new ways of looking at and understanding the world. Instead of relying on traditional authorities, namely the church, papacy, or monarchs, deductive reasoning and evidentialism was preached. It was a new way of examination on humans and the world, moving away from the preoccupation of wondering about the nature of God.

A natural development is the contest of ideas amongst Western great thinkers on the existence of God. There was Nietzsche running through the village square with lighted lamp in bright daylight shouting “God is dead”. We get René Descartes and his famous “cogito, ergo sum" or in English "I think, therefore I am ". On the other hand, we have David Hume who argued that miracles were, in their nature, unrepeatable, they were also unprovable, and so should be excluded from any rational explanation of the world. And Blaise Pascal, who said “The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart."

Read my blog : Ist Gott Tot ( Is God Dead ) 21 April 2019

In the current world, neolibs thrash God, Jesus, and the Bible with contemptuous vulgarity. These are in the main from the non-scientific world. At the forefront are Hollywood celebrities such as Ricky Gervais, a comedian who cannot construct a joke without using the ‘F’ word. To paraphrase the Bible – forget, these voices, for they know not what they say. It is to the intellectuals whose anti-God views are propounded as ideas and thus a challenge worthy of one’s attention. And there are many. For example:

Voltaire : “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
Too bad Voltaire preceded Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot or he will have lots of explanation to do.

Christopher Hitchens : “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Hitchens is wont to apply Occam’s Razor in his God debates. Here he applies the ‘onus of proof’, oblivious that same applies to one who takes the absence of God position, and unwary that ‘onus of proof’ is something that judges disfavour.

Neolibs and neo-atheists all believe in Stephen Hawkin’s Big Bang Theory which presupposes the absence of a Creator. All these non-scientific anti-God voices have no idea Hawkin’s was not the first to come up with this theory. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was first to theorize and wrote of an expanding universe in 1927 which was observationally confirmed by Edwin Hubble 2 years later and came to be called Hubble’s Law. Lemaître also proposed the "Big Bang theory" which he called "hypothesis of the primeval atom", or "the beginning of the world". Lemaire’s theory received no support. Even Einstein was not impressed. And the reason had to do with who Lemaire was. Lemaître (17 Jul 1894 – 20 Jun 1966) was a Belgian Catholic priest, theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. Accepting Lemaire’s theory means having to accept Time had a beginning and therefore a Creator behind the big bang. In 1940s the atheist Stephen Hawkins proposed his "Big Bang theory" and the idea took off. The universe was formed from the big bang. There is no Creator.

Today’s loud neolibs and neo-atheists profess they believe in science but are not aware they actually stand on the very natural laws that Christians understand came from a Creator. Scientists have discovered all these natural laws but none the wiser where they came from. Of course Science has to assume these natural laws simply existed. Ditto the Faithful believes God simply existed. These non-scientific non-believers have no idea what the real world of science believes.

Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) : “I have long felt that there was a general impression in the non-scientific world, that the scientific world believes Science has discovered ways of explaining all the facts of Nature without adopting any definite belief in a Creator.”

The Bible vs Science arguments have occupied great thinkers and intellectuals for centuries, brought about by the trial of Galileo Galilee (1633) and Darwinism (1859). Galileo promoted Copernicus’ idea of heliocentrism, ie our universe revolves around the Sun, which countered the Church's belief Earth is the centre of the universe. Copernican system included arguments that were philosophical, scientific, and theological, which brought the Spanish Inquisitors after him. Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory went against Creationism. Actually almost all foul-mouth God-deniers never even realise that Darwin never discussed evolution of humans. It was Thomas Henry Huxley, grandfather of Aldous Huxley, who brought in the idea of apes-to-man. The two incidents of Galileo’s trial and Darwinism largely accounted for the preponderance of opinions that Bible and Science never can meet.

This conflict theory came mainstream in late 1890s after papers published by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Draper and White took the view Bible and Science conflict because both operate in the same fields. However, the theory was eventually discredited and today the scientific world has long since abandoned this conflict debacle. The consensus is complexity of issues in Bible-Science arguments requires a better model, of which 3 has been written about – Independence model (which holds that religion and science explore distinct fields, which pose distinct questions), Dialogue model (proposes a mutualistic relationship between science and religion, a common ground exists between science and religion, perhaps in concepts, presuppositions and methods), and Integration model (there is integration in natural theology, the theology of nature and the philosophy of processes).

