I wouldn’t say losing its mind. Definitely some click bait title there on your end. 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. An example is not believing in human rights abuse against the Uyghurs in China. This divergence will lead to unrest ultimately, and will impact the successes of the city state. I debated even posting but most people won’t read the article and just go based on your title, which is inflammatory.
You were in the wrong loop. It was a hoax. Fake news, propaganda, whatever you want to call it.
After the US tried to radicalise Uyghurs in Xingjiang, the Chinese government responded not with bullets or bombs like the US wanted, but with an education programme that has now ended. Everyone is prospering in Xinjiang. Multiple independent visits have taken place and nothing was ever found. The only witnesses all turned out to be CIA. Like this funny example.
Get better loops. You should start trusting the media waaay less, especially about geopolitics.
An example is not believing in human rights abuse against the Uyghurs in China.
How would you characterize the Iraq War, which the U.S. started on a totally fabricated premise, and during which the U.S. indiscriminately killed (by low estimates) hundreds of thousands of civilians? If you don’t think that’s at least as bad as whatever you believe is happening in Xinjiang, you’re working from a heavy bias.
Why would I trust a country that’s just spent the last few decades killing Muslims all over the globe to suddenly give a shit about Muslims in China? Why would I trust them over all the Muslim-majority countries who are fine with (or even support) China’s policies in Xinjiang?
I mean, yeah you’re totally right. However, it is definitely off topic. I know I’m being down voted to oblivion. I did make the correlation of human rights violations to the Uyghurs, whom were not specifically listed. The article left it at just violations. Either way, it’s a very semantic argument. I was just pointing out that a large news publisher wasn’t “freaking out” and rather just reporting some drama happening on the other side of the globe. I did get lots of replies on an otherwise empty comment section, so at least there’s engagement. Which is why I’m here.
How is pointing out bias and the absurdity of trusting the U.S. over Muslim-majority countries off topic in a thread about anti-China dogma in the U.S.?
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.
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).
Well you seem very well informed, can you explain to me the difference between a city state, and a nation? Is it size? Is it governmental structure? Is it historical?
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.
No that was a great response, thank you. So basically they are different countries. Is the popular thought for them to rejoin? Sorry if I’m assuming you know. Honestly SEA is my weakest point for understanding cultural norms.
I wouldn’t say losing its mind. Definitely some click bait title there on your end. 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. An example is not believing in human rights abuse against the Uyghurs in China. This divergence will lead to unrest ultimately, and will impact the successes of the city state. I debated even posting but most people won’t read the article and just go based on your title, which is inflammatory.
Let’s play the game show:
📺📺📺📺📺📺📺📺📺📺📺📺📺
WHAT - IS - YOUR - SOURCE?
The family friendly game where you have to support your claims instead of spewing garbage.
If you can find a source for your claim that does not reference:
Then you win the vaunted prize of me leaving you the fuck alone!!! 🙅♂️🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑
Careful now, the clock is ticking!
🕜🕡🕣🕣⏰⏲️⏰🕧⌚⏲️🕥🕥🕡🕥🕑🕒🕓🕡🕧🕣🕐⏱️🕒🕓🕐⌚🕧🕰️🕰️🕰️
the C2P abused those Uyghurs so much that their population grew
gENoCiDe
(2C)P*
The source is the article you posted lol Edit: not you, what OP posted. Shows you didn’t even read the article.
Bzzzzzttt
That’s not a source!
You said:
The article OP posted is not a primary source backing your factual claim.
The second round starts… Now!
Careful, the clock’s ticking! 🕧🕧🕰️⏱️😁🕓🕥🕰️🕓🕐🕥⏱️🕡
HANGMAN’S GAMBIT
I --de i- t-e f–k -p
Lol that took me too long
you failed the challenge, time for your punishment!!
CBT is back on the menu boys
Communist
Book
Torture
The quote is about a claim you made beyond the scope of the article lol. Shows you didn’t even read the comment.
Jesus. How is any grown adult still believing in this ridiculous claptrap?
Am I out of the loop? I’ve definitely not kept up with the situation but I thought there was human abuse stuff happening with the Uyghurs in China?
“human abuse stuff” you sure sound like you know what you’re talking about
Thanks for clearing that up. Super helpful.
I was hoping you would elaborate on wtf that means exactly, and what your source is
Source: news places /s
You were in the wrong loop. It was a hoax. Fake news, propaganda, whatever you want to call it.
After the US tried to radicalise Uyghurs in Xingjiang, the Chinese government responded not with bullets or bombs like the US wanted, but with an education programme that has now ended. Everyone is prospering in Xinjiang. Multiple independent visits have taken place and nothing was ever found. The only witnesses all turned out to be CIA. Like this funny example.
Get better loops. You should start trusting the media waaay less, especially about geopolitics.
Whoa I definitely was out of the loop. Thanks for actually discussing with me and sharing some insight. You’re the only so far!
No problem, I find most people get very angry with me if you tell them this genocide never happened. It’s a bit strange.
There’s a lot more info here.
I mean, yeah you’re totally right. However, it is definitely off topic. I know I’m being down voted to oblivion. I did make the correlation of human rights violations to the Uyghurs, whom were not specifically listed. The article left it at just violations. Either way, it’s a very semantic argument. I was just pointing out that a large news publisher wasn’t “freaking out” and rather just reporting some drama happening on the other side of the globe. I did get lots of replies on an otherwise empty comment section, so at least there’s engagement. Which is why I’m here.
How is pointing out bias and the absurdity of trusting the U.S. over Muslim-majority countries off topic in a thread about anti-China dogma in the U.S.?
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.
I know nothing about this subject. Is it sort of like what happened with Hong Kong and/or Macau?
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).
Well you seem very well informed, can you explain to me the difference between a city state, and a nation? Is it size? Is it governmental structure? Is it historical?
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.
No that was a great response, thank you. So basically they are different countries. Is the popular thought for them to rejoin? Sorry if I’m assuming you know. Honestly SEA is my weakest point for understanding cultural norms.