Today’s neolibs and neo-atheists attack dogma and scorn the Bible professing their belief on - the altar of science with absolutely no idea the scientific world does not share their views. The archangel of neo-atheists, Richard Dawkins, who wrote the best seller God Delusion in 2006, was quickly taken to task by David Brewenski, an atheist, who wrote in 2008 The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.

“In summary, (Brewenski) asserts that some skeptical arguments against religious belief based on scientific evidence misrepresent what the science is actually saying, that an objective morality requires a religious foundation, that mathematical theories attempting to bring together quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity amount to pseudoscience because of their lack of empirical verifiability, and he expresses doubt towards Darwinian evolutionary theory”...Wikipedia.



A parting shout out :

Plato said:
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
If you like what you read here and feel it matters Singaporeans know stuff like this, please click and share with your social circle. This makes my effort worthwhile.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

WORLD’S MOST EXPENSIVE CITY - WILL SINGAPOREANS EAT PAGPAG?

Everynight just about midnight, thousands of Filipinos scavenge municipal and various thrash collection sites to pick chicken pieces left over by diners. They literally pick from garbage bins and bags. The sources are food courts and restaurants, particularly fast food chains like Jollybee, McDonalds, KFC etc. These pickers haul their collection home where it is sorted. Chicken bones always have a sliver of meat left on them. Bones without meat are disposed. Those with meat are sold to vendors who operate ramshackle food stalls outside their abode. The vendors thoroughly wash the pieces to get rid of dirt and smell. The messy chicken pieces are deep-fried and cooked in the style of calderata with lots of tomato sauce and whatever codiments. Some housewives buy the washed chicken to cook it themselves.

Filiinos call this dish pagpag. Customers are neighborhood families or workers who can only afford this dish sold at a fraction of the cost of a proper fresh meal. There has been no reported deaths from consumption of pagpag. Folks say it is actually delicious. These are people who cannot afford a proper meal at Jollybee, the cheapest of the fast food chains. 30% of Filipinos live below poverty line, many live on a single meal a day. Things are so bad that pagpag customers often come with their own home-cooked ‘kanin’ (cooked rice) just to save a few pesos.

It is a crying shame for the government and the world to allow people to fall to this level of indignity of consuming repurposed or recycled food.

In 2020, Zurich and New York had a per capita income of US$80,000, London had US$50,000 and Singapore had US$65,000. So congratulations, the government has taken the Lion City to amongst the top riches city in the world.

Whilst the government has planned and worked their brains out, paying the best amongst them astronomical salaries, to make it to the class of richest cities, it failed miserably on the flip side. Singapore is now the most expensive city in the world.

What is the impact and ramification for Singapore as the cost of living defies the law of gravity.

First and foremost, gentrification, occurs. Services, investments, infrastructure and real estate development flow with the wealth, changing urban landscape and services. The unwary does not see the creeping changes, thinking it’s just modernisation. There is the overflow of traffic at the special VIP Terminal for private-owned and chartered flights at Changi Airport. The answer is a Seletar Airport dedicated to these private jets. Transformation of whole streets take place to align entertainment and food to the well heeled, witness places like Arab Street, Christia Ong’s Dempsey Road, Holland Road, many streets in China town, etc. Buildings around MRT stations give way to posh private condominiums.

A housing crisis is inevitable. Singapore in fact seems on the verge, if not already, at the beginning of a housing crisis. The government insists housing remains affordable by parading subsidies and country comparatives. Indeed, some country comparatives has Singapore at number 1 in housing affordability. But cross-country comparatives are always fraught with parameters unexplained. In this case, two ugly thumbs stick out - the numerator and denominator in computing the affordability index are stacked in Singapore's favour. First, the numerator. Singapore ‘affordable’ houses are all lesser of 99 year leases which has a lower pressure on costs. Second, ‘mean family income’, the denominator, is tricky because Singapore family units often have dual or more family nucleus which reports a much higher mean income. Unlike other cities with housing crisis, the poorest of the poor can somehow find shelter somewhere, even moving into city slums or move to the villages. The tightly controlled Singapore offers no refuge other than to depend on the government. No doubt the HDB has a cheap rental scheme for families caught in such a situation if they qualify the strict criteria. However, in a housing crisis, demand will far outstrip supply.

Small retail shopkeepers are left by the wayside and big store operators proliferate with brands like Fairprice, Giant, Prime, Mustafa. Shengsiong, Cold Storage, etc. The neighborhood hole-in-the wall ‘mama’ or Indian convenience shops have been wiped out long ago, replaced by 711 and Cheers brands. Many small OMO, or one-man-operated food stalls, will be wiped out, to be replaced by those that can operate with a central kitchen and multiple outlets. Many economy food stalls are in fact already operating in this manner.

There will be miniaturisation of product offerings, particularly in food items. Instead of 6 in a package, it will be sold individually, coffee sachets will be smaller in size, mini-hamburgers, anyone? This is an economic fact of life. When I went to Philippines decades ago, I was surprised to see many mini products but quickly understood the reason. Miniaturisation disadvantages the poor. It lowers the price of product offering, but increases unit costs to consumers.

The rising cost of living accentuated by higher rates in services and GST, are hitting the lower income group hard. These folks put the blame squarely on the government's inability to reign in prices and see the arrogance in the doubling down on rate increases. Whilst the angst of the poor is directed at the government, the rich and upper income, especially the young and better educated professionals whose livelihood has not yet been threatened by CECA, see these as whinings and politics of envy. An infamous 2006 social media quote says it all. Remember “..get out of my elite uncaring face”? It is already evident on the ground but the ruling party is unable to see. There is a class divide between the rich and upper middle class who feels differently from the poor. These different sentiments will lead to social strains in time. How will it manifest? For one, disinterest and unmotivated national servicemen leading to quality issues. Civil disobedience. Emigration.

The government spends billions of dollars to attract businesses to relocate to Singapore. Surely one and sundry are well acquainted with the singalong mantra of low taxes, business-friendly government, law and order, good infrastructure, educated workforce, gateway to Asean and China, etc. But at the end of day, cost of operation matters. Being the most expensive city in the world has its consequences. Corporations will relocate out of Singapore if the government fails to reign in cost.

There is no escape for those hard-pressed by the high cost of living. Unlike those living in London. New York or Zurich who can relocate to the suburbs or countryside, or a less expensive city, Singaporeans are stuck on the tiny island. A densely populated city with no pressure release valve, something has to crack. It starts with a loss of civility on social media, which is already evident, extending into the physical sphere, physical altercations will increase, frustrations will turn to hostilities towards foreign workers, general deterioration in mental health, and even an increase in suicide cases. Social unrest is a given. This of course has political consequences, sooner or later.

In the worst case scenario, well organised and efficient municipal services ensure Singaporeans will not even have access to pag pag when driven to that God-forsaken situation.



A parting shout out :

Plato said:
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
If you like what you read here and feel it matters Singaporeans know stuff like this, please click and share with your social circle. This makes my effort worthwhile.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

WILL CHINA SELF-INFLICT THE DEMISE OF ITS CULTURE FOR IDEOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY?

Back in mid-1970s I started working for a bank when IT was in its nascent stage. The bank computerised its accounting functions with an NCR punch card computer system. I had learnt a bit about computerisation, seen the work environment of punch cards and readers, and thought it was not much of a field I would like to base a career on. Fast forward a few years when an IBM desktop cost something like S$15,000, my French boss showed me how he used Lotus 123 on his laptop. I also want. Technology advances at breakneck speed.

That was around the time Deng Xiaoping was opening up China. I have a restless mind that ponders over anything that pricks me. At the time I had thought China would be locked out of the new world of technology. The Chinese language, being iconographic or pictorial, is absolutely dis-advantaged because it has no place in the new technology which has binary structure at the heart of its hardware architecture. You cannot input Chinese characters, put them on the screen, store or print them. Technology will leave China behind unless it adopts a phonetic Roman alhabet language like English. It was an existential threat. Nobody talked about this, at least not in my peer circle or the volumes of printed material I covered.

It was many years later that I learnt China was already well aware of this existential threat at the turn of the 20th century. After WWI as China emerged into the modern world it found itself far behind. Coming out of the decadent Ming Dynasty, Chinese intellectuals and reformers believed two foundational pillars needed to be removed.

One, various schools of Confucian philosophy had to be smashed. The classical Chinese in practice was used only by a small coterie of very well educated elites who needed it as a pathway up the civil service and political power. Learning was by rot memorisation of volumes of Chinese classics and imperial examination was composing precise scholarly essays on Confucian philosophy, not an easy task. An analogy is Latin used in the Catholic Church.

Two, the classical Chinese written characters, which is very difficult to learn, need to be changed to enable mass literacy.

The famous Chinese writer Lu Xun, wrote in 1936: “If the Chinese script is not abolished, China will certainly perish!” It was an existential threat.

The classical Chinese language is based on association to objects in the real world. It is composed of thousands of root characters called radicals. Putting related radicals together forms another word. And it is to be written in strokes according to a sequence. Some characters have more than 10 strokes, try memorising that. Learning is thus graphic skill and memory dependent. In comparison to Roman alphabet languages which are phonetic i.e., based on the sound of spoken words. Many countries such as Russia had switched to use Roman alhabet. In a world dominated by Roman alhabet, China will be badly disadvantaged.

Unlike Romanised languages which are just sounds, Chinese characters have a soul through object associations and the meaning and history behind it.

Emperor Shi Huang Ti forcefully united China in 210 BC under a single language which gave the country a cultural and civilisational stability for 2,000 years. The Chinese were torn between the need to protect its culture and the need to modernise or perish.

After Shi Huang Ti, some sort of vernacular language surfaced. Non-Chinese do not realise whilst Chinese characters remained universal, for centuries people in different regions read it differently. Some read in Hokkien, some in Cantonese, others in Teochew, etc.

The march towards Romanised Chinese script was strong. Esperanto is an artificial language created in 1887 by the Polish ophthalmologist Dr. L. L. Zamenhof. It is derived from Indo-European languages with 28 letter alphabet. It was meant to be an international language used by all countries. It had early success of acceptance by many countries but fizzled out without UN official adoption. Today there are still several hundred thousand practitioners all over the world. Esperanto first came to China in 1905. It grew in popularity and entered the education system but came under attack by the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. Today there are still several Chinese institutions offering courses in Esperanto. The Chinese government has used Esperanto since 2001 for daily news on china.org.cn. China also uses Esperanto in China Radio International, and for the internet magazine El Popola Ĉinio. It is however, not a solution for China.

From the turn of the 20th century, there has been many attempts to transliterate classical Chinese characters into Roman alphabet. Hanyu Pinyin is Romanised Chinese which is writing the characters in Roman alphabet according to sound. A problem with Chinese is almost all words have different meanings according to the tones. There are 4 tones, so in Pinyin, diacritical marks are used to differentiate the tonal sounds.

There are also attempts to reform the classical characters by economising the strokes. A new form of writing is now used called ‘Simplified Chinese’.

In 1952, the CCP created The Committee on Script Reform to drive the modernisation of the Chinese language. The Mao era introduced Hanyu Pinyin and Simplified Chinese. Pinyin is very much the standard today.

When China came into the modern world after the collapse of Ching Dynasty, it met its first technological challenge in the typewriter. Typewriter is far efficient over hand writing in terms of speed, legibility and making of copies. It made huge improvements in communication which has economic and political implications, for example in the mass printing of pamphlets and brochures, telegraph communication, etc. It seemed impossible to put the hundreds of thosands of Chinese characters into a typewriter. Mechanical engineer Hou-Kun Chow invented the first Chinese typewriter in 1916. As expected, it was very bulky, complex to manufacture and use. Chinese typewriters came very late into common use in mid 1900s through importation from Japan.

With the advent of the digital age, China faced its second technological Waterloo. The same problem of how to put thousands of iconographical characters onto the QWERTY keyboard. The task of solving the complex engineering, linguistic and conceptual problem fell on Professor Wang Yongmin. Wang was a top graduate of University of Science & Technology, (China’s MIT). He was sent to a secretive military research institute dedicated to building computers in 1970s.

Wang spent more than a decade at the research institute. Many years were spent first in figuring out how to squeeze 60,000 basic Chinese characters into the QWERTY keyboard. He devised a methodology to reduce more than 5,000 radicals down to 125 root characters distributed to 26 alphabet keys. Each key is used to enter a root character depending how the key is used. When all the root characters necessary has been entered, hitting the space bar brings up on the screen all possible words that can be formed. User selects the desired word. Wang called his methodology the Wubi System. It was a monumental task and when it was completed, Wang introduced Wubi to an astonished world at 1985 UN general assembly. Wang was revered in China. He had gotten Classical Chinese script onto the QWERTY keyboard and saved the Chinese culture. Wubi entered the national education system. The Committee on Script Reform was shut down in the same year.

In the world of computing, speed is essence. Chinese technologists continued independently to devise new and faster ways of using the QWERTY keyboard for Pinyin and Simplified Chinese. Today there are some 50 to 60 systems, such as Sucheng and Cangjie methods. If you see a group of Chinese banging away at their keyboards, chances are they are using different system of input on different Chinese scripts whether Classical, Pinyin or Simplified versions. These systems challenged for speed to gain dominance. There were organised speed contests all over the country, sometimes televised. Surprisingly. Wubi dominates in speed. To have an idea of speed, at one contest, a Wubi participant had a typing speed of 244 wpm. This compared to fastest recorded speed of a Roman based alphabet held by Brazilian Guilherme Sandrini with a speed of 241.82 wpm.

Conservatives love the poetic beauty of traditional Chinese written culture and the artistic brush strokes. If one was versed in calligraphy, the assumption was he was a learned person. Chairman Mao Tse Tung had frequently tried to show he was an accomplished calligrapher. Caught up against the rising tide of communism, the conservatives had no chance. Communist radicalism favoured the destruction of old thoughts and new language script, or a switch to the Roman alphabet. Although communists shared the same objectives as reformers, the motivations were different. Reformers were in it to ensure China’s place in the modern world. Communists were driven by ideologies. A new language script suits cultural revisionism of totalitarian regimes. Unwanted baggages of the past can be easily wiped out by simply not translating them into the new script. Mass literacy enables radicalisation and conversion of youth into communism. In my opinion, there could also be a desire to foster unity by Northern Hans in a China where Southerners, particularly Hokkien and Cantonese regions, are the mainstay of the country’s economy. A modernised Chinese language will be universal, forcing the retirement of the vernacular way of reading the classical script.

Today, the majority of Chinese uses Pinyin. How did this come to be? Simple. The government kicked Wubi out of the educational system. In the same year the CCP closed down the Script Reform Commission, it created The State Working Commission on Language on 26 December 1985, to carry on the same tasks, namely :

“It formulates and enforces language laws, regulations and policies; conducts research on the standardization of Chinese characters and Chinese language information processing; and promotes the use of the romanisation system (Hanyu pinyin), modern standard Chinese (Putonghua) and simplified characters.”

Why did the CCP flip? Why reject a winner? Politics got in the way. Ideology and reformers won. The Conservatives, Wubi, Chinese classical language, its culture which sustained two thousand years of its civilisation, lost.

As China rejected its classical language and traditions, what will replace it? Thinkers and intellectuals ponder over this. When the country adopts a foreign language script, what cultural norms will come out of it? The US Boxer Grant is something most people aren’t aware. After the Boxer Rebellion, the US set up the grant as a form of reparation. This grant was used to subsidise the cost of Chinese students sent to study in the US. Remember Zhou, the guy who invented the first Chinese typewriter? He was one of these sponsored students. There were many other top Chinese brains that got sponsored education in US. Much more Chinese studied and had technical training in Japan learning modern industrial technology and process of a modernised Asian country post the Meiji Restoration. So there was actually a precedent for Deng Xioping to send thousands of students overseas to import knowledge. How will all this shape the culture of China going forward?

This fear may be allayed somewhat by an unreported development. All word processors today have ‘predictive’ capabilities. This is a feature that the Chinese already had in 1980s long before the West. As a root character is typed, Prof Wang’s Wubi is able to predict what the next character is probably going be. With cloud computing, Chinese keyboard systems now have ‘suggestive’ capabilities. What this means is when a word is typed the system can suggest what the next word possibly is. This probability is based on AI algorithm seeking information what millions of other Chinese users are communicating in the cloud at the time. This is a giant step up in technology far in advance of predictiveness of Google search technology. China has leapfrogged the West in this respect. Once the fundamentals are mastered, the Chinese has proven they are capable of advancing their own way. This underlines why the Chinese has emerged as a technology powerhouse that it is today.

I end with this short 4 minute clip of a Donald Trump interview on his views on China. I bet you have never heard the orange mop speak like this. The western press will never allow you to see this. It is a businessman speaking, not a politician. Americans reject Trump at their own peril.

A parting shout out :

Plato said:
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
If you like what you read here and feel it matters Singaporeans know stuff like this, please click and share with your social circle. This makes my effort worthwhile.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.